The Joker 540 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Washington(CNN)A bipartisan group of 61 senators sent a letter to Senate leaders Friday urging them to maintain the 60-vote threshold for filibusters involving legislation, which they said is needed to ensure bipartisanship remains a component of passing bills through the chamber. The move comes in the wake of a contentious battle this week in the Senate over the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch when the Republicans who control the chamber used the "nuclear option" to neutralize the filibuster for nominees to the Supreme Court. "We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate on legislation before the United States Senate," said the letter that was spearheaded by GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware. "Senators have expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of limiting debate when we are considering judicial and executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, we are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor." The signatures of 28 Republicans, 32 Democrats and one independent is evidence that a broad mix of senators will back the filibuster for legislation. Link Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gone Drinking 69 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 So were they lying then or now - Schumer: They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way you change the rules. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): The legislative filibuster should stay there and I will personally resist efforts to get rid of it. Sen. Chis Coons (D-DE): I’m committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): That would be the end of the Senate. Joe Biden: It raises problems that are more damaging than the problem that exists. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game because you do not like the outcome. Biden: You’re going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done. Schumer: Change the rules in midstream to wash away 200 years of history. Biden: Nothing at all will get done. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): I don’t think that we ought to be coming in willy-nilly and changing the rules. Durbin: You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Schumer: Ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): If you don’t have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven’t done enough advocacy and you need to work a lot harder. Biden: It is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. Menendez: Partisan power grab that will stomp on the rights of the minority and leave fundamentally changed for the worse. Durbin: Preserve checks and balances so that no one party can do whatever it wants. Schumer: It’ll be a doomsday for democracy. Coons: The one most important rule that requires compromise requires working across the aisle. Biden: It is a fundamental power grab. Menendez: I will not stand by when a party drunk with power tries to overturn 200 years of precedent. Biden: Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bus Driver 6,897 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Gone Drinking said: Biden: Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do. I completely agree. And, if the GOP is successful in restricting voting and extreme gerrymandering, and wind up taking the Senate, I expect this is one of the first things they’ll do. I look forward to seeing you, The Joker, jzk, and the rest of The Faithful take the same position you have now. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steam Flyer 8,424 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 17 minutes ago, Bus Driver said: 1 hour ago, Gone Drinking said: Biden: Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do. I completely agree. And, if the GOP is successful in restricting voting and extreme gerrymandering, and wind up taking the Senate, I expect this is one of the first things they’ll do. I look forward to seeing you, The Joker, jzk, and the rest of The Faithful take the same position you have now. They won't. They'll be saying "Ha ha! We WON! Now we can do whatever the fuck we want, so suck it libtards!" - DSK 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sol Rosenberg 10,176 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 It’s good to see bullshitters objecting to bullshitting, since 1/20/21. That’s a good change. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Bus Driver said: I completely agree. And, if the GOP is successful in restricting voting and extreme gerrymandering, and wind up taking the Senate, I expect this is one of the first things they’ll do. I look forward to seeing you, The Joker, jzk, and the rest of The Faithful take the same position you have now. More bullshit. They could have done it when Trump was calling for it. That’s when this letter was written. BUT THEY DIDN’T. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steam Flyer 8,424 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 59 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said: It’s good to see bullshitters objecting to bullshitting, since 1/20/21. That’s a good change. Another good change is hearing Moscow Mitch object to Biden's hateful and insulting language. - DSK Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said: It’s good to see bullshitters objecting to bullshitting, since 1/20/21. That’s a good change. Nope the only bullshitters are the democratic senators and Joe Biden calling for the end of the filibuster, only a few years after objecting to ending it in such strong terms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bus Driver 6,897 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, The Joker said: More bullshit. They could have done it when Trump was calling for it. That’s when this letter was written. BUT THEY DIDN’T. One of us will be right, should the Senate flip. I hope it’s you. But, I won’t bet on it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raz'r 5,192 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 10 minutes ago, The Joker said: Nope the only bullshitters are the democratic senators and Joe Biden calling for the end of the filibuster, only a few years after objecting to ending it in such strong terms. Why lie? They aren’t calling for the end of the ‘Buster. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 40 minutes ago, The Joker said: Nope the only bullshitters are the democratic senators and Joe Biden calling for the end of the filibuster, only a few years after objecting to ending it in such strong terms. And this is why you're considered a fucking idiot. The filibuster exists because politics. It can be removed because politics. It advantages the losers. The US is going backwards because the people that win an election are blocked from actually moving the country forward. You know all those countries that are overtaking the US in the things you hold to be important? They don't have such bullshit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steam Flyer 8,424 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: ... You know all those countries that are overtaking the US in the things you hold to be important? They don't have such bullshit. They don't have Trumpublicans - DSK Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said: They don't have Trumpublicans - DSK You sure about that? Of course, I only know about trumpublicans by reputation, not through a lived experience..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ishmael 10,607 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said: They don't have Trumpublicans - DSK We have a few, but everyone else thinks they are idiots. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Ishmael said: We have a few, but everyone else thinks they are idiots. This. We don't have enough for a critical mass. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Voyageur 528 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Ok, We played nice for a few months. Munchkin and Sininnga have skeletons to keep hidden. Send it, and send it big. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Teener 278 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 58 minutes ago, Bus Driver said: One of us will be right, should the Senate flip. I hope it’s you. But, I won’t bet on it. There's no point in the R's tossing the filibuster it until they get the white house. They have already guaranteed that Arizona and Georgia will always return R. They just need to seize the votes in Penn, Wisc, and Mich. Loose the executive in one of them, just one, and you'll never see an electoral majority in the D's favor again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 34 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: And this is why you're considered a fucking idiot. The filibuster exists because politics. It can be removed because politics. It advantages the losers. The US is going backwards because the people that win an election are blocked from actually moving the country forward. You know all those countries that are overtaking the US in the things you hold to be important? They don't have such bullshit. Actually I’m quite respected outside this partisan website. As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended. But carry on with your misunderstanding of the function of the US senate in our republic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Raz'r said: Why lie? They aren’t calling for the end of the ‘Buster. Really did you even watch Biden’s speech? Here I’ll help you out WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden on Tuesday said the U.S. Senate should consider scrapping a longstanding supermajority rule known as the "filibuster" Time But now that he’s President, Biden says Republican efforts to restrict American access to voting demand a change in his beloved institution. “I believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills,” Biden said in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday. “Debate them. Vote. Let the majority prevail—and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster for this.” (CNN)President Joe Biden painted a dire picture for the nation's future elections during a major speech on voting rights while in Atlanta on Tuesday, expressing his frustration at Republicans who blocked voting rights legislation and calling on the US Senate to change its filibuster rules to accommodate the bills' passage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 7 minutes ago, The Joker said: Actually I’m quite respected outside this partisan website. As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended. But carry on with your misunderstanding of the function of the US senate in our republic. Except your founders didn't have what you have now. "In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous Articles of Confederation, and identified several evils which would result from such a requirement: "To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.”[6]" Mr Hamilton thinks you're a fucking idiot too. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Danceswithoctopus 484 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, The Joker said: <snip> As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended. <snip> Founders? Hmmmmm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raz'r 5,192 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 13 minutes ago, The Joker said: Actually I’m quite respected outside this partisan website. As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended. But carry on with your misunderstanding of the function of the US senate in our republic. Our founders didn’t write the filibuster into the Connie. That’s another misunderstanding you have. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raz'r 5,192 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 9 minutes ago, The Joker said: Really did you even watch Biden’s speech? Here I’ll help you out WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden on Tuesday said the U.S. Senate should consider scrapping a longstanding supermajority rule known as the "filibuster" Time But now that he’s President, Biden says Republican efforts to restrict American access to voting demand a change in his beloved institution. “I believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills,” Biden said in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday. “Debate them. Vote. Let the majority prevail—and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster for this.” (CNN)President Joe Biden painted a dire picture for the nation's future elections during a major speech on voting rights while in Atlanta on Tuesday, expressing his frustration at Republicans who blocked voting rights legislation and calling on the US Senate to change its filibuster rules to accommodate the bills' passage. He wants to get rid of it for this one bill, like we do for the budget and the judges. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bus Driver 6,897 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Raz'r said: He wants to get rid of it for this one bill, like we do for the budget and the judges. Was going to say the same. I wonder if The Joker is cool with the other exceptions you mention? And, was he when the Senate had a GOP majority? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AJ Oliver 1,926 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 12 minutes ago, The Joker said: As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended. But carry on with your misunderstanding of the function of the US senate in our republic. How stupid and venal can you possibly be ?? The filibuster is a relic of a typo (before there even was such a thing) of a racist oligarchy . If Burr had lost that duel to Hamilton it may never have happened. (somebody check me on this !) (also poly sigh humor alert) Since that time, the filibuster has repeatedly been used primarily to sabotage civil rights for our dark skinned brothers and sisters. Seriously, that is the history - look it up Jokester, shame on you. Blow it up - blow it up now. At least for Jeebus sake, debate it in Congress - which the filibuster also prevents. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Bus Driver said: Was going to say the same. I wonder if The Joker is cool with the other exceptions you mention? And, was he when the Senate had a GOP majority? Nope I wasn’t cool when Harry Reid started the senate down this path. Mitch McConnell warned him what would happen and he did it anyway. The only reason Reid didn’t include SCOTUS was because it hadn’t become an issue under Obama as the GOP voted for Kagan and Sotomeyer. It’s pretty much a moot point as the Dems can’t even get their own Senators on board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ncik 414 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 18 minutes ago, Raz'r said: Our founders didn’t write the filibuster into the Connie. That’s another misunderstanding you have. Was it the flounders? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 26 minutes ago, Raz'r said: Our founders didn’t write the filibuster into the Connie. That’s another misunderstanding you have. No misunderstanding at all. the constitution clearly says that the Senate creates its own rules. The filibuster is part of the rules. Which is exactly what I wrote. Article 1 section 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raz'r 5,192 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, The Joker said: No misunderstanding at all. the constitution clearly says that the Senate creates its own rules. The filibuster is part of the rules. Which is exactly what I wrote. Article 1 section 5 Which means they can change when they want to, just like the founders intended. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, Raz'r said: Which means they can change when they want to, just like the founders intended. The founders intended the Senate to be a cooling off chamber for legislation. Slow and deliberate. Not rush bills through because their leader needs a win. The Filibuster has been around for over 200 years and is part of the deliberation process. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 8 minutes ago, The Joker said: The founders intended the Senate to be a cooling off chamber for legislation. Slow and deliberate. Not rush bills through because their leader needs a win. The Filibuster has been around for over 200 years and is part of the deliberation process. Not according to Hamilton. Or are you going to cherry pick your founders too? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phillysailor 3,436 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 10 minutes ago, The Joker said: The founders intended the Senate to be a cooling off chamber for legislation. Slow and deliberate. Not rush bills through because their leader needs a win. The Filibuster has been around for over 200 years and is part of the deliberation process. Then you should think long and hard about why Democrats are now considering modifying the rule. This isn't contemplated in a vacuum, yet you seem to entirely ignore the role the GOP has had in breaking the ability of the Senate to pass legislation for the public good. You're very loyal to your party, but forget it only exists to serve the nation. Get over your self importance and the issue of the moment. Voting rights, convincing the citizens that their votes will count, is far more important to our nation than a rule governing the Senate's deliberations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: Not according to Hamilton. Or are you going to cherry pick your founders too? In this case I’ll go with Madison and Jefferson. Hamilton is a good play though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raz'r 5,192 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 16 minutes ago, The Joker said: The founders intended the Senate to be a cooling off chamber for legislation. Slow and deliberate. Not rush bills through because their leader needs a win. The Filibuster has been around for over 200 years and is part of the deliberation process. And I’m fine with the traditional one. You know, get up and talk. Current one is for the lazy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, phillysailor said: Then you should think long and hard about why Democrats are now considering modifying the rule. This isn't contemplated in a vacuum, yet you seem to entirely ignore the role the GOP has had in breaking the ability of the Senate to pass legislation for the public good. You're very loyal to your party, but forget it only exists to serve the nation. Get over your self importance and the issue of the moment. Voting rights, convincing the citizens that their votes will count, is far more important to our nation than a rule governing the Senate's deliberations. It’s all a red herring. The Dems liked how Covid changed voting. They see an advantage The Republicans want to make sure we have checks on those broad voting methods It’s exactly where there should be a way to compromise But Biden wants to ram through a one sided bill Not going to happen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 9 minutes ago, The Joker said: It’s all a red herring. The Dems liked how Covid changed voting. They see an advantage The Republicans want to make sure we have checks on those broad voting methods It’s exactly where there should be a way to compromise But Biden wants to ram through a one sided bill Not going to happen bullshit, 'you' power-mad cunts are literally trying to steal elections; you'd otherwise have no issues if you weren't a weak-as-piss minority, eh. but keep flapping your cocksucker, maybe it'll change the reality of the situation, which is crystal clear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 7 minutes ago, The Joker said: It’s all a red herring. The Dems liked how Covid changed voting. They see an advantage The Republicans want to make sure we have checks on those broad voting methods It’s exactly where there should be a way to compromise But Biden wants to ram through a one sided bill Not going to happen Checks on voting? How very authoritarian. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said: Checks on voting? How very authoritarian. 'checks' Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: Checks on voting? How very authoritarian. You haven't actually read the bill. The checks would be the federal government deciding on who needs to be checked. About as authoritarian as it gets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 7 minutes ago, 3to1 said: bullshit, 'you' power-mad cunts are literally trying to steal elections; you'd otherwise have no issues if you weren't a weak-as-piss minority, eh. but keep flapping your cocksucker, maybe it'll change the reality of the situation, which is crystal clear. Poor little baby. Just wait till November. Hopefully you will have access to Zantac Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 11 minutes ago, The Joker said: Poor little baby. Just wait till November. Hopefully you will have access to Zantac you seem confident in your foul ways. you're a crass demented cunt, and I mean that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 11 minutes ago, The Joker said: You haven't actually read the bill. The checks would be the federal government deciding on who needs to be checked. About as authoritarian as it gets. Well, voting is a federal right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 9 minutes ago, 3to1 said: you seem confident in your foul ways. you're a crass demented cunt, and I mean that. I suggest we add Prozac to your medicine list. November is going to be really tough on you and I mean that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, The Joker said: I suggest we add Prozac to your medicine list. November is going to be really tough on you and I mean that. I'm just fine, I'm not the one crawling on the Low Road. little 'nazi' bitch, you're not right in the head or soul. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 8 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: Well, voting is a federal right. The bill has very little to do with voting rights it’s all about control. Some of the Dems want the Feds to have control of elections, the majority of the Senate are comfortable with the current rules. democracy in action Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, The Joker said: The bill has very little to do with voting rights it’s all about control. Some of the Dems want the Feds to have control of elections, the majority of the Senate are comfortable with the current rules. democracy in action seatbelts, 'it's all about control'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, 3to1 said: I'm just fine, you're the one crawling on the Low Road. little 'nazi' bitch, you're not right in the head or soul. Your vocabulary - power mad cunt, Cock sucker, Crass demented cunt, Nazi bitch. Yet I’m the one not right in the head. LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, The Joker said: Your vocabulary - power mad cunt, Cock sucker, Crass demented cunt, Nazi bitch. Yet I’m the one not right in the head. LOL I'm not the one advocating for fascistic government structures. lol fuck you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, 3to1 said: I'm not the one advocating for fascistic government structures. lol fuck you. Fascistic government structures? You mean were the party with a tie in the senate and the smallest majority in decades, in the house doesn’t see the need to find a way to convince members of their own party, let alone the other party to support this bill. So they are demanding the rules be changed so they can get their own way. That type of Fascism? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, The Joker said: In this case I’ll go with Madison and Jefferson. Hamilton is a good play though. Madison and Jefferson? Didn't they make a change to who traditionally became Vice President? You want to use them to support your case to not change? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: Madison and Jefferson? Didn't they make a change to who traditionally became Vice President? You want to use them to support your case to not change? I’m not making a case I let the 60+ senators that wrote the letter supporting the Filibuster make the case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, The Joker said: I’m not making a case I let the 60+ senators that wrote the letter supporting the Filibuster make the case. Of course you're not making the case. You brought up the founding because you're a history buff. You mean the 60+ people who rely on such things to be more credible to their donors? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nice! 1,279 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Short answer to this: If you don't pass voting rights you're going to lose democracy. So the debate becomes do you want to save the filibuster or do you want to save democracy? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 26 minutes ago, The Joker said: Fascistic government structures? You mean were the party with a tie in the senate and the smallest majority in decades, in the house doesn’t see the need to find a way to convince members of their own party, let alone the other party to support this bill. So they are demanding the rules be changed so they can get their own way. That type of Fascism? that's right you willfully blind ideologue clown, get an inch, take a mile. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Not My Real Name 3,596 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 5 hours ago, Bus Driver said: I completely agree. And, if the GOP is successful in restricting voting and extreme gerrymandering, and wind up taking the Senate, I expect this is one of the first things they’ll do. I look forward to seeing you, The Joker, jzk, and the rest of The Faithful take the same position you have now. Good like with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, Nice! said: Short answer to this: If you don't pass voting rights you're going to lose democracy. So the debate becomes do you want to save the filibuster or do you want to save democracy? there it is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Nice! said: Short answer to this: If you don't pass voting rights you're going to lose democracy. So the debate becomes do you want to save the filibuster or do you want to save democracy? It's about neither the filibuster or democracy. It's about power. Those on both sides want more power. One wants it by handing power to the voters,one wants it by taking away power from the voters. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: It's about neither the filibuster or democracy. It's about power. Those on both sides want more power. One wants it by handing power to the voters,one wants it by taking away power from the voters. so by that logic, if I continue to willfully respirate, it's some kind of power grab? a democratic process is under attack, it's about defense, not offense for the democrats. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AJ Oliver 1,926 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 41 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: It's about power. Those on both sides want more power. One wants it by handing power to the voters,one wants it by taking away power from the voters. What are you, some kind of political scientist ?? Power to my way of thinking is authority minus legitimacy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 48 minutes ago, 3to1 said: so by that logic, if I continue to willfully respirate, it's some kind of power grab? a democratic process is under attack, it's about defense, not offense for the democrats. Was my post too subtle? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
3to1 733 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 gotcha'. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 9 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said: What are you, some kind of political scientist ?? Power to my way of thinking is authority minus legitimacy. Power without legitimacy doesn't have a great success rate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AJ Oliver 1,926 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 F__k I love this place !! Psycho trolls excepted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AJ Oliver 1,926 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 17 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said: Power without legitimacy doesn't have a great success rate. But that must sorta mean that legitimacy is authority minus power . . got to be an article in there somewhere . . I enjoy and learn from your posts. Psycho trolls not so much Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sol Rosenberg 10,176 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Having to investigate a coup by the former president is definitely a change. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ease the sheet. 2,285 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 49 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said: But that must sorta mean that legitimacy is authority minus power . . got to be an article in there somewhere . . I enjoy and learn from your posts. Psycho trolls not so much "Legitimacy is authority without power." That has a good ring to it. However I'm thinking that we are using these words more in a technical context. To me, power describes the mechanism in which one entity gets another entity to do the things it wants it to do. Authority and legitimacy are adverbs. There may well be a more direct relationship between power, legitimacy and authority. But I'm not convinced there has to be. To bring all that back to the topic, give the people the power to elect a government that actually has the power to do what they promised the people they would do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steam Flyer 8,424 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said: 8 hours ago, Nice! said: Short answer to this: If you don't pass voting rights you're going to lose democracy. So the debate becomes do you want to save the filibuster or do you want to save democracy? It's about neither the filibuster or democracy. It's about power. Those on both sides want more power. One wants it by handing power to the voters,one wants it by taking away power from the voters. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has already answered this question. US citizens do not have any inherent right to vote, nor any right to have their votes counted. That is at the whim of the state. - DSK Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steam Flyer 8,424 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 10 hours ago, The Joker said: Actually I’m quite respected outside this partisan website.... So respected, you have to tell people how much respect you get. And this isn't a "partisan" web site. It's an open forum. Your team looks like a bunch of idiots because you're all dumber than fuck. - DSK 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ishmael 10,607 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Also known as a thicket of idiots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AJ Oliver 1,926 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said: Unfortunately the Supreme Court has already answered this question. US citizens do not have any inherent right to vote, nor any right to have their votes counted. That is at the whim of the state. One of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever - right up there with Dred Scott. But there is a way around it, jurisdiction-stripping Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phillysailor 3,436 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Congress has the right to adjust regulations for voting Proposed changes would improve voter participation, which would force both parties to adapt. Democrats would need to improve the impact of their legislation over what they claim it would do, and Republicans would have to allow the voices and participation of persons they currently ignore. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Joker 540 Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 8 minutes ago, phillysailor said: Congress has the right to adjust regulations for voting Proposed changes would improve voter participation, which would force both parties to adapt. Democrats would need to improve the impact of their legislation over what they claim it would do, and Republicans would have to allow the voices and participation of persons they currently ignore. I agree with that. But the compromises need to be in the bill prior to passage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.