Nate Silver says the GOP may win the Senate in 2014

[Jhhnn]

Again, a fuck you wolf, they would be "extremist" if they were changing the rules of the Senate.

So, uhh, they weren't extremist when they threatened the nuclear option in 2005, over a handful of radical judicial nominees, thwarted only by a few defections from their own ranks?

Or was that different?

Or perhaps you just have a convenient memory...

 

[woolfe9998]

Fuck you wolf, it's called the "nuclear option" because it's an extreme change in the rules of the Senate, if you want to play semantic games and try to pretend it isn't an extreme change in Senate rules then knock yourself out.



Again, a fuck you wolf, they would be "extremist" if they were changing the rules of the Senate.



Frequently in this forum the Republicans get labeled as "extreme/extremists" you never got your panties in a bunch over those labels, why now when it's applied to the Democrats do you get all wound up?



I think the political gamesmanship and extremism is on both sides and have stated so a number of times.

For someone who is as partisan as anyone I've seen on this forum, you should probably refrain from "fuck yous" when arguing with someone who is making pretty rational and even-handed points here.

Anyway, call it what you want. It doesn't matter because I just read they reached a compromise on the appointees so it won't happen. Which I'm sure makes you very sad. You were so looking forward to yelling "extremist!"

 

[First]

lol Benghazi.

 

[werepossum]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Reid is proposing, old timey talking filibusters.

I'd just as soon see all filibusters restored to that kind. Schedule important stuff around it, but if you want to stop a vote you and your supporters have to keep talking.

And, uhh, what sort of battle is there, really, in knee jerk red states & gerrymandered districts? The imaginary kind?

Some of the Senate seats the Dems will be defending in 2014 are in red states.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd just as soon see all filibusters restored to that kind. Schedule important stuff around it, but if you want to stop a vote you and your supporters have to keep talking.

Filibusters don't follow schedules.

Some of the Senate seats the Dems will be defending in 2014 are in red states.

Which means those states aren't red, but rather purple.

 

[kage69]

The best thing that could happen to this country is if the Republicans gain control of the Senate in 2014 and retain control of the House.

lol



You should try some ginseng, helps your brain use oxygen better.

 

[fskimospy]

Now is as good a time as any to eliminate all filibusters IMO. There isn't a risk of an adverse legislative outcome for Republicans as they still control the House anything that couldn't muster a filibuster proof majority in the Senate has 0 chance in the House anyway. This way you're eliminating the filibuster in a way that isn't just a way to pass a specific bill you want to pass.

The only thing it would affect is nominees and at this point the constant filibustering of nominees is seriously screwing with the federal government's ability to function. It's become an albatross.

 

[kage69]

Agreed. I've always felt people are entitled to up or down vote if the President wants them for a position, regardless of party.

Letting any party hamstring entire agencies by filibuster is unacceptable IMO, and this only makes the GOP look more like a gigantic bag of douche. This is just another reason why they are seen as obstructionist, party before country assholes.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Agreed. I've always felt people are entitled to up or down vote if the President wants them for a position, regardless of party.

Letting any party hamstring entire agencies by filibuster is unacceptable IMO, and this only makes the GOP look more like a gigantic bag of douche. This is just another reason why they are seen as obstructionist, party before country assholes.

Dems didn't do the same thing during Bush's administration?

 

[kage69]

Dems didn't do the same thing during Bush's administration?

Filibuster and/or bitch about recess appointments? Of course they did.

Obstruct the workings of government on the same level of the GOP? I don't believe so, but if you have any links detailing filibuster records being set or agencies being kept leaderless for years I'm happy to read them.

 

[fskimospy]

Filibuster and/or bitch about recess appointments? Of course they did.

Obstruct the workings of government on the same level of the GOP? I don't believe so, but if you have any links detailing filibuster records being set or agencies being kept leaderless for years I'm happy to read them.

Yes, it was a difference of degree, not of kind.

Both are important though.

 

[werepossum]

Now is as good a time as any to eliminate all filibusters IMO. There isn't a risk of an adverse legislative outcome for Republicans as they still control the House anything that couldn't muster a filibuster proof majority in the Senate has 0 chance in the House anyway. This way you're eliminating the filibuster in a way that isn't just a way to pass a specific bill you want to pass.

The only thing it would affect is nominees and at this point the constant filibustering of nominees is seriously screwing with the federal government's ability to function. It's become an albatross.

I actually like the way the filibuster slows things down in the Senate, helps keep mob mentality from pushing through bad legislation. I do think however that it should be restored to an actual talking-on-the-floor filibuster - scheduled after normal non-filibustered business is concluded for the day - and either abolished or severely limited for nominees.

 

[fskimospy]

I actually like the way the filibuster slows things down in the Senate, helps keep mob mentality from pushing through bad legislation. I do think however that it should be restored to an actual talking-on-the-floor filibuster - scheduled after normal non-filibustered business is concluded for the day - and either abolished or severely limited for nominees.

I find that the current supermajority rules for the senate take an already fairly undemocratic body and make it even less democratic. There's always a balance to be struck, but the senate has gone pretty far away from normal democratic principles.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Filibuster and/or bitch about recess appointments? Of course they did.

Obstruct the workings of government on the same level of the GOP? I don't believe so, but if you have any links detailing filibuster records being set or agencies being kept leaderless for years I'm happy to read them.

You originally said this:

Agreed. I've always felt people are entitled to up or down vote if the President wants them for a position, regardless of party.

Letting any party hamstring entire agencies by filibuster is unacceptable IMO, and this only makes the GOP look more like a gigantic bag of douche. This is just another reason why they are seen as obstructionist, party before country assholes.

When I pointed out that the Dems did the same thing Reps are currently doing, you regurgitated the standard mindless partisan talking point response that we've all come to love..."yes...but, but, but the Republicans are much worse".

Since both parties have practiced the same procedural tactics on many, many occasions...it's now obvious that your label of "obstructionist, party before country assholes" applies to both parties. To say one party is worse than the other doesn't really abrogate the lesser offending political party of guilt. Nor does it lessen the validity of applying your little inflamatory label to Democrats as well...unless, of course, you happen to be a hypocritical, party before principle asshole.

 

[TerryMathews]

You originally said this:


When I pointed out that the Dems did the same thing Reps are currently doing, you regurgitated the standard mindless partisan talking point response that we've all come to love..."yes...but, but, but the Republicans are much worse".

Since both parties have practiced the same procedural tactics on many, many occasions...it's now obvious that your label of "obstructionist, party before country assholes" applies to both parties. To say one party is worse than the other doesn't really abrogate the lesser offending political party of guilt. Nor does it lessen the validity of applying your little inflamatory label to Democrats as well...unless, of course, you happen to be a hypocritical, party before principle asshole.

Ding.

 

[thraashman]

You originally said this:


When I pointed out that the Dems did the same thing Reps are currently doing, you regurgitated the standard mindless partisan talking point response that we've all come to love..."yes...but, but, but the Republicans are much worse".

Since both parties have practiced the same procedural tactics on many, many occasions...it's now obvious that your label of "obstructionist, party before country assholes" applies to both parties. To say one party is worse than the other doesn't really abrogate the lesser offending political party of guilt. Nor does it lessen the validity of applying your little inflamatory label to Democrats as well...unless, of course, you happen to be a hypocritical, party before principle asshole.

There's more than a bit of a difference between the current Republican minority and the previous Democrat minority. A good example to start with is that nearly half of all filibusters used to block cabinet level appointments in the history of this nation have been done by the current Republican minority. The fact that for filibusters in general the current minority is close to surpassing the number of filibusters used in all previous administrations is proof positive of the obstruction level of the current GOP minority.

It's the difference between saying that someone is an asshole when they drink a lot and saying someone is an asshole at ALL TIMES. Basically, to be a member of the GOP in the Senate you are required to be an asshole at all times, same thing if you support them.

 

[fskimospy]

You originally said this:


When I pointed out that the Dems did the same thing Reps are currently doing, you regurgitated the standard mindless partisan talking point response that we've all come to love..."yes...but, but, but the Republicans are much worse".

Since both parties have practiced the same procedural tactics on many, many occasions...it's now obvious that your label of "obstructionist, party before country assholes" applies to both parties. To say one party is worse than the other doesn't really abrogate the lesser offending political party of guilt. Nor does it lessen the validity of applying your little inflamatory label to Democrats as well...unless, of course, you happen to be a hypocritical, party before principle asshole.

As I said before, there are differences of kind and difference of degree and both are important. In this situation there is no difference in kind, but a large difference in degree.

Attempting to equate previous Democratic filibustering with the current level of obstruction coming from the Republicans would be wildly inaccurate. If one were to say that both parties are hypocritical in their ever-shifting 'principled' stand for or against the filibuster I would agree with you. Not mentioning the unprecedented levels of Republican obstruction allows irresponsible individuals to continue to get away with irresponsible behavior, however. Presumably you don't want that, so I feel that mentioning the sheer scale of Republican obstruction is valuable here. Do you?

 

[kage69]

You originally said this:


When I pointed out that the Dems did the same thing Reps are currently doing, you regurgitated the standard mindless partisan talking point response that we've all come to love..."yes...but, but, but the Republicans are much worse".

There's that imagination of yours coming back to foil you. I'll skip the hilarity of you accusing others of partisanship in the interest of saving time. You didn't point anything out; you asked a question and I replied in the affirmative, then asked for a link - which you didn't make an attempt to provide. No where was a defense of your dreaded Dems offered, but at least you ignored where I stated up and down votes should happen regardless of who is doing the nominating.

What I think is mindless is this penchant of your kind to pretend scale doesn't matter. I've seen this before, it's a staple of the efforts made to convince people that both parties are the same, details be damned.

Since both parties have practiced the same procedural tactics on many, many occasions...it's now obvious that your label of "obstructionist, party before country assholes" applies to both parties.

How typical of you. Two sides of the same coin! Condemnation of one party must always automatically mean a defense or approval of the other party, right? I asked for something to illustrate the Dems taking obstruction to the same level the GOP has. What do I get, standard sockpuppet fail.

To say one party is worse than the other doesn't really abrogate the lesser offending political party of guilt. Nor does it lessen the validity of applying your little inflamatory label to Democrats as well...unless, of course, you happen to be a hypocritical, party before principle asshole.

That would be difficult as I don't hold any party affiliation. Regardless, your attempt to divert and make this about me is noted and summarily dismissed. Remember that I'm familiar with your posts, which is why you should let the links do the talking for you.

 

[kage69]

As I said before, there are differences of kind and difference of degree and both are important. In this situation there is no difference in kind, but a large difference in degree.

Attempting to equate previous Democratic filibustering with the current level of obstruction coming from the Republicans would be wildly inaccurate. If one were to say that both parties are hypocritical in their ever-shifting 'principled' stand for or against the filibuster I would agree with you. Not mentioning the unprecedented levels of Republican obstruction allows irresponsible individuals to continue to get away with irresponsible behavior, however. Presumably you don't want that, so I feel that mentioning the sheer scale of Republican obstruction is valuable here. Do you?

You're only going to confuse people with that rational common sense stuff dude... 😉

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

As I said before, there are differences of kind and difference of degree and both are important. In this situation there is no difference in kind, but a large difference in degree.

Attempting to equate previous Democratic filibustering with the current level of obstruction coming from the Republicans would be wildly inaccurate. If one were to say that both parties are hypocritical in their ever-shifting 'principled' stand for or against the filibuster I would agree with you. Not mentioning the unprecedented levels of Republican obstruction allows irresponsible individuals to continue to get away with irresponsible behavior, however. Presumably you don't want that, so I feel that mentioning the sheer scale of Republican obstruction is valuable here. Do you?

I did not challenge kage69's perception that Republicans were more guilty than Democrats of using the filibuster and I did not attempt to equate previous Democratic filibustering with the current level of Republican filibustering. Your comment makes me believe that you totally misunderstood my post.

 

[fskimospy]

I did not challenge kage69's perception that Republicans were more guilty than Democrats of using the filibuster and I did not attempt to equate previous Democratic filibustering with the current level of Republican filibustering. Your comment makes me believe that you totally misunderstood my post.

No, you thought the same label should be applied to both parties despite clear differences between the behavior of the two. My post nailed that pretty perfectly. If you had to describe the differences between the two parties on this issue, how would you do it?

 

[werepossum]

I find that the current supermajority rules for the senate take an already fairly undemocratic body and make it even less democratic. There's always a balance to be struck, but the senate has gone pretty far away from normal democratic principles.

The Senate was never intended to be democratic representation. If you are from California, your pieces of your Senators are much smaller than if you live in Wyoming - intentionally. Not only does this offer some protection to less populated states, when coupled with the longer terms it also offers some protection from the whims of the moment, and here the filibuster helps.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, you thought the same label should be applied to both parties despite clear differences between the behavior of the two. My post nailed that pretty perfectly. If you had to describe the differences between the two parties on this issue, how would you do it?

After briefly looking at stalled, blocked or filibustered judicial nominees under Bush and Obama, I'm personally hard pressed to find an appreciable difference in this area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

From my perspective, I really don't understand kage69's "rationale" for selective outrage. Both parties have frequently and effectively used this tactic to "obstruct" nominations.

 

[zsdersw]

An all GOP or all Dem government would be disastrous; as we've seen before.

Not true. monovillage would love nothing more than an all GOP government, and he'd probably be the first to tell you it would be all sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows were that to happen.

 

[zsdersw]

Fuck you wolf, it's called the "nuclear option" because it's an extreme change in the rules of the Senate, if you want to play semantic games and try to pretend it isn't an extreme change in Senate rules then knock yourself out.

Again, a fuck you wolf, they would be "extremist" if they were changing the rules of the Senate.

Again... don't you have anything to offer besides "old coot"?