• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate approves nuclear option

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.
Yeah. I saw the healthcare numbers. That's why the GOP was dumb to shut down the government in an attempt to repeal Obamscare. And, if the ACA is still a mess in 12 months, the D's deserve to lose. You gamble big, you win or lose big. I'm OK with that.

I just doubt that anyone not already entrenched in R's will be moaning about Obamacare in Nov of next year. Like Benghazi, it's just a shiny object with which to rally the base. I think women will still care more about their reproductive rights, especially as draconian ant-abortion laws in Texas begin to take effect. Thoughts of that going national will continue feeding the female exodus from the GOP.

As to your map. Do you honestly expect Senate races in Michigan, Vermont and Massachusetts to be competitive? I'll give ya WV, NC, SD and Montana, assuming no one says rape can't get you pregnant. But, I doubt seats flip in Colorado, Minnesota and Oregon. Louisiana and Arkansas maybe. But, so too could the GOP lose Kentucky and Georgia...especially if the woman vote keeps shifting Left.
 
Nobody but partisans are going to care. 95% of voters won't even know what this means.
But all of us will be affected. After the courts are stacked we will have no recourse to the machinations of the two million busybody bureaucrats who will harass, harry, and hound the citizens. EPA and Interior will be the worst offenders.
 
Let's just look back a few years (2005), and see what a Junior Senator from Illinois had to say about the Nuclear Option just imposed yesterday by the Democrats 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.

Yeah, I can see that. Wildly swinging pendulum with ever increasing speeds and extremes whipsawing back and forth.
Not sure that's really the best thing for the country.
 
the precedence has been set. Senator Harry Reid will go down in history as either the most famous or infamous Senate Majority Leader ever to occupy that office. No more rights at all for the minority party and no more checks and balances. The senate has just become another House of Representatives.

I think it's safe to say that the current filibuster is effectively dead. But I don't think you can lay that on Reid for better or worse.

I like the filibuster, and think that minority rights are an important part of the Senate. But the filibuster has been broken.

The bottom line is that the minority party had become obstructionist just to be obstructionist. How can anyone rationally defend holding up a nominee for almost two years; especially when that nominee received 90+ confirmation votes with zero objections? Neither party is going to get a super-majority any time soon. The only way for the senate to function moving forward was for something to happen.

IMO, the senate needs to settle on a nuclear proof filibuster that is *MUCH* harder to use. Bring back the mandatory speaking part of the filibuster. If you want to stop the senate from functioning, you should have to get up and tell us why.
 
Just keep thinking that. The repubs may not take the senate, but they'll gain and it'll be closer to a tie. And Obamacare will be even more of an issue next November. It'll be in full swing by then, the web site will have failed many times after it was supposedly fixed, folks will be hearing about how unsecure their info is after the site gets hacked a couple times and they'll be looking at their bills. Next November Americans will be looking at their pocketbooks and how Obamacare is making them lighter. Obama will be on his lame duck slide and at his lowest approval ratings ever (he may even beat Bush for lowest of the low ratings). That happens to all presidents in their lame duck stage.

You overstate the division in women voters. Even where one presidential candidate was successfully painted as hating women, look at the percentage of women voters Romney got. It's not near low enough for you to be buying the false meme about the war on women. Good luck ressurecting that turd for 2014.
 
Yeah. I saw the healthcare numbers. That's why the GOP was dumb to shut down the government in an attempt to repeal Obamscare. And, if the ACA is still a mess in 12 months, the D's deserve to lose. You gamble big, you win or lose big. I'm OK with that.

I just doubt that anyone not already entrenched in R's will be moaning about Obamacare in Nov of next year. Like Benghazi, it's just a shiny object with which to rally the base. I think women will still care more about their reproductive rights, especially as draconian ant-abortion laws in Texas begin to take effect. Thoughts of that going national will continue feeding the female exodus from the GOP.

As to your map. Do you honestly expect Senate races in Michigan, Vermont and Massachusetts to be competitive? I'll give ya WV, NC, SD and Montana, assuming no one says rape can't get you pregnant. But, I doubt seats flip in Colorado, Minnesota and Oregon. Louisiana and Arkansas maybe. But, so too could the GOP lose Kentucky and Georgia...especially if the woman vote keeps shifting Left.

Don't think that Peters has won any friends here. Yeah, I think it'll be a close race.
 
And on the topic of the thread, here is the NYT opinion on the 'nuclear option' in the narrow scope it was applied, back in 2005
Yeah, that was before the Republicans chose to grind government to a halt, in part by refusing to approve any presidential nominee. Again... half of all filibusters of presidential nominees have been during Obama's term. Half. Even if you don't like the guy, you have to recognize that's not how the system was designed.

And again, it was also back in 2005 when the Conservatives wanted to nuke the filibuster. Dems aren't the only one flipping on the issue. FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America
 
Unlikely. If the Democrats really thought they stood to lose the Senate, it is unlikely that they would want this. Nice try though.

Sure there's a risk of the Democrats losing the Senate, but I'm pretty sure their calculus goes like this:

The Dems still hold the the power of a Presidential veto until 2016. That means the only way the GOP can pass anything without Democratic support is if the GOP takes all 3 branches of government in 2016.

Of course, this assumes that the GOP wouldn't use the nuclear option themselves. Does anyone really think that GOP wouldn't use the nuclear option to get rid of Obamacare? Seriously?

The Democrats have nothing to lose.
 
So you're fine with essentially killing the minority voice, undermining....I don't know....the Republic?
It's the abuse of the filibuster which is undermining the Republic.

Again, there is no Constitutional basis for the filibuster. The Constitution states that the Senate should require a majority to pass legislation -- not a supermajority, as it has become.


Seems odd that the party claiming to push for freedom and fairness seems to do whatever they can at any corner to kill the system of checks and balances to suit their agenda and party.
Filibusters are not a "check and balance." A presidential veto is a C&B. Judicial review is a C&B. Impeachment is a C&B. The filibuster is a parliamentary mechanism that has gotten out of control, and is abused by both parties.


Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"...
Yes, that's handled by a majority vote. Not by an obstructionist minority.


I'm sorry the GOP made your party cry when the left lost the house.
Uhm... these are Senate rules, not House rules.


If I was a dem, I'd be furious about this considering the long term ramifications for all sides.
The long-term ramifications are: If the filibuster isn't severely curtailed or eliminated, our government is going to grind to a halt. And no, that isn't a good thing.


The past ___ years will be erased from the history books if there's a GOP majority in the legislative branch....
1) That's how it is SUPPOSED to work.
2) If that's the case, then why aren't the Republicans also advocating for this change -- as they were, back in 2005?
 
Yeah, that was before the Republicans chose to grind government to a halt, in part by refusing to approve any presidential nominee. Again... half of all filibusters of presidential nominees have been during Obama's term. Half. Even if you don't like the guy, you have to recognize that's not how the system was designed.

And again, it was also back in 2005 when the Conservatives wanted to nuke the filibuster. Dems aren't the only one flipping on the issue. FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

Must have missed this post of a flashback... http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...pproves-nuclear-option-53.html#post1062577168

Maybe you guys should look at the actions taken that led up to this. The PPACA was forced through without any Republican votes. That is the purpose of a filibuster; to allow the minority to still have a voice. Just as Senator Obama stated in the video in my other post, linked above.
 
Yeah, that was before the Republicans chose to grind government to a halt, in part by refusing to approve any presidential nominee. Again... half of all filibusters of presidential nominees have been during Obama's term. Half. Even if you don't like the guy, you have to recognize that's not how the system was designed.

That's not true as stated. Here are the real facts:

Do Obama Nominees Face Stiffer Senate Opposition? - Washington Wire - WSJ

A good deal of the problem is the dems cutting off discussion and proceeding directly to floor vote. What you're noting is the dems doing something to silence the minority party that even the repubs at their height of full control and foolishness never did.
 
It's the abuse of the filibuster which is undermining the Republic. If you define abuse as trying to stop completely unconstitutional and disgusting moves towards western european style socialism, killing 2A, expanding NDAA and NSA, enough scandals to sink a battle ship, sure, I suppose it was abuse.

Again, there is no Constitutional basis for the filibuster. The Constitution states that the Senate should require a majority to pass legislation -- not a supermajority, as it has become. So what happens to that tone of the left when the tides have turned? Will they blame Bush?



Filibusters are not a "check and balance." A presidential veto is a C&B. Judicial review is a C&B. Impeachment is a C&B. The filibuster is a parliamentary mechanism that has gotten out of control, and is abused by both parties. Filibusters give the minority a voice. Direct democracy has failed time and time again. We'll learn the hard way



Yes, that's handled by a majority vote. Not by an obstructionist minority.
"The people" are not 51% or more, the people are composed of 100%. If 49% don't want it, and 51% do....I'd hardly call that said decision to be in the best interest of the country


Uhm... these are Senate rules, not House rules.
Are they not both Legislative branch? Do they not pass legislation between one another? Senate rules effect all, and vise versa by default


The long-term ramifications are: If the filibuster isn't severely curtailed or eliminated, our government is going to grind to a halt. And no, that isn't a good thing.
I see it as a great thing. The american people need an alternative, and they need to see who these people really are. Left or Right, they are all wrong.


1) That's how it is SUPPOSED to work.
2) If that's the case, then why aren't the Republicans also advocating for this change -- as they were, back in 2005?

Because it doesn't suit interest. None of them care about the people. Not a single one.
 
Yeah, that was before the Republicans chose to grind government to a halt, in part by refusing to approve any presidential nominee. Again... half of all filibusters of presidential nominees have been during Obama's term. Half. Even if you don't like the guy, you have to recognize that's not how the system was designed.

And again, it was also back in 2005 when the Conservatives wanted to nuke the filibuster. Dems aren't the only one flipping on the issue. FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

Both sides want it for self-serving reasons. Again, this isn't for the benefit of the country...this is for the party.
 
That was Senator Grassley who stated that. There was another senator this morning I heard on the radio that said all the republicans want to do now is win back the senate in 2014 and take the presidency in 2016 and the ACA is history. It will take only 51 votes in the senate to repeal it.

Nice fantasy. The problem is if the ACA exists in 2016 (and, by some miracle against all odds, the Reps can actually win the white house), the ACA will be firmly entrenched and not repeal-able. In fact, you can't really repeal now. You would have to come with something that would protect those that already depend on it (those with pre-existing conditions, for example).
 
Nice fantasy. The problem is if the ACA exists in 2016 (and, by some miracle against all odds, the Reps can actually win the white house), the ACA will be firmly entrenched and not repeal-able. In fact, you can't really repeal now. You would have to come with something that would protect those that already depend on it (those with pre-existing conditions, for example).

There are two bills now from Reps that would protect people.
 
It's about time.....the only reason the filibuster has existed as long as it has is a mutual understanding that it would be used sparingly in certain circumstances. It's been abused and it needed to go for confirmations. In fact I think it's nearing the time it needs to go period. This is getting insane. Requiring a super majority was debated during the constitutional conventions and the idea was shut down...except for specific circumstances listed in the constitution.
 
The race card--Chez--that didn't take long--remember when you guys called Clinton the first "black" President??

in writing about the impeachment in 1998, Morrison wrote that, since Whitewater, Bill Clinton had been mistreated because of his "Blackness":
Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.[21]
The phrase "our first Black president" was adopted as a positive by Bill Clinton supporters. When the Congressional Black Caucus honored the former president at its dinner in Washington D.C. on September 29, 2001, for instance, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the chair, told the audience that Clinton "took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president."[22]​
Toni Morrison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LOL.
 
This will come back on hunt the democrats when they are minority in the Senate.
 
This will come back on hunt the democrats when they are minority in the Senate.

True, but comrade Hillary will take office (if the GOP runs another RINO in typical fashion). At which point, system of checks and balances will go a little something like....

images
 
No it won't....I doubt anyone is under the delusion that if a minority of Dems blocked every nomination of a Rep President that Republicans wouldn't change the rules.

It will come back to hunt them. When there is a Republican President and Republican Majority in the Senate. The Dems will be powerless to stop their Appointments. Also if there is a Dem president and Rep. Senate. The Dems will be powerless to stop the Reps from shooting down all his Appts.
 
True, but comrade Hillary will take office (if the GOP runs another RINO in typical fashion). At which point, system of checks and balances will go a little something like....

images

It is to be seen if Hillary will be the next president, but that picture... lol.
 
There are 93 judicial openings that Obama can now fill..You only have McConnell to blame for pushing this one over the cliff..McConnell could have allowed a few here and a few there..Now he will get 93 shoved up his ass where they belong .
McConnell is not going to suffer. The nation will.
 
Back
Top Bottom