Page 52 of 86 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 860

Thread: Senate approves nuclear option

  1. #511
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Because filibusters on legislation have not been removed.



    Incorrect. The rule changes do not affect either Supreme Court nominations or legislation.

    Besides, as far as I know only one SCOTUS nominee has ever been delayed by a filibuster -- Fortas in 1968. In fact, Republicans tried to say "it wasn't a real filibuster." (PolitiFact | Toobin says a Supreme Court nominee has never been filibustered successfully)



    It is far from clear they would get a majority vote for a removal of all filibusters.

    Even if they did, that would ultimately be a good thing. The Senate was never designed to require a supermajority to pass legislation or to confirm appointments -- and that is exactly what it has become.



    Hahahaha

    Err, sorry. Anyway, many of the senators who voted to change the rules know what they're doing, and would be glad to get rid of an abused policy -- even if that means some legislation doesn't go their way.

    Plus, it wasn't that long ago that it was conservatives who wanted to get rid of the filibuster: FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America



    I certainly hope so. It's a procedure that has gone from being the exception to the rule, and it's preventing the government from doing its job.

    A lot more work needs to be done to get the government back on track, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
    As of today, you are correct. The filibuster on legislation has not been removed. But it can be by a simple 51 vote nuclear option again. If you do not think the Republicans when they take control of the senate would not hesitate to use the nuclear option to include legislation, you I think are living in another world. Any time any majority leader from now on regardless of party, gets tired of the minority party filibustering what ever, is free to invoke the nuclear option so a simple 51 vote majority can stop it. I foresee this happening more and more and more in the future. Yes as of today, you are correct. But if used once, what makes you think it will never be used again?

    If the Republicans gain control of the senate next year and the presidency in 2016, Senator Grassley has already stated the republicans would use the nuclear option to get any of their supreme court nominees past any Democratic filibuster. If Senator Reid can use the nuclear option yesterday, any future majority leader can use it as any time he so chooses in the future. Grassley has promised the republicans will do so when and if they control the senate and the presidency to get their president's nominee seated on the Supreme Court.

    But to end this, you will have your wish. The filibuster will end up on the trash heap of history. Perhaps you're right. It might not be a bad thing. If the GOP can take back the senate in 2014 and somehow run a decent candidate for president in 2016 they will be free to do as they wish. Repeal Obamacare, certainly, privatize social security, you bet. Eliminate those nasty organizations like the EPA, Department of Energy, Education, and more. Pass a nation right to work law, beautiful. Do away with estate and corporate taxes, right on. Pass national restrictions on abortion, can do just take the toughest anti-abortion law allowed by the SCOTUS and make it national. No checks and balances when one party controls congress and the presidency. Perhaps you are right, it is old and needs to be done away with.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  2. #512
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,582

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    So? An insignificant percentage of the voting population.
    That was the calculation when Rove initiated the war on gays. It's backfired though because gays have family, and that family tends to be supportive in this day and age.



    Let's hope that's the case, because immigrants can vote and they hate illegal aliens, sometimes more than those who were born here hate them.
    Hasn't been reflected at the voting booth. But, hold on to that delusion. It may be all you have since victory will be ever more elusive.



    The young don't vote. Maybe once in a while when it's a sexy presidential election, but midterms, they got better things to do.
    That's usually true. But, if there's a pot initiative (heh, there's an oxymoron) on the ballot, then maybe they'll head to the polls.


    Sorry, you need to catch up. That war on women meme was stupid but effective when the dems used it last time, it no longer works. Besides, did you honestly think the majority of pro-lifers aren't women?
    We'll see. Educated and single women make up the majority of the women nowadays, and both groups are definitely pro-choice.



    Not near the problem for the repubs in senate elections.
    If not for the lost votes in the other categories we discussed, that would be true. However, when taken in with the sum total of other lost voters listed above...they're screwed.

  3. #513
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,582

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Oh, I didn't know that all those groupd had to "change their votes" in order for a republican to win the White House.
    Just take one look at the demographics from 2012.
    Demographics of How Groups Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election

    It's eye-popping

  4. #514
    Educator
    MichaelJR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Suckachusetts
    Last Seen
    05-25-16 @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,089

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    As of today, you are correct. The filibuster on legislation has not been removed. But it can be by a simple 51 vote nuclear option again. If you do not think the Republicans when they take control of the senate would not hesitate to use the nuclear option to include legislation, you I think are living in another world. Any time any majority leader from now on regardless of party, gets tired of the minority party filibustering what ever, is free to invoke the nuclear option so a simple 51 vote majority can stop it. I foresee this happening more and more and more in the future. Yes as of today, you are correct. But if used once, what makes you think it will never be used again?

    If the Republicans gain control of the senate next year and the presidency in 2016, Senator Grassley has already stated the republicans would use the nuclear option to get any of their supreme court nominees past any Democratic filibuster. If Senator Reid can use the nuclear option yesterday, any future majority leader can use it as any time he so chooses in the future. Grassley has promised the republicans will do so when and if they control the senate and the presidency to get their president's nominee seated on the Supreme Court.

    But to end this, you will have your wish. The filibuster will end up on the trash heap of history. Perhaps you're right. It might not be a bad thing. If the GOP can take back the senate in 2014 and somehow run a decent candidate for president in 2016 they will be free to do as they wish. Repeal Obamacare, certainly, privatize social security, you bet. Eliminate those nasty organizations like the EPA, Department of Energy, Education, and more. Pass a nation right to work law, beautiful. Do away with estate and corporate taxes, right on. Pass national restrictions on abortion, can do just take the toughest anti-abortion law allowed by the SCOTUS and make it national. No checks and balances when one party controls congress and the presidency. Perhaps you are right, it is old and needs to be done away with.
    Spoken for truth.

    Again, the left lacks foresight. 10 years from now, they'll be searching for a time machine to take them back to November 20th, 2013 to talk to Reid. And they thought it was bad under Bush. Imagine the Bush admin, with a senate/house under full GOP control....with this in place. Judicial branch would be LOADED with ideologues. It will take you 25 years to undo all of it with this system in place.
    Really think about it.

    Yeah.

    I swear they stiff glue in the DNC conventions.

  5. #515
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,842
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Yeah, women are more concerned with a Fox News hyped Obamascare than the fact that the GOP is stripping them of their reproductive rights. That's rich.
    Perhaps not so much.
    If you are pro-life, you are anti-woman. The left's premise is that men like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan who are pro-life are anti-woman. But that doesn't account for the fact that more women are pro-life than pro-choice, according to Gallup. It makes no sense to claim that women who are Catholics, Christian evangelicals, Hispanic, or African-American, for example—many of whom consider themselves pro-life—are all opposed to women's rights. The left also doesn't take into account that the majority of Americans, from both genders, are pro-life. Gallup also reports that for the first time this year, 51 percent of Americans find abortion "morally wrong," with 38 percent finding it "morally acceptable." The number of Americans who identify themselves as "pro-choice" is at a record low, and a majority now call themselves "pro-life," with the biggest change coming among independents. Most Americans are pro-life, and I'd bet very few consider themselves "anti-woman."

    Republicans believe that men should control women's bodies. "We shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making healthcare decisions on behalf of women," Obama said at his war-on-women press conference. Agreed. Yet under his Affordable Care Act, 15 unelected members of the Independent Payment Advisory Board will now decide which medical treatments will get federal funding, decisions that could affect millions of women. And don't forget that his individual mandate tells women which kind of health coverage they can buy. Contrast that with Ryan's Medicare premium support plan, which would give women a choice of Medicare or private insurance.

    Republicans want to take contraception away from women. Nobody is arguing that women should be denied access to contraception. The question is whether it should be provided free, should be paid for by taxpayers, and should be mandated for religious employers who find it a violation of their beliefs. It wasn't Republicans who ordered this change; it was the president's administration. Since that decision, polls have shown that the majority of Americans disagree with his stance and believe there should be the sort of religious exemption there has been in the past.

    Republicans do not support "equal pay for equal work." All those female Republican governors, senators, and House members would not belong to a party that opposed equal pay for women. The fact is that equal pay for equal work has been federal law for decades; the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act change the burden of proof to benefit trial lawyers and hurt small businesses. Thirty percent of all businesses are owned by women—and Republicans sided with them, not trial lawyers.

    Republican cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will hurt women. On the contrary, most women would prefer to see entitlements put back on solid footing for their own retirement years. Social Security is projected to exhaust its reserves in 2033, the year I turn 70. "Ending Medicare as we know it" by enacting reasonable changes to occur 20 years from now to keep it financially sound is just fine with me. Women make 80 percent of the healthcare decisions in America; many of us are depending on Medicare and Social Security to stay solvent as we make those decisions for our families. Romney and Ryan have a plan for entitlement reform; it's painfully clear Obama does not.
    Five Myths About the So Called 'Republican War on Women' - US News and World Report

    This entire 'GOP War on Women' is little more than an empty and over-hyped meme from Obama and Democrats trumpet through their Biased Lame Stream Media outlets to muddy the waters and minds of the ill informed.

  6. #516
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    The GOP won't win the Senate or the Presidency so...ain't gonna happen. The GOP will be lucky to keep 40 Senate Seats in '14 is my opinion.
    I think you better study the polls, look at Charlie Cooks, Larry Sabato's, Stuart Rothenberg's and a few other prognostacators web sites. I keep track of these things. If the election were to happen today, Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and Arkansas would change hands from Democrat to Republican. There are another three toss up states in Democratic hands that could change, odds 50-50, North Carolina, Alaska and Louisiana. Then too in Michigan according to a poll released yesterday, Democratic candidate Land leads Republican candidate Peters by only 1 point and Michigan may also change hands from Democrat to Republican. Then there is Colorado where Udall's one large lead for another Democratic seat has slipped to from 16 points to 7 over the last two weeks. Still a long way off, but based on what I see from all my different sources of information, the odds as of today of the GOP winning the senate is no worse than 50-50.

    The house is safely in GOP hands. Going district by district and throwing the generic congressional ballot out the window, you have 175 safe Democratic Seats to 208 safe seats for the Republicans. Those seats come heck and high water will not change. Each party has 26 seats each in play. Of these the Democrats had 8 seats in the likely column which means that these seats are not competitive, but has a chance to become so down the road. The Republicans have 10 such seats. These seats are at least 90% certain to remain in their parties hands so that would make the total 183 safe/likely seats for the Democrats and 218 safe/likely seats for the Republicans and it only take 218 to retain their majority. Of the remain 18 Democratic seats 11 are in the lean column and 7 are pure toss ups. Of the remaining 16 Republican seats 8 are in the lean column and 8 are pure toss ups. Lean means the race is competitive but one party or the other has the advantage, these tend to stay in the incumbents party's hands 2/3rds of the time.

    Again these figures are as of today, not one year from now. If you want a monthly update go to my blogs, I post them on the 1st of every month.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #517
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Just take one look at the demographics from 2012.
    Demographics of How Groups Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election

    It's eye-popping
    Two things, and stuff you really should know by now:
    1) Presidential election voting patterns don't in any way resemble midterm election voting patterns.
    2) You need to pay attention to your own links. Pay particular attention to the healthcare vote. That will be reversed this time. Obamacare is an overwhelming failure in the public eye.

    What you should be paying attention to is this:
    United States Senate elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Look at the competitives for senate races. Three times as many dems in trouble for midterm senate races than the repubs. Oh my, make that four times as many.

  8. #518
    Educator
    MichaelJR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Suckachusetts
    Last Seen
    05-25-16 @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,089

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    I suspect the voters of the next 2 cycles will not blindly circle 'D' as they have done in previous years. The low information voters (I hate that term, not up on Rush, but it's a damn good point) the Dems relied on in years past, are quickly becoming informed voters, because O-care is actually going to effect their bank account in a major way.

  9. #519
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yeah, that's pretty much how it's supposed to work.

    Part of living in a representative democracy is accepting that sometimes, the votes will not go your way.



    What you fail to recognize is that it is the filibuster rules that are the "loophole" here, that have expanded beyond control.

    It is NOT a good thing for the minority to be able to hinder the entire federal government. The system wasn't designed that way, and since we do not use a parliamentary system, it has no business being part of government.

    In addition, the frequency of filibusters has gone off the charts in the last 5-10 years. I don't care if it is Democrats or Republicans stopping nominees out of political spite, neither of them should be allowed to do so. Nominees should not be subject to secret holds and threats of filibusters, they should get a straight up-or-down vote. As, really, should all legislation in the Senate.
    The filibuster has been part of the senate since 1806. But never mind I am with you on this. I will love seeing in the future what has been accomplished by one party during the time they possessed the white house be completely undone by the new party who takes over and imposes their will to be completely undone when the other party comes back into power. Talk about a wild ride. We'll see.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  10. #520
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Senate approves nuclear option

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Could it be that Democrats are afraid of losing the Senate next year, so theyre trying to push through whatever they can before that happens?
    Unlikely. If the Democrats really thought they stood to lose the Senate, it is unlikely that they would want this. Nice try though.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 52 of 86 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •