Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

By insistence. Believe it or not, people in the upper echelons of our government care about what you and I think. I know for a fact, for example, that Bill Clinton had staffers call up regional newspapers and request faxes of their letters/op-ed pages before they went to print, because he loved hearing what people were thinking about around the country. I would not be surprised if there were people in the white house today doing that very thing.

In other words, take control of the national discussion. You and me as much as our representatives.

Our elected representatives can still put personal and political pressure on Obama. I mean you act as if he just plans to put his feet up and sleep away the next four years. He has things he wants to do, whatever they are, and he needs Congress to do much of it.

Call your congressperson or senator, or write them, and tell them that the drone strikes need to stop and that the Democrats, the president's own party, ought to stop any defense appropriations bill that doesn't include severe cuts to defense spending and promise an end to drone strikes, or even better the beginning/acceleration of a timetable for Afghanistan withdrawal altogether.

Support Tammy Baldwin's initiative to sneak in the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. It's kinda shady, and I'm borderline uncomfortable with it, but needs must and all that. ERA might very well constitutionally guarantee abortion rights, same sex marriage, and accelerate justice and parity for women serving in the military in one fell swoop.

I dunno, that's just off the top of my head. Dems won big on election night, but that's not the end of the work for the political left in America, it's the very beginning.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, that was actually insightful. A rarity on the internet. Hats off.


Yes, "make me" do it.

[Laughs hilariously to himself while calling up Timothy Geithner and the boys]


President Obama wrote:

Yes, "make me" do it.

[Laughs hilariously to himself while calling up Timothy Geithner and the boys]

Master speaks to us!

Hoooooooope....... Chaaaaaaaaaaange.


President Obama wrote:

Yes, "make me" do it.

[Laughs hilariously to himself while calling up Timothy Geithner and the boys]

This is exactly why a certain goblin I know needs a plutocrat on his side.


Yakman wrote:
Well, that was actually insightful. A rarity on the internet. Hats off.

I have my moments.


Obama Burns Bangladeshi Women to Death

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Obama should be reaching out to THOSE Republicans RIGHT NOW, making calls, sending fruit baskets, wtf ever. He should also be using the power of the bully pulpit to make it clear to the American people precisely what he is asking for and what is at stake, in numbers not in values and vagaries.

The hardliners would LOVE to have Obama resort to trying that again, so that they can continue to stonewall him while they hold the country hostage as they've done through the entirety of his first term.

Instead however Obama has done the smart thing and changed the rules of the game. He's taking his case directly to the people... and folks like Boehner and Norquist are having meltdowns over it.

It's a key component as to why the former Republican unity over the Norquist Pledge is starting to fracture like a melting glacier as more and more Republicans are signalling that they're willing to break that pledge.


LazarX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Obama should be reaching out to THOSE Republicans RIGHT NOW, making calls, sending fruit baskets, wtf ever. He should also be using the power of the bully pulpit to make it clear to the American people precisely what he is asking for and what is at stake, in numbers not in values and vagaries.

The hardliners would LOVE to have Obama resort to trying that again, so that they can continue to stonewall him while they hold the country hostage as they've done through the entirety of his first term.

Instead however Obama has done the smart thing and changed the rules of the game. He's taking his case directly to the people... and folks like Boehner and Norquist are having meltdowns over it.

It's a key component as to why the former Republican unity over the Norquist Pledge is starting to fracture like a melting glacier as more and more Republicans are signalling that they're willing to break that pledge.

Sort of signaling. They're willing to talk about limiting deductions and, to paraphrase Boehner, accept the flood of revenue that will come from the economic boom caused by tax reform, as long as Democrats are willing to gut entitlements and other social spending.

IOW, if you give us what we want on social spending, we'll let you give us what we want on tax reform. Republican bipartisanship at work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bradley Manning and the Ministry of Love.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

White House opposes new NDAA w/o indefinite rendition, because, because, it won't allow him to close Gitmo!


meatrace wrote:

By insistence. Believe it or not, people in the upper echelons of our government care about what you and I think. I know for a fact, for example, that Bill Clinton had staffers call up regional newspapers and request faxes of their letters/op-ed pages before they went to print, because he loved hearing what people were thinking about around the country. I would not be surprised if there were people in the white house today doing that very thing.

In other words, take control of the national discussion. You and me as much as our representatives.

Our elected representatives can still put personal and political pressure on Obama. I mean you act as if he just plans to put his feet up and sleep away the next four years. He has things he wants to do, whatever they are, and he needs Congress to do much of it.

Call your congressperson or senator, or write them, and tell them that the drone strikes need to stop and that the Democrats, the president's own party, ought to stop any defense appropriations bill that doesn't include severe cuts to defense spending and promise an end to drone strikes, or even better the beginning/acceleration of a timetable for Afghanistan withdrawal altogether.

Support Tammy Baldwin's initiative to sneak in the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. It's kinda shady, and I'm borderline uncomfortable with it, but needs must and all that. ERA might very well constitutionally guarantee abortion rights, same sex marriage, and accelerate justice and parity for women serving in the military in one fell swoop.

I dunno, that's just off the top of my head. Dems won big on election night, but that's not the end of the work for the political left in America, it's the very beginning.

First, I must ask; Why is the plan to start doing this now? Ive been doing this for the last 12 years. It doesnt work. Secondly, if the magic plan is to use Congressional pressure to limit Executive over-reach, why do so many people cheer the President (Republicans did for Bush, Democrats do now for Obama) when they bypass Congress and rule without them? I sincerely hope this plan works. I also sincerely doubt it will. Our presidents are rather quite well known for largely ignoring Congress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Bradley Manning and the Ministry of Love.

So, torturers and war criminals walk free, but whistleblowers of said torturers and war criminals get tortured and imprisoned. Someone, please tell me more about how we are not subjects.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
White House opposes new NDAA w/o indefinite rendition, because, because, it won't allow him to close Gitmo!

The Senate really sold the people out on the NDAA 2013. The Feinstein Amendment, while seemingly a fix on indefinite detention, actually does nothing.

Feinstein Amendment wrote:
An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or a similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charges or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.” . *

....Like the 2012 NDAA.

*emphasis mine

Edit-- Not that the house did any better. The Amash-Smith Amendment, which would have actually done something, failed 237-182.


TheWhiteknife wrote:


First, I must ask; Why is the plan to start doing this now? Ive been doing this for the last 12 years. It doesnt work. Secondly, if the magic plan is to use Congressional pressure to limit Executive over-reach, why do so many people cheer the President (Republicans did for Bush, Democrats do now for Obama) when they bypass Congress and rule without them? I sincerely hope this plan works. I also sincerely doubt it will. Our presidents are rather quite well known for largely ignoring Congress.

Because the plan isn't to "limit Executive over-reach". 95% of the population doesn't care about Executive over-reach. They care about the government doing things they want and not doing things they don't want. So they'll cheer when the President bypasses Congress to do something they want and they'll cheer when Congress overrides the President to do something they want. They'll also cheer when Congress or the President blocks something they don't want.

Abstract limits on government power or on the power of the various branches aren't what people care about. They care about government does for or to the country.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:


First, I must ask; Why is the plan to start doing this now? Ive been doing this for the last 12 years. It doesnt work. Secondly, if the magic plan is to use Congressional pressure to limit Executive over-reach, why do so many people cheer the President (Republicans did for Bush, Democrats do now for Obama) when they bypass Congress and rule without them? I sincerely hope this plan works. I also sincerely doubt it will. Our presidents are rather quite well known for largely ignoring Congress.

Because the plan isn't to "limit Executive over-reach". 95% of the population doesn't care about Executive over-reach. They care about the government doing things they want and not doing things they don't want. So they'll cheer when the President bypasses Congress to do something they want and they'll cheer when Congress overrides the President to do something they want. They'll also cheer when Congress or the President blocks something they don't want.

Abstract limits on government power or on the power of the various branches aren't what people care about. They care about government does for or to the country.

Ok. But here is the thing. Since people vary alot region by region, Congress is just as valid of a representation of the people's will as the presidency. Executive over-reach is a hammer that silences minority opinion. Even if a majority thinks a certain action is the bee's knees, taking away a minority's ability to stop or amend that action is not a good thing, IMO.

And I say this as someone who disagrees with the majority of most republican beliefs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:


First, I must ask; Why is the plan to start doing this now? Ive been doing this for the last 12 years. It doesnt work. Secondly, if the magic plan is to use Congressional pressure to limit Executive over-reach, why do so many people cheer the President (Republicans did for Bush, Democrats do now for Obama) when they bypass Congress and rule without them? I sincerely hope this plan works. I also sincerely doubt it will. Our presidents are rather quite well known for largely ignoring Congress.

Because the plan isn't to "limit Executive over-reach". 95% of the population doesn't care about Executive over-reach. They care about the government doing things they want and not doing things they don't want. So they'll cheer when the President bypasses Congress to do something they want and they'll cheer when Congress overrides the President to do something they want. They'll also cheer when Congress or the President blocks something they don't want.

Abstract limits on government power or on the power of the various branches aren't what people care about. They care about government does for or to the country.

Ok. But here is the thing. Since people vary alot region by region, Congress is just as valid of a representation of the people's will as the presidency. Executive over-reach is a hammer that silences minority opinion. Even if a majority thinks a certain action is the bee's knees, taking away a minority's ability to stop or amend that action is not a good thing, IMO.

And I say this as someone who disagrees with the majority of most republican beliefs.

OTOH, the Republican strategy for the last 4 years has been to obstruct and shut down everything they can if they don't get their way. Protecting minority rights is good. Giving in and letting the minority set policy is bad. Bringing the government to a halt is also bad.

They can block the Senate due to abuse of the filibuster rules. They control the House due to gerrymandering. The total Democratic votes for Representatives were well above the Republican total, yet the Republicans kept a significant majority in the House.


Everything you said is true. So how is Democratic pressure going to influence the President any more than Republican? Especially as we turn the blind eye to the bypassing of Congress.


thejeff wrote:

OTOH, the Republican strategy for the last 4 years has been to obstruct and shut down everything they can if they don't get their way. Protecting minority rights is good. Giving in and letting the minority set policy is bad. Bringing the government to a halt is also bad.

They can block the Senate due to abuse of the filibuster rules. They control the House due to gerrymandering. The total Democratic votes for Representatives were well above the Republican total, yet the Republicans kept a significant majority in the House.

Feature not flaw.


Definitely flaw.
If its a feature we need a patch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Future President Santorum agrees.


pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, the Republican strategy for the last 4 years has been to obstruct and shut down everything they can if they don't get their way. Protecting minority rights is good. Giving in and letting the minority set policy is bad. Bringing the government to a halt is also bad.

They can block the Senate due to abuse of the filibuster rules. They control the House due to gerrymandering. The total Democratic votes for Representatives were well above the Republican total, yet the Republicans kept a significant majority in the House.

Feature not flaw.

Gerrymandering is a good thing?


Yeah, I'm going to agree that the system is "working". Arizona is a great example of one party unchecked at the majority of levels of the government.

Gerrymandering is part of the problem for a widening gap between the extremes of the two parties, a related, but slightly different problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bohr-ing!

More class struggle.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, the Republican strategy for the last 4 years has been to obstruct and shut down everything they can if they don't get their way. Protecting minority rights is good. Giving in and letting the minority set policy is bad. Bringing the government to a halt is also bad.

They can block the Senate due to abuse of the filibuster rules. They control the House due to gerrymandering. The total Democratic votes for Representatives were well above the Republican total, yet the Republicans kept a significant majority in the House.

Feature not flaw.

This may be the first time I have agreed with pres man in, well, ever; but he's spot-on about this. It's a feature of the separation of powers, not a flaw.

Gerrymandering is BS no matter who's doing it. I'd love to see reform based on the Tanner proposals in 2007 and 2009 (reintroduced by Rep. Shuler in 2011), but I'm not holding my breath.


thunderspirit wrote:
pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, the Republican strategy for the last 4 years has been to obstruct and shut down everything they can if they don't get their way. Protecting minority rights is good. Giving in and letting the minority set policy is bad. Bringing the government to a halt is also bad.

They can block the Senate due to abuse of the filibuster rules. They control the House due to gerrymandering. The total Democratic votes for Representatives were well above the Republican total, yet the Republicans kept a significant majority in the House.

Feature not flaw.
This may be the first time I have agreed with pres man in, well, ever; but he's spot-on about this. It's a feature of the separation of powers, not a flaw.

Congress being able to block the President is a feature of the separation of powers. A minority in the Senate being able to block Congress from doing anything may be a feature or a flaw, but it has nothing to do with the separation of powers.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Future President Santorum agrees.

OK please explain your line of reasoning.

How does preventing politics at a state level from ensuring a political majority on the national level give a wackjob the presidency?

This is beyond freaking mindboggling to me.

The powers that be (Koch Industries, et al) have realized their money goes much farther in local and state elections. If you get a majority into power in a state they can then redraw the federal districts in the most beneficial way possible to the party in power.

How is that ever good? Gerrymandering is absolutely a bad idea. Why not give control over drawing district maps for FEDERAL elections to, I dunno, the federal government? Maybe the census bureau, from whom the information used to draw these new maps every decade comes?

As for the filibuster thing, yeah, the Democrats' suggestion is RADICAL and will ensure the browbeating of the minority! Their suggestion: if you are going to filibuster, you actually have to stand there and DO IT!

Whoa! End of democracy as we know it!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, Paul Ryan would not have gotten re-elected to his congressional seat if it weren't for gerrymandering on the part of Wisconsin republicans. They redrew the maps to give him Waukesha, and if you know anything about Wisconsin politics right now you know that's a hotbed of Republican back tickling and vote-rigging. Ryan actually LOST, big time, in his hometown of Janesville. Because the people there know him and know he's a douchebag.


meatrace wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Future President Santorum agrees.

OK please explain your line of reasoning.

How does preventing politics at a state level from ensuring a political majority on the national level give a wackjob the presidency?

This is beyond freaking mindboggling to me.

The powers that be (Koch Industries, et al) have realized their money goes much farther in local and state elections. If you get a majority into power in a state they can then redraw the federal districts in the most beneficial way possible to the party in power.

How is that ever good? Gerrymandering is absolutely a bad idea. Why not give control over drawing district maps for FEDERAL elections to, I dunno, the federal government? Maybe the census bureau, from whom the information used to draw these new maps every decade comes?

As for the filibuster thing, yeah, the Democrats' suggestion is RADICAL and will ensure the browbeating of the minority! Their suggestion: if you are going to filibuster, you actually have to stand there and DO IT!

Whoa! End of democracy as we know it!

He's saying that if Santorum were president with a republican senate, you'd miss the gridlock that prevents them from passing very many laws.

I do agree with you on the old filibuster rules and that gerrymandering is bad.


Irontruth wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Future President Santorum agrees.

He's saying that if Santorum were president with a republican senate, you'd miss the gridlock that prevents them from passing very many laws.

I do agree with you on the old filibuster rules and that gerrymandering is bad.

I'm not so convinced of it. The abuse under the current Republican minority has been unprecedented. I'm not sure that,

1) A Democratic minority would try for the same level of gridlock. Sure they'd block a few high profile things, but fundamentally Democrats want government to work. It doesn't look good for them when it grinds to a halt.
2) A Republican majority wouldn't just kill the filibuster on their own. They threatened to kill it for judicial nominations during the Bush years (remember the nuclear option and "upperdown votes"?) and only stopped when Democrats promised not to use it. Leaving it in place for Republicans to use against Obama's nominees.


To add to thejeff: I don't buy it. If Santorum were president *shudder* I'd STILL want anyone filibustering to, ya know, filibuster. Like, FFS, why is actually standing up and reading the phone book so much to ask?!


US or Anglo-style single seat first past the post district representation is inherently prone to gerrymandering. There really isn't any reasonable way to avoid it, beyond blind trust of whoever draws districts. Even committees including 'opposing' parties will make their own compromises, almost certainly to the detriment of non-represented parties, and the compromise may not end up being equal between the parties anyways.

Of course, with proportional representation, there really is much less reason to gerrymander in the first place, as it can't effect over-all party balance in any way. Approaches like Bavaria's, eschewing party lists, in favor of party-preference candidates being elected in order of who was the most popular in the district they were running in, pretty much achieve the best of both worlds.

Bavaria's approach determines a #1 winner in each district, who is elected to parliament no matter what, but a portion of the parliament seats (around 30%) are chosen by a second, proportional means derived from a parallel vote for political party preference... Basically, compensating for the party composition of the candidates from the first section ('first past the post'), the second proportional group of seats is chosen so that the TOTAL composition of the parliament (first plus second group) will match the actual composition of all voters' party preference in the total vote. These 'proportional top-up' candidates are chosen in order of who was most popular in the district they were running in (but didn't win 1st place), so the relative local popularity of a candidate still affects whether or not they go to parliament, smaller parties under-represented in the first-past-the-post section will be represented by candidates from districts where they are relatively the strongest. It also lets local voters vote against somebody because they don't like him/her personally, but still vote for that person's party for party representation, so their vote against a person they don't like isn't going to affect the over-all strength of a party they DO like.

While there are still local districts, the fact that over-all party composition can't be affected by district gerrymandering removes nearly all potential benefits for gerrymandering, while still allowing local politics to have sway. It also allows for local candidates to win a seat without being affiliated with any party at all. Of course, since this system would be amenable to the profusion of multiple third party groupings, there is a substantial self-interest in the duopoly of US political parties of power in not allowing such a change to happen. But on pretty much every other metric, it would be a better system.

--------------------------------------------------------------

+1 on ERA (Equal Rights Amendment for gender equality under the law), if it's good enough for other Constitutional amendments, it's good enough to ratify the ERA later than expected. Illinois, Florida and probably Nevada would be the states most likely to ratify it now (that haven't already). I once was in contact with a woman working on promoting the ERA if Florida... Really, it's exactly opposite the approach that has been taken in 'pro gay rights' court cases elsewhere in the country, but I think that actually having gender equality in the law will meet people's modern expectations and achieve better results than trying to 'discover' sexual-orientation equality in Constitution(s) that don't have basic gender equality. AFAIK, a few states do have gender equality in their Constitutions, and a gaping black hole into Hell hasn't opened up beneath them. (a few US states, and a good number of real states, i.e. COUNTRIES) Weirdly, from what I've read, a huge majority (80-90%) of the US population believes that gender equality IS the law of the land, even though only 60-70% SUPPORT that fact, so getting 3 more states to support that is not really a radical change for most people.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Future President Santorum agrees.

He's saying that if Santorum were president with a republican senate, you'd miss the gridlock that prevents them from passing very many laws.

I do agree with you on the old filibuster rules and that gerrymandering is bad.

I'm not so convinced of it. The abuse under the current Republican minority has been unprecedented. I'm not sure that,

1) A Democratic minority would try for the same level of gridlock. Sure they'd block a few high profile things, but fundamentally Democrats want government to work. It doesn't look good for them when it grinds to a halt.
2) A Republican majority wouldn't just kill the filibuster on their own. They threatened to kill it for judicial nominations during the Bush years (remember the nuclear option and "upperdown votes"?) and only stopped when Democrats promised not to use it. Leaving it in place for Republicans to use against Obama's nominees.

I'm not really disagreeing with either of you. Just pointing out our system works best when one side isn't allowed to just go nuts.

Al Madrigal visits Arizona.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Bradley Manning and the Ministry of Love.
So, torturers and war criminals walk free, but whistleblowers of said torturers and war criminals get tortured and imprisoned. Someone, please tell me more about how we are not subjects.

I wish I could favorite this twice!

(Hiding thread again.)


It's very sad people come here to argue about politics. Politics just break people up instead of bring them together.


Irontruth wrote:


I'm not really disagreeing with either of you. Just pointing out our system works best when one side isn't allowed to just go nuts.

Which I can see being good in theory, but when "going nuts" on one side means a gentle increase in the top marginal tax bracket for millionaires and billionaires, ensuring that people aren't denied healthcare for preexisting conditions, etc etc...I'd be fine with that side curbstomping the other.

But no one's even proposing that happens. See previous comments about actually having to filibuster...in order to filibuster.


meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I'm not really disagreeing with either of you. Just pointing out our system works best when one side isn't allowed to just go nuts.

Which I can see being good in theory, but when "going nuts" on one side means a gentle increase in the top marginal tax bracket for millionaires and billionaires, ensuring that people aren't denied healthcare for preexisting conditions, etc etc...I'd be fine with that side curbstomping the other.

But no one's even proposing that happens. See previous comments about actually having to filibuster...in order to filibuster.

There are two problems with the filibuster as it exists. The most commonly understood one is that a minority of Senators can block legislation. Since the Senate works by unanimous consent, if a Senator objects to a motion, it takes a super majority of 60 to invoke cloture and actually vote on the motion. In practice, for the last 4 years, this has meant 60 votes have been needed for almost everything, sometimes as an actual cloture vote, sometimes as an arranged deal.

The other, subtler, problem is that even when a cloture vote is successful the Senate does not move on to a vote immediately. 30 hours of post-cloture debate are allowed before debate is closed and the vote can be called. There is also a delay while the cloture vote is scheduled, but that is less important since it can be concurrent with other business. The 30 hours isn't really significant on a major bill, but it is important to a lot of more mundane Senate business, especially things that need to happen in bulk. Judicial (and other) nominations are the most obvious case. A single Senator, by objecting to a motion to proceed and forcing a cloture vote, even if the vote is 99-1, can tie up the Senate for 30 hours. Since there are several motions involved in passing any bill or nomination, he can do this several times. It simply isn't worth tying up the Senate for a week or more on every nomination or other minor piece of business. Thus the backlog.

I'm not entirely sure what filibuster reform is being considered. Exactly how the "talking filibuster" is going to be implemented. If that's all that's done, it won't change much. It might make it more politically costly to filibuster, but won't actually stop it. Elimination or reduction of post-cloture debate would help greatly with the second half of the problem. I'm not sure if that's being considered.

BTW, for those defending the filibuster as a integral part of our checks and balances, it isn't really a designed feature. It seems to have been created accidentally in 1805 when the Senate cleaned up it's rules and removed a rule allowing a simple majority vote to proceed. There was no cloture until 1917, but the filibuster was rarely used.


Thanks for the history lesson, professor thejeff.


SuperSlayer wrote:
It's very sad people come here to argue about politics. Politics just break people up instead of bring them together.

Plenty of fights have gone on at least as long and hard as any political fight on these very boards. It's not politics that break people apart, but rather having differences. Through discourse we discover that we are already apart.


The only thing that we have in common is that we're all different.


SuperSlayer wrote:
It's very sad people come here to argue about politics. Politics just break people up instead of bring them together.

Politics does both. And, frankly, arguing about politics is an important step in moving forward. I daresay the world would probably be a much better place if people would talk about their differences more often, political or otherwise.


Vive le Galt!


meatrace wrote:
To add to thejeff: I don't buy it. If Santorum were president *shudder* I'd STILL want anyone filibustering to, ya know, filibuster. Like, FFS, why is actually standing up and reading the phone book so much to ask?!

Yeah I got no problem with that either. Youre missing the point. What I would have a problem with is when future president Santorum over-rides Congress and enacts and appoints whoever he wants.


meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I'm not really disagreeing with either of you. Just pointing out our system works best when one side isn't allowed to just go nuts.

Which I can see being good in theory, but when "going nuts" on one side means a gentle increase in the top marginal tax bracket for millionaires and billionaires, ensuring that people aren't denied healthcare for preexisting conditions, etc etc...I'd be fine with that side curbstomping the other.

But no one's even proposing that happens. See previous comments about actually having to filibuster...in order to filibuster.

The problem is, if you institute rules that allow a majority to curbstomp a minority opinion, it eventually will turn around and be used against you. This is why we arent a democracy. Democracies do not allow for minority rights. Never. Ever. Ever do they allow for minority rights.

In our Republic, Minority opinions are supposed to carry almost as much weight as the majority. I believe its why the Federal Government was set up to not do very much, because it would be like herding cats to do anything outside its very narrow mandate.


meatrace wrote:
The only thing that we have in common is that we're all different.

fo' sure: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cities-where-people-earn-biggest-100008498.ht ml?page=all


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In other news: Pentagon in direct violation of Iranian sanctions

I'm willing to bet that there won't be any accountability. Full disclosure: I think sanctions are B.S. and dont agree with them. But the law is the law, Bradley Manning whoever is responsible!!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
To add to thejeff: I don't buy it. If Santorum were president *shudder* I'd STILL want anyone filibustering to, ya know, filibuster. Like, FFS, why is actually standing up and reading the phone book so much to ask?!

You've been watching too much of old Jimmy Stewart movies. That precise style of filibuster is no longer allowed in the Senate. You have to filibuster with substantive discussion on the topic at hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What you have to remember about the filibuster is that it's a cowardly, obstructionist tactic until used by someone you agree with, when it requires courage, guts and integrity.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
meatrace wrote:
To add to thejeff: I don't buy it. If Santorum were president *shudder* I'd STILL want anyone filibustering to, ya know, filibuster. Like, FFS, why is actually standing up and reading the phone book so much to ask?!
Yeah I got no problem with that either. Youre missing the point. What I would have a problem with is when future president Santorum over-rides Congress and enacts and appoints whoever he wants.

What does it have to do with Santorum overriding Congress? The filibuster is about what rules the Senate follows to pass laws or approve nominees.


LazarX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
To add to thejeff: I don't buy it. If Santorum were president *shudder* I'd STILL want anyone filibustering to, ya know, filibuster. Like, FFS, why is actually standing up and reading the phone book so much to ask?!
You've been watching too much of old Jimmy Stewart movies. That precise style of filibuster is no longer allowed in the Senate. You have to filibuster with substantive discussion on the topic at hand.

Huh? Currently you don't have to talk at all. All you have to do is have someone show up when the chair asks for unanimous consent to proceed on the motion. One Senator says no and then the Chair can call for a cloture vote which is scheduled, I believe, at least 24 hours later. If it passes, then the Senate will proceed after 30 hours more debate time.

None of this requires anyone to actually debate anything.

The reason no one reads the phone book anymore is that they don't have to.

I'm not sure how a rule requiring "substantive discussion on the topic at hand" would work. Who determines what qualifies? How could that be abused?

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards