"“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”"

"The US President also urged Americans to celebrate 1 May as “Loyalty Day” – a recognition of what he said were the US values of loyalty to "individual liberties, to limited government, and to the inherent dignity of every human being"."

I'd argue that it is archaic to protect individual liberties and to prevent large government. That policies shouldn't be passed because 50.1% of congress voted aye. The filibuster in congress isn't the best thing but it is a potential way to prevent more laws and regulations on the people, that both democrats and republicans love to try and pass depending on their ideology and moral standard. Imagine if you will, the republicans get rid of the filibuster in congress and next election the democrats somehow pull off taking the presidency and enough seats in both the house and senate, would you want them to lack the checks and balances that the filibuster does somewhat provide?

Is it such a bad thing for this country? Or is it what protects individual liberties and keeps government smaller and less involved in our lives?

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  "“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”"

"The US President also urged Americans to celebrate 1 May as “Loyalty Day” – a recognition of what he said were the US values of loyalty to "individual liberties, to limited government, and to the inherent dignity of every human being"."

I'd argue that it is archaic to protect individual liberties and to prevent large government. That policies shouldn't be passed because 50.1% of congress voted aye. The filibuster in congress isn't the best thing but it is a potential way to prevent more laws and regulations on the people, that both democrats and republicans love to try and pass depending on their ideology and moral standard. Imagine if you will, the republicans get rid of the filibuster in congress and next election the democrats somehow pull off taking the presidency and enough seats in both the house and senate, would you want them to lack the checks and balances that the filibuster does somewhat provide?

Is it such a bad thing for this country? Or is it what protects individual liberties and keeps government smaller and less involved in our lives?

Finally, some common sense. Thank you.

(04-30-2017 10:36 PM)Rob Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...untry.html

Here's the actual video.

Here is what the video said....

President Trump weighed in on governing what he called the "archaic rules" of the Senate. Nowhere does he say what you claim about the Constitution..

You posted fake news and got busted for it. Libs do it all the time.

(04-30-2017 10:01 PM)Rob Wrote:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...10781.html

He also said he thought being president would be easier. We elected this guy...

You lying bro? Donald Trump slams 'archaic' US constitution

(04-30-2017 10:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:36 PM)Rob Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...untry.html

Here's the actual video.

Here is what the video said....

President Trump weighed in on governing what he called the "archaic rules" of the Senate. Nowhere does he say what you claim about the Constitution..

You posted fake news and got busted for it. Libs do it all the time.

Why do you assume I'm a Liberal? Where do the checks of his executive power originate from?

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)Rob Wrote:  Where did the archaic system come from? What gives us the basis for the archaic rules that check executive power?

The filibuster is a creation of Congress, not the constitution you dumb ****.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  "“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”"

"The US President also urged Americans to celebrate 1 May as “Loyalty Day” – a recognition of what he said were the US values of loyalty to "individual liberties, to limited government, and to the inherent dignity of every human being"."

I'd argue that it is archaic to protect individual liberties and to prevent large government. That policies shouldn't be passed because 50.1% of congress voted aye. The filibuster in congress isn't the best thing but it is a potential way to prevent more laws and regulations on the people, that both democrats and republicans love to try and pass depending on their ideology and moral standard. Imagine if you will, the republicans get rid of the filibuster in congress and next election the democrats somehow pull off taking the presidency and enough seats in both the house and senate, would you want them to lack the checks and balances that the filibuster does somewhat provide?

Is it such a bad thing for this country? Or is it what protects individual liberties and keeps government smaller and less involved in our lives?

from bold to bold..........tell me where we currently reside within that strata....

me thinks the filibuster has done nothing to squash the increase of gov't over time.....

when they're both crooked, it basically doesn't matter....

and once it gets to a point of enormity, it becomes even less important.....

this goes much deeper in the well that just "filibustering" in today's schema....

the root cause is completely being whiffed in this thread.....

(04-30-2017 10:52 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)Rob Wrote:  Where did the archaic system come from? What gives us the basis for the archaic rules that check executive power?

The filibuster is a creation of Congress, not the constitution you dumb ****.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

somebody discovered a clue....

(04-30-2017 10:52 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)Rob Wrote:  Where did the archaic system come from? What gives us the basis for the archaic rules that check executive power?

The filibuster is a creation of Congress, not the constitution you dumb ****.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump says that he believes if you are going to filibuster you should have to stand up and speak like a filibuster was meant to be. i agree 1000% on that.

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  . Imagine if you will, the republicans get rid of the filibuster in congress and next election the democrats somehow pull off taking the presidency and enough seats in both the house and senate, would you want them to lack the checks and balances that the filibuster does somewhat provide?

Is it such a bad thing for this country? Or is it what protects individual liberties and keeps government smaller and less involved in our lives?

Bottom line is that it cuts both ways. We we got Gorsuch b/c somebody screwed up. Que sera sera. In the grand scheme the filibuster "stops" nothing, it only delays the inevitible.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-30-2017 10:52 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  So.... not a damn thing said about the constitution itself. ffs, this is why you always have to go to the original source, always.
Lazy journalism and lazy poster.

I agree 100% on this. It does sometimes force bad decision making.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/0...-days.html

Quote:TRUMP: You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House, bit the rule of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through, it's really a bad thing for the country in my opinion.

There are archaic rules and maybe at some point, we're going to have to take those rules on because for the good of the nation things are going to have to be different. You can't go through a process like this. It's not fair, it forces you to make bad decisions. I mean, if you're forced into doing things that you would normally not do except for these archaic rules, so --

MACCALLUM: Like what, how would you change them?

TRUMP: Well, you know, you look at the voting and you look at the filibuster system. And it used to be. You know, I always thought of filibuster where you stand up and you talk all day and then somebody else--

MACCALLUM: You don't have to do that anymore.

TRUMP: No, you don't have to do it anymore. Today you say filibuster guys sit home and they watch television or whatever they do. I think, you know, the filibuster concept is not a good concept to start off with but if you're going to filibuster, let somebody stand up for 20hours and talk and do what they have to do or even if they are reading comic books to everybody, let them do it but honestly, the whole with so many bad concepts in our rules and it's forcing bad decisions. I really see. I see just -- I've seen this -- I've seen it over the years where bad decisions are made, decisions that nobody wanted are made because of archaic rules and that's something that I think we're going to have to change.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Where did the archaic system come from? What gives us the basis for the archaic rules that check executive power?

The filibuster is a creation of Congress, not the constitution you dumb ****.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Go back and read his quote and tell me you interpret that as just a problem with filibustering. He was either rambling or he was complaining about the many rules that make passing his legislature through difficult. I understand why it would be frustrating to face opposition if you are used to being the only voice that matters in your line of work but that's not how running this country works.

(04-30-2017 10:58 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  . Imagine if you will, the republicans get rid of the filibuster in congress and next election the democrats somehow pull off taking the presidency and enough seats in both the house and senate, would you want them to lack the checks and balances that the filibuster does somewhat provide?

Is it such a bad thing for this country? Or is it what protects individual liberties and keeps government smaller and less involved in our lives?

Bottom line is that it cuts both ways. We we got Gorsuch b/c somebody screwed up. Que sera sera. In the grand scheme the filibuster "stops" nothing, it only delays the inevitible.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

yes it does....and it's going to get uglier before the swamp is drained....

(04-30-2017 10:45 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:36 PM)Rob Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...untry.html

Here's the actual video.

Here is what the video said....

President Trump weighed in on governing what he called the "archaic rules" of the Senate. Nowhere does he say what you claim about the Constitution..

You posted fake news and got busted for it. Libs do it all the time.

Why do you assume I'm a Liberal? Where do the checks of his executive power originate from?

I didn't call you a lib. I just said libs post fake news all the time.

(04-30-2017 11:01 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:52 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  So.... not a damn thing said about the constitution itself. ffs, this is why you always have to go to the original source, always.
Lazy journalism and lazy poster.

I agree 100% on this. It does sometimes force bad decision making.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/0...-days.html

Quote:TRUMP: You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House, bit the rule of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through, it's really a bad thing for the country in my opinion.

There are archaic rules and maybe at some point, we're going to have to take those rules on because for the good of the nation things are going to have to be different. You can't go through a process like this. It's not fair, it forces you to make bad decisions. I mean, if you're forced into doing things that you would normally not do except for these archaic rules, so --

MACCALLUM: Like what, how would you change them?

TRUMP: Well, you know, you look at the voting and you look at the filibuster system. And it used to be. You know, I always thought of filibuster where you stand up and you talk all day and then somebody else--

MACCALLUM: You don't have to do that anymore.

TRUMP: No, you don't have to do it anymore. Today you say filibuster guys sit home and they watch television or whatever they do. I think, you know, the filibuster concept is not a good concept to start off with but if you're going to filibuster, let somebody stand up for 20hours and talk and do what they have to do or even if they are reading comic books to everybody, let them do it but honestly, the whole with so many bad concepts in our rules and it's forcing bad decisions. I really see. I see just -- I've seen this -- I've seen it over the years where bad decisions are made, decisions that nobody wanted are made because of archaic rules and that's something that I think we're going to have to change.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Where did the archaic system come from? What gives us the basis for the archaic rules that check executive power?

The filibuster is a creation of Congress, not the constitution you dumb ****.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Go back and read his quote and tell me you interpret that as just a problem with filibustering. He was either rambling or he was complaining about the many rules that make passing his legislature through difficult. I understand why it would be frustrating to face opposition if you are used to being the only voice that matters in your line of work but that's not how running this country works.

there's a difference between checks and balances vs. outright lying.....which you are obviously trying to accomplish with the latter....

DJT doesn't care about party lines.....he cares about the whole....

it's THE concept he ran on.....and the one we voted for....

we knew it wouldn't be easy......and he's laying it out exactly the way I expected and wanted....

buckle up buttercup.....reformation has only begun....

(04-30-2017 11:06 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:45 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:36 PM)Rob Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...untry.html

Here's the actual video.

Here is what the video said....

President Trump weighed in on governing what he called the "archaic rules" of the Senate. Nowhere does he say what you claim about the Constitution..

You posted fake news and got busted for it. Libs do it all the time.

Why do you assume I'm a Liberal? Where do the checks of his executive power originate from?

I didn't call you a lib. I just said libs post fake news all the time.

You insinuated it. Republicans are no better at avoiding fake/misleading news.

(04-30-2017 11:01 PM)Rob Wrote:  Go back and read his quote and tell me you interpret that as just a problem with filibustering. He was either rambling or he was complaining about the many rules that make passing his legislature through difficult. I understand why it would be frustrating to face opposition if you are used to being the only voice that matters in your line of work but that's not how running this country works.

He is clearly discussing the filibuster here. Not sure how you can interpret this any other way.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-30-2017 11:07 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 11:06 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:45 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:36 PM)Rob Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...untry.html

Here's the actual video.

Here is what the video said....

President Trump weighed in on governing what he called the "archaic rules" of the Senate. Nowhere does he say what you claim about the Constitution..

You posted fake news and got busted for it. Libs do it all the time.

Why do you assume I'm a Liberal? Where do the checks of his executive power originate from?

I didn't call you a lib. I just said libs post fake news all the time.

You insinuated it. Republicans are no better at avoiding fake/misleading news.

you're all-in on op-ed.....that's a gimme that will cost you over time....

to prove that point.....

name me one dem policy that makes economic sense......just one....I've asked this question for a few years now on this board.......I'm certain I will continue to not get a valid response....

Shocker...he didn't really say what was reported.

Again.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(04-30-2017 11:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 11:01 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:52 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:40 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 10:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  So.... not a damn thing said about the constitution itself. ffs, this is why you always have to go to the original source, always.
Lazy journalism and lazy poster.

I agree 100% on this. It does sometimes force bad decision making.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/0...-days.html




Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Where did the archaic system come from? What gives us the basis for the archaic rules that check executive power?

The filibuster is a creation of Congress, not the constitution you dumb ****.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Go back and read his quote and tell me you interpret that as just a problem with filibustering. He was either rambling or he was complaining about the many rules that make passing his legislature through difficult. I understand why it would be frustrating to face opposition if you are used to being the only voice that matters in your line of work but that's not how running this country works.

there's a difference between checks and balances vs. outright lying.....which you are obviously trying to accomplish with the latter....

DJT doesn't care about party lines.....he cares about the whole....

it's THE concept he ran on.....and the one we voted for....

we knew it wouldn't be easy......and he's laying it out exactly the way I expected and wanted....

buckle up buttercup.....reformation has only begun....

You're in for a rough time if you thought he cared about the whole. I would say you'll be disappointed but you appear to be a faithful servant so I doubt you'll ever come around.

(04-30-2017 11:08 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-30-2017 11:01 PM)Rob Wrote:  Go back and read his quote and tell me you interpret that as just a problem with filibustering. He was either rambling or he was complaining about the many rules that make passing his legislature through difficult. I understand why it would be frustrating to face opposition if you are used to being the only voice that matters in your line of work but that's not how running this country works.

He is clearly discussing the filibuster here. Not sure how you can interpret this any other way.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

We all see what we want, I guess,