doorhinge, on what basis do you claim that the representatives and executive chosen by a *majority *of We the People should be allowed to be casually and thoughtlessly stifled by those chosen by a *minority *of We the People? Doesn’t the stated will of the majority of the people deserve more consideration than that of the minority? At what point do elections have meaning for you?
I would wager that, heaven forbid, Republicans gain a majority in both houses of Congress and get the White House, anything a Democratic minority does to thwart the will of the majority will be derided by doorhinge as a threat to democracy and the very existence of western civilization.
We’ll block that bridge when we come to it. 
Then doesn’t the gripe lay at the feet of senate democrats? They have the ability to change the rule but are choosing not to.
And you’d be wrong.
Only if you can provide any proof. 
How are they misusing the Senate rules?
The “duties” of your elected reps is to represent their constituency. Which might, on occasion, even include you.
Aren’t you actually objecting to duly elected reps representing their constituency instead of doing Obama’s bidding?
Partially. I think the Republican strategy to oppose all nominations that Obama might choose to make and refuse to even consider them took Democrats by surprise. Prior to the Obama years, no minority party ever decided that every nomination must be stonewalled. Of course, there is no record of party leaders meeting on Inauguration Day and vowing to destroy the new presidency.
Not doorhinge here, but the idea holds.
We the People voted a Republican majority to the House and a Democratic Party majority to the Senate all to workwith a Democratic Party president.
No single party was elected to all three key roles by a majority of We the People. We the People even re-elected President Obama in the same election that re-asserted a Republican majority in the House. Go figure.
So the elected Representatives and Senators need to get on with it, and ISTM that means they should compromise.
By overuse of the filibuster. At one time the filibuster was a useful tool to prevent tyranny of the majority. It was rarely used up until the Obama years.
I think the Senators have a higher duty to actually govern. If their constituents voted them in after expressly vowing to sabatoge government, then perhaps they would be justified in so doing. But I don’t know of any Senators elected after running on a platform of government sabotage.
I think you’re confusing “doing Obama’s bidding” with responsible governance.
By blocking the desires of the majority of We the People, as demonstrated through our elections.
The constituency of the President, and of Congress once elected, is the nation. The citizenry of the nation has desires expressed via the method of democracy, and it is the duty of their representatives to thoughtfully and responsibly carry them out. This is pretty basic Civics class stuff, remarkable that it needs explanation.
Please explain why you call it Obama’s bidding instead of what it is - the people’s bidding. Then tell us why you object to it being done.
Which party to you think holds the majority of blame here with regard to the senate rules?
Wrong. There were far more votes for Democratic House candidates than Republican ones. Only energetic gerrymandering has frustrated the will of the people there.
Breaking the usual pattern, where we tended to split the ticket in the expectation that they’d all act as responsible adults, yes, we did in fact vote for the Democrats and their positions for all three branches.
Somehow you are finding ways to rationalize thwarting the will of We the People. You might explain why.
The Dems have done nothing but, out of lamentable naivete, but have received nothing whatever from the party We the People have categorically rejected except Fuck Off. It’s about damn time your guys tried dropping the tantrums and behaving responsibly, yes. Glad you agree.
Republicans. Again, the degree of misuse of the filibuster is unprecedented. The rules were perfectly fine until Republicans embarked on a war against governing.
That’s what’s really unprecedented historically - that one of our major parties has adopted an agenda of *destroying *government itself, not one of responsibly differing about the proper extent of its role. There’s no agenda or ruling philosophy at play other than simply opposing anything the remaining responsible party tries to do. That’s *never *happened before, not in any country or time I can think of.
And isn’t happening now.
Regards,
Shodan
Then what is? :dubious:
You are making ridiculous over-statements about caricatures of your political opponents, that’s what.
Regards,
Shodan
Tell us, then, what your guys have been and are willing to say “Yes” to. Tell us, in your own words, a summary of the current Republican agenda. If what I say is wrong, show me. Simple denial and denunciation instead, what you’ve done so far, is, as you may not realize, simply more evidence.
Do Senate rules limit how many filibusters are allowed? If not, then there is no “overuse”?
What does a “higher duty to actually govern” actually mean? Is it doing what they think is best for this country or doing what Obama demands that they do? If an elected rep doesn’t pay attention to what their constituents want, they’re going to be looking for honest employment real soon. The numbers of elected Republican reps has gone up after the last few elections. That doesn’t look good for Obama’s future appointees.
The Democrat’s choices have been unacceptable and the Republican’s choices have been unacceptable. From a Good Government-standpoint, a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. choice should be considered until a compromise appointment is reached.
Since Obama’s Chicago-style staff and advisors first settled into the Whitehouse, compromise become a thing of the past. Chicago-style politics doesn’t include compromise with another political party because Chicago only has one political party.