With Friends Like These…

[Herdfan]

John Ossoff had a great floor speech, using voting records and R's own words against them.

Such a hypocrite, can't wait until he heads into the sunset. It's hard to tell whether he said the quiet part out loud or was intentional and dog-whistling when he said "African Americans vote in the same amounts as "Americans" - the implication that African-Americans aren't Americans, I guess? What a tool.

I literally posted a video of Schumer in 2005 supporting the Filibuster in this very thread.

Is he a hypocrite?

I think when Mitch becomes Majority Leader in a year, he should bring up for a floor vote to remove the filibuster and watch all the Dems who were wanting to get rid of it suddenly change their position.

 

[User.45]

I think when Mitch becomes Majority Leader in a year, he should bring up for a floor vote to remove the filibuster and watch all the Dems who were wanting to get rid of it suddenly change their position.

Lol, like Mitch would risk having to do actual legislative work by removing the greatest excuse in American history?

 

[SuperMatt]

Lol, like Mitch would risk having to do actual legislative work by removing the greatest excuse in American history?

It’s been said many times here. The GOP doesn’t have anything they want to pass. The filibuster is useful for them when they’re in the minority, and they don’t care when they are in the majority because, as Biden put it: “What are they FOR?"

As for the filibuster, the GOP already has the carve-outs they want. 1. SCOTUS justices. 2. Budget reconciliation so they can give huge tax cuts to corporations. What else do they need?

The filibuster isn’t in the constitution, and since it’s a rule that can be rescinded with a simple majority vote, what even is the point of it?

 

[GermanSuplex]

I literally posted a video of Schumer in 2005 supporting the Filibuster in this very thread.

Is he a hypocrite?

I think when Mitch becomes Majority Leader in a year, he should bring up for a floor vote to remove the filibuster and watch all the Dems who were wanting to get rid of it suddenly change their position.

To be fair, a LOT has changed since 2005. Mitch McConnell himself is almost singularly responsible for overturning many senate norms and is the biggest reason of all to get rid of the filibuster.

 

[Herdfan]

Why do away with it, when you can do something called "compromise"?

You are 100% correct. Get something neither side is happy with, but can live with and go on. Get more or give up less the next time. Major changes in the laws need to be more incremental than revolutionary. But neither side wants the other side to get a win so we have what we have and get what we deserve for electing these people.

I am not really for term limits as I think they can give unelected bureaucrats too much power, but maybe we need to rethink them with high limits. Or like the President, limit the terms of the leaders. Or set an age limit.

What you think your comment sounds like: if you bend the game, don't be surprised that my team will bend the game back.
What your comment actually sounds like: if you step up against your being under representated, my guys will make sure we'll use our lower vote count to make sure you are even less represented as your punishment.

I know this whole under-representation thing is front and center with the progressives, but most people either 1) don't realize it or 2) don't care.

It is the rules by which we operate and have for the last 233 years and I don't see it changing anytime soon. So going on and on about it isn't getting you anywhere. And won't.

 

[Herdfan]

Unfortunately, Manchin and Sinema are disingenuous in their "concern" about changing the filibuster,

Have you happened to read Sinema's reasons for keeping the filibuster?

Manchin's is simple, he wants to force compromise. It isn't working but that is his goal.

But Sinema is cautious about what bills the GOP would pass once they are back in power. I would think you you would be worried about that as well.

 

[JayMysteri0]

You are 100% correct. Get something neither side is happy with, but can live with and go on. Get more or give up less the next time. Major changes in the laws need to be more incremental than revolutionary. But neither side wants the other side to get a win so we have what we have and get what we deserve for electing these people.

I am not really for term limits as I think they can give unelected bureaucrats too much power, but maybe we need to rethink them with high limits. Or like the President, limit the terms of the leaders. Or set an age limit.

The problem with all of that, is that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I was saying. It isn't about making one side or the other happy or unhappy. It's about doing the business of governing, which since the 'r's adopted using the filibuster ( 2000s )abusively like senators in the south used it against civil rights. Where our gov't was intended to be the will of the majority, the filibuster as seen with Joe Manchin has become the will of the minority and / or intransigent. The history of the filibuster says that it's an addition that might have been a mistake added, and like all mistakes it needs to be fixed.

It needs fixing, or it will continue to be the reason shit doesn't get done to the detriment of the country.

It's too late to get rid of it, unless musco decides on his way out of congress as a last middle finger to everyone else in the country not wealthy & White, he decides to toss it. But it can be fixed, it can be returned to it's earliest ways like it was offered and Joe Manchin agreed to. Until of course because it's joe manchin he didn't when it actually came time to man up & honor his word. My point was that manchin's excuse for keeping the filibuster was bullshit and everyone on that floor and the ability to read knows it. Just as they know manchin is full of bullshit.

This is NOT heavy governmental lifting. It's made heavy by those more worried about self interest over what's good for the country.

Like I said, go ahead and do away with it.

But no whining when the R's pass stuff you don't like.

THAT logic right there, is what makes this heavy lifting. More concern about tit for tat, over what's good for the whole.

Because to put it simply, what is more important than insuring the right to vote for EVERYONE?

To frame it as manchin & sinema do which is laughable when they claim some kind of purist bent, but don't want to return to how the filibuster used to be done before it become a toxic crutch for both parties.

For them it's more important to maintain the status quo, then it is to protect voting rights. How the 'F' does that sound? Jim Crow V2 anyone?

Meanwhile 'r's gave no 'F's about the filibuster because it's something they threaten any chance to do, if not happily & hypocritically carve out exceptions. For them it was more about putting an entire forearm on the scales of voting, and manchin & sinema happily hopped on to help.

Republicans Name Joe Manchin Employee of the Month

Kyrsten Sinema, the runner-up, sent her congratulations to the senator from West Virginia.

www.newyorker.com

The above is a satire piece, but not by far.

Video of Sinema Shaking Hands With GOP Senators After Vote Goes Viral

The Arizona senator sided with Republicans in opposing a move to tweak rules that would allow a voting rights package to pass with a straight majority.

www.newsweek.com

THAT is NOT a good look.

It isn't about the filibuster. This is about insuring the voting rights of people who TRADITIONALLY find their voting rights shuffled to the side in the name of keeping one group in power over all others. Which is NOT what this country is supposed to be about. The filibuster was just the tool ( again ) to keep such rights at bay. Don't get caught up in the rhetoric ABOUT the filibuster, pay attention to WHY the filibuster is A thing in this instance. Exemptions could have been made as they have been 100+ times before, but a party & 2 people did NOT want that. One guy claims debate in the senate has NEVER been settled by a simple majority, which we know is some retcon bullshit.

We also know for now there isn't a federal remedy for the states actively making it harder for PoC & younger legal voters harder to vote.

That's what the focus is, not some arcane rule added, misinterpreted, then actively used by southern racists to block civil rights that is STILL in place.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Have you happened to read Sinema's reasons for keeping the filibuster?

Manchin's is simple, he wants to force compromise. It isn't working but that is his goal.

But Sinema is cautious about what bills the GOP would pass once they are back in power. I would think you you would be worried about that as well.

Be honest. Republicans regain power and do away with the filibuster. You’ll find some arbitrary rule or reason to accept it, just as democrats feel voting rights is as good a reason to do away with it.

I mean, listen to Mitch - he said Biden was duly elected and brags about the turnout as a reason we don’t need voting protections. So why all the state changes to voting?

I’m reminded of our discussion on MR about NASCAR and “political statements” on cars. Let’s face it, we support what our side does when they do it, and not when the other side does it. But republicans have already done it. And will do it again as soon as they are able and it serves their interest. The filibuster is already on its last legs, it’s just a matter of which party has the votes to get rid of it first. I’m not against the general idea of what the filibuster was intended to do. It just hasn’t worked the way it was intended.


I’m already appalled at what republicans are doing, so I don’t anticipate a lack of filibuster will change that too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Herdfan]

Be honest. Republicans regain power and do away with the filibuster. You’ll find some arbitrary rule or reason to accept it, just as democrats feel voting rights is as good a reason to do away with it.

I will go on record and say I hope they don't.

Think about how different the courts would look if Reid and then McConnell not done away with the 60 vote threshold for nominees. Obama would have had to nominate someone way more in the center than Merrick, maybe even a bit right of center and Trump would have had to do the same, maybe even left of center. We would have a much more balanced court than we do now.

 

[SuperMatt]

Filibuster - NOT in the constitution.
Federal control of elections - IS in the constitution.

With the way the Republicans, along with Manchin and Sinema, are talking, you’d think it was the opposite.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

You are 100% correct. Get something neither side is happy with, but can live with and go on. Get more or give up less the next time. Major changes in the laws need to be more incremental than revolutionary. But neither side wants the other side to get a win so we have what we have and get what we deserve for electing these people.

I am not really for term limits as I think they can give unelected bureaucrats too much power, but maybe we need to rethink them with high limits. Or like the President, limit the terms of the leaders. Or set an age limit.



I know this whole under-representation thing is front and center with the progressives, but most people either 1) don't realize it or 2) don't care.

It is the rules by which we operate and have for the last 233 years and I don't see it changing anytime soon. So going on and on about it isn't getting you anywhere. And won't.

I think we also need to knock it off with the mega bills and stop inserting completely unrelated legislation into a mega bill. We’re paying these people way too much to get nothing accomplished. Even if individual initiatives don’t pass you’ll know who the bad guys are and people can make a more direct informed decision on keeping them in office or booting them out. So while they may support some big issue that you agree with, they might have also cast a dozen smaller issue votes that pissed you off. You can decide which is more important. Maybe the stranger down the street not being able to have an abortion is more important to you than the dozen economic initiatives that could have helped you out that your rep voted no on. Or maybe not.

I think we need to stop thinking in terms of left vs right as the primary motivator. It should be those who have most of the wealth vs those who don't and when you look at the legislation over the last 30 - 40 years you'll see that, that is more of the deciding divide than anything else.

 

[Herdfan]

I think we also need to knock it off with the mega bills and stop inserting completely unrelated legislation into a mega bill. We’re paying these people way too much to get nothing accomplished. Even if individual initiatives don’t pass you’ll know who the bad guys are and people can make a more direct informed decision on keeping them in office or booting them out. So while they may support some big issue that you agree with, they might have also cast a dozen smaller issue votes that pissed you off. You can decide which is more important. Maybe the stranger down the street not being able to have an abortion is more important to you than the dozen economic initiatives that could have helped you out that your rep voted no on. Or maybe not.

I think we need to stop thinking in terms of left vs right as the primary motivator. It should be those who have most of the wealth vs those who don't and when you look at the legislation over the last 30 - 40 years you'll see that, that is more of the deciding divide than anything else.

They don't want you knowing that and since they control the way bills are packaged, you/we lose.

One reason I think the President should have line item veto, but with a simple majority override vs supermajority.

 

[User.45]

I know this whole under-representation thing is front and center with the progressives, but most people either 1) don't realize it or 2) don't care.

It is the rules by which we operate and have for the last 233 years and I don't see it changing anytime soon. So going on and on about it isn't getting you anywhere. And won't.

Thanks, this is a very revealing comment. This is the problem, considering the expectation of representation in a representative democracy a progressive thing.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Here's how establishment Democrats and their media are a bunch of lying corporatists tools. Let's say Republicans ran a (sane) candidate running on militarizing the border, loosening gun restrictions, outlawing all abortions, unrestricted oil drilling, and cutting all regulations by 50%. Let's say they won. Let's say they weren't achieving any of those things and their ratings plummeted. Would their news media or politicians start saying their ratings are dropping due to threats that they might accomplish what they actually ran on or somehow come to the absurd conclusion that the platform they ran on is actually unpopular? Fuck no. They'd say the ratings are dropping because they aren't accomplishing what they promised and they would blame it on caving to the far left.

But here's the establishment left. "Democrats are losing voters who voted Democrat because they might cave to Democrats". Go fuck yourself.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Thanks, this is a very revealing comment. This is the problem, considering the expectation of representation in a representative democracy a progressive thing.

Depending on which fits their agenda people will either say the founders wanted every vote to count OR they actually wanted the most successful in their shared political leanings to rule with just a pinch of democracy on little issues. I mean, they didn't actually say the second option directly. But if you research and read things outside official cannon and then pirint it out and tack it on the wall connecting it with colored yarn you can see that's clearly what they really wanted.

 

[Herdfan]

I know a lot of you here aren't fans of Carville. But my thought is to dismiss him at your own risk.

"Just win some goddamn elections." James Carville’s blunt advice to Democrats

James Carville on why Manchin is actually good, Sinema less so, and why 2022 isn’t quite hopeless yet.

www.vox.com

 

[ronntaylor]

I know a lot of you here aren't fans of Carville. But my thought is to dismiss him at your own risk.

"Just win some goddamn elections." James Carville’s blunt advice to Democrats

James Carville on why Manchin is actually good, Sinema less so, and why 2022 isn’t quite hopeless yet.

www.vox.com

Carville and the Clintons are a huge reason why Dems are in the mess they're in now. Easy pass without reading a single word.

 

[SuperMatt]

Carville and the Clintons are a huge reason why Dems are in the mess they're in now. Easy pass without reading a single word.

I saw Carville on “Meet the Press” a week or two ago, and he is just spouting nonsense. He’s totally irrelevant to today’s politics and I was surprised they put him on the show. Time to fade into retirement, Jim.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I saw Carville on “Meet the Press” a week or two ago, and he is just spouting nonsense. He’s totally irrelevant to today’s politics and I was surprised they put him on the show. Time to fade into retirement, Jim.

Some people, regardless of party affiliation, need to be designated as relics and housed in a museum.

 

[Herdfan]

Carville and the Clintons are a huge reason why Dems are in the mess they're in now. Easy pass without reading a single word.

I saw Carville on “Meet the Press” a week or two ago, and he is just spouting nonsense. He’s totally irrelevant to today’s politics and I was surprised they put him on the show. Time to fade into retirement, Jim.

Ignore is opinion at your own peril.