(01-21-2022 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 07:14 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I think 60 is as good a number as any so why change it? Moving the number closer to a simple majority (50+) would suggest it's implicitly (ww?) wrong.

Remember a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). A much higher threshold and rightfully so.

On second thought when I become King I think I'll set the Senate threshold at 67 votes. Hopefully that will kill off a tranche or two of 'unnecessary' legislation and related spending. After all it takes a vote of two-thirds vote of both houses to overturn a presidential veto.

For those arguing that the role of the Legislative branch is to continuously pass additional laws I'd point you to two sources:

Thomas R Dye's Understanding Public Policy, "Public policy is not only what you choose to do, but also what you choose not to do."

And the Austrian School of Economics (paraphrased), "Governmental intervention will always result in further governmental intervention."

I always liked the idea of a line item veto.

OK, 60 is good, and so is 67. The whole point is to avoid a nearly evenly divided Senate, like we have now, from running roughshod over the minority.

I mean, I don't know if I have that big of a problem with laws that can then be undone in 2 years if voters don't like them. It seems odd, to me, that a minority party has the power to completely block the legislative agenda for the majority party. I'd like to find a way to encourage compromise - and I think a reduction in the # of Senators who can invoke a filibuster (or changing how a filibuster is executed), would be good.

Amendments are far more serious in their scope, so a super majority makes sense there.

The Voter's Rights legislation should be renamed the Voting Procedures Act, since nobody's rights are being protected from anything.

Washington, DC has ruled that to enter a restaurant, one must show a vax record AND A PHOTO ID. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has complained they are trying to keep black patrons out of restaurants. But the requirement to show ID to vote is widely condemned as suppressive of the black vote. I guess they are saying that having pull out their wallet is too tough for blacks, but not for whites. Nothing racist there.

Clyburn complains vociferously about the rule involving giving of water to people in line. Nobody has shown that there is any part of the rule that says water is denied only to black voters. I guess Clyburn's point is that black voters are easily deterred from voting, more so than whites. They will leave for a drink of water and never come back, while whites will persevere. Nothing racist about that view at all.

Same for reducing the number of drop in boxes. I guess they are saying black voters won't drive an extra few miles, and white voters will. Nothing racist there, either.

Odd that it is easier to vote in Georgia than in Delaware, yet they moved the All-Star game because...what?

(Which prominent Democrat is from Delaware?)

It's just a political exercise.

(01-21-2022 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 07:14 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I think 60 is as good a number as any so why change it? Moving the number closer to a simple majority (50+) would suggest it's implicitly (ww?) wrong.

Remember a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). A much higher threshold and rightfully so.

On second thought when I become King I think I'll set the Senate threshold at 67 votes. Hopefully that will kill off a tranche or two of 'unnecessary' legislation and related spending. After all it takes a vote of two-thirds vote of both houses to overturn a presidential veto.

For those arguing that the role of the Legislative branch is to continuously pass additional laws I'd point you to two sources:

Thomas R Dye's Understanding Public Policy, "Public policy is not only what you choose to do, but also what you choose not to do."

And the Austrian School of Economics (paraphrased), "Governmental intervention will always result in further governmental intervention."

I always liked the idea of a line item veto.

OK, 60 is good, and so is 67. The whole point is to avoid a nearly evenly divided Senate, like we have now, from running roughshod over the minority.

I mean, I don't know if I have that big of a problem with laws that can then be undone in 2 years if voters don't like them. It seems odd, to me, that a minority party has the power to completely block the legislative agenda for the majority party. I'd like to find a way to encourage compromise - and I think a reduction in the # of Senators who can invoke a filibuster (or changing how a filibuster is executed), would be good.

Amendments are far more serious in their scope, so a super majority makes sense there.

My issue is the fundamental deep dishonesty that is manifest in the Democrat push.

Currently, the specific people are now clamoring for and claiming to be saving both the Senate and democracy as as whole; and propose to do that by literally bulldozing the filibuster.

Turn the clock back five years.

The very people noted above who are now demanding that the filibuster be relegated to the ash heap of history then demanded that Mitch McConnell “save the Senate”. They demanded that he "save the Senate and democracy as a whole" at that time by refusing Orange Man's calls for elimination of the legislative filibuster. Which McConnell repeatedly and successfully did.

This demonstrates the broader and amazingly deeper dishonesty of the current Left.

(01-21-2022 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 07:14 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I think 60 is as good a number as any so why change it? Moving the number closer to a simple majority (50+) would suggest it's implicitly (ww?) wrong.

Remember a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). A much higher threshold and rightfully so.

On second thought when I become King I think I'll set the Senate threshold at 67 votes. Hopefully that will kill off a tranche or two of 'unnecessary' legislation and related spending. After all it takes a vote of two-thirds vote of both houses to overturn a presidential veto.

For those arguing that the role of the Legislative branch is to continuously pass additional laws I'd point you to two sources:

Thomas R Dye's Understanding Public Policy, "Public policy is not only what you choose to do, but also what you choose not to do."

And the Austrian School of Economics (paraphrased), "Governmental intervention will always result in further governmental intervention."

I always liked the idea of a line item veto.

OK, 60 is good, and so is 67. The whole point is to avoid a nearly evenly divided Senate, like we have now, from running roughshod over the minority.

I mean, I don't know if I have that big of a problem with laws that can then be undone in 2 years if voters don't like them. It seems odd, to me, that a minority party has the power to completely block the legislative agenda for the majority party. I'd like to find a way to encourage compromise - and I think a reduction in the # of Senators who can invoke a filibuster (or changing how a filibuster is executed), would be good.

Amendments are far more serious in their scope, so a super majority makes sense there.

My issue is the fundamental deep dishonesty that is manifest in the Democrat push.

Currently, the specific people are now clamoring for and claiming to be saving both the Senate and democracy as as whole; and propose to do that by literally bulldozing the filibuster.

Turn the clock back five years.

The very people noted above who are now demanding that the filibuster be relegated to the ash heap of history then demanded that Mitch McConnell “save the Senate”. They demanded that he "save the Senate and democracy as a whole" at that time by refusing Orange Man's calls for elimination of the legislative filibuster. Which McConnell repeatedly and successfully did.

This demonstrates the broader and amazingly deeper dishonesty of the current Left.

News flash - both sides hate each other and are deeply dishonest. The Left is no more, nor less, dishonest than the Right. There is no party free of blatant and obvious hypocrisy. I mean, Reps got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

I would love for this all to not be the case, but it isn't. And in this instance, the conversation about whether the filibuster in its current form, is in need of changing, is far more interesting.

How about we simply craft legislation that isn't so divisive that we have to coerce people just in order to get 50.1% of members to support it?

It's not the filibuster that needs to be changed... its the concept of the government doing things that are so divisive on the thinnest of margins and packing these bills so full of favors and bribes that they can't even pass within their own party.

I mean seriously... There are only a few issues upon which the left and right can't find a few members from the other party who will go along.... and those seem to be the ones that each party focuses all of their energy on the minute they get elected and take the majority.

(01-21-2022 12:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How about we simply craft legislation that isn't so divisive that we have to coerce people just in order to get 50.1% of members to support it?

It's not the filibuster that needs to be changed... its the concept of the government doing things that are so divisive on the thinnest of margins and packing these bills so full of favors and bribes that they can't even pass within their own party.

I mean seriously... There are only a few issues upon which the left and right can't find a few members from the other party who will go along.... and those seem to be the ones that each party focuses all of their energy on the minute they get elected and take the majority.

I talked a bit about this before.

For starters, I think it's overstated how divisive legislation actually is. The political parties are often just very far apart about what they want to do, and not in a divisive way. They are both also far more interested in playing politics than governing, and some of that is that there isn't much incentive to compromise because of how relatively easy it is to filibuster.

I think it's more likely that we see bipartisan compromise if fewer minority party Senators were needed, therefore empowering them to push for change should only two or three need to defect.

Currently, there isn't really an incentive for the minority party to engage in legislation negotiations if they're absolutely confident they can hold up legislation. I don't think it's inherently best to let the majority rule without any minority protection, but the majority should have the upper hand (they were generally elected by more people, after all).

I come from the perspective that CLEARLY the current filibuster is not leading towards greater compromise, so something needs to change.

(01-21-2022 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 07:14 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I think 60 is as good a number as any so why change it? Moving the number closer to a simple majority (50+) would suggest it's implicitly (ww?) wrong.

Remember a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). A much higher threshold and rightfully so.

On second thought when I become King I think I'll set the Senate threshold at 67 votes. Hopefully that will kill off a tranche or two of 'unnecessary' legislation and related spending. After all it takes a vote of two-thirds vote of both houses to overturn a presidential veto.

For those arguing that the role of the Legislative branch is to continuously pass additional laws I'd point you to two sources:

Thomas R Dye's Understanding Public Policy, "Public policy is not only what you choose to do, but also what you choose not to do."

And the Austrian School of Economics (paraphrased), "Governmental intervention will always result in further governmental intervention."

I always liked the idea of a line item veto.

OK, 60 is good, and so is 67. The whole point is to avoid a nearly evenly divided Senate, like we have now, from running roughshod over the minority.

I mean, I don't know if I have that big of a problem with laws that can then be undone in 2 years if voters don't like them. It seems odd, to me, that a minority party has the power to completely block the legislative agenda for the majority party. I'd like to find a way to encourage compromise - and I think a reduction in the # of Senators who can invoke a filibuster (or changing how a filibuster is executed), would be good.

Amendments are far more serious in their scope, so a super majority makes sense there.

My issue is the fundamental deep dishonesty that is manifest in the Democrat push.

Currently, the specific people are now clamoring for and claiming to be saving both the Senate and democracy as as whole; and propose to do that by literally bulldozing the filibuster.

Turn the clock back five years.

The very people noted above who are now demanding that the filibuster be relegated to the ash heap of history then demanded that Mitch McConnell “save the Senate”. They demanded that he "save the Senate and democracy as a whole" at that time by refusing Orange Man's calls for elimination of the legislative filibuster. Which McConnell repeatedly and successfully did.

This demonstrates the broader and amazingly deeper dishonesty of the current Left.

News flash - both sides hate each other and are deeply dishonest. The Left is no more, nor less, dishonest than the Right. There is no party free of blatant and obvious hypocrisy. I mean, Reps got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Lolz. I guess you forgot who nuked the presidential appointments and judges at the appellate level and lower as a first move.

SO yes, the left simply has a fing hard on for removing the filibuster. They were the first to suggest it, and the first to implement it. Republicans simply removed the last sliver in the judicial lining.

So please, there isnt much for sanctimony for the Left here.

Notwithstanding that issue, the Left, as noted above, *insisted* that the legislative filibuster intact. If McConnell had told them to sod off, your 'hypocrisy' argument might hold a tad more water. But McConnell actually did preserve it.

And, at the first fing opportunity, the Left not only brought it up in a sanctimonious and pious shriek of 'FOR DEMOCRACY', but they actually held a vote on it.

So no, the Left is far fing more hypocritical, and far fing more dishonest on this subject. Simple history is a testament to whom wishes to both shred the filibuster at a whim, *and* whom actually works to preserve it to their detriment.

History really doesnt back your statements above on which group is far more dishonest and far more hypocritical re: the filibuster, lad. That is, unless you intentionally choose to forget: a) who scrapped the appointments filibuster to the 99.9% level; b) who scrapped the filibuster as a first move; c) who moved to keep the legislative filibuster to their detriment; d) who called for keeping the legislative filibuster in the McConnell regime related to point c) above; and e) who, at the first opportunity, explicitly moved to scrap the legislative filibuster for the convenience.

Kind of a long laundry list to overlook with your pithy 'well both deserve equal indictment' I would say.

No, the Left has been abjectly and objectively fundamentally dishonest on this subject.

(01-21-2022 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  OK, 60 is good, and so is 67. The whole point is to avoid a nearly evenly divided Senate, like we have now, from running roughshod over the minority.

I mean, I don't know if I have that big of a problem with laws that can then be undone in 2 years if voters don't like them. It seems odd, to me, that a minority party has the power to completely block the legislative agenda for the majority party. I'd like to find a way to encourage compromise - and I think a reduction in the # of Senators who can invoke a filibuster (or changing how a filibuster is executed), would be good.

Amendments are far more serious in their scope, so a super majority makes sense there.

My issue is the fundamental deep dishonesty that is manifest in the Democrat push.

Currently, the specific people are now clamoring for and claiming to be saving both the Senate and democracy as as whole; and propose to do that by literally bulldozing the filibuster.

Turn the clock back five years.

The very people noted above who are now demanding that the filibuster be relegated to the ash heap of history then demanded that Mitch McConnell “save the Senate”. They demanded that he "save the Senate and democracy as a whole" at that time by refusing Orange Man's calls for elimination of the legislative filibuster. Which McConnell repeatedly and successfully did.

This demonstrates the broader and amazingly deeper dishonesty of the current Left.

News flash - both sides hate each other and are deeply dishonest. The Left is no more, nor less, dishonest than the Right. There is no party free of blatant and obvious hypocrisy. I mean, Reps got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Lolz. I guess you forgot who nuked the presidential appointments and judges at the appellate level and lower as a first move.

No, I didn't. I wasn't arguing that one side started it, I was pointing out that both sides do this...

Quote:SO yes, the left simply has a fing hard on for removing the filibuster. They were the first to suggest it, and the first to implement it. Republicans simply removed the last sliver in the judicial lining.

So please, there isnt much for sanctimony for the Left here.

Notwithstanding that issue, the Left, as noted above, *insisted* that the legislative filibuster intact. If McConnell had told them to sod off, your 'hypocrisy' argument might hold a tad more water. But McConnell actually did preserve it.

And, at the first fing opportunity, the Left not only brought it up in a sanctimonious and pious shriek of 'FOR DEMOCRACY', but they actually held a vote on it.

So no, the Left is far fing more hypocritical, and far fing more dishonest on this subject. Simple history is a testament to whom wishes to both shred the filibuster at a whim, *and* whom actually works to preserve it to their detriment.

History really doesnt back your statements above on which group is far more dishonest and far more hypocritical re: the filibuster, lad. That is, unless you intentionally choose to forget: a) who scrapped the appointments filibuster to the 99.9% level; b) who scrapped the filibuster as a first move; c) who moved to keep the legislative filibuster to their detriment; d) who called for keeping the legislative filibuster in the McConnell regime related to point c) above; and e) who, at the first opportunity, explicitly moved to scrap the legislative filibuster for the convenience.

Kind of a long laundry list to overlook with your pithy 'well both deserve equal indictment' I would say.

No, the Left has been abjectly and objectively fundamentally dishonest on this subject.

Ok, no real reason to debate this with you. Senate Dems are more hypocritical - go ahead and have that prize.

So now that we can move on from which political party is more ****** on this issue...

The question to me still becomes whether or not the modification of the existing filibuster somehow is a net positive. I'm currently leaning towards yes the more I've thought about the existing lack of incentive for compromise. Clearly the 60 vote threshold hasn't moved that needle.

(01-21-2022 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, I don't know if I have that big of a problem with laws that can then be undone in 2 years if voters don't like them. It seems odd, to me, that a minority party has the power to completely block the legislative agenda for the majority party. I'd like to find a way to encourage compromise - and I think a reduction in the # of Senators who can invoke a filibuster (or changing how a filibuster is executed), would be good.

Amendments are far more serious in their scope, so a super majority makes sense there.

My issue is the fundamental deep dishonesty that is manifest in the Democrat push.

Currently, the specific people are now clamoring for and claiming to be saving both the Senate and democracy as as whole; and propose to do that by literally bulldozing the filibuster.

Turn the clock back five years.

The very people noted above who are now demanding that the filibuster be relegated to the ash heap of history then demanded that Mitch McConnell “save the Senate”. They demanded that he "save the Senate and democracy as a whole" at that time by refusing Orange Man's calls for elimination of the legislative filibuster. Which McConnell repeatedly and successfully did.

This demonstrates the broader and amazingly deeper dishonesty of the current Left.

News flash - both sides hate each other and are deeply dishonest. The Left is no more, nor less, dishonest than the Right. There is no party free of blatant and obvious hypocrisy. I mean, Reps got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Lolz. I guess you forgot who nuked the presidential appointments and judges at the appellate level and lower as a first move.

No, I didn't. I wasn't arguing that one side started it, I was pointing out that both sides do this...

Quote:SO yes, the left simply has a fing hard on for removing the filibuster. They were the first to suggest it, and the first to implement it. Republicans simply removed the last sliver in the judicial lining.

So please, there isnt much for sanctimony for the Left here.

Notwithstanding that issue, the Left, as noted above, *insisted* that the legislative filibuster intact. If McConnell had told them to sod off, your 'hypocrisy' argument might hold a tad more water. But McConnell actually did preserve it.

And, at the first fing opportunity, the Left not only brought it up in a sanctimonious and pious shriek of 'FOR DEMOCRACY', but they actually held a vote on it.

So no, the Left is far fing more hypocritical, and far fing more dishonest on this subject. Simple history is a testament to whom wishes to both shred the filibuster at a whim, *and* whom actually works to preserve it to their detriment.

History really doesnt back your statements above on which group is far more dishonest and far more hypocritical re: the filibuster, lad. That is, unless you intentionally choose to forget: a) who scrapped the appointments filibuster to the 99.9% level; b) who scrapped the filibuster as a first move; c) who moved to keep the legislative filibuster to their detriment; d) who called for keeping the legislative filibuster in the McConnell regime related to point c) above; and e) who, at the first opportunity, explicitly moved to scrap the legislative filibuster for the convenience.

Kind of a long laundry list to overlook with your pithy 'well both deserve equal indictment' I would say.

No, the Left has been abjectly and objectively fundamentally dishonest on this subject.

Ok, no real reason to debate this with you. Senate Dems are more hypocritical - go ahead and have that prize.

So now that we can move on from which political party is more ****** on this issue...

The question to me still becomes whether or not the modification of the existing filibuster somehow is a net positive. I'm currently leaning towards yes the more I've thought about the existing lack of incentive for compromise. Clearly the 60 vote threshold hasn't moved that needle.

Perhaps the answer isnt using a 'fu we are jamming a federalization of voting issues, many of which lock in a license to maximize the ability to commit voter fraud' as a poster child for supposedly moderate legislation, or as a poster child for the immediate need for removing the filibuster speed bump.

You still havent addressed the 'perhaps moderate bills are the answer' given the current tableaux. All you can say is 'ROADBLOCK' and point to a very radicalized piece of legislation that is serving as a catalyst for a roadblock.

(01-21-2022 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My issue is the fundamental deep dishonesty that is manifest in the Democrat push.

Currently, the specific people are now clamoring for and claiming to be saving both the Senate and democracy as as whole; and propose to do that by literally bulldozing the filibuster.

Turn the clock back five years.

The very people noted above who are now demanding that the filibuster be relegated to the ash heap of history then demanded that Mitch McConnell “save the Senate”. They demanded that he "save the Senate and democracy as a whole" at that time by refusing Orange Man's calls for elimination of the legislative filibuster. Which McConnell repeatedly and successfully did.

This demonstrates the broader and amazingly deeper dishonesty of the current Left.

News flash - both sides hate each other and are deeply dishonest. The Left is no more, nor less, dishonest than the Right. There is no party free of blatant and obvious hypocrisy. I mean, Reps got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Lolz. I guess you forgot who nuked the presidential appointments and judges at the appellate level and lower as a first move.

No, I didn't. I wasn't arguing that one side started it, I was pointing out that both sides do this...

Quote:SO yes, the left simply has a fing hard on for removing the filibuster. They were the first to suggest it, and the first to implement it. Republicans simply removed the last sliver in the judicial lining.

So please, there isnt much for sanctimony for the Left here.

Notwithstanding that issue, the Left, as noted above, *insisted* that the legislative filibuster intact. If McConnell had told them to sod off, your 'hypocrisy' argument might hold a tad more water. But McConnell actually did preserve it.

And, at the first fing opportunity, the Left not only brought it up in a sanctimonious and pious shriek of 'FOR DEMOCRACY', but they actually held a vote on it.

So no, the Left is far fing more hypocritical, and far fing more dishonest on this subject. Simple history is a testament to whom wishes to both shred the filibuster at a whim, *and* whom actually works to preserve it to their detriment.

History really doesnt back your statements above on which group is far more dishonest and far more hypocritical re: the filibuster, lad. That is, unless you intentionally choose to forget: a) who scrapped the appointments filibuster to the 99.9% level; b) who scrapped the filibuster as a first move; c) who moved to keep the legislative filibuster to their detriment; d) who called for keeping the legislative filibuster in the McConnell regime related to point c) above; and e) who, at the first opportunity, explicitly moved to scrap the legislative filibuster for the convenience.

Kind of a long laundry list to overlook with your pithy 'well both deserve equal indictment' I would say.

No, the Left has been abjectly and objectively fundamentally dishonest on this subject.

Ok, no real reason to debate this with you. Senate Dems are more hypocritical - go ahead and have that prize.

So now that we can move on from which political party is more ****** on this issue...

The question to me still becomes whether or not the modification of the existing filibuster somehow is a net positive. I'm currently leaning towards yes the more I've thought about the existing lack of incentive for compromise. Clearly the 60 vote threshold hasn't moved that needle.

Perhaps the answer isnt using a 'fu we are jamming a federalization of voting issues, many of which lock in a license to maximize the ability to commit voter fraud' as a poster child for supposedly moderate legislation, or as a poster child for the immediate need for removing the filibuster speed bump.

You still havent addressed the 'perhaps moderate bills are the answer' given the current tableaux. All you can say is 'ROADBLOCK' and point to a very radicalized piece of legislation that is serving as a catalyst for a roadblock.

I wasn't using this as a poster child...

Congress, and notably the Senate, has been a paragon for inactivity and disfunction for a decade plus now. Clearly, based on your post, the conversation around tossing the filibuster isn't new.

I have addressed the bold. I think that's a false premise - I don't think any legislation around hot button issues that play to either party's base are going to be viewed as "moderate" by the opposing side, at least not in a way that actually gets 60 votes on the regular.

I've done far more than point to this piece of legislation - in fact, I haven't specifically talked about it once.

If you want to promote 'compromise' then you need to severely restrict executive orders.

Barry instructed the Democrats not work with Republicans so that he could use executive orders to end run legislation that clearly crossed the red line.

One example, DACA.

(And to many individuals, "compromise" is a dirty word. Like I said before, a line item veto would reign in some of the overreach and overspending.)

(01-21-2022 01:03 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  If you want to promote 'compromise' then you need to severely restrict executive orders.

Barry instructed the Democrats not work with Republicans so that he could use executive orders to end run legislation that clearly crossed the red line.

One example, DACA.

(And to many individuals, "compromise" is a dirty word. Like I said before, a line item veto would reign in some of the overreach and

The bolded gets at my point about political capital for the 60 vote threshold. There are likely some people on the other side (whichever it may be) willing to play ball, but unwilling to waste political capital if the bill won't pass. Lower the threshold some amount and perhaps you start seeing interesting combinations of legislators and more people being involved.

Perhaps then, you start seeing bills that will result in more compromise as well for the fact that there is a greater chance they're overturned if the parties switch power.

(01-21-2022 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  News flash - both sides hate each other and are deeply dishonest. The Left is no more, nor less, dishonest than the Right. There is no party free of blatant and obvious hypocrisy. I mean, Reps got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Lolz. I guess you forgot who nuked the presidential appointments and judges at the appellate level and lower as a first move.

No, I didn't. I wasn't arguing that one side started it, I was pointing out that both sides do this...

Quote:SO yes, the left simply has a fing hard on for removing the filibuster. They were the first to suggest it, and the first to implement it. Republicans simply removed the last sliver in the judicial lining.

So please, there isnt much for sanctimony for the Left here.

Notwithstanding that issue, the Left, as noted above, *insisted* that the legislative filibuster intact. If McConnell had told them to sod off, your 'hypocrisy' argument might hold a tad more water. But McConnell actually did preserve it.

And, at the first fing opportunity, the Left not only brought it up in a sanctimonious and pious shriek of 'FOR DEMOCRACY', but they actually held a vote on it.

So no, the Left is far fing more hypocritical, and far fing more dishonest on this subject. Simple history is a testament to whom wishes to both shred the filibuster at a whim, *and* whom actually works to preserve it to their detriment.

History really doesnt back your statements above on which group is far more dishonest and far more hypocritical re: the filibuster, lad. That is, unless you intentionally choose to forget: a) who scrapped the appointments filibuster to the 99.9% level; b) who scrapped the filibuster as a first move; c) who moved to keep the legislative filibuster to their detriment; d) who called for keeping the legislative filibuster in the McConnell regime related to point c) above; and e) who, at the first opportunity, explicitly moved to scrap the legislative filibuster for the convenience.

Kind of a long laundry list to overlook with your pithy 'well both deserve equal indictment' I would say.

No, the Left has been abjectly and objectively fundamentally dishonest on this subject.

Ok, no real reason to debate this with you. Senate Dems are more hypocritical - go ahead and have that prize.

So now that we can move on from which political party is more ****** on this issue...

The question to me still becomes whether or not the modification of the existing filibuster somehow is a net positive. I'm currently leaning towards yes the more I've thought about the existing lack of incentive for compromise. Clearly the 60 vote threshold hasn't moved that needle.

Perhaps the answer isnt using a 'fu we are jamming a federalization of voting issues, many of which lock in a license to maximize the ability to commit voter fraud' as a poster child for supposedly moderate legislation, or as a poster child for the immediate need for removing the filibuster speed bump.

You still havent addressed the 'perhaps moderate bills are the answer' given the current tableaux. All you can say is 'ROADBLOCK' and point to a very radicalized piece of legislation that is serving as a catalyst for a roadblock.

I wasn't using this as a poster child...

Congress, and notably the Senate, has been a paragon for inactivity and disfunction for a decade plus now. Clearly, based on your post, the conversation around tossing the filibuster isn't new.

I have addressed the bold. I think that's a false premise - I don't think any legislation around hot button issues that play to either party's base are going to be viewed as "moderate" by the opposing side, at least not in a way that actually gets 60 votes on the regular.

I've done far more than point to this piece of legislation - in fact, I haven't specifically talked about it once.

Correct -- all you have said is how dramatically dysfunctional and that nothing ever gets done at the most general of levels.

I would hazard that the things that are most common sense, and moderate, actually do get passed. PPP for one large example.

There is a wikipage detailing the 442 public laws passed between 2017-01-03 2019-01-03 (i.e. the acts of the 115th United States Congress), and that of the 344 public laws passed between 2019-01-03 and 2021-01-03 (i.e. acts of the 116th United States Congress).

Seems to me there are at least 600 subjects that are viewed as 'moderate' by the opposing side) (after eyeballing removing the 'naming courthouses'-type bills that Robert O'Rourke made a career on).

The issue seems to devolve to 'Congress doesnt pass the bills that *you* seemingly want and make a splash about'.

Hate to tell you, the passage of a bill that fundamentally alters a segment of the United States *should* be considered thoroughly, and *should* be passed with such through debate.

As an example, lets take the significant one of Obamacare that wasnt the product of that process. Kind of a fked up piece of **** that we are now burdened with.

Im sorry, but greasing the skids for that type of monster pile of ****, or for the one that is the poster child now for 'we need it NOOOOOWWWW' simply doesnt seem really gd smart to me.

Approach it and get the pieces with consensus at a first bit. Horse swap to make it palatable for a greater than majoritarian consensus for passage.

Or, just throw an immature hissy fit and rant about how 'we need it NOOOOWWWW' is sufficient for passage.

I have seen now for 14 years which side of this debate the Democrats and progressives had placed themselves.

(01-21-2022 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The bolded gets at my point about political capital for the 60 vote threshold. There are likely some people on the other side (whichever it may be) willing to play ball, but unwilling to waste political capital if the bill won't pass. Lower the threshold some amount and perhaps you start seeing interesting combinations of legislators and more people being involved.

Quite frankly, I don't want to see anyone on "the other side" willing to play ball on BBB or any other part of the Biden-Harris agenda, because they are such horrible ideas that I don't want to see them in effect, neither totally nor partially as the result of any compromise.

My only hope is that Manchin and Sinema hold out until republicans can recapture at least one house of congress in the 2022 midterms. I really hope they can take control of the senate, because that is where appointments are approved, but given that the number of senators up for election this time is something like 20R and 14D, we will be damn lucky if republicans can keep it at 50-50.

I say this not because I like republicans, who have failed miserably to provide effective opposition, but because they are all we have and I can always hope that they wake up and start resisting.

(01-21-2022 12:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 12:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How about we simply craft legislation that isn't so divisive that we have to coerce people just in order to get 50.1% of members to support it?

It's not the filibuster that needs to be changed... its the concept of the government doing things that are so divisive on the thinnest of margins and packing these bills so full of favors and bribes that they can't even pass within their own party.

I mean seriously... There are only a few issues upon which the left and right can't find a few members from the other party who will go along.... and those seem to be the ones that each party focuses all of their energy on the minute they get elected and take the majority.

I talked a bit about this before.

For starters, I think it's overstated how divisive legislation actually is. The political parties are often just very far apart about what they want to do, and not in a divisive way. They are both also far more interested in playing politics than governing, and some of that is that there isn't much incentive to compromise because of how relatively easy it is to filibuster.

I think it's more likely that we see bipartisan compromise if fewer minority party Senators were needed, therefore empowering them to push for change should only two or three need to defect.

Currently, there isn't really an incentive for the minority party to engage in legislation negotiations if they're absolutely confident they can hold up legislation. I don't think it's inherently best to let the majority rule without any minority protection, but the majority should have the upper hand (they were generally elected by more people, after all).

I come from the perspective that CLEARLY the current filibuster is not leading towards greater compromise, so something needs to change.

If I remember correctly, it was two Democrats who defected and defeated the filibuster change.

First let's address structure. The House is somewhat different in that its membership seeks a majority as measured by population. The Senate membership by design seeks a majority based on states.

It seems to me that in a 50/50 Senate like we have now, NEITHER party should be looking to advance its agenda... since they only hold a majority based on tie-breaker rules and don't reflect a majority opinion (as measured by the states, which is the function of the Senate).

If something is quite literally only supported by half of the states, and yet that decision impacts all 50... then does it not seem clear to you that it is not popular enough for the feds to step in and create a 'blanket' rule for all 50 states? Doesn't it make sense that in order to pass a law that will impact all 50 states that it should take more than 25 states to pass it? Otherwise you would quite literally have laws going back and forth every few years based on the outcome of elections in perhaps just one or two tiny states.

This is a feature, not a flaw.

Given the record primary turnout in Texas, I guess those people who have been screaming and squawking about the voter suppression might have some 'egg on their face'.

Most notably, record primary participation in all Texas counties and Texas US representative districts having a frontage on the border seems a decent measure of the issue.

(03-03-2022 10:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the record primary turnout in Texas, I guess those people who have been screaming and squawking about the voter suppression might have some 'egg on their face'.

Most notably, record primary participation in all Texas counties and Texas US representative districts having a frontage on the border seems a decent measure of the issue.

The "voter suppression" narrative is a myth, just like the Trump-Russia collusion myth, both ginned up to whip the loyal Democratic base into a frenzy.

(03-03-2022 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 10:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the record primary turnout in Texas, I guess those people who have been screaming and squawking about the voter suppression might have some 'egg on their face'.
Most notably, record primary participation in all Texas counties and Texas US representative districts having a frontage on the border seems a decent measure of the issue.

The "voter suppression" narrative is a myth, just like the Trump-Russia collusion myth, both ginned up to whip the loyal Democratic base into a frenzy.

Well, they better whip them into a super frenzy, because they are not going to have any results to run on.

More importantly, republicans better not be asleep at the wheel like they were in 2020, and better not stand around with their thumbs up their asses while democrats strip all means of integrity from the election process.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but my enemies could use some more competent enemies.;

(03-20-2022 01:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 10:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the record primary turnout in Texas, I guess those people who have been screaming and squawking about the voter suppression might have some 'egg on their face'.
Most notably, record primary participation in all Texas counties and Texas US representative districts having a frontage on the border seems a decent measure of the issue.

The "voter suppression" narrative is a myth, just like the Trump-Russia collusion myth, both ginned up to whip the loyal Democratic base into a frenzy.

Well, they better whip them into a super frenzy, because they are not going to have any results to run on.

More importantly, republicans better not be asleep at the wheel like they were in 2020, and better not stand around with their thumbs up their asses while democrats strip all means of integrity from the election process.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but my enemies could use some more competent enemies.;

The main person who will run on voter suppression is Stacy Abrams, as that is her single issue. Like Trump, she thinks she has been the victim of election fraud and has never conceded.

It took me rereading this forum....

But it seems that the left is arguing that holding only the tie breaking vote in the Senate and not being able to always convince 100% of your own party to go along is 'a minority effectively blocking a majority's entire legislative agenda'...

but legislation that splits (mostly) down party lines isn't at all divisive?? Heck, we have Democrats on the other side (perhaps for different reasons, but still) and its being used to describe 'inclusive' legislation?

The numeric requirements for passing legislation hasn't changed. The means by which is is being 'sold' certainly has. The 'Affordable Care Act' which is 'sold' as giving everyone access to affordable care... and fails to deliver every word of that is among my favorite examples. Its not that the ACA has zero merit at all... it is that it is being described as the 'rainbows and butterflies and orphans children fund' so as to villainize those who would vote against it. What do you have against affordable care?? This certainly isn't the first such bill or even the worst by any means... just one that I've known was a fraud from the inception and have been intimately involved in for more than a decade. When a bill, even by its very name is designed to cause division... to squelch dissent... it almost doesn't matter what is in the bill. You will have 'enemies' (by design I might add) from the get-go. The Patriot Act... Build Back Better... dozens of examples. The only time such names should be used is if it is truly inclusive and has significant bipartisan support. Otherwise its just another political ploy.

I mean, if 100% of Dems and 50% of Reps (or vice versa) support things, call it what you want. If you're having to grease and coerce members of your own party, it should be 'The 2010 Healthcare Act' or 'The 2022 Roads and Infrastructure Bill'

Super-Majorities and fillibusters and the like have been around for decades... and both sides have taken advantage of them. If the entire legislative process weren't so divisive, we wouldn't be talking about changing the rules to make it easier to pass bills, when you're literally 50/50 in one or the other house.