Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Perhaps it "should" be, but it never has been.
That's the whole point of majority leadership. They get to decide which bills are allowed for a vote.
Even if the bills are of utmost importance? Will you think highly of the majority leadership when they continually block important legislation based on their political views?
Sometimes I don't understand you.
"Utmost importance" is a subjective term.
Obviously, the Dem leadership doesn't believe those bills to be that important at all.
And I'm not sure where you got the impression that I "think highly" of the leadership of either party.
Moreover, I never said you 'thought highly' of anyone. I merely asked a question.Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.
Perhaps it "should" be, but it never has been.
That's the whole point of majority leadership. They get to decide which bills are allowed for a vote.
Even if the bills are of utmost importance? Will you think highly of the majority leadership when they continually block important legislation based on their political views?
Sometimes I don't understand you.
Ever seen the panderer John Boehner in action?
Even if the bills are of utmost importance? Will you think highly of the majority leadership when they continually block important legislation based on their political views?
Sometimes I don't understand you.
"Utmost importance" is a subjective term.
Obviously, the Dem leadership doesn't believe those bills to be that important at all.
And I'm not sure where you got the impression that I "think highly" of the leadership of either party.
First, it isn't subjective, but purely based on your own interpretations
next, the Democratic Leadership is only one half of the legislative body. In Federalist #10, I assume James Madison was referring to our legislative body when he said this:
Moreover, I never said you 'thought highly" of anyone. I merely asked a question.
Both parties are to blame,,,,,cut their pay until they get on track...
I agree 1000%. They are the worst form of a discriminating, elitist club abusing their salaries and position.
I wish Obama could sign an executive order cutting their pay. That would be fantastic.
It's not the job of the Senate to put every piece of nonsense the House passes up for a vote - particularly when the House is purposefully sending bullshit like 40-odd bills repealing Obamacare, and countless other pieces of nonsense.
It should be.
One house should respect the work of the other House. If it will not pass the vote; what is the risk other than advertising what your party and it's members stand for?
Perhaps it "should" be, but it never has been.
That's the whole point of majority leadership. They get to decide which bills are allowed for a vote.
It should be.
One house should respect the work of the other House. If it will not pass the vote; what is the risk other than advertising what your party and it's members stand for?
Perhaps it "should" be, but it never has been.
That's the whole point of majority leadership. They get to decide which bills are allowed for a vote.
It underlies the uselessness of the Senate.
Harry Reid hasn't blocked all bills from the House - just the ones that he can't support.
You won't get much of an argument as far as what "good" a legislative branch is.
The only good thing I can say about our political system is that it's probably better than all the others.
What? Why are you rationalizing his actions? Since when do we trust the reasoning of such an uber-partisan such as he?
Why should we "trust the reasoning" of John Boehner either?
Harry Reid is an "uber partisan" because that's quite literally his job. He was elected by members of his party for the specific job of representing the party's interest in the Senate.
I'm not describing the way I think things should be, I'm describing how things are.
You know, the people of Texas really messed up and made a Big mistake in ever electing that guy to the U.S. Senate! But just like a Conservative to mess up Big Time and then turn around and try to blame the other party. And stop to consider this. The House is currently dysfunctional right now for all practical purposes and they're catching Hell from everywhere for not working to get bills passed as the president has asked them to do and Cruz has the hormones to blame the Democrats? Simply incredible and ridiculous. He seriously needs to look at his own party. Enough said.Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is worried about dysfunction in Congress, but he's placing the blame for inaction squarely at the feet of Democrats in Washington.
"It should embarrass all of us, and it's the result of a deliberate partisan decision," the Texas Republican said in an interview scheduled to air on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
It's a bit much for the ideological bomb-thrower to lament dysfunction in Congress just days after vowing to block all nominees to an understaffed State Department until the White House explains why the Federal Aviation Administration temporarily grounded U.S. flights to Israel. And there's still the matter of last year's federal government shutdown, which was spurred by Cruz's quixotic demand to defund the Affordable Care Act.
More: Ted Cruz Blames Democrats For Congressional Dysfunction
Does that moron actually believe that - or is it just more political theater and red meat for the hardcore right? I suspect most of his followers believe it.
Perhaps it "should" be, but it never has been.
That's the whole point of majority leadership. They get to decide which bills are allowed for a vote.
It underlies the uselessness of the Senate.
The Senate, in many ways, is a more powerful body than the House.
oh boy, lets see, Cruz didn't win LIAR of the year
dear gawd, of course it's been mostly the Democrats
They been playing games with your lives all through Obama's terms...so they can BLAME it on Republicans...but only a partisan wouldn't see it
Would this include the GOP House not bringing the Senate's immigration bill up for a vote?
What? Why are you rationalizing his actions? Since when do we trust the reasoning of such an uber-partisan such as he?
Why should we "trust the reasoning" of John Boehner either?
Harry Reid is an "uber partisan" because that's quite literally his job. He was elected by members of his party for the specific job of representing the party's interest in the Senate.
I'm not describing the way I think things should be, I'm describing how things are.
Wouldn't the ones who gave him his other job==Senator==supersede the whims and desires of those who gave him his second job as Majority Leader (which he only got because of having his first job)?
Perhaps it "should" be, but it never has been.
That's the whole point of majority leadership. They get to decide which bills are allowed for a vote.
It underlies the uselessness of the Senate.
The Senate, in many ways, is a more powerful body than the House.
The Democratic Leadership is only half of the legislative body. But they have control of the Senate, just as the Republican Leadership has control of the House. Majority = control. That's the way it is.
The Democratic Leadership is only half of the legislative body. But they have control of the Senate, just as the Republican Leadership has control of the House. Majority = control. That's the way it is.
I feel like my argument is being ignored here. Control here means that one party can impose its will on the other, ram politically motivated bills down the other party's throats.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
Lakhota, let me ask you this.
How many bills from the House has Harry Reid tabled or flatly ignored? Over 200. Congress (both houses) cannot be effective if one house is obstructing the other.
It's not the job of the Senate to put every piece of nonsense the House passes up for a vote - particularly when the House is purposefully sending bullshit like 40-odd bills repealing Obamacare, and countless other pieces of nonsense.
Precisely. the House is sending over bills that have NO CHANCE of being signed by the President & THEY KNOW IT. They're called "Show votes" All sound & fury, signifying nothing. Wasting the People's time is what the Repub House is doing.
Why should we "trust the reasoning" of John Boehner either?
Harry Reid is an "uber partisan" because that's quite literally his job. He was elected by members of his party for the specific job of representing the party's interest in the Senate.
I'm not describing the way I think things should be, I'm describing how things are.
Wouldn't the ones who gave him his other job==Senator==supersede the whims and desires of those who gave him his second job as Majority Leader (which he only got because of having his first job)?
Well, they do - in the sense that they can vote them out of office - if Harry Reid had lost his last election, he wouldn't be Majority Leader now.
But the party leadership as a whole has a lot more direct power in Washington than any individual state's general population.
It underlies the uselessness of the Senate.
The Senate, in many ways, is a more powerful body than the House.
That's true.
But the equalizer here is that one house many not pass a bill without the other's consideration. If the Senate passes a bill, the House must be allowed to consider it as well, vise versa. Neither house is more powerful than the other in that respect. Their core purpose is to make law. Not to gain more power over one another.
Ted Cruz won't live long enough to repay the damage he has done to America. Just his orchestrated shutdown of the federal government cost an estimated $24 billion.
Government Shutdown Cost $24 Billion, According to Standard & Poor's | TIME.com
Wouldn't the ones who gave him his other job==Senator==supersede the whims and desires of those who gave him his second job as Majority Leader (which he only got because of having his first job)?
Well, they do - in the sense that they can vote them out of office - if Harry Reid had lost his last election, he wouldn't be Majority Leader now.
But the party leadership as a whole has a lot more direct power in Washington than any individual state's general population.
I was afraid you would say something like this. Since when do the elected have more power over the electors? Are they not there to represent them? Why give the people the right to vote if all you say is "they have more power than the people" essentially?
