The Democrat Thread

[Y2HH]

Elected majorities should be able to govern. If Americans elect a majority right-wing Senate and a right-wing President, their chosen elected officials should be able to enact the policies and appoint the people that they want.

 

I again say the same thing to you, while this favors your party now, there will be a day it doesn't...and then you'll be crying that the minority party has no power.

 

The only reason you are for this, is because you're a democrat. If the republicans were in the senate majority right now and did this, you'd be singing a different tune.

 

And you know it.

[bmags]

I'm not sure how good of an idea this is, though. When the day comes that the opposing party is in power, you won't be as happy about this.

 

I think I'm happier after the last 20 years that you can play offense as opposed to smoltering defense.

[Y2HH]

I think I'm happier after the last 20 years that you can play offense as opposed to smoltering defense.

 

You're happier now. Wait until a party shift occurs. This is shortsighted.

[Jake]

Your not really making coherent arguments, it's just a bunch of weird assertions.

 

It's also the conservatives and gun rights advocates who talk about "mental health" whenever there is a shooting to deflect away from discussion of broader gun control. You just seem to be stringing random ideas together while still insulting the people you claim to be standing up for.

 

Seriously. SS and I would like to restrict access to guns so that we as a society feel less compelled to restrict the freedom of the mentally ill. Gun rights activists prefer to restrict the rights of the mentally ill so as to not infringe upon their ability to have weapons. SS and I (I assume) feel the opposite. The less deadly power available for the mentally ill, the fewer negative consequences of their unrestricted freedom.

 

I'm not sure how good of an idea this is, though. When the day comes that the opposing party is in power, you won't be as happy about this.

 

I'm going to think that whoever the next R POTUS nominates sucks. Let's put that out there. If I like 1 out of 10 appointments from the next Republican POTUS, that will really be something. I know that he or she will not be appointing liberals, so I see no need for my hypothetically minority party to be able to completely f*** up that process. If the appointee is really so horrible, people in the majority party will oppose the appointment as well -- and we will all have to do it out in the open.

[Balta1701]

I again say the same thing to you, while this favors your party now, there will be a day it doesn't...and then you'll be crying that the minority party has no power.

 

The only reason you are for this, is because you're a democrat. If the republicans were in the senate majority right now and did this, you'd be singing a different tune.

 

And you know it.

The remarkable thing is that there are so many other ways to gum up the process which have been deployed over the last few years...it'll take the next step of the Republicans taking the Senate and removing more of the filibuster just to bring the senate back to basic funcionality.

[Balta1701]

I'm going to think that whoever the next R POTUS nominates sucks. Let's put that out there. If I like 1 out of 10 appointments from the next Republican POTUS, that will really be something. I know that he or she will not be appointing liberals, so I see no need for my hypothetically minority party to be able to completely f*** up that process. If the appointee is really so horrible, people in the majority party will oppose the appointment as well -- and we will all have to do it out in the open.

Having the Filibuster didn't stop Roberts or Alito from getting onto the court.

[Y2HH]

The remarkable thing is that there are so many other ways to gum up the process which have been deployed over the last few years...it'll take the next step of the Republicans taking the Senate and removing more of the filibuster just to bring the senate back to basic funcionality.

 

I'm sure they'll all find a way to mess it up even more when fixing it.

[Y2HH]

Having the Filibuster didn't stop Roberts or Alito from getting onto the court.

 

I think that filibuster still exists...I think this is for NON supreme justices only.

[bmags]

You're happier now. Wait until a party shift occurs. This is shortsighted.

 

No it isn't. Because democrats acquiesce to Republicans anyway for their legislative wants. Democrats can't even get heads of departements up SIX YEARS LATER. And why? For no reason, and it isn't covered by media. Nobody seems to care, so at that point, yeah, majority rule.

[bmags]

Let's just put it this way, it was way more shortsighted for dems to oppose filibuster in 06 than it is to ruin it now.

[Y2HH]

No it isn't. Because democrats acquiesce to Republicans anyway for their legislative wants. Democrats can't even get heads of departements up SIX YEARS LATER. And why? For no reason, and it isn't covered by media. Nobody seems to care, so at that point, yeah, majority rule.

 

Like I said to them, I'll say to you.

 

You say that now.

 

In 10 years remember you were happy about this, because if you thought it was worse before, wait until the Republicans enter with THIS sort of power now.

[Balta1701]

I think that filibuster still exists...I think this is for NON supreme justices only.

But the threat of "getting rid of it even more" doesn't seem too strong when it didn't stop those guys, it didn't stop the wars, it didn't stop the tax policy of the last administration, etc.

 

At the very least, this makes it possible to fire Kathleen Sebelius.

[bmags]

Like I said to them, I'll say to you.

 

You say that now.

 

In 10 years remember you were happy about this, because if you thought it was worse before, wait until the Republicans enter with THIS sort of power now.

 

Alright, bud, mark my words: I'm more in favor of a functional government. You shouldn't the threat of a filibuster to bring nominations to a hault. And when democrats lead again, I'm going to be happy that we can fill government positions with people. And then I hope they hire 8 million czars and take everyones property.

[Y2HH]

But the threat of "getting rid of it even more" doesn't seem too strong when it didn't stop those guys, it didn't stop the wars, it didn't stop the tax policy of the last administration, etc.

 

At the very least, this makes it possible to fire Kathleen Sebelius.

 

I'm not really opposed to this or for it. I just think it's a shortsighted mistake for democratic voters to be happy about this change. There will come a time that this is used against them, and when that time comes, they'll be singing a much different tune. This is typical loving a rule when it favors you now, and not thinking that there will come a day that it favors your opponent.

 

And it didn't stop the wars because both parties voted for the wars before they voted against them (after their votes were in saying yes, no less).

[Y2HH]

Alright, bud, mark my words: I'm more in favor of a functional government. You shouldn't the threat of a filibuster to bring nominations to a hault. And when democrats lead again, I'm going to be happy that we can fill government positions with people. And then I hope they hire 8 million czars and take everyones property.

 

Wolverine?

 

Who says things like bud or bub in 2013?

[Balta1701]

I'm not really opposed to this or for it. I just think it's a shortsighted mistake for democratic voters to be happy about this change. There will come a time that this is used against them, and when that time comes, they'll be singing a much different tune. This is typical loving a rule when it favors you now, and not thinking that there will come a day that it favors your opponent.

 

And it didn't stop the wars because both parties voted for the wars before they voted against them (after their votes were in saying yes, no less).

The one thing that I really would fear is the Republicans getting all 3 and enacting the Ryan budget...but because that's a budget, there is already a 50 vote maneuver to get around the filibuster for that if they had all 3, so it wouldn't really matter.

[Y2HH]

The one thing that I really would fear is the Republicans getting all 3 and enacting the Ryan budget...but because that's a budget, there is already a 50 vote maneuver to get around the filibuster for that if they had all 3, so it wouldn't really matter.

 

I trust that when they have the power/chance to use this in the future, they will find a way to abuse it in a way democrats didn't intend or imagine.

[StrangeSox]

I again say the same thing to you, while this favors your party now, there will be a day it doesn't...and then you'll be crying that the minority party has no power.

 

The only reason you are for this, is because you're a democrat. If the republicans were in the senate majority right now and did this, you'd be singing a different tune.

 

And you know it.

 

No, I don't "know it." I know that I believe elected majorities should be able to govern, even if I don't agree with those majorities. Our presidential system has far too many veto points and shields elected officials from responsibility far too much.

 

It's actually possible for people to take a principled stance. And you know it.

[Y2HH]

No, I don't "know it." I know that I believe elected majorities should be able to govern, even if I don't agree with those majorities. Our presidential system has far too many veto points and shields elected officials from responsibility far too much.

 

It's actually possible for people to take a principled stance. And you know it.

 

Yea, you do know it.

[StrangeSox]

You're happier now. Wait until a party shift occurs. This is shortsighted.

 

It's not shortsighted. It's how a democracy should function.

 

I'll be unhappy if right-wing Republicans are elected to majorities in Congress and to the White House. I'll fear the s***ty, horrible policies we'll get. But I'll fully believe that those majorities have every right to pass those policies.

[Y2HH]

It's not shortsighted. It's how a democracy should function.

 

I'll be unhappy if right-wing Republicans are elected to majorities in Congress and to the White House. I'll fear the s***ty, horrible policies we'll get. But I'll fully believe that those majorities have every right to pass those policies.

 

StrangeSox: Listen to me say all the right things, but mean none of them.

[StrangeSox]

Having the Filibuster didn't stop Roberts or Alito from getting onto the court.

 

Or Janice Rogers Brown.

[StrangeSox]

StrangeSox: Listen to me say all the right things, but mean none of them.

 

I wish I had your powers of knowing everyone's true thoughts and beliefs.

 

edit: I will say that in one regard, I do think this is universally a good thing for my political beliefs regardless of who is in power, even beyond my support for democratic majorities being able to govern. The filibuster is much more useful to reactionaries looking to stop things than it is to progressives looking to do things. Even for judicial appointments, Democrats haven't been able to use it to keep right-wing conservatives out. So aside from being wrong on the principles, it's not even really politically useful to me.

Edited November 22, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I wish I had your powers of knowing everyone's true thoughts and beliefs.

 

Well, you don't.

[StrangeSox]

Like I said to them, I'll say to you.

 

You say that now.

 

In 10 years remember you were happy about this, because if you thought it was worse before, wait until the Republicans enter with THIS sort of power now.

 

But they've always had this power. They could have used it in 2005, and almost did, before Democrats negotiated with them.

 

This was just a change in the extra-constitutional parliamentary rules of one house of Congress. This wasn't a Constitutional amendment or anything. The Senate is now a more functional body, and that's unequivocally good.

 

I mean, look at Grassely's 'threat' here:

 

As Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) warned before Thursday’s vote, “When we have the majority, when we have a Republican president, we put more people like Scalia on the court

 

Am I to believe that the Republican party wouldn't appoint more conservative judges like Scalia? Is he not aware of Roberts and Alito?

Edited November 22, 2013 by StrangeSox