In praise of the wisdom of Obama. Pelosi, Reid, LISTEN UP you dumb twits!

The President states the case several times for not trying to shove major legislation down the throat of the populace. I agree with him, or at least the “him” he portrayed in the video. Do you think he is right? Or do you think that the Dems who would like to pass health care reform by the slimmest of margins are doing the right thing. Also, has Obama weighed in on this more recently?

Oops. Here’s the video.

Shove a bill down the nation’s throat? Do you mean is it OK if the democratically elected congress and the democratically elected president pass legislation that is supported by the majority of Americans, despite the fact that a minority of Senators oppose it and are using it as a wedge issue while ignoring the welfare of the country? Yah, I think that is OK.

Define “shove major legislation down the throat of the populace” please.

Health care reform has been in front of Congress for over a year now. Hell, we could say it goes back 60+ years.

Define how in a country where majority rules (51 votes) has been the status quo since the country was founded you get to ramming down people’s throats when they pass something by majority rule. Is all legislation passed by majority rule but not super majority “ramming” it on the populace in your view?

Show me a post where you railed on tax breaks passing on a 50/50 vote with Cheney being the tie breaker equaled ramming it down the populaces’ throat because it was the slimmest (literally) of margins and was not kicked around nearly as long as health care has been.

And how is it “ramming” when polls show people more in favor of health care reform than are opposed to it?

Do you mean to imply that the current health care bill is supported by a majority of Americans? That’s not the case: here.Aside from that, I agree with Obama that such a substantial change to the country should be done with a substantial majority (60+ votes) rather then a simply 51-vote majority.

If the legislation actually was good–that is to say that it had no downside–I don’t think there would be the struggle to get it passed. When they can show how and why it will cut spending by 50%, all opposition will simply fall out of the sky. Personally, I’d much rather they keep getting sent back to the drawing board until they accomplish that, however long it takes.

But by all practical concerns, there is no one true way so far as the voting of our elected representatives go. If they vote to pass it and it passes, what all politicking lead up to that point is fully valid so long as there was no duress. Personally, I don’t view there as being any value in holding up some sort of artificial view of the right or wrong way to go about things, when that’s not really based on anything but opinion. Sure, I’d rather it be–for instance–that political parties didn’t exist. But they do, which means that they can freely organize themselves and make solid pushes for things. Even without political parties, you’d still always have groups forming around issues, making deals and turning in favors to work on promoting the issue. That’s just as it should be, since it’s a game of trading, and every trade is at the expense of something else–with those ideas that can survive rising to the top based on their own merit. Eventually, one side has to win.

What the Dems are about to try to do.

So what? What does that have to do with anything? But you’re conflating health care reform in general with this latest bill specifically.

Huh? You think every vote is subject to a simple 51-vote majority? The Constitution disagrees with you. Look it up. And, as I said, I think Obama id right when he says that legislation as sweeping as this should be subject to a substantial 60+ vote.

I’m not against simple 51-vote majorities in general, or having the VP break a tie in the senate (that’s also in the Constitution, by the way), I’m against having such a major piece of legislation rammed through with 51 votes. Check the video again. I think Obama explains makes the points very well. Where do you think he is wrong?

A majority do want health care reform. But they do NOT want what’s been offered up. Check the poll I linked to in my previous post.

Depends how you slice it.

Nate Silver at 538 had this to say:


He is not talking about what anyone should do, so you’re not representing his statements correctly. (Neither is Breitbart.) He is talking about the mechanics of the Senate, and needing 60 votes to break a filibuster. It’s not a principled statement of about how major changes require supermajorities. Aside from the filibuster issue, Obama has made bipartisanship a priority, so he wants Republican votes on this bill. For that exact reason, they’re resolved not to give him any votes. And so that’s where we’ve been on this bill for months. It’s turned into a collossal waste of time for everyone. He has a new proposal out there today with a couple of Republican ideas, and if it wins over any more votes I’ll be surprised.

No, stop there. The problem is that the Republicans have successfully demonized the bill and dragged out the process.

Death Panels - lie
Abortion on demand - lie
Medicare cuts - lie (the cuts won’t impact service, they will get rid of a program that wastes money.)
Reducing coverage for veterans - lie
Raising the cost of health care - lie
Illegal Aliens - lie
A bureaucrat between you and your doctor - lie
Government takeover - lie
Raise the deficit - lie

Those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head. The Republicans are filthy, worthless liars. They are lying about the bill today. Right now, a piece of shit Republican is belching a lie about the bill somewhere. The Republicans have no shame and are brining these lies rock solid for the last year.

Of course the public has a bad view of the legislation, dozens of elected officials have outright lied about it because they want to scuttle the bill. However, if you describe the elements of the bill to people, they do like it.

So just stop your argument right there because it’s based on a huge pile of lies.

Well then you are in conflict with the constitution.

Also the Bush tax cuts were passed by reconciliation. They massively increased the deficit and helped less than 1% of the country. The HCR bill will help 100% of the country and will *lower *the deficit.

Also the bill isn’t going to be passed by reconciliation. It has already passed by the bullshit supermajority that was not necessary in the past. The House will simply pass the bill. As I say Reconciliation will not be used to pass the bill.

The bill will be modified by Reconciliation after it is passed. So again, your argument is the result of your massive ignorance on this issue. Please, educate yourself before staking such a solid stance on something, kay?


No matter what that may be, right? :dubious:

Kindly do so yourself. :rolleyes:

Here’s a helpful hint: The filibuster rule is nowhere to be seen in it. It’s a creation of the Senate itself.

Only when they matter.

You didn’t say shit about it when it was your party doing it just a few years ago, did you?

That’s a fine argument against the Dems’ efforts to reach a compromise with “Fuck you”, as the current bill shows and which the reconciliation bill, reached in a final realization that it can’t be done, will fix. There are plenty of other polls that show very solid support for real reform, including everything your guys have fought against on behalf of their sponsors.

I think it is a worthy goal for ANY government to try its damned best to achieve consensus on meaningful reforms and policies. However, at the end of the day, the parties in control of the government have the burden of leadership and running the government, and the parties in the opposition have the luxury of not having to make tough decisions, and can simply sit back whenever they want and play the role of being a nay-sayer, bombthrower, or lump on a log.

As of today, the Republican party (with only a couple exceptions) have decided that they do not wish to offer constructive solutions to covering 30 million people without health insurance. The proposals they have offered are so far insufficient to the size of the problem that it is laughable, and so they have united on a policy of simply saying no. No on the substance, no on the procedure, no on progress, no on negotiation, no to ideas, no to compromise, no on everything. The only thing the Republican party is saying yes to is delay and distortions.

Unfortunately, the Republican party, at large, has demonstrated no serious effort to be a good faith partner in the process. If they do not wish to play ball, then it is perfectly fine for the Democratic party to use any tactic within the laws and rules of the government to achieve its aims. As long as Democrats break no rules in the process, Republicans and conservatives have no right to complain, because they have not made any substantive effort to be a part of the solution, rather than the problem.

Wrong. The Constitution says nothing about a supermajority being needed to end debate in the Senate. The rule requiring a supermajority to end debate is a Senate rule, established by the Senate, not the Constitution. And the Senate rules are established by ordinary majority vote in the Senate.

When a party does not operate in good faith in its opposition, it abandons its claim to be included in decision making. Simple as that.

Who exactly are the “dumb twits” in the (seemingly deliberately inflammatory) thread title?

Yes, he’s talking about breaking the filibuster. What the heck else would he be talking about, changing the DH rule?

Pelosi and Reid.

I don’t think anybody is going to disagree that getting broad support when possible is a good idea, and that to transform society - not just get individual measures passed - requires more than a bare-bones majority in Congress. Interpreting that for the health care bill is not so clear cut.

Would you like to respond to any of the other points I made, or are you cherrypicking? If you’re going to make a pie, I call dibs on a slice.

[Mod Hat]
Also, please don’t alter text in quote boxes
[/Mod Hat]

Well, it’s about fucking time. That stupid rule is the worst thing to ever happen to baseball, and it should have been abandoned in 1972.

This just flat-out isn’t true.

He is saying what he and the Democrats should do.

Yes, it certainly is. He is saying exactly what you are denying that he said.

Again, completely and categorically false. Obama’s quote refers to health care, in quite unambiguous terms.

The SDMB is rivaled only by creationists in its ability to stand up on its hind legs, look a fact directly in the eye, and deny that it exists.