Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Harry Reid finally realizes that you can't negotiate with terrorists, will put the nuclear option to a vote today if any of Obama's nominees get filibustered   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 142
    More: Followup, President Obama, Harry Reid, alternate ending, Export-Import Bank, Richard Cordray, CFPB, John McCain, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

1582 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jul 2013 at 10:25 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-16 10:27:48 AM  
Took him long enough to figure that out.
 
2013-07-16 10:29:26 AM  
Do it.
 
2013-07-16 10:29:29 AM  
I'll believe it when I see it.

/It's hard to believe that Republicans don't want him to do this, long term.
 
2013-07-16 10:30:51 AM  
He still won't do it.  You'll see.

Farking coward.
 
2013-07-16 10:31:12 AM  
He'll fold.
 
2013-07-16 10:32:36 AM  
The only thing dumber than blocking appointments to positions because of a party fighting, is thinking that the battle over the changing of Senate rules is something that is important outside of DC
 
2013-07-16 10:34:10 AM  
funnycatwallpapers.com
 
2013-07-16 10:34:11 AM  
Goddammit Harry I got more farking backbone than you do.

Just lemme trade some O SNAPS with a few peeps round here so I can get properly spun up.
 
2013-07-16 10:34:48 AM  
sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk
 
2013-07-16 10:35:06 AM  
i1.wp.com
 
2013-07-16 10:35:23 AM  
Please, Harry Reid, do not let this be an idle threat, especially if they filibuster any of the NLRB nominees or Richard Cordray for the CFPB. There is absolutely no excuse for letting the Republicans nullify a federal agency.
 
2013-07-16 10:37:25 AM  
farking do it or resign from your position, because if you don't do it you'll prove yourself to be the limpest possible dick to lead Senate democrats against the opposition.
 
2013-07-16 10:37:27 AM  

timswar: I'll believe it when I see it.

/It's hard to believe that Republicans don't want him to do this, long term.


It sets a HORRIBLE precedent. And as we've seen with the modern GOP, they're not afraid to break precedent, meaning if Reid pulls this off, the next time the GOP runs the Senate, any bill with a Democratic vote in favor is immediately scuttled and abortion becomes illegal under the 29th Amendment.
 
2013-07-16 10:37:55 AM  

WTF Indeed: The only thing dumber than blocking appointments to positions because of a party fighting, is thinking that the battle over the changing of Senate rules is something that is important outside of DC


There is that whole 'Who is in charge here?' 'We've been waiting 5 years to find out.' problem.
 
2013-07-16 10:38:50 AM  
Nuke Congress from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

/why, hello, NSA. How are you, today?
 
2013-07-16 10:39:51 AM  
If rulesa are not changed, I'd kind of settle with having republicans to actually filibuster a la Wendy Davis in Texas, all the shiat they threaten to, every time, and no only for appointments but for everything, and the speech has to remain on topic and relevant. No phone book reading or other funny shiat allowed. See how long they last.
 
2013-07-16 10:40:24 AM  

Lindsey Graham tells me he'll vote for Cordray, he'll get 60, pushing the #NuclearOption probably til tomorrow. D victory but also quandary

- Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) July 16, 2013
 
2013-07-16 10:40:45 AM  
I'd like to see Reid call out the Republican party as a terrorist organization on the Senate floor.
 
2013-07-16 10:41:13 AM  
I have a month sub that if the vote to change the rules is brought up, it does not garner enough votes to pass.
 
2013-07-16 10:42:42 AM  

Dr Dreidel: timswar: I'll believe it when I see it.

/It's hard to believe that Republicans don't want him to do this, long term.

It sets a HORRIBLE precedent. And as we've seen with the modern GOP, they're not afraid to break precedent, meaning if Reid pulls this off, the next time the GOP runs the Senate, any bill with a Democratic vote in favor is immediately scuttled and abortion becomes illegal under the 29th Amendment.


What precedent is he setting? The precedent of changing the Senate's rules by majority vote? Harry Reid said yesterday during his speech at the Center for American Progress that the Senate has changed the rules by majority vote eighteen times since Jimmy Carter was president. How is making that nineteen times setting precedent? Is it like those free lunch cards: "Buy nineteen pizzas, get one for free"?
 
2013-07-16 10:42:52 AM  

Dr Dreidel: timswar: I'll believe it when I see it.

/It's hard to believe that Republicans don't want him to do this, long term.

It sets a HORRIBLE precedent. And as we've seen with the modern GOP, they're not afraid to break precedent, meaning if Reid pulls this off, the next time the GOP runs the Senate, any bill with a Democratic vote in favor is immediately scuttled and abortion becomes illegal under the 29th Amendment.


The Democrats can't complain that Congress is gridlocked and then protect the filibuster so they can use it when they want to later.  That is about as much cowardly bullshiat as I have ever heard.

The filibuster was NEVER INTENDED to work like this.  Fix the goddamn thing already.  You assholes were elected to lead.  FARKING LEAD!
 
2013-07-16 10:44:10 AM  

Serious Black: Dr Dreidel: timswar: I'll believe it when I see it.

/It's hard to believe that Republicans don't want him to do this, long term.

It sets a HORRIBLE precedent. And as we've seen with the modern GOP, they're not afraid to break precedent, meaning if Reid pulls this off, the next time the GOP runs the Senate, any bill with a Democratic vote in favor is immediately scuttled and abortion becomes illegal under the 29th Amendment.

What precedent is he setting? The precedent of changing the Senate's rules by majority vote? Harry Reid said yesterday during his speech at the Center for American Progress that the Senate has changed the rules by majority vote eighteen times since Jimmy Carter was president. How is making that nineteen times setting precedent? Is it like those free lunch cards: "Buy nineteen pizzas, get one for free"?


Changing the rules intersession is unprecidented.
 
2013-07-16 10:44:23 AM  
This won't effect the Dems when they're in the minority for one simple reason: they're too cowardly to filibuster. If the situation were reversed and the Dems were halting Republican nominees, Fox News would be dogpiling on the senator in question and calling them the worst traitor since the invention of traitors and keep the pressure on until they hid under a rock.
 
2013-07-16 10:45:01 AM  
What's the total count on Obama's nominees to the various government agencies and federal courts that have been held up by the Senate?
 
2013-07-16 10:45:32 AM  
It bears repeating:

Do it.
Do it.
Do it.
 
2013-07-16 10:46:03 AM  
He claimed that the "provocation" by Democrats filibustering Bush judicial nominees was so serious that it had prompted Frist's attempted rules change. But "cooler heads prevailed" in 2005, McConnell said, "We knew it would be a mistake for the long-term future of the Senate and the country. That's what I hope is going to happen here, David. We have an opportunity to pull back from the brink in this meeting we're going to have of senators in the old Senate chamber Monday night. I hope we'll come to our senses and not change the core of the Senate."

This is BS the ONLY reason they didn't do it was because Democrats caved. He is pretending that the Republicans decided it was a bad idea and didn't do it which isn't true at all. What happened was the democrats stopped blocking the judges from being nominated.

And of course the news never points out this BS.
 
2013-07-16 10:46:49 AM  

Dr Dreidel: It sets a HORRIBLE precedent. And as we've seen with the modern GOP, they're not afraid to break precedent, meaning if Reid pulls this off, the next time the GOP runs the Senate, any bill with a Democratic vote in favor is immediately scuttled and abortion becomes illegal under the 29th Amendment.


It sets a horrible precedent? But that's ok, because the GOP breaks precedents?  And somehow Article I, Section 5 trumps Article V?

testslorius.startlogic.com

Or was this post just meant to be a mockery of GOP "thought" processes?
 
2013-07-16 10:47:00 AM  

Saiga410: Changing the rules intersession is unprecidented.


Is holding up nominations like the GOP is doing unprecedented as well?  When professionalism and ethics leave the bulding, you tend to have to do unprecedented stuff to keep an organization running.
 
2013-07-16 10:47:07 AM  

meat0918: What's the total count on Obama's nominees to the various government agencies and federal courts that have been held up by the Senate?


For federal agencies I believe it's higher than every past president combined.
 
2013-07-16 10:47:30 AM  

Alphax: There is that whole 'Who is in charge here?' 'We've been waiting 5 years to find out.' problem.


If you think having the Under Secretary of the Interior appointed will drastically change the government for the better I think you better learn how politics actually works.
 
2013-07-16 10:48:49 AM  

Saiga410: Changing the rules intersession is unprecidented.


Filibustering presidential appointments to try to destroy an agency of the Executive Branch is pretty unprecedented as well.
 
2013-07-16 10:49:10 AM  
Can someone tell me how an empty threat of wanting more votes to pass a bill and a 12-hour marathon standing-and-talking session are both called a "filibuster".

Also, I still don't believe Reid will do anything. As others have pointed out, it's a "seeing is believing (and not seeing is typical)" moment
 
2013-07-16 10:49:19 AM  

Saiga410: Serious Black: Dr Dreidel: timswar: I'll believe it when I see it.

/It's hard to believe that Republicans don't want him to do this, long term.

It sets a HORRIBLE precedent. And as we've seen with the modern GOP, they're not afraid to break precedent, meaning if Reid pulls this off, the next time the GOP runs the Senate, any bill with a Democratic vote in favor is immediately scuttled and abortion becomes illegal under the 29th Amendment.

What precedent is he setting? The precedent of changing the Senate's rules by majority vote? Harry Reid said yesterday during his speech at the Center for American Progress that the Senate has changed the rules by majority vote eighteen times since Jimmy Carter was president. How is making that nineteen times setting precedent? Is it like those free lunch cards: "Buy nineteen pizzas, get one for free"?

Changing the rules intersession is unprecidented.


The intersession change wouldn't be necessary if McConnell wouldn't have reneged on the agreement he made at the beginning of the session.
 
2013-07-16 10:49:21 AM  

Jairzinho: If rulesa are not changed, I'd kind of settle with having republicans to actually filibuster a la Wendy Davis in Texas, all the shiat they threaten to, every time, and no only for appointments but for everything, and the speech has to remain on topic and relevant. No phone book reading or other funny shiat allowed. See how long they last.


For god's sake yes, just force them to ACTUALLY filibuster.  Go ahead.  Hold up everything else that's important by talking as long as you can to keep this from going to a vote.  Eventually you'll be forced to give up, or called to account by your constituents for holding up everything else over piddly shiat.
 
2013-07-16 10:49:29 AM  

Lackofname: This won't effect the Dems when they're in the minority for one simple reason: they're too cowardly to filibuster. If the situation were reversed and the Dems were halting Republican nominees, Fox News would be dogpiling on the senator in question and calling them the worst traitor since the invention of traitors and keep the pressure on until they hid under a rock.


Democrats did.

Then the Republicans threatened the same "nuclear option" they are now saying is unfair and the Democrats backed down.
 
2013-07-16 10:50:19 AM  

Dr Dreidel: timswar: I'll believe it when I see it.

/It's hard to believe that Republicans don't want him to do this, long term.

It sets a HORRIBLE precedent. And as we've seen with the modern GOP, they're not afraid to break precedent, meaning if Reid pulls this off, the next time the GOP runs the Senate, any bill with a Democratic vote in favor is immediately scuttled and abortion becomes illegal under the 29th Amendment.


So instead Reid lets them rule from a minority position by just threatening a filibuster anytime a Democrat wants to order out for lunch?
 
2013-07-16 10:51:43 AM  

Dr Dreidel: timswar: I'll believe it when I see it.

/It's hard to believe that Republicans don't want him to do this, long term.

It sets a HORRIBLE precedent. And as we've seen with the modern GOP, they're not afraid to break precedent, meaning if Reid pulls this off, the next time the GOP runs the Senate, any bill with a Democratic vote in favor is immediately scuttled and abortion becomes illegal under the 29th Amendment.


What you wrote makes no sense at all.
1) You say that by changing the filibuster rules (for appointments only - not for regular bills), Reid would set a precedent (of changing Senate rules) that Republicans would not be afraid to break.  So does that mean you think they wouldn't be afraid to NOT change things?

2) Reid isn't teaching Republicans any new tricks here.  If you think they wouldn't destroy the filibuster the first day they had 51 votes in the Senate, then you're dreaming.

3) The only way that the Senate would be involved with amendments requires a constitutionally mandated 2/3rd majority vote (67) - more than they would need to override a filibuster as it stands now.
 
2013-07-16 10:52:03 AM  

Lackofname: This won't effect the Dems when they're in the minority for one simple reason: they're too cowardly to filibuster. If the situation were reversed and the Dems were halting Republican nominees, Fox News would be dogpiling on the senator in question and calling them the worst traitor since the invention of traitors and keep the pressure on until they hid under a rock.


Yeah, but would they actually listen to what Fox News has to say?

/sadly, they would
 
2013-07-16 10:52:16 AM  

Lackofname: This won't effect the Dems when they're in the minority for one simple reason: they're too cowardly to filibuster.


Pretty much this.
 
2013-07-16 10:52:16 AM  

WTF Indeed: Alphax: There is that whole 'Who is in charge here?' 'We've been waiting 5 years to find out.' problem.

If you think having the Under Secretary of the Interior appointed will drastically change the government for the better I think you better learn how politics actually works.


You mean the agency that handles oil deals for Federal land? You're right, no way that agency matters.

/it all matters. Stop stealing the gas from the car then biatching that Obama hasn't driven anywhere.
 
2013-07-16 10:53:05 AM  

Mercutio74: Saiga410: Changing the rules intersession is unprecidented.

Is holding up nominations like the GOP is doing unprecedented as well?  When professionalism and ethics leave the bulding, you tend to have to do unprecedented stuff to keep an organization running.


No there is precedent to holding up nominations like the GOP is doing... maybe not in the sheer scale but has been done in the past.  It was done less than a decade ago but with the roles reversed.
 
2013-07-16 10:53:45 AM  

meat0918: What's the total count on Obama's nominees to the various government agencies and federal courts that have been held up by the Senate?


It was 120 as of last month. I don't know how many has been added since then.
 
2013-07-16 10:54:03 AM  
Most countries that want to emulate the US still don't use our legislative system.

They prefer a parliamentary system. The Senate is just a little too complicated with all it's special rules.

Moore's Exception for the Senate is Nothing Changes Ever. Civil Right took how many centuries? Kyoto? Fixing Gerrymandering?
 
2013-07-16 10:54:56 AM  

Mercutio74: Saiga410: Changing the rules intersession is unprecidented.

Is holding up nominations like the GOP is doing unprecedented as well? When professionalism and ethics leave the bulding, you tend to have to do unprecedented stuff to keep an organization running.


Exactly my point. The world doesn't stop spinning just because you can only change the rules once every two years. The Republicans in the Senate are behaving like nihilists. They are quite clearly trying to nullify lawfully-created government agencies. They've outright admitted they have no qualms with Richard Cordray or any of the NLRB nominees; they just don't want the CFPB and NLRB to do anything, and they legally cannot do anything if they have no confirmed leader/cannot seat a quorum of their leaders. I cannot recall any other time in the country's history when a minority caucus shut down federal agencies in this way. This nullification is unprecedented.
 
2013-07-16 10:55:16 AM  
If one of the following doesn't happen:

(A) All appointees approved, or
(B) Nuclear option invoked

then I'm moving to Nevada and voting against Reid.
 
2013-07-16 10:58:00 AM  
The "nuclear option" doesn't even eliminate the true filibuster, just anonymous holds as used by terrible people.  If the republicans take the senate, and this goes through, I can guess that they'll outright eliminate the filibuster in every form in their imagined "self defense" against liberal tactics like making the senate work again.
 
2013-07-16 10:59:29 AM  
The fact that democrats are spineless does make a rule like this a better deal for them. They are too wimpy to push the envelope with filibusters like this when they are in the minority so might as well make them against the rules while you can.
 
2013-07-16 10:59:45 AM  

Serious Black: They are quite clearly trying to nullify lawfully-created government agencies.


 It isn't just cabinet positions, the GOP are stalling federal judge nominations as well.  They don't want Obama to be able to do anything.
 
2013-07-16 11:02:03 AM  
for all the shiat obama gets for being spineless, reid deserves it a million times more.

just watch, he'll cave in.
 
2013-07-16 11:02:08 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: If one of the following doesn't happen:

(A) All appointees approved, or
(B) Nuclear option invoked

then I'm moving to Nevada and voting against Reid.


You may actually have to run against him. Even in what was seen as a weakened position all the GOP was able to get to run against him was a 61 years old grandmother and tea-bagger, Sharon Angle who was just an embarrassment and was sent packing.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report