• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Remembering 9/11...Republican style

The Don said:
Of course had the Democratic lawmakers not gone to the 9/11 memorial, for fear of leaving the Republicans free do do their deeds, then they would have been castigated for being un-American communists and Islamic terrorist enablers and failing to respect the victims of terrorism.

Of course GOPers who are actually failing to respect the victims of terrorism are given a pass for *reasons*
Click to expand...

Patriotism is just a Pimp suit the GOP puts on when it’s convenient.
 
So from what I am reading out resident conservatives are just with this crap. Got it.
 
Remember all these declarations of high value in principles the next time the shoe is on the other foot.

I don't recall too many screaming about gaming the system when state legislators flee to another state to deny a quorum for a vote.

Scummy is as scummy does.
 
Thermal said:
How the hell are 'surprise votes' legal? There's no provision for scheduling? Were the Dems notified?
Click to expand...


I've seen some of the Republican lawmakers claim that the Democrats were informed of the vote, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a the level of "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'.”
 
Armitage72 said:
I've seen some of the Republican lawmakers claim that the Democrats were informed of the vote, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a the level of "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'.”
Click to expand...

Can't wait till these guys catch up to the Internet Age. Voting via secured connection on a freaking cel phone, or at least afford the Dems the opportunity to electronically have a surprise cancellation of the surprise vote.
 
Beerina said:
Remember all these declarations of high value in principles the next time the shoe is on the other foot.

I don't recall too many screaming about gaming the system when state legislators flee to another state to deny a quorum for a vote.

Scummy is as scummy does.
Click to expand...

Another thing that should be done away with. They are paid to represent, and should be required to be present at all votes, even if abstaining. Barring emergencies and the like, of course.
 
Thermal said:
How the hell are 'surprise votes' legal? There's no provision for scheduling? Were the Dems notified?
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was a schedule, and the schedule said there were to be no votes. But that's not legally binding or anything, the chair can call votes any time.
 
Thermal said:
Another thing that should be done away with. They are paid to represent, and should be required to be present at all votes, even if abstaining. Barring emergencies and the like, of course.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I can see the reason for having a quorum; voting is not their only duty, and getting everyone together all the time would slow government.

However, I do think veto rules shouldn't be based on percentage present, but either total votes (like theprestige said, 3/5ths of the total) or on quorum (instead of vetoproof, make it so that a larger quorum can over-ride).

Basically, poor rules when a minority can pass something that's veto proof.
 
Thermal said:
Another thing that should be done away with. They are paid to represent, and should be required to be present at all votes, even if abstaining. Barring emergencies and the like, of course.
Click to expand...

Rather than forcing them, you can let their constituents decide if the behavior is acceptable.
 
Beerina said:
I don't recall too many screaming about gaming the system when state legislators flee to another state to deny a quorum for a vote.
Click to expand...

Which of these do you think it preferable?
a) make it easy for government to maker new regulations
b) make it harder for government to make new regulations

Filibusters and other measures that can restrict the power of the majority serve an important role in democracy and as an important check on the power of government. I’m not convinced measures that allow a minority to enact laws on it’s own do the same.
 
Hellbound said:
I dunno, I can see the reason for having a quorum; voting is not their only duty, and getting everyone together all the time would slow government.

However, I do think veto rules shouldn't be based on percentage present, but either total votes (like theprestige said, 3/5ths of the total) or on quorum (instead of vetoproof, make it so that a larger quorum can over-ride).

Basically, poor rules when a minority can pass something that's veto proof.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but conceptually, how hard could it be? As legislators, surely voting is in their top three responsibilities? Just a 'hey, guys, voting is on the first Friday of every month (or every Friday or whatever). Bag the photo ops and be at work on that day, in exchange for your paycheck. Remember to shave'

eta: also, yeah, 3/5ths of total representatives, at a bare minimum.
 
Last edited:
Ah for the record the NC State Legislature is in session for a whopping... 9 whole days (and not like 9 twenty four hour days, 9 working days) in the entire month of September so it's not like we're working them to death or not leaving them time for other duties.

https://www.ncleg.gov/LegislativeCalendar/9/2019
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
Which of these do you think it preferable?
a) make it easy for government to maker new regulations
b) make it harder for government to make new regulations

Filibusters and other measures that can restrict the power of the majority serve an important role in democracy and as an important check on the power of government. I’m not convinced measures that allow a minority to enact laws on it’s own do the same.
Click to expand...

It's preferable that laws pass or don't pass based on something other then childish procedural tricks. We don't have to break out the Polysci 101 chart.

Legislative equivalents to "There's nothing in the rulebook that says a Golden Retriever can't play football!" do us no favors, not from the perspective of our freedom, not from the perspective of our security, not from the perspective of more or less government ideologies.

Even if you think it should be harder for the government to pass laws, "neiner neiner move your feet, lose your seat" is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Really? Not for me. I never underestimate the depths to which the slime can sink.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I just trust that these guys, at some point, tried to create a system that was as fair as practical. Not my biggest disappointment this week, I guess.
 
In a justly run society a legislature would have specific business hours set for votes and no voting done outside those hours would be permitted. And to ensure attendance the legislators would be nailed into their seats for the required period. I believe the time will come when the public must express, firmly and clearly, what level of service it demands from its servants.
 
Did it make those sissy latte sipping libruls mad?

Then why are we asking why they did it? We all know.
 
TragicMonkey said:
In a justly run society a legislature would have specific business hours set for votes and no voting done outside those hours would be permitted. And to ensure attendance the legislators would be nailed into their seats for the required period. I believe the time will come when the public must express, firmly and clearly, what level of service it demands from its servants.
Click to expand...

Velcro would suffice. They don't look too spritey
 
Thermal said:
Yeah, but conceptually, how hard could it be? As legislators, surely voting is in their top three responsibilities? Just a 'hey, guys, voting is on the first Friday of every month (or every Friday or whatever). Bag the photo ops and be at work on that day, in exchange for your paycheck. Remember to shave'
Click to expand...
In the past, that wasn't necessary... both sides recognized that the needed to act civil, respect the processes that were in place, etc.

Now that the republicans have basically peed in the pool with their dirty tricks, and showed themselves to be completely untrustworthy, it looks like they might need to enact those type of rules.

The negative part is that it does limit the flexibility of the government... if an issue requiring immediate attention comes up, you might find they need to wait a week or month for one of the voting days, despite any problems such a delay might cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom