Democrats: The BULLY party as Arizona dems censure Sinema because of her vote.

[BamaFan1137]

They have in the past, so I image they will continue.

Agree but if these midterms go the way we suspect, this will be another opportunity to outshine the left and practice what we preach.

If/when the Republican Party regains control in one chamber or both, anyone who cries about the filibuster should be smacked in the back of the head.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Obstruction forces compromise. Think past your nose. Imagine a time when the R's control all three branches. I'm in favor of the filibuster now and I'll be in favor of it then.

The founding fathers saw the folly of a pure democracy (the examples of Athens) where a simple majority is in control. Building consensus - through electing a plurality of representatives from one party or through negotiation - was key to a modest and controlled governing class. The filibuster is a strong move to reinforce that, even if our founders didn't think of it.

And I'll argue again, sometimes the country wins when legislation isn't passed.

I was for change when Trump was in office. I'll be for change when Biden is out of office. That's just my stance. That's why every election we are fighting for the same issues because nothing gets done. Obstruction doesn't force compromise.

I agree that sometimes when legislation doesn't pass its a win but I'll argue the opposite as well.

 

[kalimgoodman]

They have in the past, so I image they will continue.

Agree but if these midterms go the way we suspect, this will be another opportunity to outshine the left and practice what we preach.

If/when the Republican Party regains control in one chamber or both, anyone who cries about the filibuster should be smacked in the back of the head.

Could not agree more.

The key test for Republicans is if they maintain the filibuster even when they hold majorities.

We shall see but I think they will get rid of it. The next party with all 3 levels will, that's my prediction.

I'm just curious to see do some of you follow the Republicans and defend what they are doing or actually call them out, IF it's them.

 

[BamaFan1137]

I was for change when Trump was in office. I'll be for change when Biden is out of office. That's just my stance. That's why every election we are fighting for the same issues because nothing gets done. Obstruction doesn't force compromise.

I agree that sometimes when legislation doesn't pass its a win but I'll argue the opposite as well.

You have more faith that the federal government is occasionally capable of making positive contributions to our society. Some might contend that your faith is unwarranted.

Even in the best of circumstances, when the federal government manages to be on the right side of something, the only thing that prevents it from F'ing it up is the well-meaning people behind the efforts within the communities themselves.

 

[NavigatorII]

It doesn't promote compromise. It promotes obstruction and purposely stopping the majority from doing anything, so they can say at the next election how much the majority can't get anything done. Yes, BOTH sides do it.

Then obviously you subscribe to Big Government (Big Brother) rather than being a free man. Orwell warned us about this. Gridlock is good. The less intrusion into our daily lives the better off we are. Keeping the government in check with minimal meddling is best for a free nation. The .Gov is supposed work for us, not us for them. In a nutshell, this is where we part ways.

 

[BamaFan1137]

I'm just curious to see do some of you follow the Republicans and defend what they are doing or actually call them out, IF it's them.

As a young man I hated the filibuster. It was counterproductive and I hated it. Now I understand that this is sort of the point...to avoid the filibuster, an "idea" must be something that a supermajority agrees upon and that's not an awful thing.

The only other way to avoid it is by compromise...again, not a horrible thing. I get the frustration that you're referring to, however.

If the Republicans try to kill the filibuster, I will absolutely call BS.

 

[fatman76]

I was for change when Trump was in office. I'll be for change when Biden is out of office. That's just my stance. That's why every election we are fighting for the same issues because nothing gets done. Obstruction doesn't force compromise.

I agree that sometimes when legislation doesn't pass its a win but I'll argue the opposite as well.

The three big issues Biden ran against Trump on were:
1) Covid
2) Russia
3) Threats to our democracy

Covid has been an unmitigated disaster for Biden. Even the media admits that now.

Russia is now saber rattling on Ukraine's doorstep. Putin doesn't seem to be worried about our response (at least at the moment).

Democrats are screaming that any changes to election laws are Republicans being racist and stealing elections (which isn't supported by facts).

I'm not sure where the filibuster has played into any of these issues, except for the unconstitutional Federal takeover of elections (where it could be argued it's a good thing - Democrats do not have an electoral mandate). You have to admit the voting rights act is highly partisan and there's little to no consensus, even in the Democrat party.

But none of these issues have improved one bit in the last year, and it's a stretch to blame "gridlock" on that fact.

It's interesting to note that the Dems, last week, used the filibuster to block Cruz's sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline...you know the one that strengthens Russia, weakens our opportunity to export to Europe and (if you believe in it) makes global warming worse by making oil easier to transport.

 

[fatman76]

As a young man I hated the filibuster. It was counterproductive and I hated it. Now I understand that this is sort of the point...to avoid the filibuster, an "idea" must be something that a supermajority agrees upon and that's not an awful thing.

The only other way to avoid it is by compromise...again, not a horrible thing. I get the frustration that you're referring to, however.

If the Republicans try to kill the filibuster, I will absolutely call BS.

As well you should. I don't want any party to have complete control, UNLESS an election puts a party into a filibuster-proof majority. At that point the people have spoken and provided the mandate.

 

[kalimgoodman]

As a young man I hated the filibuster. It was counterproductive and I hated it. Now I understand that this is sort of the point...to avoid the filibuster, an "idea" must be something that a supermajority agrees upon and that's not an awful thing.

The only other way to avoid it is by compromise...again, not a horrible thing. I get the frustration that you're referring to, however.

If the Republicans try to kill the filibuster, I will absolutely call BS.

Maybe it is because I'm young. I get it.

 

[kalimgoodman]

The three big issues Biden ran against Trump on were:
1) Covid
2) Russia
3) Threats to our democracy

Covid has been an unmitigated disaster for Biden. Even the media admits that now.

Russia is now saber rattling on Ukraine's doorstep. Putin doesn't seem to be worried about our response (at least at the moment).

Democrats are screaming that any changes to election laws are Republicans being racist and stealing elections (which isn't supported by facts).

I'm not sure where the filibuster has played into any of these issues, except for the unconstitutional Federal takeover of elections (where it could be argued it's a good thing - Democrats do not have an electoral mandate). You have to admit the voting rights act is highly partisan and there's little to no consensus, even in the Democrat party.

But none of these issues have improved one bit in the last year, and it's a stretch to blame "gridlock" on that fact.

It's interesting to note that the Dems, last week, used the filibuster to block Cruz's sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline...you know the one that strengthens Russia, weakens our opportunity to export to Europe and (if you believe in it) makes global warming worse by making oil easier to transport.

Not going down a partisan rabbit hole with you. Believe what you believe in regards to Biden.

 

[fatman76]

Not going down a partisan rabbit hole with you. Believe what you believe in regards to Biden.

Glad you're thrilled with how things are going then. Must be nice to have a scapegoat in the filibuster.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Then obviously you subscribe to Big Government (Big Brother) rather than being a free man. Orwell warned us about this. Gridlock is good. The less intrusion into our daily lives the better off we are. Keeping the government in check with minimal meddling is best for a free nation. The .Gov is supposed work for us, not us for them. In a nutshell, this is where we part ways.

The government do work for us. That whole big brother stuff is so 1800s. People only use that saying when it's something that they don't like. I bet there is a lot of big brother stuff going on in your life that you don't complain about. Government involved can't be avoided.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Glad you're thrilled with how things are going then. Must be nice to have a scapegoat in the filibuster.

👍🏽

 

[BamaFan1137]

Maybe it is because I'm young. I get it.

That's not entirely what I meant but life experience does change one's views. I was much more liberal in my early 20's (can't remember your age) and I still have some liberal views. Either way, I wasn't attempting to say that you are too young to get it.

The main thing that changed about me is that while I realize government is necessary, actions by the government are almost always inefficient, counter-intuitive and often a burden on the very people that it's actions are meant to help. Given such, and I truly believe that the above is true, a true concensus is reasonable when we make big changes.

Absent a true concensus on the core issue, in a compromise, at least both sides get something that they believe in.

 

[BamaFan1137]

That whole big brother stuff is so 1800s.

I don't think it's ever been more true than it is today. In fact, I don't think it was really true at all until about 25 years ago.

 

[NavigatorII]

The government do work for us. That whole big brother stuff is so 1800s. People only use that saying when it's something that they don't like. I bet there is a lot of big brother stuff going on in your life that you don't complain about. Government involved can't be avoided.

You are young and naive. In case you haven't noticed, the government is working for themselves. Seen any poor people leaving Congress or the White House? All of the restrictions that they place upon us doesn't apply to them. They've created bureaucracies that have become monsters that feed at the public trough. What Big Brother stuff specifically do you speak of? Road building? Schools? Social Security? Who do you think paid for that? 🤣

 

[BCSpell]

You are young and naive. In case you haven't noticed, the government is working for themselves. Seen any poor people leaving Congress or the White House? All of the restrictions that they place upon us doesn't apply to them. They've created bureaucracies that have become monsters that feed at the public trough. What Big Brother stuff specifically do you speak of? Road building? Schools? Social Security? Who do you think paid for that? 🤣

Kind of like how Congress exempted themselves from Obamacare.

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

Precisely. Harry Reid opened Pandora's box.

Maybe. But it would have happened sooner or later. The 60-vote rule isn’t about being nice or bipartisan. It’s just that most legislators have enough sense to realize that there’s no point in barely passing a bill that just gets overturned the following session.

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

ObamaCare is a good example of the 60-vote rule. To get 60 votes, he had to make compromises. If he had just rammed the original version though by invoking cloture, I don’t think ObamaCare would have survived the subsequent attempts to overturn it.

 

[Orangeclad]

ObamaCare is a good example of the 60-vote rule. To get 60 votes, he had to make compromises. If he had just rammed the original version though by invoking cloture, I don’t think ObamaCare would have survived the subsequent attempts to overturn it.

He wasn't making compromises. He was making payoffs to Ben Nelson with his Cornhusker kickback and Mary Landrieu with her Louisiana purchase. They were so enamored with the nobility of the legislation that they felt the need to stick the taxpayers for more money for their vote.

 

[kalimgoodman]

I don't think it's ever been more true than it is today. In fact, I don't think it was really true at all until about 25 years ago.

Patriot Act backs that claim.

 

[BCSpell]

ObamaCare is a good example of the 60-vote rule. To get 60 votes, he had to make compromises. If he had just rammed the original version though by invoking cloture, I don’t think ObamaCare would have survived the subsequent attempts to overturn it.

Compromise??? Obamacare was jammed down our throats. Not 1 single Repub Senator voted for it. 58 Dems and 2 Indpendents (who both vote Dem all the time - so really only Indenpendent in name only). Only 1 single Repub House member voted for it. Most of the Dems didn't even know everything in the bill. And as Nancy Pelosi famously said, we have to pass it to see what in it.

 

[Orangeclad]

Compromise??? Obamacare was jammed down our throats. Not 1 single Repub Senator voted for it. 58 Dems and 2 Indpendents (who both vote Dem all the time - so really only Indenpendent in name only). Only 1 single Repub House member voted for it. Most of the Dems didn't even know everything in the bill. And as Nancy Pelosi famously said, we have to pass it to see what in it.

And to compound it, Chief Justice Roberts upholds this crap with tortued logic on the ability to tax and not on the commerce clause. Scalia and Kennedy were pissed.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

They were censured and my mistake as to which level of censorship they received. It wasn't a bias mindset, more of not having all the facts. I was going of memory and didn't fact check my memory, it happens.

Lol. It's not about being Dr. Phil. To say you're mad about something the democrats did, when the Republicans did the same thing is bs to me.

If it truly bothered you, it should bother you no matter who does it. That's reality and you don't need a psychologist to tell you that.

Can you show me some of your posts where leaving Americans behind enemy lines bothered you? How about the entirely open borders? How about the murder rate in cities ran by democrats? I would love to see how truly honest an open you are!

 

[grandhavendiddy]

Maybe. But it would have happened sooner or later. The 60-vote rule isn’t about being nice or bipartisan. It’s just that most legislators have enough sense to realize that there’s no point in barely passing a bill that just gets overturned the following session.

That is true. It is also about finding the things that 60% of the senators agree to.

Crime bill - Corey Booker and Tim Scott agreed to 90% except for qualified immunity. Pull that out, pass the rest and boom, we have something.

Child Care Tax Credit - many can get behind credits for up to 2 kids, means tested with a work requirement. Boom, get it done.

Drug Costs and Competition - introduce competition for insulin, and other high cost, high impact drugs. Let insurance companies compete in multiple markets. Is it MFA? No. Does it move the needle for constituents on both sides of the aisle? Yes.

Infrastracture - not perfect, but good. Passed.

Manufacturing in the U.S. (Semiconductors) - pass a one off bill to support. Done.

Free Community College for those going into trades such as nursing, elementary education, manufacturing engineering, etc. - incents the right jobs. None of this "wipe out debt for art history and gender study majors". Done.

The above is not hard and would lead to: less crime, less poverty, lower medical costs, lower supply chain costs and better US Jobs, better access to education.

Not that hard and the Filibuster helps keep it reasonable.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Can you show me some of your posts where leaving Americans behind enemy lines bothered you? How about the entirely open borders? How about the murder rate in cities ran by democrats? I would love to see how truly honest an open you are!

I never complained about that stuff either way. So wtf are you talking about?

 

[kalimgoodman]

That is true. It is also about finding the things that 60% of the senators agree to.

Crime bill - Corey Booker and Tim Scott agreed to 90% except for qualified immunity. Pull that out, pass the rest and boom, we have something.

Child Care Tax Credit - many can get behind credits for up to 2 kids, means tested with a work requirement. Boom, get it done.

Drug Costs and Competition - introduce competition for insulin, and other high cost, high impact drugs. Let insurance companies compete in multiple markets. Is it MFA? No. Does it move the needle for constituents on both sides of the aisle? Yes.

Infrastracture - not perfect, but good. Passed.

Manufacturing in the U.S. (Semiconductors) - pass a one off bill to support. Done.

Free Community College for those going into trades such as nursing, elementary education, manufacturing engineering, etc. - incents the right jobs. None of this "wipe out debt for art history and gender study majors". Done.

The above is not hard and would lead to: less crime, less poverty, lower medical costs, lower supply chain costs and better US Jobs, better access to education.

Not that hard and the Filibuster helps keep it reasonable.

Yeah but sometimes 60 votes only stop progress.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

Yeah but sometimes 60 votes only stop progress.

View embedded media

It also passed 39-13, not 26-26 and passed by VP Colfax

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Amendments require 2/3rds in the House and Senate. That's even higher than the filibuster. Then the states must ratify with 3/4ths.

Clyburn is a moron and I hope SC sends him packing.

Oh and that party was the Republican party.

 

[kalimgoodman]

It also passed 39-13, not 26-26 and passed by VP Colfax

Because senators didn't vote (14) and no filibuster. Back then instead of voting no against your party, you just didn't vote. Yet, my point was progress was able to happen because of no filibuster. So at times getting around the filibuster is needed. Obviously it's not needed for a tax bill or social spending bills but it can be needed.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Amendments require 2/3rds in the House and Senate. That's even higher than the filibuster. Then the states must ratify with 3/4ths.

Clyburn is a moron and I hope SC sends him packing.

Oh and that party was the Republican party.

Party be damned, Clyburn has been a fighter for black people for a lot of things. He'll always have my respect. Hope you understand that.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Because senators didn't vote (14) and no filibuster. Back then instead of voting no against your party, you just didn't vote. Yet, my point was progress was able to happen because of no filibuster. So at times getting around the filibuster is needed. Obviously it's not needed for a tax bill or social spending bills but it can be needed.

Many who didn't vote, specifically the Republicans, chose not to because they felt like the amendment didn't go far enough to protect against things like literacy testing and poll taxes.

So many of these people didn't abstain because they were against guaranteeing the right to vote but rather because they wanted more protections than this amendment guaranteed and knew the bill would pass anyway.

Also of note, many representatives from the western states voted against the 15th because they were very much against giving Asian Americans the right to vote.

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

Compromise??? Obamacare was jammed down our throats. Not 1 single Repub Senator voted for it. 58 Dems and 2 Indpendents (who both vote Dem all the time - so really only Indenpendent in name only). Only 1 single Repub House member voted for it. Most of the Dems didn't even know everything in the bill. And as Nancy Pelosi famously said, we have to pass it to see what in it.

If they only went for a simple majority, it would have been more extreme, and also would not likely have survived subsequent challenges.

My point is that getting to 60 votes is usually in the interest of passing legislation that endures.

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

That is true. It is also about finding the things that 60% of the senators agree to.

Crime bill - Corey Booker and Tim Scott agreed to 90% except for qualified immunity. Pull that out, pass the rest and boom, we have something.

Child Care Tax Credit - many can get behind credits for up to 2 kids, means tested with a work requirement. Boom, get it done.

Drug Costs and Competition - introduce competition for insulin, and other high cost, high impact drugs. Let insurance companies compete in multiple markets. Is it MFA? No. Does it move the needle for constituents on both sides of the aisle? Yes.

Infrastracture - not perfect, but good. Passed.

Manufacturing in the U.S. (Semiconductors) - pass a one off bill to support. Done.

Free Community College for those going into trades such as nursing, elementary education, manufacturing engineering, etc. - incents the right jobs. None of this "wipe out debt for art history and gender study majors". Done.

The above is not hard and would lead to: less crime, less poverty, lower medical costs, lower supply chain costs and better US Jobs, better access to education.

Not that hard and the Filibuster helps keep it reasonable.

Yep. The Biden admin thought they could play hardball and failed. Now they will have to compromise.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Yep. The Biden admin thought they could play hardball and failed. Now they will have to compromise.

This isn't completely accurate. Manchin tried to get Republicans to support his voting bill and he only got Lisa M. The democrats tried to work with the Republicans on the crime bill. The issue is McConnell is determined not give Biden many wins.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Maybe it is because I'm young. I get it.

Being young DOES explain a bunch.

 

[BCSpell]

This isn't completely accurate. Manchin tried to get Republicans to support his voting bill and he only got Lisa M. The democrats tried to work with the Republicans on the crime bill. The issue is McConnell is determined not give Biden many wins.

I am going to start calling you Littlefingers, as you must have the best spy network out there. You always KNOW what is going on in politicians minds and behind the scenes.

 

[kalimgoodman]

I am going to start calling you Littlefingers, as you must have the best spy network out there. You always KNOW what is going on in politicians minds and behind the scenes.

It's documented, maybe not mentioned in right wing media but you can find quotes out there. If you actually care.

 

[BCSpell]

It's documented, maybe not mentioned in right wing media but you can find quotes out there. If you actually care.

It's documented that: McConnell is determined not give Biden many wins. If it is documented, then it is a MSM opinion that stated it.

 

[kalimgoodman]

It's documented that: McConnell is determined not give Biden many wins. If it is documented, then it is a MSM opinion that stated it.

Everytime I try to expect better from you guys. I get the same. Like I said, you can find quotes of him saying this. Same with Lisa M.

McConnell says he's '100 percent' focused on 'stopping' Biden's administration

McConnell "said that about the last administration — about Barack, that he was going to stop everything," President Joe Biden said.

www.nbcnews.com

Murkowski is the only Senate Republican who voted to advance voting rights bill

Democrats needed 10 Republicans to help them move the John Lewis voting bill. They got just one.

www.alaskapublic.org