Democrats Launch Nukes

[Phatscotty]

no, that's what you are trying to change it into. The filibuster itself has been a principle of our Democratic Republic for over 200 years, no matter what the arguments were in theory, in practice it has been essential to protect from tyranny of the majority.

I'm aware that not 100% of the founders agreed on anything. But you can keep pointing it out.

I'm not aware of a single founder who expressed support of a filibuster. I am aware that there are explicit responsibilities given to the Senate that requires more than a simple majority to pass. This indicates that the founders did recognize that the minority needs more power in certain cases but explicitly did not grant them this power for enacting general legislation or approving legislative and judicial nominees. In light of this, how can anyone say that it is a core principle of our nation? It's not just that the founders had no opinion on this; it's that they had the opposite opinion.

If, after all your talk on how important it is to heed the words of the founding fathers, you would go against them on this issue just because you don't like the Democrats, it exposes how shallow you really are.

HA! You really think you can just lump every single thing every single founder said over their entire lifetime, and call that 'the words of our Founders'?

Why don't you just go around quoting John Dickinson from Pennsylvania, or shall I start quoting Benjamin Rush or what other founders have said about the importance of religion IN government/no separation of Church n State, or pro slavery comments?? You can see where I am going with this, which also shows exactly where you have been trying to take the context dropping for the last few pages. Not to mention I get nervous whenever you start quoting America's Founders.

But if you want to play that game, show us some quotes from the Founders about income inequality/income gap, redistribution of wealth, income taxes, 'the greater good', and negative Liberty.

[Phatscotty]

GW discusses how each party will get back at the other one--e.g. suppose the Democrats remove the filibuster constraint on some scope of decision-maker. The Republicans will return the 'favor' when they gain control. This is something GW doesn't like, and since the removing the filibuster encourages this tit-for-tat reaction, then GW would be against removing the filibuster.

GW would not be against removing the filibuster because the parties would be even more at each other's throats. He'd tell them to stop being children and grow up.

Which is exactly what Republicans did in 2005, and is exactly what Democrats didn't do in 2013. The 2005 Republicans worked together with the minority Democrats, just like the 2013 Democrats should be working with the minority Republicans today, instead of tossing out our principles held for over 200 years. Remember Senator Jeffords? The 'honorably' Republican who left the party and became an Independent. Are there any Democrats like that now? I haven't seen any stepping up. That's because the nuclear option brings it to a whole new level. Now, it truly is Republic vs. Democracy. The Democrats have begun making the split and are fundamentally transforming America.

Now, the parties are going to be at each others throats. I find it funny you are coming around to this just now, when you were laughing at me saying the same thing very early on and calling my posts hyperbolic rhetoric that is destroying the country; I was only pointing out the obvious.

Maybe you want to reintroduce yourself to my earlier comments about how the Republicans will have a case to abuse this new power and push it even further when they inevitably get the Senate back which very well may be in the coming months. and revisit the importance of the matter and how it relates to the accurate terminology of 'launching nukes'

[Metsfanmax]

But if you want to play that game, show us some quotes from the Founders about income inequality/income gap, redistribution of wealth, income taxes, 'the greater good', and negative Liberty.

The point here isn't that they're correct, necessarily. The point is that you are 100%, absolutely wrong when you say that it's a core principle of our democracy. The people who created the country did not want a filibuster. They did not think this was a power the minority should have. If that's no longer relevant in 2013, you are welcome to say that. But it's a flat out lie to insist that the filibuster is anything other than a straight up change to the way we run our parliamentary system from the way it was originally designed.

[BigBallinStalin]

But if you want to play that game, show us some quotes from the Founders about income inequality/income gap, redistribution of wealth, income taxes, 'the greater good', and negative Liberty.

The point here isn't that they're correct, necessarily. The point is that you are 100%, absolutely wrong when you say that it's a core principle of our democracy. The people who created the country did not want a filibuster. They did not think this was a power the minority should have. If that's no longer relevant in 2013, you are welcome to say that. But it's a flat out lie to insist that the filibuster is anything other than a straight up change to the way we run our parliamentary system from the way it was originally designed.

As already mentioned, the 2nd bold part doesn't follow from those quotes nor does removing the filibuster to increase the relative strength of one party follow.

[Phatscotty]

You are wrong here because I do not and never have made the case it's a core principle of our Democracy. I have argued it's a core principle of our REPUBLIC.

And it's not even the issue what the founders said or didn't say, you can find plenty of things said from extreme to extreme. The issue is how can you think it's a good idea to take away the voice and the tiny bit of power historically reserved and embedded in our principle for centuries (plural) from the minority? How can you not understand that this is important just as much for you and your beliefs as it is for me and mines?

[Metsfanmax]

How can you not understand that this is important just as much for you and your beliefs as it is for me and mines?

It really doesn't take that much to understand why a virtual filibuster is not about protecting minority beliefs. If you can just signal that you would filibuster, without once getting up to speak, and effectively shut down debate on a congressional issue, you are not protecting the beliefs of the minority. Even if you do get up and speak, all you're doing is delaying an inevitable vote, most likely. The filibuster doesn't protect the beliefs of the minority because eventually the person sits down and the vote is taken. You know that Ted Cruz filibuster on Obamacare? It wasn't even a real filibuster. He and Harry Reid agreed that the vote would take place the next day, and that Cruz would stop the "filibuster" at the time at which the vote was agreed upon. It was showmanship, pure and simple. In order to even begin to get this to be about the beliefs of the minority, you'd have to actually find examples where the voice of the minority was not heard, and the filibuster allowed that. Outside of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington that just doesn't happen anymore. The founders understood that the filibuster is not about protecting the beliefs of the minority; it's about allowing the minority's belief to dictate what we do (the "tyranny of the minority"). I understand this. Lots of people understand this. If you don't, try harder.

I understand that if Republicans take over the Senate this means they'll be able to do more things that I don't like with one less weapon for the Democrats to use. I want this to happen.

[Phatscotty]

You are wrong here because I do not and never have made the case it's a core principle of our Democracy. I have argued it's a core principle of our REPUBLIC.

And it's not even the issue what the founders said or didn't say, you can find plenty of things said from extreme to extreme. The issue is how can you think it's a good idea to take away the voice and the tiny bit of power historically reserved and embedded in our principle for centuries (plural) from the minority? How can you not understand that this is important just as much for you and your beliefs as it is for me and mines?

It really doesn't take that much to understand why a virtual filibuster is not about protecting minority beliefs. If you can just signal that you would filibuster, without once getting up to speak, and effectively shut down debate on a congressional issue, you are not protecting the beliefs of the minority. Even if you do get up and speak, all you're doing is delaying an inevitable vote, most likely. The filibuster doesn't protect the beliefs of the minority because eventually the person sits down and the vote is taken. You know that Ted Cruz filibuster on Obamacare? It wasn't even a real filibuster. He and Harry Reid agreed that the vote would take place the next day, and that Cruz would stop the "filibuster" at the time at which the vote was agreed upon. It was showmanship, pure and simple. In order to even begin to get this to be about the beliefs of the minority, you'd have to actually find examples where the voice of the minority was not heard, and the filibuster allowed that. Outside of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington that just doesn't happen anymore. The founders understood that the filibuster is not about protecting the beliefs of the minority; it's about allowing the minority's belief to dictate what we do (the "tyranny of the minority"). I understand this. Lots of people understand this. If you don't, try harder.

I understand that if Republicans take over the Senate this means they'll be able to do more things that I don't like with one less weapon for the Democrats to use. I want this to happen.

That's an amazingly linear p.o.v., since it's also a far more historically and traditionally normal, civilized, common sensical, FAIR, principled, and bi-partisan process for one party to put forth something that can earn a vote from just 1 or 2 or 3 members of the other party, i.e. something that is not so overtly radical/fundamentally transformative.

[Metsfanmax]

You are wrong here because I do not and never have made the case it's a core principle of our Democracy. I have argued it's a core principle of our REPUBLIC.

And it's not even the issue what the founders said or didn't say, you can find plenty of things said from extreme to extreme. The issue is how can you think it's a good idea to take away the voice and the tiny bit of power historically reserved and embedded in our principle for centuries (plural) from the minority? How can you not understand that this is important just as much for you and your beliefs as it is for me and mines?

It really doesn't take that much to understand why a virtual filibuster is not about protecting minority beliefs. If you can just signal that you would filibuster, without once getting up to speak, and effectively shut down debate on a congressional issue, you are not protecting the beliefs of the minority. Even if you do get up and speak, all you're doing is delaying an inevitable vote, most likely. The filibuster doesn't protect the beliefs of the minority because eventually the person sits down and the vote is taken. You know that Ted Cruz filibuster on Obamacare? It wasn't even a real filibuster. He and Harry Reid agreed that the vote would take place the next day, and that Cruz would stop the "filibuster" at the time at which the vote was agreed upon. It was showmanship, pure and simple. In order to even begin to get this to be about the beliefs of the minority, you'd have to actually find examples where the voice of the minority was not heard, and the filibuster allowed that. Outside of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington that just doesn't happen anymore. The founders understood that the filibuster is not about protecting the beliefs of the minority; it's about allowing the minority's belief to dictate what we do (the "tyranny of the minority"). I understand this. Lots of people understand this. If you don't, try harder.

I understand that if Republicans take over the Senate this means they'll be able to do more things that I don't like with one less weapon for the Democrats to use. I want this to happen.

That's an amazingly linear p.o.v., since it's also a far more historically and traditionally normal, civilized, common sensical, FAIR, principled, and bi-partisan process for one party to put forth something that can earn a vote from just 1 or 2 or 3 members of the other party, i.e. something that is not so overtly radical/fundamentally transformative.

That argument doesn't work in a political situation in which Senators will vote in blocs to block the agenda of the majority. We have literally no context on whether given legislation or nominees are actually radical because these are blocked all the time. I wouldn't talk much about the filibuster if all it was being used for was to block truly radical nominees.

[Phatscotty]

It has worked for centuries.

Not to mention, you speak as if no agenda could ever deserve to be blocked. Oh, but this time it's your agenda. Oh, okay got it.

You keep quoting the founding fathers, and keep accusing me of being ultra partisan; but it's the opposite. You are the ultra partisan here. My argument is to protect minorities for both you and I and everyone else.

[Metsfanmax]

It has worked for centuries.

Not to mention, you speak as if no agenda could ever deserve to be blocked.

Yes. I believe that an entire agenda should not ever be blocked by parliamentary tactics. If we elect in a majority, we more or less accept the general agenda that that majority sets. That's the whole point of having an election.

[Phatscotty]

It has worked for centuries.

Not to mention, you speak as if no agenda could ever deserve to be blocked.

Yes. I believe that an entire agenda should not ever be blocked by parliamentary tactics. If we elect in a majority, we more or less accept the general agenda that that majority sets. That's the whole point of having an election.

keyword :supermajority:

I've already said that this is all fine and dandy in a supermajority. But Democrats lost the supermajority in a historic fashion in 2010, as it was the biggest ass whoopin since 1938. Then Democrats change the rules and make it so even a tie is the same as a supermajority/ essentially voting themselves a supermajority they do not have.

keyword :tyranny:

But at least you are finally straight up coming out against the Republic, and straight up supporting a flat out majority rules. I wonder if you will continue quoting the founders on this perspective...

[Metsfanmax]

It has worked for centuries.

Not to mention, you speak as if no agenda could ever deserve to be blocked.

Yes. I believe that an entire agenda should not ever be blocked by parliamentary tactics. If we elect in a majority, we more or less accept the general agenda that that majority sets. That's the whole point of having an election.

keyword :supermajority:

I've already said that this is all fine and dandy in a supermajority. But Democrats lost the supermajority in a historic fashion in 2010, as it was the biggest ass whoopin since 1938. Then Democrats change the rules and make it so even a tie is the same as a supermajority/ essentially voting themselves a supermajority they do not have.

OK, so we both agree on majority rules. We just disagree on how many votes constitute a majority. Is it 51? Or 60, as the rule was set in 1975? Or 67, as the rule was set in 1917?

keyword :tyranny:

But at least you are finally straight up coming out against the Republic, and straight up supporting a flat out majority rules. I wonder if you will continue quoting the founders on this perspective...

I will quote James Madison saying that requiring more than a simple majority to pass legislation violates the fundamental principle of free government, as much as you like.

[Phatscotty]

Guess it all comes down to this guy.



Enjoy it while it lasts

[Night Strike]

Yes. I believe that an entire agenda should not ever be blocked by parliamentary tactics. If we elect in a majority, we more or less accept the general agenda that that majority sets. That's the whole point of having an election.

But I'm guessing you're completely okay with the majority leader using parliamentary tactics to block any amendment to be brought up on any piece of legislation outside of how the majority leader whats a bill to be amended? Since that's exactly what Harry Reid has been doing to stifle any actual debate on a subject.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes. I believe that an entire agenda should not ever be blocked by parliamentary tactics. If we elect in a majority, we more or less accept the general agenda that that majority sets. That's the whole point of having an election.

But I'm guessing you're completely okay with the majority leader using parliamentary tactics to block any amendment to be brought up on any piece of legislation outside of how the majority leader whats a bill to be amended? Since that's exactly what Harry Reid has been doing to stifle any actual debate on a subject.

Can you provide an example, so that I can better assess what you're describing?

[AndyDufresne]

But I'm guessing you're completely okay with the majority leader using parliamentary tactics to block any amendment to be brought up on any piece of legislation outside of how the majority leader whats a bill to be amended? Since that's exactly what Harry Reid has been doing to stifle any actual debate on a subject.

Stifle.
Rifle.
Rifle (verb).
Eiffel (tower).


--Andy

[Night Strike]

Yes. I believe that an entire agenda should not ever be blocked by parliamentary tactics. If we elect in a majority, we more or less accept the general agenda that that majority sets. That's the whole point of having an election.

But I'm guessing you're completely okay with the majority leader using parliamentary tactics to block any amendment to be brought up on any piece of legislation outside of how the majority leader whats a bill to be amended? Since that's exactly what Harry Reid has been doing to stifle any actual debate on a subject.

Can you provide an example, so that I can better assess what you're describing?

Jamie Dupree ‏@jamiedupree 8h

Sen Reid fills the amendment tree and files cloture on both the budget deal and the defense authorization bill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_the_tree

[BigBallinStalin]

But I'm guessing you're completely okay with the majority leader using parliamentary tactics to block any amendment to be brought up on any piece of legislation outside of how the majority leader whats a bill to be amended? Since that's exactly what Harry Reid has been doing to stifle any actual debate on a subject.

Stifle.
Rifle.
Rifle (verb).
Eiffel (tower).


--Andy

I disagree. Your premises are flawed, your conclusion is unsound, and you drink lilac syrup on the weekends.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes. I believe that an entire agenda should not ever be blocked by parliamentary tactics. If we elect in a majority, we more or less accept the general agenda that that majority sets. That's the whole point of having an election.

But I'm guessing you're completely okay with the majority leader using parliamentary tactics to block any amendment to be brought up on any piece of legislation outside of how the majority leader whats a bill to be amended? Since that's exactly what Harry Reid has been doing to stifle any actual debate on a subject.

Can you provide an example, so that I can better assess what you're describing?

Jamie Dupree ‏@jamiedupree 8h

Sen Reid fills the amendment tree and files cloture on both the budget deal and the defense authorization bill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_the_tree

I am not ok with parliamentary tactics being used to stifle legitimate debate.

[Phatscotty]

Sall good, that Federal ruling that the NSA recording all American phone calls violates the 4th amendment is going to be sent to the D.C. court of Appeals, so we can have some privacy back. Wait a sec, isn't that the same court Democrats just nucloptioned??

Stay tuned

[mrswdk]

So it's now a nuclops?

[Metsfanmax]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12 ... urity?lite

Johnson, a security expert who served as the Defense Department's general counsel during President Obama's first term, was confirmed by a 78-16 vote.

Minutes earlier, Democrats squashed a GOP blockade against the nominee by a vote of 57-37. Democrats in November voted to change the rule that required 60 votes to defeat filibusters. Now, a simple majority will overturn barriers for executive branch and non-Supreme Court judicial nominees.

So 37 Republicans organize in an attempt to block the nominee... and then only 16 of them vote against the nominee? What happened to the other 21? Why did their objection vanish?

[spurgistan]

Only in an era of complete absurdity can a Senate that is widely lambasted for not getting anything done, be lambasted for making it easier to get things done.

And then, in the very near future, Republicans don't have to worry about Democrats filibustering ultra-Conservative Supreme Court nominations...Republicans will just pass them 51-49.

At least they won't be getting lambasted for not getting anything done.

Bork wasn't filibustered, Democrats just used the scandalous method of telling people things he said and didn't regret saying. I actually can't think of any serious threats to filibuster any SCOTUSes since then. They always talk big game then vote for cloture, and maybe cast a symbolic couple of votes against. Except for like, Harriet Miers, but come on, even Bush didn't think that was serious, she was just supposed to make us relieved that we were just getting qualiied, staunch conservative justices.

[thegreekdog]

Only in an era of complete absurdity can a Senate that is widely lambasted for not getting anything done, be lambasted for making it easier to get things done.

And then, in the very near future, Republicans don't have to worry about Democrats filibustering ultra-Conservative Supreme Court nominations...Republicans will just pass them 51-49.

At least they won't be getting lambasted for not getting anything done.

Democrats just used the scandalous method of telling people things he said and didn't regret saying.

Talk about your revisionist history. Good lord.

[AndyDufresne]

Everyone should already know by now -- what is history for if not for revision?


--Andy