Dems inching to a Supermajority in Senate

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Veramocor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: silverpig
universal healthcare - maybe a good thing, maybe not... depends on how it's done.

This is our government we are talking about. Can you name one major program created in Washington that has done exactly what it said it would do??

Military.

Considering there was never supposed to be a standing military, and then it was supposed to be kept as minimal as possible, I'd say it's a dismal failure. I could also point to numerous and frequent failed operations, or policies in violation of our (supposed) ideology.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What do you think will happen with a Democrat supermajority? What scares you so much?

Violation of constitutional rights?

Pretty much. Lots of people willing to take away some of our rights "for the children."

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: silverpig
universal healthcare - maybe a good thing, maybe not... depends on how it's done.

This is our government we are talking about. Can you name one major program created in Washington that has done exactly what it said it would do??

Army, social security, police, fire dept., post office, public schools.

Let's see.. insurances won't cover me period.. and government will actually allow me to get healthcare...

FEAR FEAR FEAR!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: silverpig
universal healthcare - maybe a good thing, maybe not... depends on how it's done.

This is our government we are talking about. Can you name one major program created in Washington that has done exactly what it said it would do??

Army, social security, police, fire dept., post office, public schools.

Let's see.. insurances won't cover me period.. and government will actually allow me to get healthcare...

FEAR FEAR FEAR!

Why can you not get insurance?

 

[Lemon law]

If our OP, Jedi, is a republirat, this whole super democratic super majority thing is a delusion. We have to define the animal first.

What we are really talking about is a US Senate prior custom prevailing question. There is nothing in the constitution saying a +1 majority vote is not final in the Senate , but the Senate, unlike the House, has of long standing, set up a rule, allowing a filibuster saying a minority veto by 40% or more of its members is as good as a majority negative vote.

This filibuster is just a quaint and curious custom of the Senate, subject to change at at any time, as a grist for the Anand tech P&N forum, its debatable if the filibuster rule has long term served our nation well. Or not. We just need to remember, that the Senate can change its own rules, at any time, with a +1 majority rules vote. And on that +1 slim Majority, the filibuster always hangs in the balance.

And once we realize the facts, we are prepared to recognize the hurrying hypocrisy of the GOP. And their threat to remove the filibuster in 2006 when Frisk was the majority leader with a 55, 45 vote split. That removal was stopped by the so called gang of 14, some of which came from the GOP. But in 2007,2008 with a bare +1 vote democratic Senate majority, its the GOP who have set new world records for the use of the filibuster. If the GOP choose to become the party of grid lock in 2009&10, a 58 vote majority is more than enough to remove the filibuster from Senate rules.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If our OP, Jedi, is a republirat, this whole super democratic super majority thing is a delusion. We have to define the animal first.

What we are really talking about is a US Senate prior custom prevailing question. There is nothing in the constitution saying a +1 majority vote is not final in the Senate , but the Senate, unlike the House, has of long standing, set up a rule, allowing a filibuster saying a minority veto by 40% or more of its members is as good as a majority negative vote.

This filibuster is just a quaint and curious custom of the Senate, subject to change at at any time, as a grist for the Anand tech P&N forum, its debatable if the filibuster rule has long term served our nation well. Or not. We just need to remember, that the Senate can change its own rules, at any time, with a +1 majority rules vote. And on that +1 slim Majority, the filibuster always hangs in the balance.

And once we realize the facts, we are prepared to recognize the hurrying hypocrisy of the GOP. And their threat to remove the filibuster in 2006 when Frisk was the majority leader with a 55, 45 vote split. That removal was stopped by the so called gang of 14, some of which came from the GOP. But in 2007,2008 with a bare +1 vote democratic Senate majority, its the GOP who have set new world records for the use of the filibuster. If the GOP choose to become the party of grid lock in 2009&10, a 58 vote majority is more than enough to remove the filibuster from Senate rules.

I'll bet you 20 bucks right now that if the Dems get a supermajority they won't change the rules so they can't take advantage of it. Bookmark this thread.

 

[Genx87]

I love the lefts delusion that democrats wont commit the same mistakes of the republicans under Bush. That somehow the Blue Dogs will put a leash on the president and Pelosi + Reid. It is going to be fun as hell watching them eat crow.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If our OP, Jedi, is a republirat, this whole super democratic super majority thing is a delusion. We have to define the animal first.

What we are really talking about is a US Senate prior custom prevailing question. There is nothing in the constitution saying a +1 majority vote is not final in the Senate , but the Senate, unlike the House, has of long standing, set up a rule, allowing a filibuster saying a minority veto by 40% or more of its members is as good as a majority negative vote.

This filibuster is just a quaint and curious custom of the Senate, subject to change at at any time, as a grist for the Anand tech P&N forum, its debatable if the filibuster rule has long term served our nation well. Or not. We just need to remember, that the Senate can change its own rules, at any time, with a +1 majority rules vote. And on that +1 slim Majority, the filibuster always hangs in the balance.

And once we realize the facts, we are prepared to recognize the hurrying hypocrisy of the GOP. And their threat to remove the filibuster in 2006 when Frisk was the majority leader with a 55, 45 vote split. That removal was stopped by the so called gang of 14, some of which came from the GOP. But in 2007,2008 with a bare +1 vote democratic Senate majority, its the GOP who have set new world records for the use of the filibuster. If the GOP choose to become the party of grid lock in 2009&10, a 58 vote majority is more than enough to remove the filibuster from Senate rules.

I don't think we'll see anything like that from current Dems, certainly not over anything like judicial appointments, which was where Frist threatened to invoke the nuclear option.

The rules of the Senate call for a 66 vote count to change the rules of the Senate, anyway, and I'd expect Dems to abide by them unless there's some incredible show of arrogance and stupidity from repubs.

We're not going to see the usual "in yo' face, biatch!" sort of conduct from repubs that was the trademark of their time in the majority- they're in disarray, discredited, disorganized, and basically message-less since their leadership bailed out or got tossed out, went home to count their ill-gotten gains...

They're running scared, despite all the bluster, so they'll find ways to compromise.

And, uhh, Dems don't suffer from the same sort of ideological delusions as repubs, Genx87, so it seem unlikely they'll make the same mistakes. At least not right away- the example set before them is rather glaring...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So Lemon, will you take that bet?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: silverpig
universal healthcare - maybe a good thing, maybe not... depends on how it's done.

This is our government we are talking about. Can you name one major program created in Washington that has done exactly what it said it would do??

Army, social security, police, fire dept., post office, public schools.

Let's see.. insurances won't cover me period.. and government will actually allow me to get healthcare...

FEAR FEAR FEAR!

Why can you not get insurance?

We were denied by every insurance in the state. My wife, a 25 year old, 5'7 weighing 135 pounds has a "syndrome" that she doesn't take medication for, and has no symptoms but no one would cover her(in 20+ years she might have symptoms). I have back/neck problems, allergies, and "ibs." I am 6 feet and 185.

So none of that "just lose weight and you'll get insurance" nonsense.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the lefts delusion that democrats wont commit the same mistakes of the republicans under Bush. That somehow the Blue Dogs will put a leash on the president and Pelosi + Reid. It is going to be fun as hell watching them eat crow.

I honestly don't care as long as people get access to healthcare that has been denied to them by profit making companies, whose sole purpose is to make money at the expense of peoples' health by denying them care.

At least something good would come then.

Can you name 1 good thing for a large portion of americans that came out of the Republican supermajority?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So Lemon, will you take that bet?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually Hayabusa Rider, I agree with you, and I think the Filbuster has been a good thing for the country.

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP threat to repeal the filibuster in 2006.

But if the GOP wants to become the lock step party of grid lock in 2009 and beyond, it may matter little if the dems have 58, 59, or 60 Senate seats after all the dust settles from the election of 11/4/2008.

In short, I am not going to play betcha, I am just pointing out the facts, nothing but the facts.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So Lemon, will you take that bet?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually Hayabusa Rider, I agree with you, and I think the Filbuster has been a good thing for the country.

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP threat to repeal the filibuster in 2006.

But if the GOP wants to become the lock step party of grid lock in 2009 and beyond, it may matter little if the dems have 58, 59, or 60 Senate seats after all the dust settles from the election of 11/4/2008.

In short, I am not going to play betcha, I am just pointing out the facts, nothing but the facts.

Fair enough

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: silverpig
universal healthcare - maybe a good thing, maybe not... depends on how it's done.

This is our government we are talking about. Can you name one major program created in Washington that has done exactly what it said it would do??

Army, social security, police, fire dept., post office, public schools.

Let's see.. insurances won't cover me period.. and government will actually allow me to get healthcare...

FEAR FEAR FEAR!

Why can you not get insurance?

We were denied by every insurance in the state. My wife, a 25 year old, 5'7 weighing 135 pounds has a "syndrome" that she doesn't take medication for, and has no symptoms but no one would cover her(in 20+ years she might have symptoms). I have back/neck problems, allergies, and "ibs." I am 6 feet and 185.

So none of that "just lose weight and you'll get insurance" nonsense.

This is why private health insurance makes no sense. Of course they aren't going to cover someone who would cost them money, leaving people like you out to dry.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the lefts delusion that democrats wont commit the same mistakes of the republicans under Bush. That somehow the Blue Dogs will put a leash on the president and Pelosi + Reid. It is going to be fun as hell watching them eat crow.

I honestly don't care as long as people get access to healthcare that has been denied to them by profit making companies, whose sole purpose is to make money at the expense of peoples' health by denying them care.

At least something good would come then.

Can you name 1 good thing for a large portion of americans that came out of the Republican supermajority?

The republicans never had a super majority.

I think you will be sorely disappointed by Obama's healthcare plan. It isnt socialized medicine but govt using its buying power for people to buy private insurance.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Army,

The same army that Democrats complain about being in Iraq is working as intended?

social security,

Money was spent elsewhere, soon to be insolvent.

police,

Local.

fire dept.,

Local.

post office,

Can't argue with this one.

public schools.

Local/state. The part that is federal has no idea how it's budget is spent and implements things like NCLB.

So the best you can do is come up with one federal program that works and several that don't work or aren't even federal? Brilliant.

 

[Moonbeam]

We have been through this bull shit a million times. This country needs to go somewhere and it needs to dump the ass-anchor know as the Republican party. You guys had power for 8 years and you fvcked over Clinton for 8 more before that. Get the crap out of the god damn way. Crawl into a hole and die.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If our OP, Jedi, is a republirat, this whole super democratic super majority thing is a delusion. We have to define the animal first.

What we are really talking about is a US Senate prior custom prevailing question. There is nothing in the constitution saying a +1 majority vote is not final in the Senate , but the Senate, unlike the House, has of long standing, set up a rule, allowing a filibuster saying a minority veto by 40% or more of its members is as good as a majority negative vote.

This filibuster is just a quaint and curious custom of the Senate, subject to change at at any time, as a grist for the Anand tech P&N forum, its debatable if the filibuster rule has long term served our nation well. Or not. We just need to remember, that the Senate can change its own rules, at any time, with a +1 majority rules vote. And on that +1 slim Majority, the filibuster always hangs in the balance.

And once we realize the facts, we are prepared to recognize the hurrying hypocrisy of the GOP. And their threat to remove the filibuster in 2006 when Frisk was the majority leader with a 55, 45 vote split. That removal was stopped by the so called gang of 14, some of which came from the GOP. But in 2007,2008 with a bare +1 vote democratic Senate majority, its the GOP who have set new world records for the use of the filibuster. If the GOP choose to become the party of grid lock in 2009&10, a 58 vote majority is more than enough to remove the filibuster from Senate rules.

I don't think we'll see anything like that from current Dems, certainly not over anything like judicial appointments, which was where Frist threatened to invoke the nuclear option.

The rules of the Senate call for a 66 vote count to change the rules of the Senate, anyway, and I'd expect Dems to abide by them unless there's some incredible show of arrogance and stupidity from repubs.

We're not going to see the usual "in yo' face, biatch!" sort of conduct from repubs that was the trademark of their time in the majority- they're in disarray, discredited, disorganized, and basically message-less since their leadership bailed out or got tossed out, went home to count their ill-gotten gains...

They're running scared, despite all the bluster, so they'll find ways to compromise.

And, uhh, Dems don't suffer from the same sort of ideological delusions as repubs, Genx87, so it seem unlikely they'll make the same mistakes. At least not right away- the example set before them is rather glaring...

If the Republicans become totally obstructionist, you can bet that with a 58-42 or 59-41 majority the Democrats will threaten to invoke the nuclear option:

Text

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

On truly important legislation, Senate filibusters are important. But if the Republican party consistently threatens to filibuster and paralyzes the ability of the strong-majority party to pass virtually any substantive legislation - despite the clear mandate that the election gave to the Democrats - the Democrats are going to bitch-slap the Republicans and force them to shape up.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Veramocor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: silverpig
universal healthcare - maybe a good thing, maybe not... depends on how it's done.

This is our government we are talking about. Can you name one major program created in Washington that has done exactly what it said it would do??

Military.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center Scandal
The same people who created that mess in charge of ALL healthcare... wooohooo exciting.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
We were denied by every insurance in the state. My wife, a 25 year old, 5'7 weighing 135 pounds has a "syndrome" that she doesn't take medication for, and has no symptoms but no one would cover her(in 20+ years she might have symptoms). I have back/neck problems, allergies, and "ibs." I am 6 feet and 185.

So none of that "just lose weight and you'll get insurance" nonsense.

Did you read that the insurance companies "group" are backing down on the no existing medical conditions as long as everyone has insurance.

They figure that if all the healthy people are paying their $20 a week that will help cover the cost of all you sick people who are driving up costs.

I think the best solution to our problem involves expanding insurance coverage to all Americans by driving down costs and using tax credits etc. I don't have insurance myself because it would cost me nearly $1000 a year, far more than I would spend on anything other than some catastrophic emergency. Now let's say the government gave me a tax credit for that $1000 then I would get insurance since it would essentially be 'free.' That was the idea behind McCain's health plan.

 

[A Casual Fitz]

I am pumped for the next 8 years.

 

[quest55720]

If pelosi/reid get half what they want they will bankrupt this country. It could be a very scary 4 years of the democrats get 60 seats in the senate.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: quest55720
If pelosi/reid get half what they want they will bankrupt this country.

It could be a very scary 4 years of the democrats get 60 seats in the senate.

Good :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have been through this bull shit a million times. This country needs to go somewhere and it needs to dump the ass-anchor know as the Republican party. You guys had power for 8 years and you fvcked over Clinton for 8 more before that. Get the crap out of the god damn way. Crawl into a hole and die.

When will we hear how you really feel?

 

[Ferocious]

Carter had a supermajority for two years and nothing overly partisan was ever passed.

Getting 60 might prevent filibusters.....but that does NOT mean any superpartisan legislation would actually pass.