Verified:

Angel1 Game profile

Member
837

Nov 22nd 2013, 4:44:58

http://www.foxnews.com/...cs-warn-move-will-damage/

We haven't seen ugly yet, but we will. The United States is a republic in a democratic form...we are not a democracy in a republican form. This is very important because as a republic, the representatives of the people are suppose to represent all of the people. The filibuster was an important measure to allow the minority a voice and to allow them to also be represented in the decisions of this government. Changing the rules to prevent a filibuster prevents a huge group of Americans from being represented in the US Senate. Mr. Reid and his Democratic mob have declared war on the American republic in the US Senate. For this reason, US politics have just jumped up several tiers of ugliness. I hope the Democrats are prepared to eat the soup they just made because they will have to eat it one day. When the Republicans retake the US Senate (and they will at some point), they will have no choice but to retaliate against the Democrats.
-Angel1

galleri Game profile

Game Moderator
Primary, Express, Tourney, & FFA
13,960

Nov 22nd 2013, 4:46:26

SOMEONE GET ROB FORD FROM CANADA!!!


https://gyazo.com/...b3bb28dddf908cdbcfd162513

Kahuna: Ya you just wrote the fkn equation, not helping me at all. Lol n I hated algebra.

Catchy Game profile

Member
248

Nov 22nd 2013, 6:11:37

Why would Republicans need to retaliate? Just fix it when they get into power. Sure it isn't fair to give the other side an tool they refuse you, but if it's the right thing to do then do it.

NorCal SOL

Member
39

Nov 22nd 2013, 7:47:10

I think "retaliate" was the wrong word to be used here. But Angel1 is correct. Power in the Senate will shift and the rule that the Democrats just pushed through will have them crying about how unfair it is... just like they did when the Republicans had the Senate and talked about using the nuclear option. Funny if you listen to Biden, Obama, Shumar, Kerry and several others back then compared to what they said today... it shows what hypocrites those in power actually are.

tellarion Game profile

Member
3906

Nov 22nd 2013, 8:31:30

The changed the rules to prevent filibusters during political appointments. A good change if you ask me.

Although honestly, if they really want to fix the filibuster system, they just need to make the senators 'actually' go through with it. Nowadays, just threatening to filibuster is enough to stall legislation. Time to call some bluffs yo!

mdevol Game profile

Member
3223

Nov 22nd 2013, 10:08:58

Obama 2005 - “I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about
power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose
this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because
they know it’s good for our democracy......The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if
the majority chooses to end the filibuster– if they choose to change the
rules and put an end to democratic debate – then the fighting and the
bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse"

Biden 2005 - "This is what’s really going on here, the majority
doesn’t want to hear what others have to say even if it’s the truth.
The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. I say to my
friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now, but you
won’t own it forever. I pray God, when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Reid 2005 - “The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of
power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government"
Surely what a man does when he is caught off his guard is the best evidence as to what sort of man he is. - C.S. Lewis

mdevol Game profile

Member
3223

Nov 22nd 2013, 10:12:52

This is going to get very ugly. VERY ugly in DC.

They may not be able to filibuster the appointments but they can still put every piece of legislation to a grinding halt.

On top of that, the government will be "shut down" again shortly.



Surely what a man does when he is caught off his guard is the best evidence as to what sort of man he is. - C.S. Lewis

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Nov 22nd 2013, 17:05:18

Were things *not* ugly already?
Finally did the signature thing.

Atryn Game profile

Member
2149

Nov 22nd 2013, 19:12:35

+1 tella.

Yeah, if they want to fillibuster, let them fillibuster for real.

As for the use of these tactics to block confirmations, that was really senseless. Confirmations should be much simpler than legislation.

Fooglmog Game profile

Member
1149

Nov 22nd 2013, 20:40:18

I think filibusters are a bad idea... I think that simple majorities make the most sense in virtually all circumstances -- especially obviously politically polarizing issues such as Presidential Appointments.

But, if filibusters are going to be permitted, it is absolutely inane to require someone to stand for 12 hours (or whatever) in order to perform one. I understand the impulse to want fewer filibusters, and so make legislators demonstrate that they "really want it" when they filibuster, but having a bill pass or fail based upon whether an elected official has the stamina to stand for a set period of time makes no sense. It makes passage of a bill an arbitrary process, determined by something completely separate from the merits of the bill. It also gives additional legislative clout to politicians who are capable of standing for the period needed -- while stripping power from those without that same stamina. Who wants to see laws determined based on that?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

trumper Game profile

Member
1557

Nov 22nd 2013, 20:44:05

Originally posted by Atryn:
+1 tella.

Yeah, if they want to fillibuster, let them fillibuster for real.

As for the use of these tactics to block confirmations, that was really senseless. Confirmations should be much simpler than legislation.

Except they really weren't blocking all appointments. They were quite selective in who they blocked and why, but the spin is they blocked them all, which is far from true.

You want to make confirmations a cakewalk? Go for it. Just imagine Congress on the federal bench with the most left wing and right wing judges imagineable. That's what the rule change will lead to. If you ask me, that's the last thing we need.

However, that's all sort of inconsequential to why they did it. It was an attempt to change the political narrative on Obamacare. Why else wouldn't you allow it to continue and then have something to run against, ie, your self-proclaimed "obstructionism?" Better yet, if you really believed in this change then wait until just after the 2014 cycle to use it to run on how bad they are and then you can use lame duck or new Congress (depending on if you pick up or lose seats) to fill all the appointments.

So then tell us, was this decision for purely political reasons and that has some serious side effect potential really worth it? If you're a left-wing partisan hack, sure. If you're in the middle, no. If you're on the right, hell no. And make no mistake that the rule be modified in years to come. If you don't think it will be then as the WaPo's Chriss Cillizza said, you haven't been following politics for the last decade or so.

tellarion Game profile

Member
3906

Nov 22nd 2013, 23:19:33

Originally posted by Fooglmog:
I think filibusters are a bad idea... I think that simple majorities make the most sense in virtually all circumstances -- especially obviously politically polarizing issues such as Presidential Appointments.

But, if filibusters are going to be permitted, it is absolutely inane to require someone to stand for 12 hours (or whatever) in order to perform one. I understand the impulse to want fewer filibusters, and so make legislators demonstrate that they "really want it" when they filibuster, but having a bill pass or fail based upon whether an elected official has the stamina to stand for a set period of time makes no sense. It makes passage of a bill an arbitrary process, determined by something completely separate from the merits of the bill. It also gives additional legislative clout to politicians who are capable of standing for the period needed -- while stripping power from those without that same stamina. Who wants to see laws determined based on that?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.


That's kind if the point of the filibuster though. These days, all a single senator has to do is announce their intention to filibuster, and that piece of legislation is DEAD. If they care about something, they can damn well stand there for 12 hours. If they're smart, they'll form a coalition and take shifts. That's the whole damn point...

Angel1 Game profile

Member
837

Nov 23rd 2013, 3:02:42

Originally posted by Fooglmog:
I think filibusters are a bad idea... I think that simple majorities make the most sense in virtually all circumstances -- especially obviously politically polarizing issues such as Presidential Appointments.


If we are to have rule by simple majorities, then I prefer to live in a place where the simple majority is far from simple, but wherein all people are of a roughly like mind. If I'm not going to have the ability to block a nominee that is in every way repugnant to my views, then I prefer to live in a place where that's not an issue. This is where we arrive at the crux of Washington's problem. There is simply too much to argue about. Rather than letting the myriad of controversial issues be decided state by state and allowing people who can't stand the laws of the state they are living in to move, we instead have a federal government that dips its hands into almost every aspect of society. The more that the federal aspect of the republic is ignored, the more dangerous the fights in Washington become. Instead of saying, "Well my state is going to do it differently,", people are left with an inability to live under the laws they would like to live under. It is far past time for the states to seize back the powers that always should have been their own, exclusively. I'm not talking about violent revolution, but rather of peaceful counter-revolution through constitutional convention. Restore the meaning of the separation of powers between state and federal government that is in the United States Constitution and you will go a very long way towards restoring political harmony among the many political stripes within the United States.

Every American should have the opportunity to live under the laws that they most prefer from fifty different choices. Fifty choices, go live under the laws you like.
-Angel1

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Nov 23rd 2013, 3:10:58

Originally posted by Angel1:
Every American should have the opportunity to live under the laws that they most prefer from fifty different choices. Fifty choices, go live under the laws you like.


I always felt this argument ran against efficiency of scale....
Finally did the signature thing.

major Game profile

Member
864

Nov 23rd 2013, 3:16:16

not talking fluff, but all save all the money you can....after buying food, water and ammo.... it is coming.

ColoOutlaw

Member
475

Nov 23rd 2013, 3:28:50

Originally posted by qzjul:
Originally posted by Angel1:
Every American should have the opportunity to live under the laws that they most prefer from fifty different choices. Fifty choices, go live under the laws you like.


I always felt this argument ran against efficiency of scale....


But would more than make up for it through competition.

NorCal SOL

Member
39

Nov 23rd 2013, 7:17:57

A simple majority to fill a life time appointment of a Judge is ridiculous. That is why they had 60 votes needed for a confirmation to go through. Left, Right or Middle... it is in all of your best interests to take some time and come to a bipartisan concensus (which having 60 votes does) when making life time appointments.

Secondly, we are not a democracy so simple majority is not how this country runs. We are a republic which means each state has representatives and senators that are suppose to do what is in the best interest of those people that they represent.

This was a bad move as it will now create a very antagonistic court system. Liberal judges will be appointed and when the Republicans take back the senate Conservative judges will be appointed. You really think this is what is best for the US? I for one think the 60 vote bipartisan vote is what is needed to avoid more hostilities between parties.

tellarion Game profile

Member
3906

Nov 23rd 2013, 7:25:02

Many times, they DO have the 60 votes necessary to approve a candidate, but it never makes it to a vote because a small minority threaten to filibuster. THAT is wrong, imo. Removing the ability to filibuster for appointments doesn't turn it into a simple majority vote, it just means that they can't stall forever and prevent the vote from ever occurring.

martian Game profile

Game Moderator
Mod Boss
7826

Nov 23rd 2013, 16:00:40

@Norcal: for all intents and purposes that is what happens in the US already.
Let me turn the filibuster argument around: Is it fair that those representing a minority can grind the government to a halt and thwart the will of the majority indefinately? How is that democratic at all? Most democratic systems (in the world) allow for some form of filibustering but also have the ability of the majority to invoke cloture after a certain point.
Such examples locally include the GST and the amalgamation of the city of Toronto where the opposition proposed amendments and forcing votes to rename each and every street in the city (there are thousands) one street at a time.
No matter how unpopular a piece of legislation may be amongst the opposition, the Constitution and elections are there for a reason. If an elected body is polarized then the electorate itself is either polarized or voting for a party no matter what thus not holding their representatives into account. This isn't an issue that can be fixed by procedural rules within the body.
you are all special in the eyes of fluff
(|(|
( ._.) -----)-->
(_(' )(' )

RUN IT IS A KILLER BUNNY!!!

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Nov 23rd 2013, 18:19:49

Originally posted by martian:
@Norcal: for all intents and purposes that is what happens in the US already.
Let me turn the filibuster argument around: Is it fair that those representing a minority can grind the government to a halt and thwart the will of the majority indefinately? How is that democratic at all? Most democratic systems (in the world) allow for some form of filibustering but also have the ability of the majority to invoke cloture after a certain point.
Such examples locally include the GST and the amalgamation of the city of Toronto where the opposition proposed amendments and forcing votes to rename each and every street in the city (there are thousands) one street at a time.
No matter how unpopular a piece of legislation may be amongst the opposition, the Constitution and elections are there for a reason. If an elected body is polarized then the electorate itself is either polarized or voting for a party no matter what thus not holding their representatives into account. This isn't an issue that can be fixed by procedural rules within the body.


Martian ftw!
Finally did the signature thing.

Fooglmog Game profile

Member
1149

Nov 23rd 2013, 22:35:48

Originally posted by qzjul:
Originally posted by martian:
@Norcal: for all intents and purposes that is what happens in the US already.
Let me turn the filibuster argument around: Is it fair that those representing a minority can grind the government to a halt and thwart the will of the majority indefinately? How is that democratic at all? Most democratic systems (in the world) allow for some form of filibustering but also have the ability of the majority to invoke cloture after a certain point.
Such examples locally include the GST and the amalgamation of the city of Toronto where the opposition proposed amendments and forcing votes to rename each and every street in the city (there are thousands) one street at a time.
No matter how unpopular a piece of legislation may be amongst the opposition, the Constitution and elections are there for a reason. If an elected body is polarized then the electorate itself is either polarized or voting for a party no matter what thus not holding their representatives into account. This isn't an issue that can be fixed by procedural rules within the body.


Martian ftw!


Amazing how all the Canadians more or less agree...

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

NorCal SOL

Member
39

Nov 24th 2013, 4:58:05

The main point that I am making is that you need a bipartisan approach to things and getting 60 votes to prevent or shut down a filibuster makes you work together which in return gives you better qualified people. By changing the rules, you only need to hold a 1 vote majority. This will as I said cause more division. It would probably be less of an issue if those that are in the majority didn't yell and complain when they weren't. Even though it was never used, they felt it was a real threat to the nation. Now that they are in power, they go ahead and do it.

Cudos to the Democrats. Now when they lose the Senate and the republicans make their nominations I hope they all keep their mouths shut about how terrible it is. I am a firm believer in what comes around goes around. I play fair and find that I can get a consensus when dealing with issues... and when that is done, both sides are happy or unhappy equally! What the Democrats did is blatantly arrogant just like they passed Obamacare with no input from the Republicans... as they said... We won... we don't need you. Look what that got us!

Angel1 Game profile

Member
837

Nov 24th 2013, 5:27:49

Originally posted by martian:
@Norcal: for all intents and purposes that is what happens in the US already.
Let me turn the filibuster argument around: Is it fair that those representing a minority can grind the government to a halt and thwart the will of the majority indefinately? How is that democratic at all? Most democratic systems (in the world) allow for some form of filibustering but also have the ability of the majority to invoke cloture after a certain point.
Such examples locally include the GST and the amalgamation of the city of Toronto where the opposition proposed amendments and forcing votes to rename each and every street in the city (there are thousands) one street at a time.
No matter how unpopular a piece of legislation may be amongst the opposition, the Constitution and elections are there for a reason. If an elected body is polarized then the electorate itself is either polarized or voting for a party no matter what thus not holding their representatives into account. This isn't an issue that can be fixed by procedural rules within the body.


Some things should require a super majority to do. Treaties must be approved by a super majority. You cannot tell me that judges who serve for life should not also be subject to at least a super majority to move beyond debate. That is the least of what we should ask for from people who are going to serve a lifetime ruling on the law and the constitution of this country. Granted, the change does not affect the Supreme Court, but the lower courts are also important, even if their rulings can be overturned. The courts are given a high degree of separation from the day to day whims of the people they work for, so it is far from unreasonable for a minority party in the US Senate to want to have the ability to stop candidates that are political appointments. They should expect a President to appoint people on the basis that he or she is the president of all Americans and not just those that voted for them. A super majority requirement on ending debate for judges and other similarly important positions (all cabinet positions, etc.) just makes for a good, stable, republic (especially for one that operates under a democratic form).
-Angel1

mdevol Game profile

Member
3223

Nov 24th 2013, 6:30:40

political appointments SHOULD be able to be stalled by the minority party. and yes, the minority party SHOULD be able to grind the entire govt to a halt. when it is democrats or republicans in the minority.

Our system is setup as such that Washington is supposed to be gridlock, the notion that if they aren't passing legislation in Washington then they aren't doing their job is a complete fluffing joke that the liberal education system has thrown upon our ignorant youth.

It is actually the duty of the minority party to slow agendas by the majority party. The reason for this is that our system was designed with 3 branches and within those 3 branches it is SUPPOSED to be a long, tiresome process to pass ANY legislation. This is to ensure every side gets to be involved in discussion and each bill that passes should be a nearly perfect bill that all sides agree upon.

The reason we have all the gridlock and partisanship we do today is because deals were cut to pass bills and those bills were so poorly written that they had to be revisited. When i bill has to be revisited once it is signed into law it never should have been passed in the first place. That is not how our system was designed. The collection of dumbasses that currently work in DC have so expansively perverted those ideals that until they all retire or die or get beat, this country is going to the fluffter.

Sadly, the nation as we know it, wont last that long because of the morons have never picked up a fluffing history book and re-elected these people to office. Not just the president but about 80% of the members of the house and the senate. Not that it would have mattered if they read it as most people wouldn't be able to comprehend it or make the connection of how it is relevant today.

We are standing by idly as a civilian army (homeland security/local law enforcement/state law enforcement/cia/fbi) is being built stronger than our actual armed forces and we are letting it happen and the people asking questions about it are getting ignored. If ANYBODY outside of the USA should be concerned about this it should be Canada. What happens to you when the US falls economy flatlines?

Instead of Americans coming together to fix the problems we have we are allowing the people in Washington to keep us divided and continue to run this nation into the ground. Does anybody here honestly think we will ever clear our debt? Does anybody here think we will ever have a solvent federal government again? We did this, not our elected officials. WE did it but not holding them accountable and re-electing them.

This country is fluffed.

A side note : The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is currently arguing to the Supreme Court (Bond vs. United States) that International Law supersedes the U.S. Constitution, the same Constitution he is obligated by oath to protect.

Edited By: mdevol on Nov 24th 2013, 6:41:44
See Original Post
Surely what a man does when he is caught off his guard is the best evidence as to what sort of man he is. - C.S. Lewis

mdevol Game profile

Member
3223

Nov 24th 2013, 6:39:31

yep, i double posted

so instead, here is this

http://www.youtube.com/...64OOMmg&v=yXFoAxvTQX8


Edited By: mdevol on Nov 24th 2013, 7:02:08
Surely what a man does when he is caught off his guard is the best evidence as to what sort of man he is. - C.S. Lewis

tellarion Game profile

Member
3906

Nov 24th 2013, 10:56:55

So correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere have I read that the appointments themselves require only 51 votes to pass. The 51 votes is only in regards to cloture for appointments, meaning the opposition cannot filibuster to completely block a vote from even happening. The majority party still requires 60+ votes for the appointment to stand, meaning they still need some bipartisan support.

I don't think this is as big a deal as you all are making it seem..

elvesrus

Member
5053

Nov 24th 2013, 11:05:56

Rome was a republic. Just a thought.
Originally posted by crest23:
Elves is a douche on every server.

mdevol Game profile

Member
3223

Nov 24th 2013, 11:59:27

no tella, the 51 is now the rule. for cloture and for the actual confirmation. killing filibuster on nominees. they need no bi-partisan support anymore.

51 is still the threshold for cloture on everything senate wise but all the rest need 60 to actually pass the legislation or confirm supreme court judges.

What this is going to do is swing the circuit court to 7 - 3 in democrat favor without any ability for the republicans to challenge it. It would be one thing if these positions were termed but judicial nominees serve until they retire. This is a MAJOR power grab and a very vary scary one that should not have happened.

This will surely trigger retaliation from the house and the republican senators. they may wait until after the election next fall to exact this revenge, but it is coming for sure. possibly another long term govt shut down or debt limit increase denial...
Surely what a man does when he is caught off his guard is the best evidence as to what sort of man he is. - C.S. Lewis

tellarion Game profile

Member
3906

Nov 24th 2013, 12:22:14

I still can't find anything on any major news site that says the actual confirmation vote was changed. EVERYTHING I have read relates only to cloture for nominations....

tellarion Game profile

Member
3906

Nov 24th 2013, 12:23:59

Oh, I think it's just semantics. The VOTE itself was always a simple majority. It's just passing cloture that changed.

masterfu Game profile

Member
81

Nov 25th 2013, 14:52:18

k

Mossad Game profile

Member
247

Nov 25th 2013, 16:04:19

kill em all let G_d sort it out!

Garry Owen Game profile

Member
844

Nov 26th 2013, 8:36:45

The long-term ugly is that this completes the politicization of the judiciary.

The long-standing policy to require a super-majority for lifetime judicial appointments is because the judiciary is supposed to be a separate and equal branch of government that is INDEPENDENT of the politics that dominates the other two branches. So a supermajority and home-state senator preference ment that Presidents had to look for moderates, who could gain approval of at least a few opposition party votes.

And for most of 200 years that ideal of our founding fathers was mostly lived up to. FDR tried to screw it up but was stopped. But now the democrats have finally gone to a full political involvement for judges. The lower courts -- where you have to go to get appeals courts and supreme court judges -- will now be packed with the most extreme political activists.

:(

Angel1 Game profile

Member
837

Nov 28th 2013, 4:18:41

Originally posted by Garry Owen:
The long-term ugly is that this completes the politicization of the judiciary.

The long-standing policy to require a super-majority for lifetime judicial appointments is because the judiciary is supposed to be a separate and equal branch of government that is INDEPENDENT of the politics that dominates the other two branches. So a supermajority and home-state senator preference ment that Presidents had to look for moderates, who could gain approval of at least a few opposition party votes.

And for most of 200 years that ideal of our founding fathers was mostly lived up to. FDR tried to screw it up but was stopped. But now the democrats have finally gone to a full political involvement for judges. The lower courts -- where you have to go to get appeals courts and supreme court judges -- will now be packed with the most extreme political activists.

:(


On this note, this may be a good thing in the long run. Dysfunctional federal governance entering the courts may finally provide the impetus for the states to reassert their collective sovereignty over the nation. I think perhaps an exercise, from time to time, of renegotiating the union may be a good thing, but for this constitution to last another 224 years, the states will need to do so under Constitutional Convention. For today, we need a constitutional convention and then, every twenty five years, the states should gather in non-constitutional (non-binding) convention to renegotiate the union as an exercise of where the states think the union has gone wrong and where it needs to go in the future.
-Angel1

Cerberus Game profile

Member
EE Patron
3849

Nov 28th 2013, 11:55:52

This will not fix itself and it will get way more ugly yet. This will eventually terminate in arrests and trials (impeachment or otherwise) for the politicians who are destroying our constitution and government from within.

There is no real difference between the republicans and democrats, they are simply two sides of the same coin and neither of them has their eye on what is best for America, they have their focus on what is best for their own pockets and everyone else be damned.

It's time to start electing people who really care, not lying, thieving, deceiving lawyers who lie on the Sunday news shows, then get caught because some decent journalist researched it on Monday, yet still wins the vote on Tuesday.

We need LEADERS not POLITICIANS!

End the Tyranny of the Lawyers now before we start burning books.
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!