I wasn't commenting on filibusters, I was commenting on your suggestions to alter the makeup of the Senate in ways that just happen to coincide with your political bias.
On the subject of the filibuster, I don't give a rats ass. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate. Period. End of story.
What ways am I advocating to alter the senate? (Hint: I didnt)
And by the way considering the way the winds are blowing it probably won't take 60 votes much longer. The trend is towards eliminating the filibuster. Odd, considering you think the story is over, huh?
Should they win both Congress & the Presidency in the near future, they'll jam their agenda right down America's throat should there be no filibuster.
Sure as sunrise.
How dare the people get what they vote for!
Our government was deliberately set up that way. How sad is that for you?Neither winning the Presidency nor any house of Congress requires an actual majority of voters, let alone a majority of citizens.
GWB received fewer votes than Gore. In the current HOR, Repubs have a majority of members despite receiving fewer votes. Two Senators from Wyoming have the same voting power as two Senators from California. Clinton won the Presidency with a mere plurality.
Any Party winning the right to govern also has the obligation to respect the truth of the matter, that they may not represent a true majority at all. Any party acting as a loyal minority needs to grant the ruling party the right to perform basic governance as they see fit within the current framework, to have their executive branch appointees within reason and to have their judicial appointees receive consideration based mostly on their competence rather than their politics.
We both know that Repubs haven't acted that way during the Obama Admin, nor did they during the Clinton years.
I seriously doubt that the majority voted for taking the full faith & credit of the govt hostage, for example. I seriously doubt that they voted for holding extended UI hostage to tax cuts for the Rich, either, but Repubs executed both moves even while in the minority.
The problem with that, I think, is that the two parties don't act the same in or out of power. That's plain from the record. Repubs compromise only when driven to it by necessity. In the majority, they'll bully their right wing agenda through with ease if there is no filibuster. We saw that in 2005 with the fracas over 8 truly radical nominees to the federal bench.
I'm of the opinion that they forced Reid to play right into their hand, because Reid cares about the hostage, the Country, the People, the govt, & Repubs really don't.
Should they win both Congress & the Presidency in the near future, they'll jam their agenda right down America's throat should there be no filibuster.
Sure as sunrise.
Our government was deliberately set up that way. How sad is that for you?
Perhaps. That doesn't excuse Repubs' recent conduct in the slightest. It's unprecedented. Somehow, they seem to be able to escape blame for the lousy govt they create by talking down the govt at the same time.
In that, their propaganda skills are truly astounding.
Neither winning the Presidency nor any house of Congress requires an actual majority of voters, let alone a majority of citizens.
You honestly think they won't dispense with the filibuster as soon as it impedes them from accomplishing a major policy objective? I'm quite sure they will.
As for who 'cares about the country', I don't think that's the issue. Republicans are ideologically opposed to much of what the federal government has been since the 1930's. That means they simply care less if the government shuts down or whatever than the Democrats do.
Now you can think that's ideologically radical, which I think it is. I always think it's interesting to compare modern Republicans to Eisenhower to see how radicalized they have become. He would likely be denounced as a communist. That's a very, very different thing than not caring about the country though.
I don't get the whole 'demonizing your enemies' thing. I think things Republicans do are often foolish and in some cases extremely irresponsible, but I don't think they are evil. That's a really poisonous element of our modern politics.
Is that your excuse for letting the Obama Presidency go to waste?
The backlash against Bush, Iraq, and Republicans just wasn't historic enough to maintain 60+ votes in the Senate?
I mean, it's freaking legendary that they even reached it. But it wasn't enough, and sure as hell didn't do Obama any good.
Democrats are just gearing up and recently filibustered debate (yes, just debate!) on the the DHS bill...a bill in which they were promised to be allowed to seek amendments (something Democrats rarely allowed while in control). The last time Democrats filibustered was when they were last in the minority in 2006...ironically, they prevented raising the minimum wage at that time.Perhaps. That doesn't excuse Repubs' recent conduct in the slightest. It's unprecedented. Somehow, they seem to be able to escape blame for the lousy govt they create by talking down the govt at the same time.
In that, their propaganda skills are truly astounding.
Democrats are just gearing up and recently filibustered debate (yes, just debate!) on the the DHS bill...a bill in which they were promised to be allowed to seek amendments (something Democrats rarely allowed while in control). The last time Democrats filibustered was when they were last in the minority in 2006...ironically, they prevented raising the minimum wage at that time.
You're wrong. Facts really don't matter when you're desperately clinging to belief, do they? Obviously not.What you claim happened in 2006 is utterly & completely false. Dems did not filibuster- Repubs did-
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal88-1141693
Facts really don't matter when you're desperately clinging to belief, do they? Obviously not.
Raising the minimum wage, which had remained at $5.15 an hour since 1996 (PL 104-188), was a signature issue for Democrats as they looked ahead to the midterm election. A growing group of moderate Republicans joined in pushing for a vote as the campaign season approached
But a Republican maneuver, which combined the proposed wage increase with tax breaks for businesses and a permanent reduction of the estate tax, was met with a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, and the bill died for the year. The three-part bill, dubbed the trifecta, was one of several attempts to bring the issue to the floor of at least one chamber.
I think we just need to get a bar installed at the house and at the senate, and serve all the senators some drinks, and all the congressmen some drinks, maybe if they all have cognac and cigars together there wont be such polarization and retardation.
Hmm, the UN has a pretty sweet bar but it doesn't seem to help them all that much. (it mostly leads to diplomats sleeping with interns and junior staffers, haha)
http://news.yahoo.com/frustrated-republicans-taste-limits-majority-control-082819388--politics.html
Who wants to bet that some of these same people cried when the Dems eliminated the filibuster option for appointments?
I also really like this line:
I guess Mulvaney is pretending the last 6-8 years didn't happen.
I'll go out on a limb and say that nothing supported by only one party is good for the country. We already have far too many laws; let's stick to new proposals that have so much widespread bipartisan support that neither party dares oppose them unless they are 2+ years from an election and/or in a very secure seat.Republicans somehow believed they would be able to do whatever they wanted with a majority in both houses. Do you think it's possible? I mean, can they handle it?
The only time Dems and GOP agree on anything these days is when someone is paying them a LOT of money to agree. I am pretty sure those are the worst of all their laws.I'll go out on a limb and say that nothing supported by only one party is good for the country. We already have far too many laws; let's stick to new proposals that have so much widespread bipartisan support that neither party dares oppose them unless they are 2+ years from an election and/or in a very secure seat.
We bicker and moan about the most mundane of things.
The problem we have is not the filibuster, it's not even the legislation either party proposes.
The problem is machine politics.
The party is far more powerful than the representative. And the system which provides spoils to the party leaders functions strongest when it maintains a minimal level of public support just above what is necessary to stay in power. Neither party wants to unite the public. It is in the party's best interest not to.
That's why we fight. Because the parties want us to.
You're wrong. Facts really don't matter when you're desperately clinging to belief, do they? Obviously not.
Democrats filibustered a wage increase bill in August, 2006. They didn't like the estate tax relief that was attached to the bill or the tax cut for small business intended to help offset increased payroll expenses. This was Democrat's last filibuster prior to taking control of the Senate in January, 2007.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...p?id=cqal06-1421634+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us