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

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Au revoir, Jefferson. Or auf wiedersehen. No, just goodbye. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out you rotten fuck. 

*sigh*

I think you should rewatch the other QT movie with Waltz to explain the meaning of auf Wiedersehen to you.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

*sigh*

I think you should rewatch the other QT movie with Waltz to explain the meaning of auf Wiedersehen to you.

 

 

Is it not clear that was part of the reference?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Sorry, I am a bit slow today. I take back what I said.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Shit happens. 

[Zorral]

This is how he cancells those who don't love him: prohibit their platform:

 

Getting rid of TikTok won't stop the pointing of fingers and collapse into tragic laughter about him and the USA though:

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

In regards to the filibuster, while it is true that the filibuster has prevented all sorts of awful laws being passed including abolishing abortion, privatization of social security and other deregulation measures I think the time has come for the rule to go.

First, it is undemocratic and unresponsive to the world around us. What is supposed to happen is that a party campaigns on certain principles, gathers support and pass policies that reflect those principles. As much as I am against abolishing abortion, if the Republican party has a majority to abolish procedures (provided the laws are constitutional)  they should be able to do it. If the public doesn't like it they can vote them out and a new majority can pass its preferred legislation. Filibusters make it nearly impossible to get anything done. They also give cover for politicians adopting irresponsible positions on things they know have no chance of passing which poisons our national dialogue.  You can't solve problems if you can't get anything done. It destroys faith in our system and maintains a constant culture of strife, anxiety and indecision that is not good our country.

Second if you have any hope of any significant progressive legislation being passed, you can kiss those hopes goodbye. It took a historic pile of quirks for the dems to get 60 votes  in 2008. That super majority didn't last two years and we were back to gridlock. All of those policies, whether it is universal health care or stronger labor laws will not happen if we need 60 votes. The dems will probably never have 60 votes again in our lifetimes but they will get majorities, perhaps later this year. 

The filibuster is not the only thing wrong with our system but it is an easily fixable problem. Hopefully Schumer will be able to allow a vote to change this rule in 2021.

[Durckad]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Shit happens. 

2020 in a nutshell.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

It took a historic pile of quirks for the dems to get 60 votes  in 2008. That super majority didn't last two years and we were back to gridlock. All of those policies, whether it is universal health care or stronger labor laws will not happen if we need 60 votes. The dems will probably never have 60 votes again in our lifetimes but they will get majorities, perhaps later this year. 

The 60 vote threshold is not set in stone - and of course the threshold to invoke cloture has only been at 60 votes since 1975.  They could change it to 55 or the size of the majority caucus.  There are many ways to reform the filibuster in order to lessen its abuse and frequency without entirely abolishing it.

[TrackerNeil]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

The 60 vote threshold is not set in stone - and of course the threshold to invoke cloture has only been at 60 votes since 1975.  They could change it to 55 or the size of the majority caucus.  There are many ways to reform the filibuster in order to lessen its abuse and frequency without entirely abolishing it.

Some of these suggestions are decent, but before I would consider reforming the filibuster, I'd want to hear good reasons why we shouldn't just eliminate it. Why do we allow the minority party this power at all? To protect the status quo? In my experience, the status quo usually benefits the few and not the many, and conservatives more than liberals. Yes, of course that maneuver sometimes protects liberal priorities, but then again, it wasn't the filibuster that saved the ACA from "skinny repeal" in 2017. 

To my mind, if we're going to put a party in power, we have to allow it to govern, and all of these veto points built into our government--House, Senate, filibuster, presidential veto, Supreme Court--do the opposite. If the voters put Republican in charge, the voters get shitty government. Maybe after enough shitty governance the voters will wise up. I doubt it, but that's democracy, I suppose.

[DMC]

34 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'd want to hear good reasons why we shouldn't just eliminate it. Why do we allow the minority party this power at all? To protect the status quo? In my experience, the status quo usually benefits the few and not the many, and conservatives more than liberals.

Beyond what's already been mentioned in preventing GOP overreach, strategically the filibuster is a more valuable mechanism for the Dems because the GOP holds the inherent advantage in the Senate due to its representation.  And this advantage is only going to be exacerbated longterm as equal representation favors rural states and the urban/rural divide among the electorate is only increasing.  Thus, the filibuster ironically is an undemocratic check on the undemocratic nature of the Senate.  I suppose it's fair to say two wrongs don't make a right, but if the Dems are distinctly more likely to be in the minority within the Senate, then it's in their longterm interest to retain the filibuster in some fashion rather they realize it or not.  Especially considering it's impossible to alter representation in the Senate without a constitutional amendment.

Practically, over the past forty years the GOP has enjoyed unified government for 8 years while the Dems have only enjoyed it for 4 - and the legislative filibuster only ultimately matters when one party achieves unified government.  Who knows what the future will entail, but considering the GOP has both the above advantage in the Senate and corresponding advantage with the electoral college, it seems prudent for the Dems to keep the filibuster as long as the environment of heightened polarization continues (and it does not appear there's any end in sight there) since, ceteris paribus, the GOP is more likely to achieve unified government.

Finally, yes, the Framers did design the Senate to slow down legislation to maintain the status quo because they were very concerned with mob rule.  The also were concerned with protecting the political minority.  While I may disagree with the former in many ways (of course the electoral college should be abolished and if I was grand emperor I would reform the Senate so representation resembles the House), I do still strongly agree with the later.  And other than the courts - which is always questionable and dependent on their partisan predispositions anyway - the filibuster is the only institutional mechanism to protect the political minority from legislation that reflect the tyranny of the majority (which is still, ya know, quite possible considering the attitudes of the American electorate).

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

In regards to the filibuster, 

<snip>

The filibuster is not the only thing wrong with our system but it is an easily fixable problem. .

Excellent job demonstrating the non-democratic aspects of the filibuster.  How much quality legislation has it prevented?  If we're going to have a democracy, at some point minority procedural controls serve to [slow] the entire system, which is probably desireable in an egalitarian society where everyone has equal access to resources and is taxed appropriately.  In the meantime, and in reality however, we have these very unequal socioeconomic strata, and it's probably time to take the governor off the Senate and let them hash this shit out.  

If we have to suffer this unequal cameral situation, at least let this HighShitHouse operate.   The wheels of government are so far removed from necessity already.  This is an easy improvement, and if Dems don't do it, you know sureas shit the GOP will as soon as they think it helps them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

If we're going to have a democracy,

Technically we have a Republic, if we can keep it. Now I never went much for this, but in these times, you can see just how a democracy can go South, especially if one party in a two party state doesn't give a shit about ethics, fairness or process, just to name a few things. 

Having 50.1% of power decide everything makes a lot of sense when you think you have it, but when you're on the other end, and your opposition fights a lot dirty than you, see how that goes.

(I actually agree with @DMC's suggestion to perhaps drop it down to 55, but those rules can just be changed again like we saw with court appointments, and then in that case Republicans can also just bullshit and be like "you changed the the rules." It might not matter that the rules were needed to be changed because Republicans were fucking them up to begin with).

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Technically we have a Republic, if we can keep it. Now I never went much for this, but in these times, you can see just how a democracy can go South, especially if one party in a two party state doesn't give a shit about ethics, fairness or process, just to name a few things. 

Having 50.1% of power decide everything makes a lot of sense when you think you have it, but when you're on the other end, and your opposition fights a lot dirty than you, see how that goes.

(I actually agree with @DMC's suggestion to perhaps drop it down to 55, but those rules can just be changed again like we saw with court appointments, and then in that case Republicans can also just bullshit and be like "you changed the the rules." It might not matter that the rules were needed to be changed because Republicans were fucking them up to begin with)

Like I said, this is a speed argument for me.  No need for the Senate to be an anchor on government responding to problems in real time because of some good-old boy rule to stall  things.  I understand this sword cuts both ways.  Some people still haven't received their stimulus check 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I had actually meant to bring this up the other day, and this was a perfect reminder.  I think that I recall this future Senate issue coming up in the threads a while ago (maybe with a stat like "70% of the country is going to be represented by only 30% of the Senators" or something) and that at the time you'd said something that suggested this wasn't as much of a worry as some were making it out to be.  Did I misunderstand?  Your post here make it sound like it is indeed a worry. 

My point there was about the GOP being able to achieve unified government.  I believe it was Ty saying the GOP had the future advantage in the Senate while the Dems (due to the GOP increasingly becoming the party solely of white people and the obvious demographic trends) had the future advantage in the House.  And, therefore, since as I mentioned the filibuster only ultimately matters when a party enjoys unified government, it therefore shouldn't matter as much.  If memory serves, that argument was also about abolishing only an aspect of the filibuster in order to allow for 51 votes to pass DC/Puerto Rico statehood - not the legislative filibuster.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Some people still haven't received their stimulus check 

And who would be responsible for that? Not the minority party you wish to give more power to in the long run, I hope.

[DMC]

Just now, Triskele said:

Thanks.  But just to clarify:  You do have the same worry that the Senate will continue to be more red than in seems fair far into the future? 

Yes, I agree with Ty's point that the GOP will have an increasing advantage in the Senate while the Dems will in the House over the longterm future.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Thanks.  But just to clarify:  You do have the same worry that the Senate will continue to be more red than in seems fair far into the future? 

Without structural changes, the Presidency and the Senate could be much harder to win despite an increased shit to the left of the body politic. 

ETA: Well it's pretty funny I wrote shit there instead of shift. Our country is going to shit anyways though. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And who would be responsible for that? Not the minority party you wish to give more power to in the long run, I hope.

Genuinely have zero idea what you're talking about :

*ETA*:Maybe we're operating on some kind of misunderstood basis: I'm not a Democrat, i do not support their design for this country.  Nationally, yes I vote for them everytime.  On a state level, probably 95+% of the time, and locally probably 85+%.  But that's the big tent coalition in action.  I'm guessing we have very different expectations and wants of political ends, and that's ok.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Genuinely have zero idea what you're talking about :

If the country is moving towards a place where the Senate and the Presidency can be won by an obvious minority, why cut your nose off to spite your face?

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

*ETA*:Maybe we're operating on some kind of misunderstood basis: I'm not a Democrat, i do not support their design for this country.  Nationally, yes I vote for them everytime.  On a state level, probably 95+% of the time, and locally probably 85+%.  But that's the big tent coalition in action.  I'm guessing we have very different expectations and wants of political ends, and that's ok.

I hate to break it to you, but yes you are.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If the country is moving towards a place where the Senate and the Presidency can be won by an obvious minority, why cut your nose off to spite your face?

I hate to break it to you, but yes you are.

No, that's just the reality of participating in politics.  I mean, that's why we disagree on so much stuff, this shouldn't surprise you.  On an ideological and practical level I think Democrats are actively bad.  But they are better than the other popular alternative so i vote for them when it doesn't induce vomitting.

To your explanation: the Senate map only gets worse if you hestitate.  If it's doomed, what's goin to be helped by procrastinating?  Take what you can get immediately, get statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, and get what you can. 

There's no cutting off your nose to spite the face.  

If you think someone is GOI g to one day get rid of the filibuster, the only logical path forward is to be the one that does it, and take every advantage possible.  Otherwise you know damn sure the GOP will.