Dear Republicans: This Is Not How Democracy Works!

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Clothahump

No to neither. It was ill thought out, kneejerk legislation that should never have come into existence in the first place.

From that article (emphasis mine):

…Yes, the republicans who opposed it thought it was a bad idea. I hate to break it to you, but nowadays that’s kind of a telling metric of an idea which is not necessarily bad, but more often than not both good and coming from the democratic side of the aisle.

@FuriousGeorge

C’mon folks, really? You’re going to go with “Well, they use it more than we did… <grumble><grumble><grumble>…”

What are you? Teenagers? You sound like my kids, “She used the X-Box WWWWAYYYY more than I did yesterday.”

That may be more pathetic than “neener, neener”. Weak sauce, weak sauce…

Yes, it does matter. The filibuster was intended, as others have pointed out, as a means of last resort against the opposing party; if you really hate the legislature, you filibuster it and, in theory, force the bill to get bipartisan support (which the republican party will never, ever grant in the current political environment if they filibustered it in the first place) or force one party to have an overwhelming majority.

Now ask yourself this: what would happen if one party filibustered every bill and appointment that crossed their desk?

The Filibuster is supposed to be a tool to be used in severe moderation. If one party is abusing it to death, and the other is not, and this abuse effectively breaks the system, then yes it does fucking matter

@LonesomePolecat

“Tryanny of the majority” is a stock phrase Democrats and lefties in general often use when they don’t get their own way.

You know what, I’m going to grant you that, even though I don’t believe for a fucking second that it’s as “stock” as you claim it to be. Fair enough, we use “tyranny of the majority” to describe situations where the majority makes a decision that severely hampers the rights of the minority. You wanna explain how this has anything to do with being able to pass any legislature at all without a super majority?

No, I’m not talking about the Supreme Court. I’m talking about lefties declaring anything they want to be a right as a superficial and obvious rationalization for overriding majority rule whenever they want.

Wow, congrats on making a completely uncited, radical, incorrect statement. I mean, what the hell are you even talking about? The overturning of DADT, which was in clear violation of both the will of the public and the rights of homosexuals in the same way that the same law against blacks would have been?

Never mind that with each recent turnover of presidents from republican to democrat, the number of cloture votes (read: filibustered) has, on average, doubled. Seriously. Before carter, it was extremely rare… Reagan had a similar rate to Carter, as did Bush Senior, then Clinton came along and the number doubled… Bush Jr., it stayed the same as with Clinton; Obama? Doubled again. To the point where it is very easy to look at the number of filibusters, and what is being filibustered, and determine that the entire goal of the republican party is to obstruct the majority rule of law for political goals. Do I need to explain what is wrong with that?

Oh, wow! A poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News. You just know that’s gonna be impartial and objective! Next time, try to find sources that aren’t propaganda organs of the Democratic party.

“I’m becoming aware
That I’m staring,
I’m like a rabbit suddenly trapped
In the blinding headlights of vacuous crap.
Maybe it’s the Hamlet she just mis-quothed
Or the eighth glass of wine I just quaffed
But my diplomacy dike groans
And the arsehole held back by its stones
Can be held back no more.”
-Tim Minchin’s “Storm”

This is… wow. Fucking amazing. This paragraph is just beyond bad. MAYBE the NYT I could see, but CBS? And not even touching either the methodology or who was polled, just simply stating “these major, mainstream (non-Fox) news organizations are not trustworthy therefore this does not matter”? Wow. Just wow. Come on, give it another shot. Maybe for your next post, you’ll try to discredit my arguments by calling me a nazi, or declaring that the sky is red. :rolleyes: Lord knows I can’t imagine what’s next on your list of stupid fucking fallacies!

@Kimmy_Gibbler

So, what are you saying? That these milquetoast Democratic senators are in over their heads? I mean, sure, it’s a free country and they can go around saying “Wah, wah, wah, these Republican senators are so mean! And these filibusters are so unfair!” But after a certain point, if they don’t do anything about it, I find it very hard to take that complaint seriously.

Uh… what, exactly, are they supposed to do about it? Recess appointment? Republicans aren’t letting the senate go into recess, and hypothetically they could continue not letting it go into recess until essentially one minute before the next session opens. Vote against the ability to filibuster? Geez, I wonder if the republicans are likely to filibuster that…

The filibuster was not intended as a catch-all for legislation your party does not like. If it is used as such, it breaks the system in fucking half. This is part of the problem.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bricker

Yes. Look at your chart. In 1995-1996, the Democrats used it more than at any other point in prior history.

But then, I imagine, it was OK?

Question: What is the difference between “one more” and “50 more”?
Answer: One more whack with the billy club is unpleasant. 50 more whacks is a trip to the hospital or the morgue.

[FuriousGeorge]

@Lobohan

I’m driving at 60mph. You’re driving at 120mph. Same thing, officer. Nothing to see here.

“Look, Your Honor, I was driving this SAME road yesterday and that FuriousGeorge asshole was driving, at least, 120 mph. I was only going a little over the speed limit and I had to cuz that Bricker asshole was tailgating. Why are you hassling me?”

[Shayna]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Richard Cordray, Consumer Financial President Bureau: Will the GOP filibuster Obama’s nominees out of existence?

Look, call me crazy, but wasn’t the CFPB created:

1. As a response to a financial disaster and overall disgust of the general public
2. With public mandate.

This wasn’t some disasterous plea deal. This was something that a majority of the members of congress decided on, and as far as I can tell, something a lot of the American public is quite happy about. And yet, the republican minority in the Senate, which should have no right whatsoever to say “no, this agency cannot exist” is able to essentially nullify its existence by demanding a 60% majority. And look closely; it’s not about the candidate. They’re going to object to any candidate leading that department, just so that the department can’t get anything done.

Look, I don’t care how bad this Bureau is. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. The democrats should not need a 60% majority to create an appointee. The Republicans know that they don’t have the will of the people backing them on this issue, they’re not using the correct channels, but they’re doing it anyways, because the will of the people be damned, banks pay the bills.

I’m sorry, but this whole situation is sickening. The Filibuster is broken in half in the political arena, and abusing it has become an incredibly popular tool in order to essentially demand that the other side has a massive supermajority to be able to do anything. We saw this with health care reform, we saw this with the supreme court, and now we’re seeing it here.

There is no question but that Republicans have not just used the filibuster to protect against the tyranny of the majority, but abused it as a despicable political tool to prevent their opposition from getting the people’s business done. It’s a vile and reprehensible tactic that was never the intent of the filibuster in the first place.

That said, Harry Reid had the opportunity to kill the filibuster rule and elected not to, believing it to be a tool his party may want to have the ability to fall back on in the future, as well.

We don’t actually have a strict democracy in this country and that’s a mistaken assumption made frequently. The Senate as a body is free to make many of its own rules and this is one they’ve chosen, good or bad.

But the People do have a way to prevent its abuse — simply vote in 65 or 70 members from your own party (to allow for a few stragglers) and it won’t be an issue for that entire session of Congress.

If we as democrats want to stop the republicans in the senate from playing politics and not actually legislating, our recourse is to OCCUPY THE POLLS.

Get your ass out there and vote. And get everyone you know to vote. Go register voters. Drive the disabled and elderly to the polls. Precinct canvass and encourage early voting by mail.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@FuriousGeorge

“Look, Your Honor, I was driving this SAME road yesterday and that FuriousGeorge asshole was driving, at least, 120 mph. I was only going a little over the speed limit. Why are you hassling me?”

The problem is that your analogy fails in one very key cruicial point: the filibuster is an important tool, with a well-defined and specific purpose. The only problem is that it can be abused. Horribly. And guess what: that is what is going on. In your analogy, any use of the filibuster is “wrong”.

[Buck_Godot]

@FuriousGeorge

C’mon folks, really? You’re going to go with “Well, they use it more than we did… <grumble><grumble><grumble>…”

What are you? Teenagers? You sound like my kids, “She used the X-Box WWWWAYYYY more than I did yesterday.”

That may be more pathetic than “neener, neener”. Weak sauce, weak sauce…

So basically I can just call up 911 emergency services whenever I want to ask about the weather, the current time and who the Redskins are playing Sunday, and if they complain I can point to the fact that my sister called once when my mother had a heart attack and they were fine with it.

[Lobohan]

@FuriousGeorge

“Look, Your Honor, I was driving this SAME road yesterday and that FuriousGeorge asshole was driving, at least, 120 mph. I was only going a little over the speed limit and I had to cuz that Bricker asshole was tailgating. Why are you hassling me?”

Your analogy is meaningless. Since we’re asking which of us is committing the greater crime.

I don’t know you, but I assume your nonsense defense Republicans is based on ideology. I can’t force you to reason, I can only show you reasonable arguments.

[FuriousGeorge]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

The problem is that your analogy fails in one very key cruicial point: the filibuster is an important tool, with a well-defined and specific purpose. The only problem is that it can be abused. Horribly. And guess what: that is what is going on. In your analogy, any use of the filibuster is “wrong”.

OK. Not my analogy, but OK.

[Algher]

Stuck in hotels yesterday, I got the great USA Today free copy. Here is Shelby’s statement on why they won’t staff:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-12-07/consumer-bureau-Richard-Shelby/51720080/1

The bureau was designed to be unaccountable to Congress. Its vast powers are vested in a single director who cannot be dismissed by the president for terrible policy decisions. During his five-year term, the director can determine not only how the bureau spends its more than a half-billion-dollar budget, but also how it regulates much of the American economy.

[FuriousGeorge]

@Lobohan

Your analogy is meaningless. Since we’re asking which of us is committing the greater crime..

It’s YOUR goddamn analogy.

@Lobohan

I don’t know you, but I assume your nonsense defense Republicans is based on ideology. I can’t force you to reason, I can only show you reasonable arguments.

My ideology says BOTH dominant parties in this country are fucking retarded. NEITHER is better or more honest or more ideologically just or smells prettier or anything than the other. They are diametrically opposed sides of the same fucked up coin. The only vision EITHER side has is to dominate this country with their specific agenda regardless of right, wrong, helpful, or hurtful. Neither party, as they currently stand, has any interest in helping this nation or the people of this nation succeed.

[Lobohan]

@FuriousGeorge

It’s YOUR goddamn analogy.

No, you are the one framing it as me talking to the cop the day after with sour grapes. I framed it as I’m following the speed limit (or in this case a historic use of the filibuster) and you are at the same time blowing it out of the water.

My ideology says BOTH dominant parties in this country are fucking retarded.

That’s simply stupidity.

NEITHER is better or more honest or more ideologically just or smells prettier or anything than the other. They are diametrically opposed sides of the same fucked up coin. The only vision EITHER side has is to dominate this country with their specific agenda regardless of right, wrong, helpful, or hurtful. Neither party, as they currently stand, has any interest in helping nation or the people of this nation succeed.

Your ideology is based on being too lazy to keep informed on issues. It’s easy, it’s not right.

If you can’t bother to understand the issues, forgive me if I don’t value your opinion.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@FuriousGeorge

OK. Not my analogy, but OK.

The problem is, the original analogy actually worked.

[YogSothoth]

@Bricker

There’s nothing either misleading or an outright lie in what I typed.

Please identify the statements you claim are lies.

The lies here are many, some outright, some implied. And everything that’s not a lie is misleading

@Bricker

Well, as the New York Times said back in 1995, the filibuster is derailing Clinton’s agenda, and needs to be curtailed.

Of course, they said in 2005 that the filibuster’s existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes when Senate Democrats were using it against Bush’s agenda.

And they said just last month we should end the filibuster.

So let’s just cut to the chase. I don’t wish to put words in the OP’s mouth, but it seems clear that the actual rule favored by the New York Times is: When the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, the Senate shall have a filibuster rule; when the Democrats have the majority, no filibuster rule should exist.

The obvious lie is that liberals only care about the filibuster when we’re in the majority. I shouldn’t have to rehash the incredible amount of filibustering that Senate Republicans have performed in the last 2 Democratic administrations, charts are readily available on the web. The filibuster is a tool whose intention was not for the kind of with-us-or-against-us idiocy employed by the Republicans nowadays (note: bringing up any arguments about intention is a non-sequitor, and will be ignored). Everyone cares about it, but it has only been with a Democratic President and Republican obstructionists in the Senate that its usage has skyrocketed to the point where Dems need a de factor supermajority to pass legislation.

Here’s the real truth: In recent decades, Republicans don’t care about the filibuster as a last resort anymore, as it is supposed to be. They are using it as a first resort whenever they are in the minority. Democrats care about the filibuster, but don’t abuse it, therefore they are fine with its use generally. It only seems like your lie because really, only Republicans abuse the filibuster. Remember, there is no equivalence here, your entire premise was wrong from the start

Additionally, the record number of judges, department heads, and other policies that the Republicans have filibustered have prevented normal government business. Without the power to quash these comissions or appoint their own people, they let almost no one through by using the filibuster even though the Dems are perfectly within their right to appoint liberals and create liberal groups. By abusing it, the Reps are being both assholes and obstructionists, as normal government business cannot happen or is delay with these filibusters. But because they are so cowardly and dishonest, they will not, and you will not, admit that Americans simply don’t agree with your narrow-minded interpretation of what’s good for the country

The misleading half-lies are when you only bring up 1995 and 2005 as examples of both sides filibustering, when a more honest debater would admit that in 1995 the Reps WERE trying to derail Clinton’s agenda and history has proven that the Dems, the few of them who were able to stand up for themselves, WERE right to try and derail Bush’s illegal adventures around the world.

Its not an equivalency if both sides are doing it if one side is actually right, especially morally right. That’s like saying both little Ronald and Donald are equally bad liars when Ronald lied about his own shoplifting and Donald lied to a bully that he didn’t carry any money on him.

[Zeriel]

@Bricker

Yes. Look at your chart. In 1995-1996, the Democrats used it more than at any other point in prior history.

But then, I imagine, it was OK?

I’m willing to agree that it was objectionable when the Democrats under Bush-42 kept filibustering on the same order as the Republicans under Clinton.

What, then, shall we believe about the Republicans, who have doubled the average cloture vote rate both under Clinton and under Obama?

And a question for you, since I can’t actually find statistics on it: Even granting extreme use of filibuster to block legislation, how often has each party used filibuster to block executive branch appointments? The latter seems to me to significantly farther away from acceptable.

[YogSothoth]

@Bricker

Yes. Look at your chart. In 1995-1996, the Democrats used it more than at any other point in prior history.

But then, I imagine, it was OK?

Would you like me to stab you 1 time, or 50 times?

[Terr]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Look, I don’t care how bad this Bureau is. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. The democrats should not need a 60% majority to create an appointee.

Why not?

[Lobohan]

@YogSosoth

Would you like me to stab you 1 time, or 50 times?

Depends, is it a Jesus-knife or a Marxism-knife?

[Lobohan]

@Terr

Why not?

Shut your cloaca, the mammals are talking.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Terr

Why not?

That quote from “Storm” I copied above? Yeah. Refer to the bolded part.

[FuriousGeorge]

@Lobohan

No, you are the one framing it as me talking to the cop the day after with sour grapes. I framed it as I’m following the speed limit (or in this case a historic use of the filibuster) and you are at the same time blowing it out of the water.

The problem is your historic use of the filibuster is limited to the last three or four years.

@Lobohan

That’s simply stupidity.

Your ideology is based on being too lazy to keep informed on issues. It’s easy, it’s not right.

If you can’t bother to understand the issues, forgive me if I don’t value your opinion.

If you honestly believe that a person can’t be knowledgeable or informed of the issues and still think the two parties have devolved to a pair of yappy Yorkshire terriers who do nothing but shake, piss and shit on the same area of the carpet to mark territory, then you, sir, are the Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder and Homer of blind partisan hacks rolled into a big bundle of narcissistic self delusion.

Cuz guess what, man? The retards on the other side think they are prettier, more honorable, more intelligent, and more ideologically just to the same extent as you do.