jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Unlikely. If the Democrats really thought they stood to lose the Senate, it is unlikely that they would want this. Nice try though.
Yeah. I saw the healthcare numbers. That's why the GOP was dumb to shut down the government in an attempt to repeal Obamscare. And, if the ACA is still a mess in 12 months, the D's deserve to lose. You gamble big, you win or lose big. I'm OK with that.Two things, and stuff you really should know by now:
1) Presidential election voting patterns don't in any way resemble midterm election voting patterns.
2) You need to pay attention to your own links. Pay particular attention to the healthcare vote. That will be reversed this time. Obamacare is an overwhelming failure in the public eye.
What you should be paying attention to is this:
United States Senate elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look at the competitives for senate races. Three times as many dems in trouble for midterm senate races than the repubs. Oh my, make that four times as many.
But all of us will be affected. After the courts are stacked we will have no recourse to the machinations of the two million busybody bureaucrats who will harass, harry, and hound the citizens. EPA and Interior will be the worst offenders.Nobody but partisans are going to care. 95% of voters won't even know what this means.
The filibuster has been part of the senate since 1806. But never mind I am with you on this. I will love seeing in the future what has been accomplished by one party during the time they possessed the white house be completely undone by the new party who takes over and imposes their will to be completely undone when the other party comes back into power. Talk about a wild ride. We'll see.
the precedence has been set. Senator Harry Reid will go down in history as either the most famous or infamous Senate Majority Leader ever to occupy that office. No more rights at all for the minority party and no more checks and balances. The senate has just become another House of Representatives.
Yeah. I saw the healthcare numbers. That's why the GOP was dumb to shut down the government in an attempt to repeal Obamscare. And, if the ACA is still a mess in 12 months, the D's deserve to lose. You gamble big, you win or lose big. I'm OK with that.
I just doubt that anyone not already entrenched in R's will be moaning about Obamacare in Nov of next year. Like Benghazi, it's just a shiny object with which to rally the base. I think women will still care more about their reproductive rights, especially as draconian ant-abortion laws in Texas begin to take effect. Thoughts of that going national will continue feeding the female exodus from the GOP.
As to your map. Do you honestly expect Senate races in Michigan, Vermont and Massachusetts to be competitive? I'll give ya WV, NC, SD and Montana, assuming no one says rape can't get you pregnant. But, I doubt seats flip in Colorado, Minnesota and Oregon. Louisiana and Arkansas maybe. But, so too could the GOP lose Kentucky and Georgia...especially if the woman vote keeps shifting Left.
Yeah, that was before the Republicans chose to grind government to a halt, in part by refusing to approve any presidential nominee. Again... half of all filibusters of presidential nominees have been during Obama's term. Half. Even if you don't like the guy, you have to recognize that's not how the system was designed.And on the topic of the thread, here is the NYT opinion on the 'nuclear option' in the narrow scope it was applied, back in 2005
Unlikely. If the Democrats really thought they stood to lose the Senate, it is unlikely that they would want this. Nice try though.
It's the abuse of the filibuster which is undermining the Republic.So you're fine with essentially killing the minority voice, undermining....I don't know....the Republic?
Filibusters are not a "check and balance." A presidential veto is a C&B. Judicial review is a C&B. Impeachment is a C&B. The filibuster is a parliamentary mechanism that has gotten out of control, and is abused by both parties.Seems odd that the party claiming to push for freedom and fairness seems to do whatever they can at any corner to kill the system of checks and balances to suit their agenda and party.
Yes, that's handled by a majority vote. Not by an obstructionist minority.Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"...
Uhm... these are Senate rules, not House rules.I'm sorry the GOP made your party cry when the left lost the house.
The long-term ramifications are: If the filibuster isn't severely curtailed or eliminated, our government is going to grind to a halt. And no, that isn't a good thing.If I was a dem, I'd be furious about this considering the long term ramifications for all sides.
1) That's how it is SUPPOSED to work.The past ___ years will be erased from the history books if there's a GOP majority in the legislative branch....
Yeah, that was before the Republicans chose to grind government to a halt, in part by refusing to approve any presidential nominee. Again... half of all filibusters of presidential nominees have been during Obama's term. Half. Even if you don't like the guy, you have to recognize that's not how the system was designed.
And again, it was also back in 2005 when the Conservatives wanted to nuke the filibuster. Dems aren't the only one flipping on the issue. FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America
Yeah, that was before the Republicans chose to grind government to a halt, in part by refusing to approve any presidential nominee. Again... half of all filibusters of presidential nominees have been during Obama's term. Half. Even if you don't like the guy, you have to recognize that's not how the system was designed.
It's the abuse of the filibuster which is undermining the Republic. If you define abuse as trying to stop completely unconstitutional and disgusting moves towards western european style socialism, killing 2A, expanding NDAA and NSA, enough scandals to sink a battle ship, sure, I suppose it was abuse.
Again, there is no Constitutional basis for the filibuster. The Constitution states that the Senate should require a majority to pass legislation -- not a supermajority, as it has become. So what happens to that tone of the left when the tides have turned? Will they blame Bush?
Filibusters are not a "check and balance." A presidential veto is a C&B. Judicial review is a C&B. Impeachment is a C&B. The filibuster is a parliamentary mechanism that has gotten out of control, and is abused by both parties. Filibusters give the minority a voice. Direct democracy has failed time and time again. We'll learn the hard way
Yes, that's handled by a majority vote. Not by an obstructionist minority.
"The people" are not 51% or more, the people are composed of 100%. If 49% don't want it, and 51% do....I'd hardly call that said decision to be in the best interest of the country
Uhm... these are Senate rules, not House rules.
Are they not both Legislative branch? Do they not pass legislation between one another? Senate rules effect all, and vise versa by default
The long-term ramifications are: If the filibuster isn't severely curtailed or eliminated, our government is going to grind to a halt. And no, that isn't a good thing.
I see it as a great thing. The american people need an alternative, and they need to see who these people really are. Left or Right, they are all wrong.
1) That's how it is SUPPOSED to work.
2) If that's the case, then why aren't the Republicans also advocating for this change -- as they were, back in 2005?
Yeah, that was before the Republicans chose to grind government to a halt, in part by refusing to approve any presidential nominee. Again... half of all filibusters of presidential nominees have been during Obama's term. Half. Even if you don't like the guy, you have to recognize that's not how the system was designed.
And again, it was also back in 2005 when the Conservatives wanted to nuke the filibuster. Dems aren't the only one flipping on the issue. FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America
That was Senator Grassley who stated that. There was another senator this morning I heard on the radio that said all the republicans want to do now is win back the senate in 2014 and take the presidency in 2016 and the ACA is history. It will take only 51 votes in the senate to repeal it.
Nice fantasy. The problem is if the ACA exists in 2016 (and, by some miracle against all odds, the Reps can actually win the white house), the ACA will be firmly entrenched and not repeal-able. In fact, you can't really repeal now. You would have to come with something that would protect those that already depend on it (those with pre-existing conditions, for example).
The race card--Chez--that didn't take long--remember when you guys called Clinton the first "black" President??
This will come back on hunt the democrats when they are minority in the Senate.
This will come back on hunt the democrats when they are minority in the Senate.
No it won't....I doubt anyone is under the delusion that if a minority of Dems blocked every nomination of a Rep President that Republicans wouldn't change the rules.
True, but comrade Hillary will take office (if the GOP runs another RINO in typical fashion). At which point, system of checks and balances will go a little something like....
McConnell is not going to suffer. The nation will.There are 93 judicial openings that Obama can now fill..You only have McConnell to blame for pushing this one over the cliff..McConnell could have allowed a few here and a few there..Now he will get 93 shoved up his ass where they belong .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?