I don’t see what the last sentence has to do with the first two, or the point we’re discussing (or anything else, frankly).
Not so.
There’s no fundamental difference between filibustering one bill and filibustering two. There’s no red line being crossed if you increase the number of filibusters. It makes for an interesting graph, but it’s not breaking new ground. The instances I raised were instances of new ground being broken.
Which is in addition to the fact that filibusters don’t happen in a vacuum. Supposing Party A tends to advance more moderate positions to begin with while Party B goes all out for their core positions, then Party A will tend to be in the position of having to filibuster Party B’s bills (or nominees) more often than the reverse - which per your logic would then be a measure of Party A’s obstructionism.
And in addition, the Republican claim at this particular time is that Reid has changed the rules on them in not allowing them to offer amendments on bills, which leaves them with no option other than filibustering, which was not the case previously. Assuming this is true, then number of filibusters is a partial and misleading measure. Although the counterargument would presumably be that the Republicans have expanded the use of amendments as an obstructionist tool. To which the counter-counter argument would be that no they haven’t (or that the Democrats did the same thing). And so on.
All of which leaves us back where we started.
It’s a way to shove your positions down your opponents’ throats without having to give up on what you want. The focus on obstructionism is overly narrow, in context. The question - as you put it earlier - is how much you’re willing to bend in order to work with the opposition.
It’s Democratic, not Democrat. You are making this mistake on purpose and repeatedly, and I will call you out each time.
I said there aren’t any, present tense – and you found one in the past. Gravel hadn’t been in office for decades when he was spouting his nonsense. And McKinney rather quickly found herself unwelcome in the Democratic party.
King, Bachmann, Gohmert, and the like are, apparently, very comfortable and accepted in the Republican party. There is no equivalent right now in the Democratic party.
What Democratic office did MD Alam hold? All I could find is failed candidacies.
Wait – did I say something false? Or do you just not like the tone of it?
You said that extreme opinions by Democrats are not criticized in the media as much as extreme opinions of Republicans. I countered this with examples of (IMO) extreme Republicans that have no current equivalent in the Democratic party.
Let me explain it slowly since you didn’t seem to understand last time. Apples to apples. Presently Democrat President, presently Republican conspiracy theorists. Past Republican President, past Democrat conspiracy theorists. Whether they are in office years later is irrelevant, just like it is irrelevant whether present Republican conspiracy theorists will be in office years from now.
You didn’t mention “elected”. And yes, one of these political offices was elected.
Democratic, not Democrat. You fixed yourself for one post, but now you’re back to the incorrect descriptor again.
We are talking about the parties and their office-holders in the present. There are several present-day examples in the Republican party of such extremism, and no present-day examples in the Democratic party. It’s absolutely relevant if they’re still in office, because McKinney was chased out of the Democratic party precisely because of these crazy statements (and good riddance!). The Democratic party has a record of booting crazy-spewing people from their ranks. The Republicans (at present) have a record of not chasing them out. King, Bachmann, and Gohmert have not been chased out of the Republican party.
I’ll ask you personally – do you want King, Bachmann, Gohmert, and the like holding office as Republicans, or not in the party?
It was implied. And an elected party office is not an elected political office. You know very well I was talking about an elected government position. Going this deep in the woods will not bode well for the Republican party, as you probably know.
You really need to click on your own links. Even getting past the headline which falsely claims Hillary herself was behind it, the story itself places the origin with
and
Then Donald Trump embraced it and pumped it up, in his own inimitable way.
“They” were some nutty supporters of Clinton, not the Clinton campaign. They should have more definitively shot it down at the time, but they weren’t responsible for Birtherism.
Of course not, with a Democrat President. When there is a Republican President, there won’t be Republican conspiracy theorists, but there definitely will be Democrat ones.
Don’t much care. I am not a Republican, and I don’t live in their districts.
Huh? It is elected, and it is definitely political. It is an elected political office.
That’s not really true. It’s not their fault, in America a party cannot control its membership. Cynthia McKinney is actually significantly less nutty than Sheila Jackson Lee.
I’ll take up that one. I’d prefer that the GOP do a better job of selecting intelligent people of good character to run for Congress. The Democrats do a better job. I also believe though, that despite the image Democrats try to project, they are less of a grassroots party than the GOP, at least when it comes to candidate selection. There are no Democratic Dave Brats. The GOP’s crazy reflects the crazy of the base, and since we live in a democracy, I grin and bear it. I prefer it to party bosses handpicking candidates and only going to the voters for ratification of said hand-picked candidates.
Democratic, not Democrat. You got it right two posts ago – did you forget already?
It’s relevant because the Democrats chased McKinney out of the Democratic party. The Democrats chase out crazy-spewers. The Republicans welcome them.
It’s not a government position. If you want to play these semantic games, then I’ll changed “elected political office” to “elected government office”. My point stands – you found one: McKinney. And she was chased out of the party. You found none still in the party.
