• 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.

Kamala Harris Election Campaign

theprestige said:
It's not "our" rule. It's the Senate's rule. The Senators have imposed it on themselves. Telling us how counter-productive it is doesn't matter; the Senators have clearly decided, as a group, that this is a part of how they will conduct the Senate's business. Go tell them they're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people have said it, and will continue to say it. Technically it would be "our" rule as we're the ones being affected by it and we're the ones that voted in the people who created it.
 
plague311 said:
Plenty of people have said it, and will continue to say it. Technically it would be "our" rule as we're the ones being affected by it and we're the ones that voted in the people who created it.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what's the point, exactly?

Consider the interaction in its basic form:

"If you try to bring this matter to a vote, we'll fight it every step of the way."

"Well if you feel that way about it, let's bring it back to the negotiating table and see if we can work out a compromise."

That's the rule. It's two rules, actually: Everyone has the option of fighting a matter tooth and nail. And everyone has the option of going back to the negotiating table instead.

There's also the option of just forcing a contentious item over the objections of the minority. According to the current rules, this is the most difficult option to take. I think that's as it should be. I think the filibuster, and resulting inaction, is a much better rule than its opposite would be. Its opposite is what you want. I am deeply mistrustful of anyone who says forcing contentious issues on people who don't want them is a good way to govern.
 
theprestige said:
There's also the option of just forcing a contentious item over the objections of the minority. According to the current rules, this is the most difficult option to take. I think that's as it should be. I think the filibuster, and resulting inaction, is a much better rule than its opposite would be. Its opposite is what you want. I am deeply mistrustful of anyone who says forcing contentious issues on people who don't want them is a good way to govern.
Click to expand...

So? Be deeply mistrustful then. You're a contrarian. It's kind of your entire M.O.

The abolition of slavery was a contentious issue forced on people who didn't want it. Guess what? I don't give a flying rat **** if they liked it or not. This is just a different version of the Paradox of Tolerance. There aren't laws where everyone agrees, especially with the partisan divide in today's age. Hell, you can't even agree with people in general because of your inherent contrarian personality. We could say the sky is blue and you'd give some ****** up nonsense on why it's not. You're an example of your own problem.
 
theprestige said:
Sure, but what's the point, exactly?

Consider the interaction in its basic form:

"If you try to bring this matter to a vote, we'll fight it every step of the way."

"Well if you feel that way about it, let's bring it back to the negotiating table and see if we can work out a compromise."

That's the rule. It's two rules, actually: Everyone has the option of fighting a matter tooth and nail. And everyone has the option of going back to the negotiating table instead.

There's also the option of just forcing a contentious item over the objections of the minority. According to the current rules, this is the most difficult option to take. I think that's as it should be. I think the filibuster, and resulting inaction, is a much better rule than its opposite would be. Its opposite is what you want. I am deeply mistrustful of anyone who says forcing contentious issues on people who don't want them is a good way to govern.
Click to expand...

Again your persona only works if nothing matters and nobody affects each other.

If someone is punching you in the face you'd wouldn't complain about "forcing" the contentious issue on the person.

But your internet persona lives in an edgelord 13 year try hard fantasy world where nothing really matters and nobody is really being hurt by anything so nothing matters and you're so much better and smarter than us because of it and we are all just so goddamn tired of it.

But you will pretend not to get this because it's all you can do anymore. Your trolling at least used to have more variety.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Sure, but what's the point, exactly?

Consider the interaction in its basic form:

"If you try to bring this matter to a vote, we'll fight it every step of the way."

"Well if you feel that way about it, let's bring it back to the negotiating table and see if we can work out a compromise."
Click to expand...

It gets negotiated and compromised before it ever gets to the floor.

That's the rule. It's two rules, actually: Everyone has the option of fighting a matter tooth and nail. And everyone has the option of going back to the negotiating table instead.
Click to expand...

The filibuster is not a rule. It is an exploit they refuse to patch.

There's also the option of just forcing a contentious item over the objections of the minority.
Click to expand...

You mean democracy?

According to the current rules,
Click to expand...

once again, the filibuster is not in the rules.

this is the most difficult option to take. I think that's as it should be.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine, people healthcare?!?!?! *shudder*

I think the filibuster, and resulting inaction, is a much better rule than its opposite would be.
Click to expand...

Because it aligns with the obstructionist objectives.

Its opposite is what you want. I am deeply mistrustful of anyone who says forcing contentious issues on people who don't want them is a good way to govern.
Click to expand...

Just because someone objects or disagrees with something does not make an issue "controversial" or "contentious". There are people who say the earth is flat and others who say it is hollow, but you're not going to question the consensus of people who actually know what they are talking about.
 
theprestige said:
It's not "our" rule. It's the Senate's rule. The Senators have imposed it on themselves. Telling us how counter-productive it is doesn't matter; the Senators have clearly decided, as a group, that this is a part of how they will conduct the Senate's business. Go tell them they're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

This demonstrates again why the US Constitution is undemocratic crap. And another reason to abolish the US Senate. A bill can run the gauntlet of passing through the committees in the House, get passed on the floor of the House, and 41 percent of Senate representing 30 percent of the US can prevent it from ever being voted on on the Senate floor.
 
The constitution was written by people who, mistakenly, thought that elected officials would not have any bad actors or a signficant number of bad actors.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The constitution was written by people who, mistakenly, thought that elected officials would not have any bad actors or a signficant number of bad actors.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. They very much expected bad actors. They built lots of checks and balances into the system. I would argue too many. The problem is they made the Constitution so difficult to amend and left 90 percent of the decision making to the Executive and Judiciary branches. Congress is so political and the rules are so archaic, they accomplish close to nothing.
 
They expected specific kinds of bad actors.

They never accounted for the specific kind of "Trump Bad."
 
smartcooky said:
I think your 60 vote rule is stupid. Do away with it. The way you have it now is that the minority party don't even have to have all their senators in the chamber, and they can just stymie the government party by stonewalling everything. It may have worked fine when you had cross-party cooperation, but in these days of hyper-partisan tribal politics, it is no longer fit for purpose. No other western democracy has a rule like that.

If you must have a filibuster, have a real one. If the minority party want to hold up legislation, ALL their members must stay in the chamber for the whole speech and debate. But in the end, the majority is the government, and they need to govern - in the end, the majority should get to pass their legislation even if its 51-49. (or 50-50 with the VP's casting vote.)
Click to expand...

First, in the US, the legislative branch doesn't govern, that's the executive branch. The legislative branch passes laws. By putting the breaks on what it takes to pass laws fillibuster swings both ways. It stops left and right from passing laws that don't have support on the other side of the aisle.

That's helped the left in the past and hurt the left.

When Republicans were using the filibuster to block every Democratic appointment to the courts, including SCOTUS, the Democratic majority in the Senate changed the rule so it didn't apply to legislative appointments. Had they not done that, we wouldn't have the far right looney court we have now.
 
CarbShark said:
First, in the US, the legislative branch doesn't govern, that's the executive branch. The legislative branch passes laws. By putting the breaks on what it takes to pass laws fillibuster swings both ways. It stops left and right from passing laws that don't have support on the other side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

"We don't govern, we just pass laws" is at best, technically true in the absolutely worst kind of technically true.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Is this guy the same guy who weaponized the red scare?
Click to expand...

No, that was Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.).

Sen. Eugene McCarthy was a Democratic Presidential Candidate in 1968 and ran against LBJ on an anti-war platform. His campaign is credited, in part, for convincing Johnson to drop out.

His campaign earned more primary votes than any other, but had less than 1/4 of the delegates. That was one reason the primary system started to reform.

He ran again in 72 and 76 but went nowhere.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"We don't govern, we just pass laws" is at best, technically true in the absolutely worst kind of technically true.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but it's intended that way. In most Parliamentary systems the various department ministers are voting members.

In the US the Department Secretaries are in an entirely different branch of government and that makes a big difference.

Our government doesn't change every time we have an election. (Although Trump may want to change that)
 
CarbShark said:
First, in the US, the legislative branch doesn't govern, that's the executive branch. The legislative branch passes laws. By putting the breaks on what it takes to pass laws fillibuster swings both ways. It stops left and right from passing laws that don't have support on the other side of the aisle.

That's helped the left in the past and hurt the left.

When Republicans were using the filibuster to block every Democratic appointment to the courts, including SCOTUS, the Democratic majority in the Senate changed the rule so it didn't apply to legislative appointments. Had they not done that, we wouldn't have the far right looney court we have now.
Click to expand...

Not true. You're assuming the GOP wouldn't change the rule after they had a majority. What we learned is both sides were willing to change the rules if it benefitted them.
 
JoeMorgue said:
They expected specific kinds of bad actors.

They never accounted for the specific kind of "Trump Bad."
Click to expand...

I think they well anticipated a Bad Trump, and have checks and balances built into the system that would handle him well.

What they didn't account for was Bad Republican Senators, who wouldn't convict his impeachment, Bad Republicans in general who would continue to support him and, especially, Bad Republican voters who would keep voting for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom