How many more years before you turn 18?
It’s five minutes more than you gave it.
They should. But they don’t. And they never have. And when you (and I mean singular you here) continue to vote for them or excusing them by “the others are worse”, you’re not “holding them to it”.
I’m 48.
Please, go arrange the hubcap collection hanging on the side of your trailer.* People able to think* are talking here. Unfortunately, they’re talking to Terr, but we try. 
I appreciate that you try to see both sides of an issue, especially when that issue makes righties look bad, but c’mon.
If the Dems didn’t match what the Republicans were doing to them, the country would be in a permanent Republican majority. If someone escalates and is unwilling to back down, you have to match them. That’s not bad. If you’re in a fistfight and someone draws a knife, the other guy in the fight isn’t being a coward by drawing a knife of his own.
The trouble is the Republicans have drawn a knife, then a gun and now they’re fighting with with nukes. There is literally nowhere to go but down from here. They took it to eleven.
Do you post from truck stops?
Amazingly, there is a quantitative difference between your example and mine–namely, in mine, the combatants are hurting each other. But your disingenuity is charming all the same–missing the point and concern trollery is about what I’ve learned to expect from you.
Which is a shitty way of considering it. Starting a fight is worse than counterattacking in kind.
I was asking about your age.
Except you left out the part where the last time Democrats were in the minority, they agreed to stop using the filibuster on judicial nominees and kept to their word for the next 4 years. Because of this mutual agreement, based in part on the argument by Republicans that the practice created a Constitutional Crisis, one would have at least hoped the Republicans would have returned the courtesy the next time they were in the minority (which is now). Not only have they not, but as Lobohan points out, they have cranked it up to eleven.
People able to think? No evidence of it here. All I see is the standard Republican bashing so common on this board. Now, go sip your white wine and walk your poodle. I’m busy clinging bitterly to my guns and religion and haven’t got time for you.
Do you post from bathrooms in gay bars?
Why do you ask? Does he look familiar to you or something?
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Except you left out the part where the last time Democrats were in the minority, they agreed to stop using the filibuster on judicial nominees and kept to their word for the next 4 years.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because tit-for-tat with forgiveness is just such a winning strategy in game theory.
Not unless he’s ever been at a truck stop with a gay bar.
I’m just wondering if any Democrats or liberals here can defend some of the problematic details brought up be the Republican filibuster - like the fact that the agency would be funded off-the-books by the Federal Reserve, which has never been done before, sets a dangerous precedent, and removes the power of Congress to control the agency’s budget.
Or the fact that this agency has a vastly different structure than other consumer protection agencies in the government, one that gives outsized power to the Chairman.
If Republican opposition reforms some of these issues, it seems to me to be worth it.
They had ample opportunity to raise those issues when the legislation was debated, and those objections were defeated. That is why they are being pitted here, because they don’t like democracy when it doesn’t go their way. Now they are resorting to technicalities to achieve what they could not get through the legislative process. Bad form.
Gotcha. But do you think it is smart to fund an agency through the Federal Reserve?
Own up.
I’m on the ropes about this myself. I see the way the SEC’s and other regulatory agencies get their budgets slashed as a means of making them toothless and I see the appeal of an agency with an independent budget. However, it makes me leery, but I can’t put my finger on exactly why.
Regarding the Chairman’s outsized power, I was under the impression that regulatory decisions would be subject to board approval contrary to Republican claims that one person would be making all the decisions. However, depending on the internal power structure, the board may just be a rubber stamp.
Be all this as it may, it seems rather clear to me that the Republicans just want control so they can neuter the agency as their reforms are aimed at putting them in control of the agency via budgetary methods and congressional approval of regulations.
Which is pretty much what the Dems do. Everybody likes democracy until they’re not getting what they want. When they don’t get what they want, suddenly the system is undemocratic, and they decide they don’t have to play fair any more.