Conquer Club

Democrats Launch Nukes

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:01 pm

Biden On Nuclear Option In 2005: "I Pray To God Democrats Do Not Do This When We Have Power"


Then Sen Obama against Nuclear Option 'Fighting, Bitterness, gridlock will only increase'


Senate Passes ā€˜Nuclear Option’ Fundamentally Changing Filibuster Power

The Democrat-controlled Senate voted Thursday to invoke the so-called ā€œnuclear option,ā€ making it possible to confirm most presidential nominees by a simple majority vote.
Confirmed: U.S. Senate Passes Nuclear Option Fundamentally Changing Filibuster Power

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) led Democrats in approving a substantial change to Senate filibuster rules.

Thursday’s vote marked a major shift in more than 200 years of Senate precedent that required a 60-vote majority to assure a final vote on most presidential nominees. The ā€œnuclear option,ā€ however, means only 51 votes are required to confirm most judicial and executive nominees.

Supreme Court appointees are still exempt form the rule change. Also, it’s important to note that this vote doesn’t block other filibusters like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s nearly 13-hour marathon speech against President Barack Obama’s drone program.
Thursday’s ā€œnuclear optionā€ vote only applies to most judicial and executive nominees.

ā€œIt shows you just how desperate and cynical Democrats have become,ā€ one Senate Republican aide told TheBlaze. ā€œThey have proven willing to destroy a defining and historic aspect of the Senate in order to distract from their disastrous health care law and the harm it’s inflicting on the American people right now.ā€

ā€œUnfortunately, while their ploy may help them in the news cycle for a few days, Americans will still be suffering all the while,ā€ the aide added.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accused Republicans Thursday of ā€œunbelievable, unprecedented obstructionā€ of the president’s selections for court vacancies and other offices.

ā€œIt’s time to change the Senate, before this institution becomes obsolete,ā€ Reid said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for his part, accused Democrats of trying to distract from the ongoing disaster that has been the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, adding that Democrats would later come to regret the rule change.

ā€œWhen Democrats were in the minority they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without, namely the right to extend a debate on lifetime appointments. In other words, they believe that one set of rules should apply to them and another set to everybody else,ā€ he said.

McConnell reminded his colleagues Reid said in 2012 he wouldn’t try to change the process of approving appointees.

ā€œHe may as well just have said, ā€˜If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them,ā€™ā€ McConnell said, referring to the president’s oft-repeated promise that Americans could keep their insurance under Obamacare.

ā€œSenator Reid is breaking over 100 years of years of precedence in order to get his way,ā€ Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a statement. ā€œReid is a bully, dictating to the Senate.ā€

Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Joe Manchin (W.V.) and Carl Levin (Mich.) voted with Republicans against the rule change.

ā€œMy judicial nominees have waited nearly two-and-a-half times longer to receive yes or no votes on the Senate floor than those of President Bush. The ones who do get a vote are generally confirmed with little or any dissent. This isn’t obstruction on substance on qualifications. It’s just to gum up the works,ā€ President Obama said after the vote. ā€œThe vote today I think is an indication that a majority of senators believe as I believe that enough is enough. The American’s people’s business is far too important to keep falling prey day after day to partisan politics.ā€

ā€œI’m a former senator. So is my vice president. We both value any Senate’s duty to advise and consent. It’s important and we take that very seriously. But a few now refuse to treat that duty of advise and consent with the respect that it deserves. It is no longer used in a responsible way to govern. It’s rather used as a reckless and relentless tool to grind all business to a halt. That’s not what our founders intended,ā€ he added.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:41 pm

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.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:48 pm

Metsfanmax wrote: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.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:55 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: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.


If that happens, so be it*. The procedure is more important than the individual battles.

*Though, as the article points out, this doesn't change the process for Supreme Court nominees.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:57 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: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.


If that happens, so be it*. The procedure is more important than the individual battles.

*Though, as the article points out, this doesn't change the process for Supreme Court nominees.


Not yet.....but, surely, you aren't going to get mad if the rules suddenly get changed again, of course?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: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.


If that happens, so be it*. The procedure is more important than the individual battles.

*Though, as the article points out, this doesn't change the process for Supreme Court nominees.


Not yet.....but, surely, you aren't going to get mad if the rules suddenly get changed again, of course?


No. I have been wanting them to eliminate this procedural filibuster for years; I'm sure I have posted to that effect in this forum. Changing this doesn't change the fundamental equation of the Senate, of course; if Democrats use this change while they're in power to install ridiculous nominees, then Republcans will respond in kind. We can only hope that they don't engage in this arms race. But using arbitrary rules to change the majority vote threshold is not the way to stop that madness.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:35 pm

No, what's really happened is Democrat's realize Obamacare is only gonna get worse, and there is no way in hell they are going to keep Congress, so they said fck it and they're gonna ram as much as they can through this next year and trash the place on the way out.

As for the nuclear option, I think it's important for the minority to have power and to have a voice. I actually thought you would have agreed. We have made it over 200 years with the current rules, leave it to Obama to complain about how Democrats didn't win Congress so they have to change the rules again to go around the Republicans, which America sent there specifically to divide the power. Power divided is power checked. That's what American's voted for, and then confirmed it again that we wanted Obama, but did not give him a super majority.

Part of nominating someone is making sure it's someone who can be confirmed. Given the election results, those are the people we sent to Washington to do the confirming. Just like the Constitution, Obama just goes around the people and the election results whenever he wants.

Just a question though, the videos I posted in the OP, was Biden and Obama completely full of shit then, or are they completely full of shit now?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:42 pm

Phatscotty wrote:No, what's really happened is Democrat's realize Obamacare is only gonna get worse, and there is no way in hell they are going to keep Congress, so they said fck it and they're gonna ram as much as they can through this next year and trash the place on the way out.


This doesn't help the Democrats in the long term, assuming that there will be an equal number of Republican and Democratic majorities. If they think that they are going to lose Congress, then this is a stupid move on their part, since it means they'll have even less power when the Republicans take control.

As for the nuclear option, I think it's important for the minority to have power and to have a voice. I actually thought you would have agreed. We have made it over 200 years with the current rules, leave it to Obama to complain about how Democrats didn't win Congress so they have to change the rules again to go around the Republicans, which America sent there specifically to divide the power. Power divided is power checked. That's what American's voted for, and then confirmed it again that we wanted Obama, but did not give him a super majority.


I think that the minority should have power, and should have a voice. That's what the legislative process is all about -- there's discussion and debate before a bill is put to a vote, and it always goes through significant revisions. But if the rules are set to allow a majority vote to confirm a nominee, then that's how it ought to be. Allowing the filibuster option effectively changes the majority threshold when one party is being obstructionist, and that's never how the Senate was intended to be. It does say something bad that we're at the point where we can't keep a good rule because the rule is being abused.

Just a question though, the videos I posted in the OP, was Biden and Obama completely full of shit then, or are they completely full of shit now?


Both times.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Frigidus on Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:07 pm

Just get rid of the filibuster all together, its only purpose is to be used as an excuse for why nothing good ever happens.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:08 am

When I heard the news, I knew somewhere someone was getting hot and bothered.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:23 am

Obviously I'm entirely against this (and not for partisan reasons). I like when the government can't do anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy (as opposed to Andy's hot and bothered).

It is weird that this would be proposed at all. What are the Dems going to do if President Chris Christie nominates a CIA director who wants to use drones on domestic targets? Oh... yeah... they support that; nevermind then.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Metsfanmax on Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:05 am

thegreekdog wrote:I like when the government can't do anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy (as opposed to Andy's hot and bothered).


Thanks Ron Swanson.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:10 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I like when the government can't do anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy (as opposed to Andy's hot and bothered).


Thanks Ron Swanson.


He might be my favorite TV character ever (comedy division).
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Night Strike on Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:07 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:Allowing the filibuster option effectively changes the majority threshold when one party is being obstructionist, and that's never how the Senate was intended to be.


That would be where you're wrong. The Senate was originally designed to be the stable and steadfast chamber. They have 6 year terms to last through both a presidential term and 3 House terms to provide longevity of decision making and to be protected from the large populous movements that could take place in 1 election cycle. The House is supposed to follow the ever changing will of the people, the President was to be the driver of the agenda, and the Senate was to make sure that laws passed that were for good governance (since they would be there the longest). Special considerations were given to hear the minority groups arguments and force compromise in the Senate, especially since they're the only chamber charged with confirming appointments and ratifying treaties.

Of course, the Senate was also originally chosen by the state legislators to protect state rights, but the Progressives had to get rid of that, so it's not that surprising they finally chose to go with majority rule rather than the rule of law.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:10 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Obviously I'm entirely against this (and not for partisan reasons). I like when the government can't do anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy (as opposed to Andy's hot and bothered).

It is weird that this would be proposed at all. What are the Dems going to do if President Chris Christie nominates a CIA director who wants to use drones on domestic targets? Oh... yeah... they support that; nevermind then.

What did congresses in the past do, before the old filibuster became a prominent thing?


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:03 pm

If you lower the cost incurred by filibuster (and the potential filibuster), then you'll get more public policies. Given that there will be no change in the quality of public policies, I don't see how the 'nuclear option' is a good idea.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:46 pm

Looks like the Senate Democrats gave Thomas Jefferson the pink slip

Anyone who supports this is putting party over country. The crap about the amount of filibusters...of course it's going to be that way, there is simultaneously a record amount of government growth and agencies and divisions and councils and court appointments.

This is especially important concerning lifetime appointments.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby mrswdk on Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:26 am

What's this got to do with nukes?
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby AndyDufresne on Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:18 pm

Well, time to start building my bunker again with PS, warmonger, night strike, and sabotage.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby john9blue on Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:29 pm

should've been 55% or something

50% is ridiculous and 60% can lead to tyranny of the minority
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:01 pm

john9blue wrote:should've been 55% or something

50% is ridiculous and 60% can lead to tyranny of the minority


Why is 50% ridiculous? Is it ridiculous that 50% is needed to pass a law?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:09 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
john9blue wrote:should've been 55% or something

50% is ridiculous and 60% can lead to tyranny of the minority


Why is 50% ridiculous? Is it ridiculous that 50% is needed to pass a law?


You might as well be asking "why should power be limited" gee whiz wally idk


The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the perceived problem.[2] A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby john9blue on Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:10 pm

^ this. there's a fine balance between tyrannies of majority and minority. 60% had problems for sure, but 50% is too far in the other direction.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:25 pm

john9blue wrote:^ this. there's a fine balance between tyrannies of majority and minority. 60% had problems for sure, but 50% is too far in the other direction.


You're judging it through the lens of 2013 politics. And I agree that for the current day, 55 Senators would be a reasonable balance to the extent that it's difficult but not impossible to achieve that in the case of obstructionism. But it's too parochial of a view. We shouldn't be judging this decision based on the effect it will have on the 113th Congress, but on the general precedent it sets for how presidential appointees are confirmed. I don't think it's good reasoning to say "55 is achievable but not trivial, so that's a good balance." The reasoning should be based on a proper balancing of considerations between the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority. And for executive nominees, it's hard for me to understand why we should be going out of our way to give extra minority protections, since the President is selecting his/her own employees. If you made the argument for Supreme Court justices, I'd be a lot more amenable to that, because of how powerful an effect each justice has and the fact that it's a lifetime appointment.

The other danger of viewing it through 2013 politics is that it could easily be the reverse situation. Say we had a Republican-dominated Senate and a Democratic President. Then, if the requirement is effectively 60 votes to get a nominee confirmed, it's easy to envision a scenario in which the Republicans blocked every nominee and the Democrats had no recourse. If it's 50, it's a lot more reasonable of a situation.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Democrats Launch Nukes

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:22 pm

So Mets, are you saying, on principle, you think a majority should rule, and the minority should have no voice?

Do you support any checks or balances on power?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Next

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users