GOP is Filibustering Hagel nomination

[Doc Savage Fan]

Thank you.

Your welcome. But I see that you didn't answer my question. Imagine that.

Please list some cabinet nominations where Democrats have "used their power to deny Republicans up and down votes".

How about we broaden the scope to include all Presidential nominations...shall we? We do want a fair and objective perspective of political parties abusing their power during the nomination process....right?

For the record...I support an up and down vote on Hagel.

 

[PokerGuy]

How about we broaden the scope to include all Presidential nominations...shall we? We do want a fair and objective perspective of political parties abusing their power during the nomination process....right?

Naaah, we don't. We just want to pretend that the gop is the evil obstructionist group

 

[Phokus]

I said Obama supported Obamacare instead of single-payer at that time based on his exact words which I quoted in context. If you want to call Obama a liar...go for it....you won't be the first.

A few posts back you said that Obama was taking this position because of the political reality of Republican obstructionism that he has to deal with. Please quote where Obama said this...or admit that you're making shit up.

This what you said:

Why would Obama shove single payer healthcare down our throats? Obama didn't want single payer healthcare.

Do you understand the fucking English language or is that another aspect that you fail as well? These are two different statements, you incredibly stupid manchild. Show me where Obama didn't want single payer healthcare. There's lots of evidence that Obama wanted it BASED ON WHAT HE HAS PREVIOUSLY SAID, but he naively thought he could reach across the aisle with you imbecile conservatives.

The only person making shit up is you. It doesn't take someone very bright to conclude based on what Obama has said, and also the fact that he's trying to sneak in a public option is that is actually wanted all along and it's FAR easier to do it without having GOP consent. Do i have to put 2+2 for you, you inbred extra chromosome having bitch idiot retard?

Also, this:

Yes, Obama did support single-payer, but Duffett said Obama also talked about the need to be strategic and work within political limitations, which he attributed to Obama's background as a community organizer.

"You have to figure out who's with you, who's against you, how you divide and conquer and move that football down the field," Duffett said. "It just can't be the same little group of liberals who have health insurance and sit around the table and verbalize their great policy ideas. You have to have more people than that."

Duffett said if the entire video were aired, it would show Obama making statements about the need to be practical, much like his later public statements.

"I've never felt that his core principles for accessible, guaranteed health care for everyone were ever compromised. He's an organizer, and you have to figure out as strategically as you can how to win," he said.

"HURF DURF, I'm Doc Savage and i can't read and comprehend worth shit!"

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How about we broaden the scope to include all Presidential nominations...shall we?

Why would we, when the entire point is that this is not a routine presidential nomination, and filibustering it is therefore seen as unreasonable?

Furthermore, as I've already said, the Republicans have blocked far more than the Democrats in other areas recently as well. So that's not going to get you anywhere.

 

[Ausm]

I don't. Karma is a bitch, and yes the GOP would deserve it. But this isn't about politics, this is about the country. And unlike the GOP, the dems seem to care at least a small amount about the well being of the country.

I respectfully disagree Thraashman, that's not how you deal with a bully.

 

[PokerGuy]

Furthermore, as I've already said, the Republicans have blocked far more than the Democrats in other areas recently as well. So that's not going to get you anywhere.

And again you ignore the fact that the number of filibusters doesn't mean anything. If more lousy / ideological / incompetent people are being nominated for positions, then increased use of filibusters to stop those nominations is a good thing. If not, then it's just political BS.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Phokus, this what you said:

No you didn't, nowhere does it say he was opposed to single payer.

Where did I say that Obama was opposed to single-payer? I said Obama "didn't want single payer healthcare" in direct context that he wanted Obamacare instead. He supported the Obamacare approach because single-payer would be too disruptive to the U.S. health system. He never said it was because of Republican obstructionism. I never said he was opposed to single-payer. Do you understand the fucking English language or is that another aspect that you fail as well?

Still waiting for your Obama quote that he took the Obamacare approach because of the political reality of Republican obstructionism. Duffet said Obama talked about the need to be strategic and work within political limitations...you do realize that these political limitations included the Democratic party as well since there were more than a few Democrats that had issues with single-payer....right? Yes, many Republicans were against single-payer as well. However, Obama never said Republican obstructionism was the reason he didn't pursue single-payer. This is you making up shit.

 

[Ausm]

And again you ignore the fact that the number of filibusters doesn't mean anything. If more lousy / ideological / incompetent people are being nominated for positions, then increased use of filibusters to stop those nominations is a good thing. If not, then it's just political BS.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If more lousy / ideological / incompetent people are being nominated for positions, then increased use of filibusters to stop those nominations is a good thing.

And if right-winger extremists define anyone who is not right-wing enough as "lousy/ideological/incompetent", then it's a "good thing" by definition!

They can't lose!

 

[Zebo]

Republicans are such fail when they threaten unprecedented fillibuster but didn't get team together to make sure they could stop cloture. Reports are now there are 63 votes for cloture. deaf leading the blind.

 

[Oldgamer]

Republicans are such fail when they threaten unprecedented fillibuster but didn't get team together to make sure they could stop cloture. Reports are now there are 63 votes for cloture. deaf leading the blind.

Exactly..

and here they carried on about not having deep cuts to the military, and carried on about how we need to keep our defense strong, yet, they are all wanting the sequester to happen, which would call for very deep cuts in our military. In addition they are crippling our defense by not having the secretary of defense in place.

 

[hal2kilo]

This is pure revenge for Bolton. GOP elephants never forget.

 

[Moonbeam]

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, and often in the form of a black eye.

But if abuse is in the eye of the beholder, we have no moral duty to determine what abuse really is, no need even for the concept of moderation, since everything is just opinion. But because of a natural arrogance that seems to adhere to me, I have felt for the longest time that some opinions are better than others and that what separates the wheat from the chaff is some sort of odd spirituality or God given sense of justice or just some genetic propensity some people retain or recover.

 

[stlc8tr]

I hope we return the favor in SPADES if/when your party ever gets back in power in the Senate.

Karma's a Bitch.

No way that will ever happen.

The D's don't have the party discipline that the R's do.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

If the other party has no interest in involving your party in the governing, then you can expect the excluded party to use whatever tools they have to block the party currently in power. If the party in power tries to work with the other party, then I'd expect the use of the filibuster to decrease accordingly.

The increased use of the filibuster isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem, which is partisanship and polarization. We have the most divisive and polarizing administration in history, so it's no surprising to see the most use of tools like the filibuster in history.

This is laughably ignorant hyperbole.

 

[blankslate]

Harry Reid...

pissed an opportunity away...

He has only himself to blame for that.

This is abuse. If democrats had done this to any republican president as many times as it has been during the current president's administration, republicans would be just as, if not more, angry as democrats are right now

However, if Harry Reid really expected a more conciliatory republican caucus after not reforming the filibuster he is a fool.

 

[werepossum]

I quoted Obama in context...he effectively said that he supported the Obamacare approach because single-payer would be too disruptive to the U.S. health system. He clearly did not support single-payer at that time. Perhaps he would like to see it in the future, but he was a pragmatist and acted on what he believed was best for our country.

There is nothing in that article that says he was taking this position because of the political reality of Republican obstructionism that he has to deal with. You are full of it as usual it seems.

I think that was a lie for political affect. Obama clearly does want single payer, but even with a filibuster-proof Senate majority and a solid lock on the House he could only get what he could bribe or strong-arm past all sixty Democrat Senators. For some reason politicians would rather look like they don't want something than look like they want it and can't get it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I actually read a piece one of the fact-checkers did on this, and I'm not sure it's as simple as Obama changing his mind out of expediency. He clearly at one point favored single payer, but seems to have evolved away from it over time.

Of course, that could be due to thinking that in general (i.e. not just in the context of the ACA battle) that single payer was infeasible here.

 

[Phokus]

Phokus, this what you said:



Where did I say that Obama was opposed to single-payer? I said Obama "didn't want single payer healthcare" in direct context that he wanted Obamacare instead. He supported the Obamacare approach because single-payer would be too disruptive to the U.S. health system. He never said it was because of Republican obstructionism. I never said he was opposed to single-payer. Do you understand the fucking English language or is that another aspect that you fail as well?

Still waiting for your Obama quote that he took the Obamacare approach because of the political reality of Republican obstructionism. Duffet said Obama talked about the need to be strategic and work within political limitations...you do realize that these political limitations included the Democratic party as well since there were more than a few Democrats that had issues with single-payer....right? Yes, many Republicans were against single-payer as well. However, Obama never said Republican obstructionism was the reason he didn't pursue single-payer. This is you making up shit.

Holy shit, even the English language you use exists in a fucking alternate reality:

Why would Obama shove single payer healthcare down our throats? Obama didn't want single payer healthcare.

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT

GOP obstructionism was the BIGGEST reason you god damned idiot

THIS WAS A GOP HEALTHCARE PLAN YOU FUCKING NIMROD

The GOP didn't care whether it had single payer or not, whether it was their plan or not, they were set out to oppose ANYTHING the president proposed.

CLEARLY Obama wants some form of Single payer healthcare considering HE'S TRYING TO BACKDOOR IT

 

[Farang]

HE'S TRYING TO BACKDOOR IT

twss

 

[Zebo]

Obama did not want sp. Read deans and kusinishs exposes. If you dont know by now hes bought and sold to powers that be, insuance monopolies being one of them, youre a ignorant fool.

 

[CountZero]

I didn't say this was an idiot appointment (I don't think Hagel is an idiot at all), I was commenting on the use of the filibuster in general.

I don't think Hagel is a bad guy, but there's a strong sense that obummer wants to put him in place so he can put a GOP face on the military cuts that need to be made (ie, blame the gop). Hagel also has a lot of questionable decisions in his past that have angered other senators. The delay is also a ploy to force the administration to provide requested information regarding their benghazi screwups.

So you claim the filibuster is a tool to protect the American people and yet here it is being used to protect the GOP. You list some other stuff but to even consider party protection as a reason to filibuster is messed up. It is this partisan my team vs yours that is screwing this country up.

Filibusters should be rare events not a common tactic for a minority party to change something that should be a 51+ vote into a super majority. They should be like timeouts in sports, you get X per year, once you use 'em too bad for you. If whatever they are using a filibuster for is so important that it should require a super majority change the rule for that vote (ie this and all future appointments to certain position require super majority).

Their purpose has been completed diluted by the overuse, and worse they aren't even really doing it. They should be required to actually do the whole reading from the phone book thing.

 

[kage69]

Actually, no. I was 100% opposed to the "nuclear option" back then as well. People always seem to forget that changing the rules to help you when you have the power is going to come back and bite you in the butt when you don't.

If you say so, but actually I didn't ask you if you supported the nuclear option.

I was just commenting on yet another double standard, a pretty drastic 180, that the party faithful has employed inside the time of 2 presidents.

I'm sorry, but watching the GOP stand up for people like Bolton, or defend the appointment of horrible judges or Justice Dept folks, all the while incessantly squawking that he or she 'serves at the presidents pleasure' ...

Just... wow.

And that's not even touching the hilarity that is the GOP, somehow trying to sell the whopper that Obama is a capricious tyrant bent on shutting the GOP out of everything, while they filibuster Obama's choice of a Republican for his cabinet.

I'm really starting to think the beyond the reversal of perception towards immigration, the GOP hasn't learned a damn thing these last many years. I guess that's a good thing in the long run though.

 

[Zebo]

And calm the fuck down phokus it's valentines...me thinks you need one.

 

[LumbergTech]

Naaah, we don't. We just want to pretend that the gop isn't the evil obstructionist group

FTFY