Biden considering an "exception" to the filibuster to appease abortionists.

[bendog]

The way the filibusters involved long speeches in which a senator attempted to block a vote from proceeding by refusing to yield the floor. It took effort and time and kept the Senate from doing anything else. Thus it was used sparingly and only on the most important issues.

Today we have the lazy "silent" filibuster and it takes no effort what so ever and has no impact on the work of the Senate and gives the minority party the true power in the senate outside of approving nominations.

I do not think any one in Congress today gives a tinker's damn what the other party wants or even what is good for the country. All that matters is party power. Do anything at all to harm the party power and you will be punished.

The current filibuster system gives the party in power a built in excuse for not getting shit done "Well, we tried but they did the filibuster". The current filibuster is stupid and just maintains the laziness of our elected officials.

So yeah, I say give whomever wins majority in the Senate the freedom to to whatever they want....if we the people do not like it, in 2 years we can change who has the majority.

What we have now is no longer sustainable as there is truly zero reasons to work with the other side and doing so is detrimental to your political career.

I used to think the filibuster was a good thing, but that was when compromise was possible. Now take immigration for existence. People who are in their right minds, and think about things like saving soc sec and having a navy, realize we are not going to court to deport 12 million people who aren't being arrested for violent felonies (including felony dui btw). YET to get ten of the current gopers to vote for actually hardening of the border and forcing employers not to hire illegal aliens, the ten would have to agree to some form of .... "amnesty." Not even citizenship, but probably let people have some kind of ID card and nominal rights to soc sec and wellness care through Obamacare. Everyone of those ten senators would be primaried ... even though we aren't going to deport 12 million.

When Obama was potus, the Senate did have a deal to save social sec, but 45 congressmen in the freedom caucus wouldn't even let it have a vote.

So maybe it's necessary for the dems (the gop house won't do it) to vote for both houses to just do their biz with 50%+1

 

[bendog]

Or, maybe - and bear with me here, I know it sounds crazy but - Democrats could put together a platform that had real consensus support from the public? Instead of just doubling down on stupid and hoping to squeeze out a slim electoral win the same old identity politics.

The last consensus we had was with Obama. It's true that Biden has fallen on the stake of partisanship, but Schumer and Klain pretty well fucked him on getting to 50 for expanded tax credits for non-working parents. It sucked, but he is very old and a weak potus. Better than Trump in that he got a bipartisan infrastructure bill

 

[Missourian]

The pro-life movement, of which I am a part, has consistently demanded that abortion be left up to the states.

Then why don't you act like it?

This is a happy occasion. Be happy.

If you oppose Republicans support for a national law...frame it that way.

I'm sure that there are Republicans that see pain feeling babies being torn limb from limb in the womb in New York, Colorado and California and feel they have a duty to those innocents to do something about it.

You can't fault them for that.

And you aren't doing the pro-life movement any favors by attacking people who feel the same way you do...even if their rationale and opinions are different than yours.

 

[dblack]

The last consensus we had was with Obama.

Hmmm.... not sure about that, but he sure as hell didn't rule by consensus. He's the one that coined the in-your-face, majoritarian phrase "Elections have consequences". He's the one who signed off on ACA without a single Republican vote.

 

[there4eyeM]

When M.A.D.D. got their violation of the Constitution approved by the S.C., there were many of us who could not believe the news. How could stopping someone without probable cause be anything other than the presumption of guilt? We realized that some sentimental concept of "justice" outweighed the obvious text and intent of the Constitution. Maybe we were crazy, we thought, for even being surprised.
Now, there seem to be non-stop hammer-blows to the Republic, coming from all sides (especially enemy propaganda at every level). Congress, the Executive and the S.C. have repeatedly betrayed us.
It was theoretically a good system of government, especially for its time. It should work fine. It requires fundamental unity and good will. Seen much lately?

 

[g5000]

Then why don't you act like it?

This is a happy occasion. Be happy.

If you oppose Republicans support for a national law...frame it that way.

I'm sure that there are Republicans that see pain feeling babies being torn limb from limb in the womb in New York, Colorado and California and feel they have a duty to those innocents to do something about it.

You can't fault them for that.

And you aren't doing the pro-life movement any favors by attacking people who feel the same way you do...even if their rationale and opinions are different than yours.

I am very, very happy Roe v. Wade was overturned. I have said many times that the one thing I am grateful to Trump for is his appointment of pro-life judges.

But I have also pointed out there were far better righteous Republican candidates than Trump who would have done the same thing. Every one of them is a better man than Trump.

Nevertheless, it is a betrayal of the Constitutional principles to which the GOP has staked a claim to then turn around and toss that principle out the window onto the pile of other virtues they used to have.

Leave the decision of abortion to the states.

 

[Missourian]

I used to think the filibuster was a good thing, but that was when compromise was possible.

Let me fix that for ya...

'I used to think the filibuster was a good thing, back when my team was in the minority and it was used to block things I opposed...but now that it is being used to block things I support ... It sucks and should be abolished...right up until my party is in the minority again...then abolishing the filibuster will not only be evil...but also racist and transphobic..."

 

[Resnic]

They will ignore, break, dismiss or bend everything for people on their side.

It amazes me they have no regard for anything, not even the supreme court, they somehow act like we're all children and they will do what they want because nothing matters except what they want. Almost like they think "well they don't agree so we will do what we want anyway because they are just wrong".

 

[g5000]

Let me fix that for ya...

'I used to think the filibuster was a good thing, back when my team was in the minority and it was used to block things I opposed...but now that it is being used to block things I support ... It sucks and should be abolished...right up until my party is in the minority again...then abolishing the filibuster will not only be evil...but also racist and transphobic..."

The rampant hypocrisy of both parties is exactly why I de-registered as a Republican after Trump was elected and I became an Independent.

They aren't even ashamed of their blatant hypocrisy. They are not even embarrassed by their behavior.

We are so fucked.

 

[bendog]

Hmmm.... not sure about that, but he sure as hell didn't rule by consensus. He's the one that coined the in-your-face, majoritarian phrase "Elections have consequences". He's the one who signed off on ACA without a single Republican vote.

Well he spent over a year trying to get a health care consensus, and the gop simply wasn't going to agree to cover everyone, which is what Obama promised Ted Kennedy for the nomination. And even then J. Roberts torpedoed his universal law. (Personally, I'd have gone for less coverage, and expanded medicaid for kids and gotten some kind of tax credit for working adults.) But though Biden, he had a deal for deficit reduction and soc sec with McConnell.

But Obama was elected with 60 senators, so that sort of gives him consensus. It's how LBJ got medicare and FDR soc sec.

 

[bendog]

Let me fix that for ya...

'I used to think the filibuster was a good thing, back when my team was in the minority and it was used to block things I opposed...but now that it is being used to block things I support ... It sucks and should be abolished...right up until my party is in the minority again...then abolishing the filibuster will not only be evil...but also racist and transphobic..."

It's not hypocrisy. The gop in the house wil NEVER vote for 50%plus1 because of the Freedom caucus, while Pelosi has passed bills that needed gop help to get to 50%plus1. YOUR bias/ignorance shows.

 

[g5000]

The IQ's of our elected politicians have been steadily decreasing. This is not hyperbole on my part. We are actually electing true idiots.

And because of that, they don't even know they are supposed to be embarrassed at their jackassery.

Jewish space lasers, for fuck's sake.

We get the politicians we deserve.

 

[dblack]

Well he spent over a year trying to get a health care consensus, and the gop simply wasn't going to agree to cover everyone, which is what Obama promised Ted Kennedy for the nomination.

Right, and he signed it anyway, without consensus. For what it's worth, consensus doesn't mean majority. It doesn't even mean a 60%, or a two-thirds majority. It means we can all accept the results, even if we don't agree with them. When a significant portion of the country is ready to pick up arms over a given law, maybe we should reconsider?

 

[bendog]

The IQ's of our elected politicians have been steadily decreasing. This is not hyperbole on my part. We are actually electing true idiots.

And because of that, they don't even know they are supposed to be embarrassed at their jackassery.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Yeah, I can't really blame the pols though. They'll get primaried just for any compromise even if it gives them 50% of what the gop voters want., and Schumer fucked Biden on BBB bill just to keep AOC from challenging him. Compromise is dead. And look at McConnell on Garland.

 

[bendog]

Right, and he signed it anyway, without consensus. For what it's worth, consensus doesn't mean majority. It doesn't even mean a 60%, or a two-thirds majority. It means we can all accept the results, even if we don't agree with them. When a significant portion of the country is ready to pick up arms over a given law, maybe we should reconsider?

Well to me, consensus is shown when you win a presidential election and gain a filbuster proof senate.

But today is a different reality than 2008

 

[g5000]

Yeah, I can't really blame the pols though. They'll get primaried just for any compromise even if it gives them 50% of what the gop voters want., and Schumer fucked Biden on BBB bill just to keep AOC from challenging him. Compromise is dead. And look at McConnell on Garland.

That's why I say we get the politicians we deserve.

Our politicians do exactly what the base wants them to do.

We don't have leaders any more. Just pandering assholes with no spine.

 

[Missourian]

I am very, very happy Roe v. Wade was overturned. I have said many times that the one thing I am grateful to Trump for is his appointment of pro-life judges.

But I have also pointed out there were far better righteous Republican candidates than Trump who would have done the same thing.

You really confident about that?

Bush appointed Roberts wouldn't have.

I mean...how many "righteous" Republicans paid lip-service to Republican ideals...then went off and did the opposite?

Think Ronmey would have nominated these judges? How about Dole...or McCain, or Jeb!, or Kasich?

I don't think so.

Those guys all sucked.

Trump actually DID what he said he would do.

He said he would appoint justices that would overturn Roe in October 2016...

Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case

Trump says he wants abortion legality to be decided by individual states, while Clinton vows to defend abortion rights.

www.cnbc.com

Then he effin' did it.

I don't have the slightest confidence any of the "righteous" Republicans would have done that. Most wouldn't even have had the guts to say it weeks before election day.

 

[g5000]

Congress gets single-digit approval and yet the House has a 98 percent re-election rate and the Senate has an 80 percent re-election rate.

Single-digit approval, but over 50 percent of the vote.

What the ever loving FUCK!?!
.
"Those other assholes spend too much on PORK, but my guy brings home the BACON."

 

[dblack]

Well to me, consensus is shown when you win a presidential election and gain a filbuster proof senate.

Consensus is different than "large majority". Granted, it's a subtle and qualitative difference - mostly it's a different attitude - but it's important, and necessary in a pluralistic nation like ours. It's expressed in the idea that a President should represent the interests of the entire country, not just their base.

 

[berg80]

Pack the Supreme Court, suspend the filibuster turn the Impeachment process into a Carnival show.

When did any of those things happen?