US Politics - The Nuclear Option goes pfft

[lokisnow]

So Harry Reid finally realized that Republicans have been dragging their feet in the Senate and he decided to do something about it.

No, he didn't eliminate the filibuster, but he did end a delaying tactic, 'motion to suspend after cloture,' that was once rarely used, hasn't been successful since 1941, and was used nine times on Thursday. Additionally, Trent Lott suspended the same in May, 2000.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

My first thought was, "why didn't he do this in 2009?" Then I realized it was relatively minor, if he'd done it then we might have a few more appointments a few weeks earlier but I don't think it would have made a big difference.

I also wonder if Obama leaned on Reid to do this. Obama needs to send a message that shit got real, this effectively does that.

[Kouran]

Honestly this doesn't do anything. Sure it means some more appointments get filled, but with a split congress this move is about as effective as a baby banging it's cup on the high chair. It might get daddy's attention, but probably not. Both sides of the aisle need to shut the fuck up and deal with shit instead of playing the who can score more political points game.

Scum the whole lot of them.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MEDICAL_MARIJUANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-06-15-51-35

Another campaign promise bites the dust. Obama is back to prosecuting medical cannabis providers. I just don't get it. He gains no political capital from this, and he surely can't be against cannabis as a moral stand.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tormund, Coco,

But hey it gives Scalia another chance to be as hypocritical as possible when he uses the Wickard case to justify this use of Federal power.

[awesome possum]

http://hosted.ap.org...-10-06-15-51-35

Another campaign promise bites the dust. Obama is back to prosecuting medical cannabis providers. I just don't get it. He gains no political capital from this, and he surely can't be against cannabis as a moral stand.

How dumb.

Why can't their be a third-party candidate who is truly viable? It's too late for 2012 but if someone started preparing for 2016 now I think they'd actually have a credible chance.

[TerraPrime]

Why can't their be a third-party candidate who is truly viable?

1. Donors

2. Political infrastructure

3. Donors

4. Donors

[awesome possum]

1. Donors

2. Political infrastructure

3. Donors

4. Donors

Very true. That's why they'd need to start working now.

As crazy-pants as some of his ideas are, I'd love to see Ron Paul switch to Independent and see what his numbers look like in this election. I think he'd make a horrible president, but his candidness on the national stage is what we need. Of course, we see what that candidness gets now: ignored.

[alguien]

http://hosted.ap.org...-10-06-15-51-35

Another campaign promise bites the dust. Obama is back to prosecuting medical cannabis providers. I just don't get it. He gains no political capital from this, and he surely can't be against cannabis as a moral stand.

Why the fucking fuck are they wasting their goddam time and money on this!?! :bang: :bang: :bang:

Jesus, that's frustrating.

[nickg]

I will honestly never get the anti marijuana nonsense, especially medicinal marijuana.

[TerraPrime]

Of course, we see what that candidness gets now: ignored.

I ignore him not so much because he's candid, but because he has no real solutions that I can see. Can't speak for others, though.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I ignore him not so much because he's candid, but because he has no real solutions that I can see. Can't speak for others, though.

He's the only person running who actually would end the wars. Guaranteed, he would issue the order as soon as the oath was sworn.

[TerraPrime]

He's the only person running who actually would end the wars. Guaranteed, he would issue the order as soon as the oath was sworn.

1. I don't think ending the war (in Iraq or Afghanistan) right now is necessarily a good thing.

2. If you believe campaign promises, then I will go find a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So Harry Reid finally realized that Republicans have been dragging their feet in the Senate and he decided to do something about it.

This isn't about the GOP trying to prevent a vote. This is about the GOP trying to force the Senate to vote, up or down, on Obama's Jobs Act, because they know that there isn't enough Democrat support to win an up or down vote. Btw, last time I checked, neither the Senate nor House version of Obama's bill had a single cosponsor. Not one. Anyway, when the Senate GOP succeeded in a maneuver forcing an up or down vote on it, the Dems changed the rules to prevent the vote.

That's just plain stupid to me -- dropping the nuke of a unilateral rules change just to avoid embarrassing the President. Seems to me you save that nuke for an issue where it really matters, like when your party has control of the Presidency and House, but lacks the 60 votes to end a filibuster in the Senate. You use to it pass legislation you view as critical, and worth the fallout of changing the rules.

I think all the Dems just did was greatly increase the chance that if the GOP gains control of all three branches, they'll feel entitled to unilaterally amend the rules as well to end the filibuster, and do what they want legislatively.

[TrackerNeil]

I think all the Dems just did was greatly increase the chance that if the GOP gains control of all three branches, they'll feel entitled to unilaterally amend the rules as well to end the filibuster, and do what they want legislatively.

I don't think so. My understanding is that the Democrats amended a minor, little-used rule, and left the filibuster untouched. Kind of like going hard for the minnow while the Great Whale rampages along unattended.

Honestly, I can't see why Republicans would want to abolish the filibuster. They use it much more effectively - and often - than the Democrats, and even though it might mean a short-term gain in the long run its demise will hurt them more than the Democrats. If there had been no filibuster in 2009-2010, the ACA might have been Medicare-for-All, a nightmare scenario for conservatives.

Personally, I think the filibuster has to either be abolished or its use dramatically curtailed. It's crazy...the ACA was filibustered in the Senate four freaking times. The same damn bill! They filibustered the motion to start debate, each amendment, the motion to end debate...madness.

[awesome possum]

Exactly what are we going to accomplish by staying in these countries?

There's no need to travel halfway across the world to kill Americans when there are some right next door.

Re: alguien, why they are wasting their time..

1% of the population is in jail. That's a huge industry. 3 million people means jobs in food service, administration, rehab... the list goes on. It's a money maker. Plus, they can use the labor to build missiles, helmets (actually, they stopped making helmets in prisons because they turned out to be shitty helmets).

Yep. Prisons are becoming privatized or run by more and more corporate entity, because it's a huge cash cow. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to see people in debt being regularly sent to prison within the next decade.

I think all the Dems just did was greatly increase the chance that if the GOP gains control of all three branches, they'll feel entitled to unilaterally amend the rules as well to end the filibuster, and do what they want legislatively.

As if that "chance" wasn't already a reality. When Democrats won the House, Senate and Presidency, the GOP - rightfully and legally voted out of power - threw such a tantrum that those who were duly elected couldn't legislate competently (or as competently as Democrats can be). You think this is what they'll use to do what they want? After watching them harm the country from 2000 to 2006 you think this means something to those power-hungry fucks?

All it means is Harry Reid finally showed them he had a sack.

[TrackerNeil]

All it means is Harry Reid finally showed them he had a sack.

I don't think so. He did away with a rule that hadn't previously been used in seventy years. That's not exactly political courage. Get back to me when he ends filibusters for executive branch nominees.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

1. I don't think ending the war (in Iraq or Afghanistan) right now is necessarily a good thing.

2. If you believe campaign promises, then I will go find a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Not killing people you don't have to is pretty much always a good thing.

I don't believe in campaign promises, but when the guy has been the only "no" vote on thousands of pieces of legislation, one can consider that pretty reliable. Check out his campaign finance numbers:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?CID=N00005906

I'm not going to vote for the guy or anything, but as far as not offering solutions, I would say not actively bombing 6 countries (or more, who knows) is a pretty good one.

[TerraPrime]

Exactly what are we going to accomplish by staying in these countries? What haven't we done so far that we're going to do now?

So you think it's morally acceptable to go to a foreign country and destroy their political and physical infrastructure for the sake of make-belief anti-terrorism motives that are actually about colonial geopolitical gains and then leave their country when it's in a shamble? If you do, you need to hand in your hippie card.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't think so. My understanding is that the Democrats amended a minor, little-used rule, and left the filibuster untouched. Kind of like going hard for the minnow while the Great Whale rampages along unattended.

It was the manner in which they amended the rule that is significant -- by a simple majority. That really pissed off Republicans, who may feel justified in using the same process in amending a different rule -- the filibuster. Whether they are correct in feeling justified is a different issue. But I think it is fair to say that this unilateral amendment of the rules makes a future GOP suspension of the filibuster more likely if it becomes their turn in power.

Personally, I think the filibuster has to either be abolished or its use dramatically curtailed. It's crazy...the ACA was filibustered in the Senate four freaking times. The same damn bill! They filibustered the motion to start debate, each amendment, the motion to end debate...madness.

I agree. I'd like to see it canned completely.

[TerraPrime]

Not killing people you don't have to is pretty much always a good thing.

See my response to coco, except for the hippie card part.

I don't believe in campaign promises, but when the guy has been the only "no" vote on thousands of pieces of legislation, one can consider that pretty reliable. Check out his campaign finance numbers:

http://www.opensecre...p?CID=N00005906

Voting as a Senator is a vastly different beast than directing the Executive Branch. Yes, he has as much credibility about that (stopping the war) as anyone can get, but I have severe doubt that the constraints of governing will allow Paul to do as his principles dictate on all the issues. On some, perhaps, but the President is not the Overlord, and s/he is as much restricted by the momentum of the on-going process of governance as anyone else. It was hard enough for Clinton to get gays accepted into the military, and he was the Commander in Chief for all armed forces. A President with no strong backing from the two parties in control of the Congress will be as effective as a peacenik at a gun range.