McConnell vows to be grimreaper for progressive policies in 2020

[Fenixgoon]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...o-be-grim-reaper-for-progressive-policies?amp

If I'm still the majority leader in the Senate think of me as the Grim Reaper. None of that stuff is going to pass," McConnell said while speaking to community leaders in Owensboro, Ky.

Weren't conservatives saying how progressives need to compromise and be reasonable?

Frankly , F you McConnell. you have single handedly done more to damage the country than Trump ever could, as embarassing as he is.

Eventually the AOCs of this country will be in the majority though. It is only a matter of time. These are the words of a dying ideology clutching onto power with a deathgrip knowing that progress is inevitable.

 

[ivwshane]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...o-be-grim-reaper-for-progressive-policies?amp



Weren't conservatives saying how progressives need to compromise and be reasonable?

Frankly , F you McConnell. you have single handedly done more to damage the country than Trump ever could, as embarassing as he is.

Eventually the AOCs of this country will be in the majority though. It is only a matter of time. These are the words of a dying ideology clutching onto power with a deathgrip knowing that progress is inevitable.

When he dies I won't shed a single tear. The fact that he's super old is the only thing that comforts me about him. He won't be remembered well when the history books are written.

 

[UberNeuman]

And they'll burn all to the ground as long as they can get to do so... There is no reasoning to these people that follow this ideology.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can't serve the American people and the 1%. Republicans pretend to stand for many things but their true interest is that 1%.

 

[sportage]

The OP should make it clear that what McConnell said referred to if republicans lose the Whitehouse in 2020.
That if republicans were to lose the Whitehouse yet hold the senate, then McConnell would block everything.
Everything, no doubt meaning the progressive wish list.
And McConnell also said that if republicans hold the Whitehouse and keep the senate, that would take care of itself.
So is this anything new?
That was exactly the McConnell policy during the Obama years.
Not only did McConnell block everything Obama, and block everything progressive, McConnell and his cult out right cheated Obama out of his US Supreme Court justice.
Why THAT was not considered totally illegal as hell and prosecuted in the courts is an American tragedy.
And THAT WAS the beginning of the coup we are currently in the middle of within America.
Does anyone actually think that republicans would allow Nancy Pelosi to cheat Donald Trump out of his US Supreme Court nomination?
Mitch McConnell would find a way to stop that, and then take revenge against Pelosi.

Republicans do not play the game. They do not follow the rules. They toss everything aside including the US Constitution.
This is why democrats in the house MUST impeach Donald Trump regardless of what would happen in the republican senate.
Republicans controlling the senate doesn't matter....
Democrats MUST IMPEACH so they can get Trump's taxes, get Trump's business dealings, get Trump's family involvement, get the truth about Russia, and get the full non-redacted Mueller report. In other words, to get it all concerning Donald Trump.
If house democrats fail to take action, they will regret it. They will regret it to no end.
They must take the chance and accept the possible consequences. Period!
Because if Trump wins a second term, LOOK OUT.
His second term will be MUCH WORSE than anything we have seen during his first term.
And democrats will regret having not taken action with impeachment proceedings when they had the chance.

I don't get it.....
WHAT IS NANCY AFRAID OF?
Has she no righteous indignation?
Are Democrats worried? They better be.
Nancy Pelosi as majority leader and having the final say could and most likely would screw it up royally for democrats.
By tip toeing around impeachment until it is way way to late.
And then, Donald will be reelected to a second term.
And as they say.... that will be that.

 

[dawp]

righties keep claiming that it's the left that's obstructing while they have a vastly longer record of obstruction.

 

[dank69]

righties keep claiming that it's the left that's obstructing while they have a vastly longer record of obstruction.

Conservatives have different rules for Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians and other independents do too. It's just the way things are. If a person is capable of being logically consistent they would have been voting straight Democrat tickets for decades now.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So BAU? Who really expected the party of the self proclaimed obstructionists to change? Lol...

 

[theeedude]

GOP won't rest until they force America to have a Socialist revolution.

 

[K1052]

The GOP thinks we have achieved maximum American greatness and everything is swell. I'm somewhat skeptical of that as an electoral strategy.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

He should have gone with Gandalf - "You shall not pass!"

 

[K1052]

He should have gone with Gandalf - "You shall not pass!"

He's more Montgomery Burns than Mithrandir.

 

[Commodus]

He should have gone with Gandalf - "You shall not pass!"

I got a smirk out of that, although he's really more the Balrog than the wizard!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

righties keep claiming that it's the left that's obstructing while they have a vastly longer record of obstruction.

Freedom fighters!

 

[dawp]

He's more Montgomery Burns than Mithrandir.

I'd say Afred E. Neuman but that's more trumps speed.

 

[fskimospy]

This should be a wake up call to anyone who wants to keep the legislative filibuster. While it won’t be easy it is certainly possible for Democrats to capture the Senate in 2020.

The thing is if McConnell isn’t the majority leader what do you think he will do instead? That’s right, filibuster every single progressive policy you want to implement. While Democrats might get to 50 senators there is zero chance of them getting back to 60 any time soon, meaning absolutely nothing will get done.

Liberal minded people have a choice to make: abandon the filibuster or abandon progressive legislation because McConnell and other Republicans will never, ever let you implement it so long as the filibuster exists.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Frankly , F you McConnell. you have single handedly done more to damage the country than Trump ever could, as embarassing as he is.

At least he did it with in the rules unlike President Felon.

 

[Jhhnn]

This should be a wake up call to anyone who wants to keep the legislative filibuster. While it won’t be easy it is certainly possible for Democrats to capture the Senate in 2020.

The thing is if McConnell isn’t the majority leader what do you think he will do instead? That’s right, filibuster every single progressive policy you want to implement. While Democrats might get to 50 senators there is zero chance of them getting back to 60 any time soon, meaning absolutely nothing will get done.

Liberal minded people have a choice to make: abandon the filibuster or abandon progressive legislation because McConnell and other Republicans will never, ever let you implement it so long as the filibuster exists.

Not quite. Dems can use the same maneuver the GOP used to cut taxes at the top to raise them. We can also implement changes in administrative rules to achieve some of the same ends as legislation.

 

[Jhhnn]

At least he did it with in the rules unlike President Felon.

By changing the rules, particularly wrt SCOTUS appointments.

 

[SMOGZINN]

By changing the rules, particularly wrt SCOTUS appointments.

But those were within his legal rights to do. Democrats need to fight back with equal gusto. If it is allowed and it gives you advantage take it. Next time Democrats take back the Government they need to use ever dirty underhanded tactic to get their agenda passed as fast as possible. If you have a super majority impeach every conservative. Pass laws against gerrymandering. Reinstitute yellow journalism laws.

There is an important difference between abusing the law and breaking it.

 

[fskimospy]

Not quite. Dems can use the same maneuver the GOP used to cut taxes at the top to raise them. We can also implement changes in administrative rules to achieve some of the same ends as legislation.

Almost all of the real progressive reforms we are looking for outside of simply raising taxes on rich people will require legislation to have any meaningful impact.

If Democrats keep the filibuster the next time they win all three elected parts of government then I don’t want to hear any whining about obstruction when you can’t enact your priorities. You can, you just lack the will to act.

 

[K1052]

It's a foregone conclusion that should the Dems win all three branches that to enact any of the likely promises they've made the legislative filibuster will have to die immediately. Kill it, admit all territories as states, float the US House seat count with population (say 3 seats per million people), and increase the size of SCOTUS by 2 all in the first 100 days.

Then get cracking on policy.

 

[woolfe9998]

This should be a wake up call to anyone who wants to keep the legislative filibuster. While it won’t be easy it is certainly possible for Democrats to capture the Senate in 2020.

The thing is if McConnell isn’t the majority leader what do you think he will do instead? That’s right, filibuster every single progressive policy you want to implement. While Democrats might get to 50 senators there is zero chance of them getting back to 60 any time soon, meaning absolutely nothing will get done.

Liberal minded people have a choice to make: abandon the filibuster or abandon progressive legislation because McConnell and other Republicans will never, ever let you implement it so long as the filibuster exists.

I'm coming around to agreeing with this. The counter would be that it promotes instability of government policy, with each party totally reversing everything the other party did once in power. But the GOP would need to recapture the oval and both houses to do that. If we are confident that the American people will like the policies the dems enact, then the GOP's window for accomplishing this will be short as eventually it will be political suicide to repeal them. We need good policies which are done in a fiscally responsible manner if we're going to do this.

Procedurally, "ending the filibuster" isn't quite the right term. Oddly enough, the filibuster was potentially worse when originally adopted in the early 19th century, as there was no possibility of a cloture vote. It was kept in check only by restraint. After we adopted cloture by super-majority in the early 20th century, things ironically got a little worse. Worse still when in the 1970's we adopted a rule to permit other business to be conducted during a filibuster, making it more like a "virtual filibuster" where no one even had to talk to keep it going. In reality, there is no "filibuster" anymore, just a cloture vote which requires 60.

The original point of the filibuster was to allow fair play for the minority position to be considered. That is reasonable. But of course the virtual filibuster we have now totally ignores that purpose and makes it plain that the filibuster is just a way to block legislation. We should allow filibustering in the classic sense where the Senators actually have to talk, but permit the majority party to call for a cloture vote after a certain fixed time period, which vote would turn on a simply majority.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm coming around to agreeing with this. The counter would be that it promotes instability of government policy, with each party totally reversing everything the other party did once in power. But the GOP would need to recapture the oval and both houses to do that. If we are confident that the American people will like the policies the dems enact, then the GOP's window for accomplishing this will be short as eventually it will be political suicide to repeal them. We need good policies which are done in a fiscally responsible manner if we're going to do this.

Procedurally, "ending the filibuster" isn't quite the right term. Oddly enough, the filibuster was potentially worse when originally adopted in the early 19th century, as there was no possibility of a cloture vote. It was kept in check only by restraint. After we adopted cloture by super-majority in the early 20th century, things ironically got a little worse. Worse still when in the 1970's we adopted a rule to permit other business to be conducted during a filibuster, making it more like a "virtual filibuster" where no one even had to talk to keep it going. In reality, there is no "filibuster" anymore, just a cloture vote which requires 60.

The original point of the filibuster was to allow fair play for the minority position to be considered. That is reasonable. But of course the virtual filibuster we have now totally ignores that purpose and makes it plain that the filibuster is just a way to block legislation. We should allow filibustering in the classic sense where the Senators actually have to talk, but permit the majority party to call for a cloture vote after a certain fixed time period, which vote would turn on a simply majority.

Also the GOP had both houses in 2017 and 2018 and couldn't muster a majority to do much to the ACA. Most developed countries work under a principle where when the government changes hands the new government could undo the policies of the previous one en masse but it generally doesn't happen.

As for your latter suggestion yes there should always be public debate time for the minority to draw attention to their position. As it stands now though you are correct - it simply adds a supermajority requirement to legislation that was never intended to exist.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I'mall for turnabout being fair play. End the filibuster, ram through your agenda, then reinstate the filibuster at the end of the term if it looks likely you'll lose the chamber.