U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...

[OnionAhaiReborn]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

The abuse of the filibuster certainly has "devolved," albeit I'm not sure that's the right word.  Maybe simply just worsened.  And that plainly happened after the Civil Rights era - see here.

Good point.  Even if you're planning on abolishing it, I don't think this gets Dems any more votes than they were already going to get - and the GOP can use it as a way to try and scare those on the fence about a "broad and dangerous liberal agenda."

Its use has increased, there's no question about that. But if people want to defend it on the basis that its use has "devolved" or, if you prefer, "worsened" I'm going to point out that it has an incredibly ugly history. That's a characterization that's claiming it used to be used for good and now is not, or is being abused. Which is a worse abuse of the filibuster, using it a lot or using it to try to prevent passage of Civil Rights legislation? I have genuinely no idea what history defenders of the filibuster are thinking of when they argue in its favor. When was the era of infrequent, judicious use of the filibuster to prevent trampling on rights of minorities or other authoritarian excesses? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

The filibuster hasn't "devolved," it's never been anything but an undemocratic tool in an already undemocratic chamber, most famous for its use by Southern segregationists seeking to thwart Civil Rights legislation in the 60s. 

 

Nitpick the terminology if you want, but as was pointed out its use has gotten completely absurd. Does that change the fact that it was used for terrible reasons in the past? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea for one of two legislative chambers to not simply be majority rule.

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Its use has increased, there's no question about that. But if people want to defend it on the basis that its use has "devolved" or, if you prefer, "worsened" I'm going to point out that it has an incredibly ugly history. That's a characterization that's claiming it used to be used for good and now is not, or is being abused. Which is a worse abuse of the filibuster, using it a lot or using it to try to prevent passage of Civil Rights legislation? I have genuinely no idea what history defenders of the filibuster are thinking of when they argue in its favor. When was the era of infrequent, judicious use of the filibuster to prevent trampling on rights of minorities or other authoritarian excesses? 

Well, the issue of the filibuster and why so many Dems are now willing to abolish it now when they previously not to - which is particularly ironic with Obama considering he had the power and the obvious impetus to abolish it, ya know, when he took office - is directly tied to its increased abuse that started after the Civil Rights era.  As for the history of the filibuster, I don't think anyone's arguing it's necessarily been a "good" or "bad" thing on its use or how its evolved or devolved or whatever.  The House technically had the filibuster for the first 50 years of congressional history. 

The rationale behind abolishing it is rather orthoganal to segregationists trying to employ it during the 60s with Civil Rights legislation - especially considering their attempts were almost entirely ineffective.  The reason I'm opposed to abolishing it - although I am supportive of many ways to amend it in order to lessen its frequency/abuse - is because of its ability as tool in the current rampant polarized and negative partisanship environment.  It is one of the few institutional tools left to protect the political minority, and that has been and will be in the future the Democrats against a party intent on stripping away rights and countless other negative outcomes across the board.  Especially in the Senate where the GOP has an inherent advantage that's only going to increase.

[Kalbear]

Hah

 

 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Hah

Is anyone here arguing that political norms will protect anything?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Is anyone here arguing that political norms will protect anything?

...yes?

[DMC]

Just now, Kalbear said:

...yes?

Who?

[Fragile Bird]

I just want to drop a note here about fashion and economics.

Over the decades, yes, I can say that, one of the biggest indicators of a recession or a boom has been women’s hemlines. The better times are, the shorter the skirts. Think of the 60s and mini skirts, or the Roaring 20s and dresses above the knee (shocking!). 
 

Recessions brought longer skirts and dresses. Think of all the depression era pictures you’ve see of women in long dresses. Long dresses popped up in tough time’s in the 70s.

My Facebook feed is full of ads for clothing, and every brand advertising has a couple of midi dresses, where the hems are halfway to the ankles, or even ankle length.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I just want to drop a note here about fashion and economics.

Over the decades, yes, I can say that, one of the biggest indicators of a recession or a boom has been women’s hemlines. The better times are, the shorter the skirts. Think of the 60s and mini skirts, or the Roaring 20s and dresses above the knee (shocking!). 
 

Recessions brought longer skirts and dresses. Think of all the depression era pictures you’ve see of women in long dresses. Long dresses popped up in tough time’s in the 70s.

My Facebook feed is full of ads for clothing, and every brand advertising has a couple of midi dresses, where the hems are halfway to the ankles, or even ankle length.

I have heard of this before, but is there an explanation for the psychology/motivation behind it?

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I have heard of this before, but is there an explanation for the psychology/motivation behind it?

No one precisely knows. A hypothesis I heard is that when you're buying clothes and things are risky you tend to favor practicality over fashion, and longer, more covering things are better in more circumstances so you might need fewer of them. Alternately it might just be a matter of feeling risk-averse and bearing less to the world vs. not. 

 

[Fragile Bird]

57 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I have heard of this before, but is there an explanation for the psychology/motivation behind it?

I posted that bit without even looking for any back-up, but a quick search shows the Short Skirt Theory was suggested by a guy at Wharton in, get this, 1925! So he talked about the short skirts in the boom time of the 20s, but I don’t know when the longer skirts came into fashion, if it started before the crash.

I wouldn’t use skirt lengths to make stock market decisions, but the ads I’m seeing really caught my eye.

[Martell Spy]

Obama didn't call for the filibuster to be removed. He called for voting rights to be preserved/defended. Is there a way to do that doesn't involve removing the legislative filibuster? It doesn't seem like something you can pass in reconciliation. 

The alternative is sitting around on the issue and waiting for the inevitable attacks on voting rights from the Roberts Court. This SC has declared war on the issue and will not stop. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Obama didn't call for the filibuster to be removed.

Yes, he did.  From the eulogy:

Quote

"And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster — another Jim Crow relic — in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that's what we should do," Obama said.

The reasoning he cited for why was clearly to preserve/defend/expand voting rights, sure, but that is undeniably calling for the abolishment of the filibuster.

[Martell Spy]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, he did.  From the eulogy:

The reasoning he cited for why was clearly to preserve/defend/expand voting rights, sure, but that is undeniably calling for the abolishment of the filibuster.

He's saying it is the means to that end, but that statement leaves the possibility of other alternatives. I guess it might imply that he thinks that it really is necessary since it's right there in front.

This is all in the context though of a running fuse. American voting rights will get more and more diluted if no action is taken.

 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

He's saying it is the means to that end, but that statement leaves the possibility of other alternatives. I guess it might imply that he thinks that it really is necessary since it's right there in front.

This is taking parsing to a whole other level.  The intuitive takeaway from his statement was that he's in favor of abolishing the filibuster, that's how everybody characterized his statement in their reporting, and he's done nothing to try to clarify or clean it up if that was not his intent - which it obviously was.

[ants]

Public option health reform (plus some poison pills for corporate health cover)

Taxation reform

Controls on the presidency

Would be amongst the priority issues.  

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Triskele said:

If you've already crossed that Rubicon might you not want to then go for several other previously unattainable bills?  What else could be under consideration?

Well, first off DC and Puerto Rico statehood, which Obama cited.  (Although as discussed before, you can do that without eliminating the legislative filibuster.)  A vast expansion towards universal healthcare, although being able to pass MFA in the Senate would still require quite a strong majority generated from November, and even then many of those new members (say, Greenfield or Bullock) would not be inclined to vote for it.  You could formalize DACA and overall immigration reform in a much more solidified and expanded way.  Climate change, gun control, criminal justice, with unified government and no filibuster all of these things could be moved substantially left since the public generally approves of doing so - at least in certain ways. 

But...then what happens when the political winds change?  Which they will, and probably pretty quickly.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I posted that bit without even looking for any back-up, but a quick search shows the Short Skirt Theory was suggested by a guy at Wharton in, get this, 1925! So he talked about the short skirts in the boom time of the 20s, but I don’t know when the longer skirts came into fashion, if it started before the crash.

I wouldn’t use skirt lengths to make stock market decisions, but the ads I’m seeing really caught my eye.

I wonder if there's some kind of urban/rural divide there, because I have photos of my family going back 6 generations, and ALL the women wore long dresses with long sleeves. In Oklahoma. With no AC. 

Like there's one of my great-grandma in 1925 or '26 with my grandpa shortly after he was born, and she looked like she was going to a funeral. 

Then, there was one of her and the family a couple of years after my great-great-aunt was born (it must have been taken in '32 or '33, so in the middle of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl) and...long black dress.

Luckily they weren't sharecroppers (owned their land), so they were able to ride it out instead of heading to California with everyone else.

That's just a really interesting phenomenon.

ETA: Given my family history, I suppose it's hardly surprising that "The Grapes of Wrath" is my all-time favorite novel.

[Martell Spy]

17 minutes ago, Triskele said:

With a healthcare expansion I'd think there's a hope that it's tough for the GOP to overturn a few years later.  I wonder if they have a true blowout and get to like 56 seats how many cycles that's safe for.  

Any immigration bill in the works?  That seems like another area that's nigh impossible if you need 60 but maybe not at all if you need 51.

OK, I'm clearly wrong in that argument with @DMC if this is how the Huffpost is reporting it...

Obama: Senate Should Eliminate Filibuster To Protect Voting Rights
The former president said Democrats should ditch the “Jim Crow relic” to make Election Day a national holiday, end gerrymandering and revitalize the Voting Rights Act.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-filibuster-jim-crow_n_5f230ea8c5b656e9b098ead0

 

I think the advantage is the GOP would be forced to pass hideous policies. Either that or moderate themselves. The filibuster saves them from having to make those calls. Same goes for moderate Democrats, btw, the filibuster gives them a good excuse why they can only do so much in a given cycle. (That's in addition to the advantage of being first to pull the trigger. It's going to happen at some point, whoever does it first will gain something, much as the Republicans gained by stealing Garland's SC seat)

The big disadvantage is chaos. It's a very realistic possibility that the Republicans will destroy Medicaid. They after all just put out some of the worst bills in history that did exactly that. What happens if say Democrats expand healthcare in some manner, maybe Medicaid expansion, Medicare expansion, and public option. Then, Republicans win a blow-out and in coming months rip up Medicaid completely. Even if the Republicans then lose power next cycle, that's a ton of chaos and suffering in a short term of time. And picking up the pieces might be quite hard as it is healthcare policy.

It's unlikely Republicans would win this battle long term though. They already in a bind on healthcare because they don't really care about the subject much, yet insist on having a very loud opinion on it, and a shitty opinion at that.

 

[DMC]

34 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I wonder if they have a true blowout and get to like 56 seats how many cycles that's safe for.  

Well, they got 59 in 2008 (then shortly after 60 with Specter) and they still lost the majority 6 years later, so I'd say 2 to 3 cycles tops.  Especially considering their disadvantage with the 2024 class, I'd say it'd be very much in question by then.  

On immigration, yeah, I think they could do a lot of good there if they only needed 50 votes.