If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   House GOP: That's a mighty nice second term you've got there, Mr. President. Shame if something were to happen to it if you tried pushing shiat through on our lame-duck session   (politico.com) divider line 106
    More: Interesting, House GOP, Mr. President, White House, GOP, obama, executive sessions, lame duck, Oval Office  
•       •       •

4052 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Nov 2012 at 11:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-05 03:05:33 PM
Seriously? Repubs you have really lost your minds this time.
 
2012-11-05 04:03:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: You appear to be optimistic about "things returning to normal". Assuming nothing happens to the filibuster (remember the last 2 times they've thought about reworking it?) and the houses stay about where they are or are projected to be (House: GOP+40ish, Senate: Dems+6), what is the reason for this optimism?


Did you not click on that link? The senate cannot change senate rules with a simple majority EXCEPT during the beginning of each Congress. There's only a new Congress every 2 years. Harry Reid has previously been against changing the filibuster because it's been an important tool of Senate politics for decades. Hence, any talk about changing the filibuster rules has been shot down by the majority leader himself.

Now, with the GOP using it for absolutely every bill, Reid regrets not changing it before and has openly promised to change the filibuster in 2013 (next Congress). That is what has changed. Hopefully, they'll change it to require ACTUAL SPEAKING, closing up that loophole that Robert Byrd found in the 70s. I dare the GOP to threaten to filibuster everything if it requires them to read phone books for 12 hours.
 
2012-11-05 04:17:09 PM

SineSwiper: Dr Dreidel: You appear to be optimistic about "things returning to normal". Assuming nothing happens to the filibuster (remember the last 2 times they've thought about reworking it?) and the houses stay about where they are or are projected to be (House: GOP+40ish, Senate: Dems+6), what is the reason for this optimism?

Did you not click on that link? The senate cannot change senate rules with a simple majority EXCEPT during the beginning of each Congress. There's only a new Congress every 2 years. Harry Reid has previously been against changing the filibuster because it's been an important tool of Senate politics for decades. Hence, any talk about changing the filibuster rules has been shot down by the majority leader himself.


I know they were talking about it in 2008 and in 2010 (with the new Congresses then). I couldn't remember if they also talked about it in 2006 (remember all the "nuclear option" talk when Dems were gearing up to filibust Bush's judicial nominees?). Basically, this is the same argument people made before Congress was seated the last 2 times, and were making waves about needing a change the time before.

I won't believe that they'd change the filibuster, until they actually hold a vote or publish the alternate version of the rules they'll be presenting in advance of that vote.

Now, with the GOP using it for absolutely every bill, Reid regrets not changing it before and has openly promised to change the filibuster in 2013 (next Congress). That is what has changed. Hopefully, they'll change it to require ACTUAL SPEAKING, closing up that loophole that Robert Byrd found in the 70s. I dare the GOP to threaten to filibuster everything if it requires them to read phone books for 12 hours.

They changed the rules to allow other business to happen during a filibuster 55-60 years ago (and again 30-40 years ago). "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" is good theater, but crappy legislating. Reid has a letter from Senate Democrats, but he has to know that Democrats will eventually find themselves holding fewer than however many seats it takes to sustain a filibuster - this is why previous attempts failed (he said as much in the WaPo link).

This sounds - again - like election-time red-meat. I'll believe in filibuster reform when I see it.
 
2012-11-05 04:22:30 PM

Mi-5: The Stealth Hippopotamus: And Harry Reid says he'll block anything that Romney wants. Don't you just love the two party system?!

LOVE HARRY REID. I give him shiat every once in a while since he represents my home state, but I love that guy. Proud of him and I hope he would give any Romney Presidency shiat for 4 years.
I certainly hope we don't have to endure the ass-pain of a disastrous Romney/Ryan White House, but if we did, I'm sure Harry will give them a good old Nevada bristlecone pine right up the ass.


FARK YES. I love the guy--he does so much good for the state (although after last election had a senile moment--ffs, Reid, you know the media's going to cherrypick, talking about getting rid of prostitution is farking retarded), and he's got balls.

If Obama grows a pair, we might actually get something done sometime soon.
 
2012-11-05 04:46:10 PM

Dr Dreidel: I know they were talking about it in 2008 and in 2010 (with the new Congresses then). I couldn't remember if they also talked about it in 2006 (remember all the "nuclear option" talk when Dems were gearing up to filibust Bush's judicial nominees?). Basically, this is the same argument people made before Congress was seated the last 2 times, and were making waves about needing a change the time before.

I won't believe that they'd change the filibuster, until they actually hold a vote or publish the alternate version of the rules they'll be presenting in advance of that vote.


It would be political suicide not to. Look at that graph. Worst Congress EVER! Every senator knows that the filibuster caused that mess. Every single Democrat would vote for ANYTHING that would change the filibuster, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some Republican senators that are also tired of the mess voting for it, too. (If there are any "moderates" left...)

It's not an option. It's an absolute necessity. People who are in the thick of it (ie: senators) know that a helluva lot better than us.
 
2012-11-06 07:17:41 AM
If the GOP house is going to drag their feet again for another 2 years, they are going to see a 2014 election that will wipe their stain out of DC. It will also crush any chance at the WH in 2016 no matter how moderate their candidate will try to be.
 
Displayed 6 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report