ScottS said:
Speaking of the filibuster, it should be done the old way. Where they had to tie up the floor and not use the restroom. Its too easy today to do a filibuster.
I agree. It was intended to be a literal hold of the podium.
What happens to New York now
14,783 Views |
303 Replies |
Last: 25 days ago by Osodecentx
I agree. It was intended to be a literal hold of the podium.
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Dems have A) done it before, and B) are campaigning on promising to do something now, and all you can do is demonize Republicans who are asking prudent, logical questions about what we should do today (given what the Dems have done & are promising to do).
(your screeds here are yet another example of how neverTrumpism rots the brain.)
FLBear5630 said:Adriacus Peratuun said:FLBear5630 said:Adriacus Peratuun said:FLBear5630 said:Adriacus Peratuun said:FLBear5630 said:Adriacus Peratuun said:FLBear5630 said:Adriacus Peratuun said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Bold Prediction for the Day:
If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.
Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.
Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.
The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.
If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.
The Constitution clearly gives them the ability to set their rules.
If it is so clear, provide a direct quote.
Article 1, Section 5.2
And SCOTUS has already opined that rule making authority under that Section cannot violate constitutional restrictions…..and is subject to judicial review.
US v Ballin, 144 US 1 (1892). "The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be obtained".
express judicial review of Section 5.2 rule making……oops
standard given for overturning a rule……..oops
Yeah, since it has held since 1892. Court just can't wait to overturn???? Also, It was about a quorum. And they held that both Houses of Congress can set their own rules as stipulated in the Constitution
Not sure where you are going with a case from 1892 that upholds Congress's ability to set their own rules. As proof that they are going to overrule the filibuster, which is a rule set by the Senate. I would BET that SCOTUS does not touch this one.
There you go……why not simply start with "my opinion is…." and avoid the erroneous fact starting point, proven wrong, revert to opinion.
You undermine your positions routinely by overstating things….
Read through the post before lecturing people. You are pretty much wrong on every point. But you keep doing you.
You really are not very smart. If my prediction for the future is wrong…..time will tell. But you cannot opine on correctness now. That is how linear time works. You have to wait too see if future predictions pan out.
As to giving specific examples of your errors is wrong, post the exact example and error. We will wait.
You bluster quite a bit. You backup your bluster very little.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
A. I am very 'good' with illegals not getting 'free' healthcare.
B. Am 'good' with healthcare reform. Too many Americans who are able to work ….choose not to work . They shouldn't get 'free' healthcare either. Unless they are truly disabled.
C. Doctors who knowingly commit healthcare fraud should receive server jail sentences.
KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
A. I am very 'good' with illegals not getting 'free' healthcare.
B. Am 'good' with healthcare reform. Too many Americans who are able to work ….choose not to work . They shouldn't get 'free' healthcare either. Unless they are truly disabled.
C. Doctors who knowingly commit healthcare fraud should receive server jail sentences.
I agree with every one of those.
None of the current Federal programs allow illegals to use.
ACA does make people pay. Although, if the GOP had a better alternative I would support that. I am for options, not mandated. If work provides a good benefit, I am all for it. Don't mandate either.
I would add that ANYONE that commits healthcare fraud should be prosecuted. Any illegal using Federally sponsored healthcare, outside of emergency care, is committing fraud and should be prosecuted. Not just doctors.
FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
A. I am very 'good' with illegals not getting 'free' healthcare.
B. Am 'good' with healthcare reform. Too many Americans who are able to work ….choose not to work . They shouldn't get 'free' healthcare either. Unless they are truly disabled.
C. Doctors who knowingly commit healthcare fraud should receive server jail sentences.
I agree with every one of those.
None of the current Federal programs allow illegals to use.
ACA does make people pay. Although, if the GOP had a better alternative I would support that. I am for options, not mandated. If work provides a good benefit, I am all for it. Don't mandate either.
I would add that ANYONE that commits healthcare fraud should be prosecuted. Any illegal using Federally sponsored healthcare, outside of emergency care, is committing fraud and should be prosecuted. Not just doctors.
Illegals constantly use our hospitals for all kinds of services.
And you are paying for it.
KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
A. I am very 'good' with illegals not getting 'free' healthcare.
B. Am 'good' with healthcare reform. Too many Americans who are able to work ….choose not to work . They shouldn't get 'free' healthcare either. Unless they are truly disabled.
C. Doctors who knowingly commit healthcare fraud should receive server jail sentences.
I agree with every one of those.
None of the current Federal programs allow illegals to use.
ACA does make people pay. Although, if the GOP had a better alternative I would support that. I am for options, not mandated. If work provides a good benefit, I am all for it. Don't mandate either.
I would add that ANYONE that commits healthcare fraud should be prosecuted. Any illegal using Federally sponsored healthcare, outside of emergency care, is committing fraud and should be prosecuted. Not just doctors.
Illegals constantly use our hospitals for all kinds of services.
And you are paying for it.
Is it your position:
1. Hospitals shouldn't treat illegals
Or
2. Illegals shouldn't be here in the first place
KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
A. I am very 'good' with illegals not getting 'free' healthcare.
B. Am 'good' with healthcare reform. Too many Americans who are able to work ….choose not to work . They shouldn't get 'free' healthcare either. Unless they are truly disabled.
C. Doctors who knowingly commit healthcare fraud should receive server jail sentences.
I agree with every one of those.
None of the current Federal programs allow illegals to use.
ACA does make people pay. Although, if the GOP had a better alternative I would support that. I am for options, not mandated. If work provides a good benefit, I am all for it. Don't mandate either.
I would add that ANYONE that commits healthcare fraud should be prosecuted. Any illegal using Federally sponsored healthcare, outside of emergency care, is committing fraud and should be prosecuted. Not just doctors.
Illegals constantly use our hospitals for all kinds of services.
And you are paying for it.
We are mixing issues. That is not an ACA or Government program issue. That is a border issue. I agree that illegals need to go back to their nation of origin and enter legally. No doubt.
What did Comey do, according to Trump? What are the charges?
Osodecentx said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
A. I am very 'good' with illegals not getting 'free' healthcare.
B. Am 'good' with healthcare reform. Too many Americans who are able to work ….choose not to work . They shouldn't get 'free' healthcare either. Unless they are truly disabled.
C. Doctors who knowingly commit healthcare fraud should receive server jail sentences.
I agree with every one of those.
None of the current Federal programs allow illegals to use.
ACA does make people pay. Although, if the GOP had a better alternative I would support that. I am for options, not mandated. If work provides a good benefit, I am all for it. Don't mandate either.
I would add that ANYONE that commits healthcare fraud should be prosecuted. Any illegal using Federally sponsored healthcare, outside of emergency care, is committing fraud and should be prosecuted. Not just doctors.
Illegals constantly use our hospitals for all kinds of services.
And you are paying for it.
Is it your position:
1. Hospitals shouldn't treat illegals
Or
2. Illegals shouldn't be here in the first place
Requires significant law change. I'm good with Legal immigration. Illegal, not so much
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
LOL In this particular discussion, YOU brought up "the criminal stuff."
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison.
There's plenty of time to negotiate the end of the ACA. So why did you waste time on a pointless government shutdown?
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
So now you're supporting Trillion-dollar subsidies to corporations? What happened to Mr. Deficit Hawk?
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
Lie. GOP wants to move in another direction.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
The surest sign you have lost the discussion on the filibuster is the desperate attempt to make it all about Obamacare.
Stop avoiding the central question at hand: Do you really, sincerely believe that Democrats would never unilaterally end the filibuster....never ever, under any circumstances, take it to the bank 100% unthinkable? We know they've already partly done it once. And we can see them promising to do to a radicalized base demanding it. On what basis can you make a sweeping conclusion that it could never happen?
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
LOL In this particular discussion, YOU brought up "the criminal stuff."
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison.
There's plenty of time to negotiate the end of the ACA. So why did you waste time on a pointless government shutdown?
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
So now you're supporting Trillion-dollar subsidies to corporations? What happened to Mr. Deficit Hawk?
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
Lie. GOP wants to move in another direction.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
The surest sign you have lost the discussion on the filibuster is the desperate attempt to make it all about Obamacare.
Stop avoiding the central question at hand: Do you really, sincerely believe that Democrats would never unilaterally end the filibuster....never ever, under any circumstances, take it to the bank 100% unthinkable? We know they've already partly done it once. And we can see them promising to do to a radicalized base demanding it. On what basis can you make a sweeping conclusion that it could never happen?
No, once again you are changing the discussion. Also, you have so many BS statements in your response - "never, ever", "under any circumstances". Those are BS qualifiers. Yellowstone may erupt today under a "never, ever" scenario and we don't have to worry about it. Come on.
A sure sign YOU have lost is that you are now discussing it as: "never, ever", "under any circumstances". Basically saying under normal circumstances, they won't do it. So, we have to look at the 1% outlier...
The question is not some "never ever," BS scenario that will occur once every 1000 years, it is What alternative do you have to ACA, if you let the subsidy to expire? As millions are priced out of health care, which WILL happen on January 2nd. Guarenteed. 100% certainty? Well, what is your alternative to ACA ready to go?
By the way, "never, ever", "under any circumstances"??? Feeling under the weather? I expect more from you... : )
KaiBear said:
New York City continues on its descent into anarchy and bankruptcy.
Many of those with the necessary assets will leave.
Politically, the city becomes the springboard for a socialistic take over of the Democratic Party.
A new party with a message of 'free'. The same failed message of every communist country throughout history.
But many of our newest 'immigrants' know nothing of such failures. The famines, the mass executions, the collapse of medical care.
So they will vote for this New Democratic Party.
Class warfare is now inevitable and begins by 2028.
I hope we're not back to having the sort of discussions the two of us were having before the election of 2024. I'm afraid that's exactly where we are heading.
Osodecentx said:
Is it your position:
1. Hospitals shouldn't treat illegals
Or
2. Illegals shouldn't be here in the first place
Yes. If you break into and enter someone's home, you have no reasonable expectation of benefiting from what is inside that home.
Realitybites said:KaiBear said:
New York City continues on its descent into anarchy and bankruptcy.
Many of those with the necessary assets will leave.
Politically, the city becomes the springboard for a socialistic take over of the Democratic Party.
A new party with a message of 'free'. The same failed message of every communist country throughout history.
But many of our newest 'immigrants' know nothing of such failures. The famines, the mass executions, the collapse of medical care.
So they will vote for this New Democratic Party.
Class warfare is now inevitable and begins by 2028.
I hope we're not back to having the sort of discussions the two of us were having before the election of 2024. I'm afraid that's exactly where we are heading.
NYC will revisit the 70's. It will come out of it after a term or two. They survived Lindsey, Dinkens and the others.
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
LOL In this particular discussion, YOU brought up "the criminal stuff."
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison.
There's plenty of time to negotiate the end of the ACA. So why did you waste time on a pointless government shutdown?
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
So now you're supporting Trillion-dollar subsidies to corporations? What happened to Mr. Deficit Hawk?
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
Lie. GOP wants to move in another direction.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
The surest sign you have lost the discussion on the filibuster is the desperate attempt to make it all about Obamacare.
Stop avoiding the central question at hand: Do you really, sincerely believe that Democrats would never unilaterally end the filibuster....never ever, under any circumstances, take it to the bank 100% unthinkable? We know they've already partly done it once. And we can see them promising to do to a radicalized base demanding it. On what basis can you make a sweeping conclusion that it could never happen?
No, once again you are changing the discussion. Also, you have so many BS statements in your response - "never, ever", "under any circumstances". Those are BS qualifiers. Yellowstone may erupt today under a "never, ever" scenario and we don't have to worry about it. Come on.
A sure sign YOU have lost is that you are now discussing it as: "never, ever", "under any circumstances". Basically saying under normal circumstances, they won't do it. So, we have to look at the 1% outlier...
The question is not some "never ever," BS scenario that will occur once every 1000 years, it is What alternative do you have to ACA, if you let the subsidy to expire? As millions are priced out of health care, which WILL happen on January 2nd. Guarenteed. 100% certainty? Well, what is your alternative to ACA ready to go?
By the way, "never, ever", "under any circumstances"??? Feeling under the weather? I expect more from you... : )
LOL hilarious. YOU are the one making an argument premised on the idea that Democrat will "never, ever" kill the filibuster.
If you want to stay on task, you could argue that you do not believe they would "never" do it and instead debate the odds that Democrats will retain/kill the filibuster.
Or you could argue that we should allow Democrats the first shot - let them kill it and then we come along later and undo everything they did. I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be, but I'm all ears if you have a proposition on the matter.
Or you could address my central concern - that I'm having a hard time concluding they more likely to keep it than not. The scales seem tipped the other direction, given what they've done in the past and what I see & hear from them and their base at this time. So give me something to change my mind on that.
But you're not doing any of those things. Not even trying. You're throwing in one red-herring after another and ranting like a madman.
Your TDS is unusually irritable this morning. Have you had your coffee yet?
FLBear5630 said:
NYC will revisit the 70's. It will come out of it after a term or two. They survived Lindsey, Dinkens and the others.
Its much easier to survive periods of adminstrative incompetence and corruption than it is to survive a period of intentional destruction. The current state of our health care system following Obamacare + Open Borders is illustrative of that.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
You are ranting incoherently.
The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?
Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.
Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.
That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.
Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)
The surest sign you have lost an argument is when you become a firehose of red herring. I didn't call any person a criminal. I didn't mention stolen election. Etc.... You are literally inventing what you need to exist in order to justify a rant you want to make.
"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."
so now you're admitting they game the system? Make up your mind, please!
If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??
You avoided the most important question: ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT WHEN THEY RECAPTURE THE SENATE (no matter what we do now)? Hard to dismiss out of hand that they will do it.
Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.
Again, what if they are going to do it anyway? How can you presume that people who are so willing to game the system are not going to change the rules to avoid having to do the gaming?
Let's be clear. You brought up the criminal stuff. This is a legislation discussion. Do you want me to play cut and paste games? I could give a **** less about the poltical crap. I am interested in people having health care options.
LOL In this particular discussion, YOU brought up "the criminal stuff."
So, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? You run to Anti-Donald like a toddler to his mommy constantly. This has nothing to do with Trump. What is the Alternative to not extending the subsidies, which were always part of the ACA???? If it expires, millions will be priced out of coverage. So? Or, are you going to start ranting Dems this and Dem's that? It has nothing to do with the Dems. Right now it is an easy comparison.
There's plenty of time to negotiate the end of the ACA. So why did you waste time on a pointless government shutdown?
Dems said they want to continue subsidy and work on making the system better.
So now you're supporting Trillion-dollar subsidies to corporations? What happened to Mr. Deficit Hawk?
GOP said they want the subsidies to expire and let prices escalate.
Lie. GOP wants to move in another direction.
President says? Where is the alternative to either one of those choices?
Keep the rhetoric out of it. What is the alternative? Or, are you good with millions not having health care coverage? You have yours, so it won't impact you.
The surest sign you have lost the discussion on the filibuster is the desperate attempt to make it all about Obamacare.
Stop avoiding the central question at hand: Do you really, sincerely believe that Democrats would never unilaterally end the filibuster....never ever, under any circumstances, take it to the bank 100% unthinkable? We know they've already partly done it once. And we can see them promising to do to a radicalized base demanding it. On what basis can you make a sweeping conclusion that it could never happen?
No, once again you are changing the discussion. Also, you have so many BS statements in your response - "never, ever", "under any circumstances". Those are BS qualifiers. Yellowstone may erupt today under a "never, ever" scenario and we don't have to worry about it. Come on.
A sure sign YOU have lost is that you are now discussing it as: "never, ever", "under any circumstances". Basically saying under normal circumstances, they won't do it. So, we have to look at the 1% outlier...
The question is not some "never ever," BS scenario that will occur once every 1000 years, it is What alternative do you have to ACA, if you let the subsidy to expire? As millions are priced out of health care, which WILL happen on January 2nd. Guarenteed. 100% certainty? Well, what is your alternative to ACA ready to go?
By the way, "never, ever", "under any circumstances"??? Feeling under the weather? I expect more from you... : )
LOL hilarious. YOU are the one making an argument premised on the idea that Democrat will "never, ever" kill the filibuster.
If you want to stay on task, you could argue that you do not believe they would "never" do it and instead debate the odds that Democrats will retain/kill the filibuster.
Or you could argue that we should allow Democrats the first shot - let them kill it and then we come along later and undo everything they did. I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be, but I'm all ears if you have a proposition on the matter.
Or you could address my central concern - that I'm having a hard time concluding they more likely to keep it than not. The scales seem tipped the other direction, given what they've done in the past and what I see & hear from them and their base at this time. So give me something to change my mind on that.
But you're not doing any of those things. Not even trying. You're throwing in one red-herring after another and ranting like a madman.
Your TDS is unusually irritable this morning. Have you had your coffee yet?
Mostly I see Democrat opinion pieces that say they won't go Nuclear, they would like to restructure, and finally it is saber rattling as the current Administration has shown why they shouldn't. If you are looking for hard metrics, I don't think that exists.
I do get you as Kristin S and Joe M are gone. They were the only Dems that I believe were old school Democrats from the Kennedy era.
There is no strategic value to them doing away with it, just like there is no value in the GOP doing away with it. Personally, I think AOC would LOVE for the GOP do kill it. Do her dirty work for her.
🚨 Funniest. President. EVER!
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 21, 2025
REPORTER TO ZOHRAN MAMDANI: "Are you affirming you think President Trump is a FASCIST?"
MAMDANI: "I've-"
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "-that's OK. You can just say YES. It's easier than explaining it, I don't mind." *Pats Mamdani on the back*
OMG 😭😭 pic.twitter.com/vBnM9dMi8k
whiterock said:🚨 Funniest. President. EVER!
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 21, 2025
REPORTER TO ZOHRAN MAMDANI: "Are you affirming you think President Trump is a FASCIST?"
MAMDANI: "I've-"
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "-that's OK. You can just say YES. It's easier than explaining it, I don't mind." *Pats Mamdani on the back*
OMG 😭😭 pic.twitter.com/vBnM9dMi8k
Well played.
Morons really need to stop using words unless they can define it.
Quotes from Trump
I'm imagining what the zealots over at the militias are saying.
"Sir, Militia Captain sir, so uh, I was watching the news."
"Private, stop watching that fake sh***."
"Sir, but it was Trump himself, a direct video."
"Then from the mouth of God to the ears of sinners, let's hear it."
"Well sir, he said that Mamdami would be doing things that are really great."
"Son, boyyyah, I toooold you, if you keep getting suckered into this AI CRAPPPP I will wh--"
"Sir, the Lady of Truth, Miss Karoline, she said he said it too!"
"So let's hear it"
"Well, 'I think this mayor can do some things that are going to be really great.' I'm just wondering, is this the 4D chess you were talking about?"
"Militia private, you are done with even thinking about that fourth dimension. I mean, I tell you all day long, we are gettin ready to go fightin against the commie, and you know where they come from? The socialist pigs. Now boyyyah, you might call yourself a democratic socialist, cause you want to be associatin with that here MURICA. FREEDOM F*** YEAH. But you still a socialist, and still a communist, and Mamdami is exactly what Hornady Black was made for. Black'em outta existance son, do ya HEAR ME???"
"Sir, yes sir, but it's just that outta the mouth of Jes.... I mean our duly elected leader, and I swear based upon the Mother of Truth, Miss Leavitt, he's gone sayin.... "I expect to be helping him, not hurting him. A big help." Sir, why is it that now we are helping the socialists and communists?"
"Son, you couldn't win at 1D chess against a toddler, so just shut ya mouth and stick to checkers. Keep those bullets ready, that gun oiled, and leave the thinkin to me, and all your superiors, and stop thinkin too much about what we all say!"
Quote:
I think this mayor can do some things that are going to be really great.
Quote:
I expect to be helping him, not hurting him. A big help
I'm imagining what the zealots over at the militias are saying.
"Sir, Militia Captain sir, so uh, I was watching the news."
"Private, stop watching that fake sh***."
"Sir, but it was Trump himself, a direct video."
"Then from the mouth of God to the ears of sinners, let's hear it."
"Well sir, he said that Mamdami would be doing things that are really great."
"Son, boyyyah, I toooold you, if you keep getting suckered into this AI CRAPPPP I will wh--"
"Sir, the Lady of Truth, Miss Karoline, she said he said it too!"
"So let's hear it"
"Well, 'I think this mayor can do some things that are going to be really great.' I'm just wondering, is this the 4D chess you were talking about?"
"Militia private, you are done with even thinking about that fourth dimension. I mean, I tell you all day long, we are gettin ready to go fightin against the commie, and you know where they come from? The socialist pigs. Now boyyyah, you might call yourself a democratic socialist, cause you want to be associatin with that here MURICA. FREEDOM F*** YEAH. But you still a socialist, and still a communist, and Mamdami is exactly what Hornady Black was made for. Black'em outta existance son, do ya HEAR ME???"
"Sir, yes sir, but it's just that outta the mouth of Jes.... I mean our duly elected leader, and I swear based upon the Mother of Truth, Miss Leavitt, he's gone sayin.... "I expect to be helping him, not hurting him. A big help." Sir, why is it that now we are helping the socialists and communists?"
"Son, you couldn't win at 1D chess against a toddler, so just shut ya mouth and stick to checkers. Keep those bullets ready, that gun oiled, and leave the thinkin to me, and all your superiors, and stop thinkin too much about what we all say!"
Harrison Bergeron said:
Morons really need to stop using words unless they can define it.
yep. nothing is more ironic than to see a Democrat talking about "the Constitution"
Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds
Florida lives in a make believe world. He constantly pretends that Repubs are causing the sky to fall while putting his head in the sand regarding who the democrats really are.
Guy is constantly wrong on just about everything. Smart dude, just not savvy.
Thee tinfoil hat couch-potato prognosticator, not a bible school preacher.
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds
Florida lives in a make believe world. He constantly pretends that Repubs are causing the sky to fall while putting his head in the sand regarding who the democrats really are.
Guy is constantly wrong on just about everything. Smart dude, just not savvy.
Wrong? On what? It is a political discussion, not a multi-choice test. There is no key to right and wrong answers in politics all of these issues have multiple sides.
In all seriousness, you really should learn to think for yourself and not just go party line. That is what they want you to do, forfeit your ability to critical think and just see it as a party thing, not an issue thing. All of these issues have legitimate concerns on the other side, don't just discount them because of the messenger. We have done a disservice to younger generations creating this polarized environment, and yes it is both sides.
Just because AOC brings up health care concerns, doesn't mean there are none. Same for the Dems, just because Trump brings up border issues, doesn't mean there are none.
Do not trust either side, they are not looking out for you. Just look at the X post on Eric Trump and Bitcoin, then look at what his Father the President has done on crypto. Same with Vance, AOC and all the others. What is the actual outcome, not the rhetoric.
By the way, not getting the article you posted as an example of Dem's power grab? It is a message based on the UCMJ that every soldier hears for basic training on. Poor taste? Sure. But, don't see how that is getting them power????
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds
Florida lives in a make believe world. He constantly pretends that Repubs are causing the sky to fall while putting his head in the sand regarding who the democrats really are.
Guy is constantly wrong on just about everything. Smart dude, just not savvy.
When one blames Republicans for the failure of OBAMACARE ... you know you have lost all sanity.
Harrison Bergeron said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds
Florida lives in a make believe world. He constantly pretends that Repubs are causing the sky to fall while putting his head in the sand regarding who the democrats really are.
Guy is constantly wrong on just about everything. Smart dude, just not savvy.
When one blames Republicans for the failure of OBAMACARE ... you know you have lost all sanity.
You keep making stuff up. I never said it was the Republicans fault, just asked what do you have to replace it for the 23 million who use it? But as usual, you have nothing.
Nothing but *****ing and complaining about Democrats. Let's face it, you have no idea how the real world works. You have never been responsible for providing any service to people. And, you are not capable of critically thinking about future ramifications.
But, keep telling us how the free market is the answer... The one solution that has absolutely NO CHANCE of going forward and will leave millions without health care. Great job...
FLBear5630 said:Harrison Bergeron said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds
Florida lives in a make believe world. He constantly pretends that Repubs are causing the sky to fall while putting his head in the sand regarding who the democrats really are.
Guy is constantly wrong on just about everything. Smart dude, just not savvy.
When one blames Republicans for the failure of OBAMACARE ... you know you have lost all sanity.
You keep making stuff up. I never said it was the Republicans fault, just asked what do you have to replace it for the 23 million who use it? But as usual, you have nothing.
Nothing but *****ing and complaining about Democrats. Let's face it, you have no idea how the real world works. You have never been responsible for providing any service to people. And, you are not capable of critically thinking about future ramifications.
But, keep telling us how the free market is the answer... The one solution that has absolutely NO CHANCE of going forward and will leave millions without health care. Great job...
I think that speaks for itself. Without a hint of self-awareness you literally typed "you have nothing" and also "criticize my proposal." I think you proved my point. That's exactly how one without a hint of self-awareness can blame Republicans for the Democrat failure, Obamacare and otherwise.
Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:Harrison Bergeron said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds
Florida lives in a make believe world. He constantly pretends that Repubs are causing the sky to fall while putting his head in the sand regarding who the democrats really are.
Guy is constantly wrong on just about everything. Smart dude, just not savvy.
When one blames Republicans for the failure of OBAMACARE ... you know you have lost all sanity.
You keep making stuff up. I never said it was the Republicans fault, just asked what do you have to replace it for the 23 million who use it? But as usual, you have nothing.
Nothing but *****ing and complaining about Democrats. Let's face it, you have no idea how the real world works. You have never been responsible for providing any service to people. And, you are not capable of critically thinking about future ramifications.
But, keep telling us how the free market is the answer... The one solution that has absolutely NO CHANCE of going forward and will leave millions without health care. Great job...
I think that speaks for itself. Without a hint of self-awareness you literally typed "you have nothing" and also "criticize my proposal." I think you proved my point. That's exactly how one without a hint of self-awareness can blame Republicans for the Democrat failure, Obamacare and otherwise.
You really think that is a solution? A sophomoric phrase of "free market"? That is your solution to the extension deadline for 23 million people that is 40 days away???? Really, you seriously think that is in any way, shape or form an actionable path forward?
So, let's put this in perspective. Coming into mid-terms, you are recommending not extending ACA subsidies, raising the premiums of 23 million people. AND when they ask what do we do, here it comes, let the free market figure it out. Truly, insightful. I am surprised Johnson doesn't have you on the phone asking permission to use it. That is the answer... Should we tell them to watch "Capitalism and Freedom"?
You are more out of touch than I thought. Even Trump is talking of extending ACA for 2 years because he knows there is no choice. There is no choice, anyone in any position of responsibility or reality knows they can't let it expire. Mid-terms are going to be tough enough. There is a good chance the GOP is going to lose the House and Trump is going to spend two years fighting impeachments. Follow your path and it is a lock. Living in the real world enough for you? Geez, talk about living is some dream world.
FLBear5630 said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:Harrison Bergeron said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds
Florida lives in a make believe world. He constantly pretends that Repubs are causing the sky to fall while putting his head in the sand regarding who the democrats really are.
Guy is constantly wrong on just about everything. Smart dude, just not savvy.
When one blames Republicans for the failure of OBAMACARE ... you know you have lost all sanity.
You keep making stuff up. I never said it was the Republicans fault, just asked what do you have to replace it for the 23 million who use it? But as usual, you have nothing.
Nothing but *****ing and complaining about Democrats. Let's face it, you have no idea how the real world works. You have never been responsible for providing any service to people. And, you are not capable of critically thinking about future ramifications.
But, keep telling us how the free market is the answer... The one solution that has absolutely NO CHANCE of going forward and will leave millions without health care. Great job...
I think that speaks for itself. Without a hint of self-awareness you literally typed "you have nothing" and also "criticize my proposal." I think you proved my point. That's exactly how one without a hint of self-awareness can blame Republicans for the Democrat failure, Obamacare and otherwise.
You really think that is a solution? A sophomoric phrase of "free market"? That is your solution to the extension deadline for 23 million people that is 40 days away???? Really, you seriously think that is in any way, shape or form an actionable path forward?
So, let's put this in perspective. Coming into mid-terms, you are recommending not extending ACA subsidies, raising the premiums of 23 million people. AND when they ask what do we do, here it comes, let the free market figure it out. Truly, insightful. I am surprised Johnson doesn't have you on the phone asking permission to use it. That is the answer... Should we tell them to watch "Capitalism and Freedom"?
You are more out of touch than I thought. Even Trump is talking of extending ACA for 2 years because he knows there is no choice. There is no choice, anyone in any position of responsibility or reality knows they can't let it expire. Mid-terms are going to be tough enough. There is a good chance the GOP is going to lose the House and Trump is going to spend two years fighting impeachments. Follow your path and it is a lock. Living in the real world enough for you? Geez, talk about living is some dream world.
Says the guy blaming Republicans for the failure of Obamacare.
Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:Harrison Bergeron said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Harrison Bergeron said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:whiterock said:Osodecentx said:
If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster
that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.
If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.
that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.
That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?
Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.
The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.
Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.
The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.
The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.
Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.
Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.
Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....
You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.
Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.
Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.
Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.
Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.
Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???
You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...
Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.
One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds
Florida lives in a make believe world. He constantly pretends that Repubs are causing the sky to fall while putting his head in the sand regarding who the democrats really are.
Guy is constantly wrong on just about everything. Smart dude, just not savvy.
When one blames Republicans for the failure of OBAMACARE ... you know you have lost all sanity.
You keep making stuff up. I never said it was the Republicans fault, just asked what do you have to replace it for the 23 million who use it? But as usual, you have nothing.
Nothing but *****ing and complaining about Democrats. Let's face it, you have no idea how the real world works. You have never been responsible for providing any service to people. And, you are not capable of critically thinking about future ramifications.
But, keep telling us how the free market is the answer... The one solution that has absolutely NO CHANCE of going forward and will leave millions without health care. Great job...
I think that speaks for itself. Without a hint of self-awareness you literally typed "you have nothing" and also "criticize my proposal." I think you proved my point. That's exactly how one without a hint of self-awareness can blame Republicans for the Democrat failure, Obamacare and otherwise.
You really think that is a solution? A sophomoric phrase of "free market"? That is your solution to the extension deadline for 23 million people that is 40 days away???? Really, you seriously think that is in any way, shape or form an actionable path forward?
So, let's put this in perspective. Coming into mid-terms, you are recommending not extending ACA subsidies, raising the premiums of 23 million people. AND when they ask what do we do, here it comes, let the free market figure it out. Truly, insightful. I am surprised Johnson doesn't have you on the phone asking permission to use it. That is the answer... Should we tell them to watch "Capitalism and Freedom"?
You are more out of touch than I thought. Even Trump is talking of extending ACA for 2 years because he knows there is no choice. There is no choice, anyone in any position of responsibility or reality knows they can't let it expire. Mid-terms are going to be tough enough. There is a good chance the GOP is going to lose the House and Trump is going to spend two years fighting impeachments. Follow your path and it is a lock. Living in the real world enough for you? Geez, talk about living is some dream world.
Says the guy blaming Republicans for the failure of Obamacare.
You are on repeat. Not worth discussing, you are out of ideas and responses. Expected more.
FLBear……..do you ever tire of being an internet blowhard?
Asking for the curious masses.
Asking for the curious masses.
Adriacus Peratuun said:
FLBear……..do you ever tire of being an internet blowhard?
Asking for the curious masses.
Nah, this is a good practice place. Take a point of view and defend it. Some go well, some don't. But always learn what works in the real world sparring with you guys. It is an educated forum, discussing complex issues, and you guys are passionate so it goes in all sorts of strange ways. So, I find all the conversations on here interesting. I will say, it is impressive how many of you can be so flexible in your positions depending on who is saying it. The mental gymnastics are really a sight to see.
How about you? Why are you a blowhard?