|
Post by kristine on Jan 20, 2010 1:04:44 GMT -5
Also, they only had a supermajority in the first place if you count Lieberman, which I don't. Yeah, too many Dinos to be a real majority.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jan 20, 2010 3:19:51 GMT -5
The AP is reporting that Scott Brown the Republic candidate to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat has won. This means the Democrats will no longer have a 60 seat majority in the Senate. So the GOP can now filibuster every thing and anything. Not to minimize this but what exactly were the Dems doing with that majority before now? Didn't the GOP already threaten to filibuster more then once and it seemed to work? Didn't Lieberman, the Democrat but not really a Democrat even say he would filibuster? Sorry to be cynical but it almost seems that many Dems will use this as an excuse to not do what they weren't' doing before.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jan 20, 2010 3:23:56 GMT -5
Go figure, the party that is in the majority 59 to 41 is effectively powerless. Unless the majority is Republican and then the majority can be even smaller and there still nothing you can't do, no matter how gawd awful stupid and even downright evil it is.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jan 20, 2010 4:31:20 GMT -5
The problem with representative government is that it assumes all parties come to the table in good faith for the betterment of the country.
|
|
|
Post by big_electron on Jan 20, 2010 6:38:25 GMT -5
Figured it would happen when the bitch who the Dems chose to replace Kennedy stopped campaning after she got the nom. Ironbite-idiot. She quit campaigning after nomination? (Too bad Skyfire isn't here to revel in it)
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jan 20, 2010 6:41:20 GMT -5
so simply put, the bawwing is because an opposition party can now actually oppose the government? Damn that pesky democracy
edit: INB4 "BUT THEY'LL STOP THE GOVERNMENT DOING ANYTHING IT WANTS, ZOMG NOOO" and "it's because you hate brown people"
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jan 20, 2010 7:51:46 GMT -5
The problem with representative government is that it assumes all parties come to the table in good faith for the betterment of the country. Ha ha, oh you poor poor misguided 18th century fools *looks at his pic* Wait....
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jan 20, 2010 9:01:26 GMT -5
The reality is that the Dems had 60 votes in the Senate only by counting Lieberman. And let's take a look at that asshole...he gives speeches at Republican functions....he supports Republican candidates....he takes public stances against neary all Democratic led legislation....he threatens to fillibuster Democratic inititives.....
Face it. Lieberman is a Republican. Hell, McCain even considered selecting Smilin' Joe for VP. Pretty sure he wasn't even on the list for Obama.
The real reason the Reps were able to block legislation is because they knew (and the Dems knew) that if the Dems actually tried to break a Rep fillibuster....it would become instantly obvious that the Dems did not, in fact, have the support of Lieberman, and therefore never really have a 60 vote suermajority at all. They liked to SAY they did....but everyone knows that was bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 20, 2010 9:18:15 GMT -5
The AP is reporting that Scott Brown the Republic candidate to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat has won. This means the Democrats will no longer have a 60 seat majority in the Senate. So the GOP can now filibuster every thing and anything. Not to minimize this but what exactly were the Dems doing with that majority before now? Didn't the GOP already threaten to filibuster more then once and it seemed to work? Didn't Lieberman, the Democrat but not really a Democrat even say he would filibuster? Sorry to be cynical but it almost seems that many Dems will use this as an excuse to not do what they weren't' doing before. The GOP has done more then just threaten a filibuster they have been doing the whole time, that is way 60 votes are needed. A large chunk of the legislation that the GOP passed when it controlled the Senate was passed through reconciliation votes which can't be filibustered. Remember the Bush Tax cuts? They were passed 50-50 with Dick Chaney casting the final deciding vote. The Democrats just allow the GOP spin machine to tell people that using reconciliation is wrong after the fact and the Dems wont pull that trigger. AKA the Dems are a bunch of political pussies.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Jan 20, 2010 10:34:18 GMT -5
Not to minimize this but what exactly were the Dems doing with that majority before now? Didn't the GOP already threaten to filibuster more then once and it seemed to work? Didn't Lieberman, the Democrat but not really a Democrat even say he would filibuster? Sorry to be cynical but it almost seems that many Dems will use this as an excuse to not do what they weren't' doing before. THIS. I voted Democrat, but those jackasses really need to grow a spine. Cowards.. The GOP has done more then just threaten a filibuster they have been doing the whole time, that is way 60 votes are needed. A large chunk of the legislation that the GOP passed when it controlled the Senate was passed through reconciliation votes which can't be filibustered. Remember the Bush Tax cuts? They were passed 50-50 with Dick Chaney casting the final deciding vote. The Democrats just allow the GOP spin machine to tell people that using reconciliation is wrong after the fact and the Dems wont pull that trigger. AKA the Dems are a bunch of political pussies.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jan 20, 2010 11:39:41 GMT -5
so simply put, the bawwing is because an opposition party can now actually oppose the government? Damn that pesky democracy ....; Which makes me to reiterate my point. The opposition party was already being oppositional. They were opposing out the wazoo. IF the Dems wanted to wash hands after using the bathroom, the GOP opposed it. And they got a lot of help with that from Democrats. So I am still confused. What exactly does this really change?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jan 20, 2010 12:01:20 GMT -5
So I am still confused. What exactly does this really change? As much as Joe Lieberman sides with the Republicans he was willing to negotiate. He did vote with the Dems to pass the Senate Health Care bill, as flawed as it is. Without the 60th vote it is unlikely that any health care reform will pass. This means that any of the good in the bills like not letting insurance companies exclude people with pre-existing conditions will not become law. Unless the final bill can be voted on before Brown is seated or the House passed the senate bill as is. It was once said that Mike Tyson could hit you so hard it changes the way things taste. Well this changes the way politics will taste until the midterm elections.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jan 20, 2010 12:28:08 GMT -5
As much as Joe Lieberman sides with the Republicans he was willing to negotiate. He did vote with the Dems to pass the Senate Health Care bill, as flawed as it is. Without the 60th vote it is unlikely that any health care reform will pass. This means that any of the good in the bills like not letting insurance companies exclude people with pre-existing conditions will not become law. .... Though I would point out that negotiating with Lieberman (and Nelson and Landrue and Baucus) seems to only have had the effect of the making the Senate bill worse and worse. For instance, Insurance companies now may have a huge loop hole that could allow them to screw people with pre-existing conditions even more then they do now. www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1440-Senate-Bill-Could-Undermine-the-Ban-on-Pre-Existing-Condition-Discrimination-Progressives-SayThere is no public option because of negotiating with people like Lieberman nor Medicare buy in. Single payer was never allowed on the table. And the mandate is problematic regardless of how much the word "subsidies" gets thrown around. I'm just saying, I don't think this is as calamitous as some are saying (nor was the previous senate count as good as some claim) It seems there are some key democrats that never wanted this to begin with and the only thing that seems to have changed is now they have an excuse in Brown.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Jan 20, 2010 17:34:55 GMT -5
With regards to filibusters, I did a little research and I came to the conclusion that the American political system is staggeringly unsuited to dealing with filibusters.
I have nothing else to add, I just like insulting America.
|
|
|
Post by banjaxed on Jan 20, 2010 17:52:53 GMT -5
Great, more years of getting nothing done in Washington.
|
|