• 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

Gays and blacks were already in the hip pocket of the dems. But women? You betcha Obamacare is going to be a big factor with them. Bye, bye dem senate.

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.
 
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.

Give it a rest. In most states out West and generally there is no chance of abortion going anywhere no matter who is in power and everyone knows it. However, we're all getting screwed by Obamacare, and yes, it is a key issue for women. Lot of soccer moms out here.

I'll take your word on the FoxNews thing. You seem to be their biggest fanboy here. Personally I never watch them.
 
I never understood why people take individuals, wrap them up in a single attribute, and toss them around like tools. Last time I checked, your skin color, time in this country, sexual orientation,age, or gender doesn't plays a role in intelligence and cognitive thinking.

If any individual feels they are negatively affected by Obamacare( cancelled policy, increased premiums, increased deductions, increased copays, decreased choice in doctors, etc ), that will be on their mind when they vote.
Gays will remember the GOP 's crusade against same sex marriage, promotion of defense of marriage laws and attempts to maintain sodomy laws. Slam dunk, I'd say. If the GOp gets 100,000 gay votes, I'd be amazed.

Immigrants will remember the GOP's attempts to build a wall at the border and deport all their relatives. Also a slam dunk

The young hate the old fuddy-duddy party. No brainer.

Women remember the war against reproductive rights like it was yesterday...and it pisses them off that it will still be waged by the GOP tomorrow.

Blacks...well, African-Americans vote over 95% D. You'd have to ask them why that is. But, I do not see it changing anytime soon. It's obviously deep rooted.
 
Gays will remember the GOP 's crusade against same sex marriage, promotion of defense of marriage laws and attempts to maintain sodomy laws. Slam dunk, I'd say. If the GOp gets 100,000 gay votes, I'd be amazed.

Immigrants will remember the GOP's attempts to build a wall at the border and deport all their relatives. Also a slam dunk

The young hate the old fuddy-duddy party. No brainer.

Women remember the war against reproductive rights like it was yesterday...and it pisses them off that it will still be waged by the GOP tomorrow.

Blacks...well, African-Americans vote over 95% D. You'd have to ask them why that is. But, I do not see it changing anytime soon. It's obviously deep rooted.
but the GOP can still count on their black hatin' sister lovin' trailer trash constituency voting against their own self interest. yee-haa
 
Gays will remember the GOP 's crusade against same sex marriage, promotion of defense of marriage laws and attempts to maintain sodomy laws. Slam dunk, I'd say.

So? An insignificant percentage of the voting population.

Immigrants will remember the GOP's attempts to build a wall at the border and deport all their relatives. Also a slam dunk

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.

The young hate the old fuddy-duddy party. No brainer.

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.

Women remember the war against reproductive rights like it was yesterday...and it pisses them off that it will still be waged by the GOP tomorrow.

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?

Blacks...well, African-Americans vote over 95% D. You'd have to ask them why that is. But, I do not see it changing anytime soon. It's obviously deep rooted.

Not near the problem for the repubs in senate elections.
 
Give it a rest. In most states out West and generally there is no chance of abortion going anywhere no matter who is in power and everyone knows it. However, we're all getting screwed by Obamacare, and yes, it is a key issue for women. Lot of soccer moms out here.

I'll take your word on the FoxNews thing. You seem to be their biggest fanboy here. Personally I never watch them.

Formerly Red states that went Blue:
Nevada
New Mexico
Colorado
Iowa
Virginia


And, in 2012, Indiana and Missouri both voted in a D senator.

Will Obamascare be a game changer? I doubt it. It could have been. Yes. But, the GOP has alienated so many people that regaining those votes will be hard to come by.
 
Schumer would have pulled the plug without Reid around, probably sooner..ReoubLies got exactly what they deserved today..When would you have filled the 93 openings on the Federal Courts??They will now be filled toot sweet .

So you're fine with essentially killing the minority voice, undermining....I don't know....the Republic? 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. Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"...I didn't realize it was under Feudal rule of the progressive lordship. I'm sorry the GOP made your party cry when the left lost the house. I'm not GOP, at all, but after this little tyrannical move to undermine a fair part of our republic (voice of the minority), I can't wait for them to wipe the floor with the left in 2 years time after GodBamas little social project house of cards comes crashing down and we're officially flat broke. If I was a dem, I'd be furious about this considering the long term ramifications for all sides. Then again, Dem/Prog don't think, they 'react'...a sign of the lack of higher reasoning skills,, sort of like a bird. Actually, more like predatory pack animals. Wait for targets of opportunity, not realizing that the bear cub they are going after has an angry bear 10 meters to the left. Silly progs. Well, enjoy the long vacation, and enjoy the silent minority voice. The past ___ years will be erased from the history books if there's a GOP majority in the legislative branch, and you silly leftists don't see that Reid just sealed your fate with that outcome. Foresight, it's a virtue the left has yet to learn.

I'm not too bent out of shape about it despite my previous paragraph. I say let the two parties rip each other to shreds, I'll sit back here with the popcorn. They are both loaded with delusional, power hungry ideologues hell bent on agendas, with zero interest in the well being of the people (unless of course it's election time). Bring on the 3rd 4th and 5th party options. I'm sick of business as usual, polarized, politicized B.S. Intelligence hasn't been present in Washington for quite some time now.
 
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.

No they are more concerned about being able to afford the now 5K+ deductible for their family, and the loss of care, so on and so forth. Their family comes WAAAY before reproductive rights, I assure you, never ever mess with the momma bear and the health of her children. She will f*** your day up proper. Next elections, if O-care does what we know it's going to do....fail miserably and cost individual Americans thousands per year, the female vote will leave the uterus and go into the checking account. Money = comfort for their family. Health care = protection. Take away BOTH of those things, and goodnight left. Writing is on the walls.
 
:lol:

I doubt gays, immigrants, blacks, women and the young will be changing their votes over to the GOP simply because Obamacare hit a few snags.

Oh, I didn't know that all those groupd had to "change their votes" in order for a republican to win the White House.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Germany is a perfect demonstration that social democracy and capitalism are not at all mutually exclusive. They make it all work together and there is no danger of them becoming a communist state.
Your fears of the US becoming a communist state because we may adopt a few socialist programs are ridiculous.

You're confusing social policies instituted by a representational republic with a social democracy as a form of government. Germany is not a social democracy (though the SPD wouldn't mind if things went that direction). By instituting the precedent of the "nuclear option" our Senate is now situated to facilitate a full blown change from a Republican form of government to a direct Democracy. In fact the ONLY thing preventing us from devolving into that structure is that individual States still have sufficient power to offset many of the federal power grabs.

Should we allow more power to be ceded to the executive branch while weakening the protective blanket of the legislature we WILL lose the Republic. While some of you might be just fine with that idea there are others of us who are not and in order to protect the interests of ALL Americans we can not allow ourselves to devolve into a "winner take all" form of government.
 
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.

If memory serves me correctly, you had the 2012 election pegged exactly right. Since you have no ax to grind with either party, I trust your posts. I don't always like what you say, but that's my problem to live with! :mrgreen:
 
Unlikely. If the Democrats really thought they stood to lose the Senate, it is unlikely that they would want this. Nice try though.

Dems aren't known for that sort of forethought historically. Try again.
 
If memory serves me correctly, you had the 2012 election pegged exactly right. Since you have no ax to grind with either party, I trust your posts. I don't always like what you say, but that's my problem to live with! :mrgreen:

Actually my ax is sharp for both parties as I do not like either and distrust both. The information is out there for all to see, all I do is check each and ever site daily and keep track of trends and on the 1st of December I will post my update number 4. It does look like a wild ride towards November 2014. I have already since my first post on 1 Sep seen the pendulum swing from the GOP to the Democrats and as of today it looks like it is swing back towards the GOP. The one thing you ought to keep an eye on is party affiliation/identification. By using that along with the other info I obtained I was able to prognosticate correctly all but 2 senate races last year. Dead on with the president and the house.

But back to party affliation/identification, the republican party is on the rise, from 20% last month to 23% this month. The Democrats are going in the opposite direction, from 30% last month to 28% this month. For the mid terms I place a lot more stock in party affiliation than presidential approval or the generic congressional polls although there the once 48-40 advantage for the Democrats of mid October has all been erased, The Democrat advantage is now 41-40. But notice here that any of that 7 point drop didn't go into the Republican column. They went into the undecided column or as I would put it, the independent column. Neither party is popular, both are disliked. So people end up voting in mid terms for the least disliked party. Right now they even.
 
Back
Top Bottom