joshcryer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-04-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #65 |
| 71. Indeed, that's why the nuclear option is very iffy, it can be arbitrary. |
|
And that's why people don't like it. Personally I'd prefer it to have been done when the new Congress was seated (as we all expected in 2009 and as we all hoped for in 2011). As far as invoking it for every vote, that's just, goddamn appalling. Bush used it compulsively during appointments, and we hated him for that. I think people just want the nuclear option now just to get back at the Republicans for using it during the Bush years.
If it's done as a new Congress is being seated, then all's fair in love and war, and there's no arbitrary invoking it whenever you want it. It's the new rule.
|
| -Reid considering rule change to remove 60 vote requirement to proceed on legislation. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 07:01 AM |
#0 |
 -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-11 07:07 AM |
#1 |
 -
What if Republicans think they can get the majority in 2013? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 07:10 AM |
#3 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-11 07:28 AM |
#9 |
| -
13 is not an election year |
Gman |
Dec-04-11 07:31 AM |
#11 |
 -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-11 07:35 AM |
#12 |
| -
Then why did you write "every Pub like usual will block it"?? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:05 AM |
#41 |
| -
Why wouldn't they wait until the new session when their majority alone could carry the day? |
TheKentuckian |
Dec-04-11 10:46 AM |
#78 |
| -
They'll change the rule, and hopefully we'll get out the vote and blow their minds. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:46 AM |
#16 |
| -
I hope you meant Senator Reid lost his leadership position and not his Senate seat |
PuffedMica |
Dec-04-11 07:11 AM |
#4 |
| -
Isn't it funny how the Republicans always get Senate Leaders from the reddest of the red states? |
stillwaiting |
Dec-04-11 07:20 AM |
#7 |
| -
A very illuminating point. |
RUMMYisFROSTED |
Dec-04-11 07:49 AM |
#18 |
| -
That is somewhat misleading |
dsc |
Dec-04-11 10:54 AM |
#82 |
| -
That makes no sense |
Gman |
Dec-04-11 07:29 AM |
#10 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-11 08:00 AM |
#24 |
| -
Why do you not accuse Republicans of spinelessness too? |
treestar |
Dec-04-11 09:53 AM |
#53 |
| -
Probably because they don't NEED it - they pass their agenda with tiny majorities. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 11:04 AM |
#83 |
| -
Like when? |
treestar |
Dec-04-11 11:12 AM |
#86 |
| -
It seems to me that you admire them for their obstructionism and detest Dems for being human. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 06:25 PM |
#98 |
| -
President Obama should take this straight to the voters |
PuffedMica |
Dec-04-11 07:09 AM |
#2 |
| -
Yes, I hope that happens. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 07:14 AM |
#5 |
| -
That is true and good, but his 'bully pulpit' talks sound more like concession speeches. |
Huey P. Long |
Dec-04-11 11:40 AM |
#90 |
| -
The timing of this is very odd. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 07:17 AM |
#6 |
| -
The timing is perfect. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 07:21 AM |
#8 |
| -
Perfect, I suppose, if you're a fan of RW policy. I'm not, so I find it suspect. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 07:36 AM |
#13 |
| -
Calling for the rich to pay their fair share is RW policies? |
SkyDaddy7 |
Dec-04-11 08:24 AM |
#29 |
| -
For 3 years the 'dems' kissed republican ass. Now, at the 11th hour, |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:20 AM |
#61 |
| -
I vote for the latter - n/t |
coalition_unwilling |
Dec-04-11 10:24 AM |
#66 |
| -
The Republicans will only have a victory if their trolls are able to convince people... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:41 AM |
#77 |
| -
LOL. 1001 lame, transparent excuses. In case you haven't noticed, people are out in the streets, |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:46 AM |
#79 |
| -
You think Reid is a "fan of RW policy" ?? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:37 AM |
#31 |
| -
It only makes sense if they think the GOP will have a victory or something. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:40 AM |
#33 |
| -
Agreed. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:41 AM |
#34 |
| -
+1 |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:44 AM |
#36 |
| -
Really? You believe Reid has been a fighter? |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:21 AM |
#64 |
| -
At times.. but he certainly isnt a fan RW policy. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:52 AM |
#81 |
| -
Actions speak louder than words. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 11:06 AM |
#84 |
| -
You realize that this exposes the alleged "republican obstruction" as the LIE it is. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:50 AM |
#80 |
| -
Hahaha, republican obstructionism, completely given a pass by some in the left. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 06:10 PM |
#96 |
| -
They were able to change the rules but chose not to. That's tacit approval bordering collusion. |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 06:53 PM |
#99 |
| -
The rules aren't going to be changed. They mention this every few months because the Republicans... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:28 PM |
#102 |
| -
I agree. A lot of Democrats are going to favor this. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:42 AM |
#15 |
| -
Yes.. this may be the best chance to get this stupid rule changed. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:38 AM |
#32 |
| -
It's a good time, but I don't think the GOPers will do it, because we can get 3 pickups... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:42 AM |
#35 |
| -
Yeah, you are probably right. I think the Dems are ready to do it but probably not enough Rs. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:44 AM |
#37 |
| -
McCain, when not addlebrained, is a big rules gamer. Remember the Gang of 14 redux? |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:52 AM |
#38 |
| -
I'm not sure how this can only be ammo used against Reid or the Democrats. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:41 AM |
#14 |
| -
No, if they were going to change it, it should have happened in 2008. But then they wouldn't |
Edweird |
Dec-04-11 10:26 AM |
#68 |
| -
more theater. |
piratefish08 |
Dec-04-11 07:47 AM |
#17 |
| -
I think this is mostly posturing, I'd like to be wrong, but yeah. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:50 AM |
#19 |
| -
harry, you're about 3 years late. |
spanone |
Dec-04-11 07:52 AM |
#20 |
| -
My thoughts exacxtly. |
bvar22 |
Dec-04-11 10:25 AM |
#67 |
| -
Imho, the biggest mistake Reid and other Senate Dems made was not doing this in '09. |
RUMMYisFROSTED |
Dec-04-11 07:52 AM |
#21 |
| -
I want to know why it wasn't done in '09 or '10. I want to sit down and ask them why. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:55 AM |
#22 |
| -
They won't change it this year, either. |
Frank Jameson |
Dec-04-11 08:04 AM |
#26 |
| -
Oh, I agree with you. I think it's posturing as I said. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:06 AM |
#27 |
| -
Me too. There were some Democrats against the change, I think. |
northoftheborder |
Dec-04-11 09:04 AM |
#40 |
| -
They need 2/3 to make a permanent rule change. They would never got that in 09. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:19 AM |
#43 |
| -
The "nuclear option" has never happened, it's always been threatened, or used minimially. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 09:48 AM |
#50 |
| -
these arcane complex Senate rules are really hard to understand., |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:17 AM |
#60 |
| -
On the first day of a new senate, it takes only 51 votes to |
Recovered Repug |
Dec-04-11 11:11 AM |
#85 |
| -
Yes, I stand corrected. I wasnt aware of that possibility. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 11:21 AM |
#88 |
| -
Muddy the waters much? |
RUMMYisFROSTED |
Dec-04-11 03:36 PM |
#91 |
| -
New rules at the beginning of the term can be changed with 51 votes. |
grantcart |
Dec-04-11 05:07 PM |
#93 |
| -
Be careful what you wish for.. you just might get it... |
Cid_B |
Dec-04-11 07:59 AM |
#23 |
| -
We can get FL, Mass. and AZ. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:00 AM |
#25 |
| -
I agree... but I don't think they'd want it even if they could |
Cid_B |
Dec-04-11 08:29 AM |
#30 |
| -
How is this any different from the 'Nuke Option' from the Early Bush years? |
apnu |
Dec-04-11 08:10 AM |
#28 |
| -
I think the "nuclear option" can only be used on a case by case basis... |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 08:56 AM |
#39 |
| -
Nah, it can be used anywhere, no one wants to make it go to the Supreme Court. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:03 AM |
#57 |
| -
but I think it would require a new vote every time a new motion or bill is brought forward. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:13 AM |
#58 |
| -
No, here's how you use it to do a full rule change with 51 votes: |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:20 AM |
#63 |
| -
Interesting, I didnt know that. However, one caveat from your article.. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:23 AM |
#65 |
| -
Indeed, that's why the nuclear option is very iffy, it can be arbitrary. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:29 AM |
#71 |
| -
Messy stuff. Thats why I dont agree with those who think invoking the N.O. is the simple solution. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:33 AM |
#73 |
| -
Agree. If Bush did it, then we certainly shouldn't, Bush didn't care about rule of law. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:37 AM |
#75 |
| -
yes, I wish that would thappen. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:41 AM |
#76 |
| -
Ah yes, rather than doing the hard work of fighting for legislation, let's hamstring the Democrats |
MadHound |
Dec-04-11 09:17 AM |
#42 |
| -
The alternative is a hopelessly deadlocked congress. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:21 AM |
#44 |
| -
President still has veto. This basically says "we pass laws that the President can't veto." |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 09:51 AM |
#52 |
| -
That is a lie: " requirement that legislation get 60 Senate votes to pass." 51 votes are needed |
Better Believe It |
Dec-04-11 09:27 AM |
#45 |
| -
Are you talking about the nuclear option? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:30 AM |
#46 |
| -
no, he doesn't understand that fillibusters don't work like in the movies. |
dionysus |
Dec-04-11 09:51 AM |
#51 |
| -
No. All Senator Reid needs to do is withdraw his "two-track Senate debate" rule. |
Better Believe It |
Dec-04-11 05:14 PM |
#94 |
| -
It's not "his" rule. It's been around for awhile. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 06:08 PM |
#95 |
| -
The "dual tracking" is what gives Republicans the power to stop progressive legislation ..... |
Better Believe It |
Dec-04-11 07:07 PM |
#100 |
| -
*yawn* You know, I'll give you this one. I fully advocate this. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 07:25 PM |
#101 |
| -
The Democratic Senate response to Republican obstructionism just hasn't worked out very well. |
Better Believe It |
Dec-04-11 07:40 PM |
#103 |
| -
So, a question on filibusters turns into a question on eliminating the dual track. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 08:02 PM |
#104 |
| -
No. It's eliminating both. No .... a 20 minute filibuster would last 20 minutes, not hours. |
Better Believe It |
Dec-05-11 04:35 PM |
#105 |
| -
Reid actually did invoke the nuclear option recently.. |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 09:37 AM |
#49 |
| -
Ahh, I didn't see your post. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 09:53 AM |
#54 |
| -
Wow, you have done a complete 180 on this, it's clear to me that your opinion does not go further... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 09:58 AM |
#55 |
| -
Reid's timing is certainly suspect.. |
Fumesucker |
Dec-04-11 10:27 AM |
#70 |
| -
It comes up every 6 months! |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:35 AM |
#74 |
| -
It is not a lie. 60 votes for cloture is required before they can vote on the bill.. |
emulatorloo |
Dec-04-11 04:58 PM |
#92 |
| -
Going nowhere fast |
SoCalDem |
Dec-04-11 09:34 AM |
#47 |
| -
a day late and a dollar short |
boston bean |
Dec-04-11 09:36 AM |
#48 |
| -
Disingenuous. NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION prevents a simple Senate majority of 51 votes |
Zorra |
Dec-04-11 10:03 AM |
#56 |
| -
The Constitution endows the Standing Rules of the United States Senate with all the power. |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:13 AM |
#59 |
| -
however... |
Zorra |
Dec-04-11 10:26 AM |
#69 |
| -
Yeah, and Bush did it 100s of times during his Presidency. Do we want a Bush-eqsue Presidency... |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 10:32 AM |
#72 |
| -
I'm sure you know that, as pResident, Bush could not |
Zorra |
Dec-04-11 11:21 AM |
#87 |
| -
Are you sure if involked, the nuclear option would be permanent? |
DCBob |
Dec-04-11 10:20 AM |
#62 |
| -
How To End the Filibuster Forever |
Zorra |
Dec-04-11 11:29 AM |
#89 |
| -
Here's why Republican Obstructionism needs to fucking end: |
joshcryer |
Dec-04-11 06:18 PM |
#97 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
