• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Repubs to filibuster continuing resolution and debt limit increase bill but they say they want a debt limit increase too

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,398
25,186
136
What do we get with a sizeable increase in the number of representatives in the house? It's population based, so I don't understand how it is failing.
1) a smaller house makes it easier to gerrymander.
2) due to the small size of some states you actually end up with significant disparities in how many people each rep represents.
3) they have too many constituents to adequately represent their district.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,642
15,988
136
Isn't the problem really present when the parties are close to 50/50 splits in both houses. Then a couple of congress persons/Senators can really hold sway. I'm not a big supporter of 50%+1 rule. I'd rather have 60%+1 being the required minimum to pass legislation. As I endlessly forget provisions of the constitution, I'm not sure if that possible.
A 60%+1 scheme would create permanent minority rule. The current Senate filibuster rule, having no basis in law, already creates this problem. Minority parties wield power all out of proportion to what they earned at the ballot box. Add to this that one party cheerfully throws out the 60% filibuster rule when it suits it's interests and we have de facto minority rule, to the great detriment of our Republic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

compcons

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,900
637
136
What do we get with a sizeable increase in the number of representatives in the house? It's population based, so I don't understand how it is failing.
Although based on population, it is heavily skewed to low population areas. Basically, if you live in a low population state, your representation is much higher than someone from a higher population state. Same goes for the stupid electoral college.

Wyoming has 0.18% of the countries population and has 1 Representative. California has 12.05% of the population and has 53 representatives. Texas has 8.16 % of the population and 36 representatives. California should have 65 times more reps than Wyoming (or 3-4x what they currently have). This is broken as is electoral votes.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
18,247
5,444
136
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Ajay

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,241
4,267
136
This is where we need TERM LIMITS. Like.... we need term limits really really bad. The US president was term limited during FDR because FDR became too powerful, the presidency became too powerful of the three branches of government.
Well, what we have today is a situation where senators and in particular one republican senator has the power of the presidency, actually more power than the actual US presidency, yet Mitch McConnell is not held accountable and his power grows and grows year after year. THIS has got to stop.
And I don't consider McConnell's getting reelected time after time as being held accountable. Voters can be wrong. Voters can be fooled. Money fools voters. McConnell is the power of money.

Consider life long US senator Chuck Grassley. Announcing that he will run for yet another term. Grassley will be 95 years old at the end of his term if he wins another term. NINTEY FIVE!!!
And it's not his age, its that Chuck Grassley has been in the US senate for 40 years ""FOURTY YEARS"" and Mitch McConnell for 36 years. And a US president, 8 years at best. Now something is really wrong with THAT. Until we have term limits for all, this will only get worse and worse until the demise of American democracy. America will have a dictatorship but not in the presidency, America will have a dictatorship within the US congress.
Term limits are a shitty bandaid for the real problems in the nation, and a lobbyist's dream. The government relations guy at work talks about how term limits make it so much easier to drive your agenda.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,241
4,267
136
What do we get with a sizeable increase in the number of representatives in the house? It's population based, so I don't understand how it is failing.
Because it isn't really population based, as smaller states have far more representation than larger states. Also it would be harder to gerrymander if the average district size was 500K instead of 1M. Most countries float around the cubic root of population or higher, which would put us at around 705 reps.

Also because we insist of the stupidity of the electoral college, keeping the HOR smaller gives even more undue power to small states. Where Wyoming gets 3 votes and California only gets 58, even though California's population is 67x larger. So if WY gets 3, Cali should get 201.
 
Last edited:

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,544
12,088
136
Biden went to the hill to meet with House dems. Reconciliation likely to be between 1.9-2.3T, told the progressives respectfully they'll need to come down. Did not press for a vote on the BIF and reiterated they are linked and agreement needed on reconciliation first. So the moderates ploy to shove the BIF forward first foiled for now.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
9,506
3,962
136
Wow, thanks for all the replies! Wow, I didn't know how much I didn't know :p. So, from time to time I actually still think republicans can act with some sanity, like they sometimes did when I started voting 40 years ago. My bad.

Because it isn't really population based, as smaller states have far more representation than larger states. Also it would be harder to gerrymander if the average district size was 500K instead of 1M. Most countries float around the cubic root of population or higher, which would put us at around 705 reps.

Also because we insist of the stupidity of the electoral college, keeping the HOR smaller gives even more undue power to small states. Where Wyoming gets 3 votes and California only gets 58, even though California's population is 67x larger. So if WY gets 3, Cali should get 201.
That seems reasonable, but.... One house seat for every 30,000 people (the max as per the constitution), seems to be the only real other option (IMHO). I didn't look to see how SCOTUS allowed the Permanent Apportionment Act to remain law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,903
1,750
126
Well, I guess Donald Trump just won in 2024 because it’s now clear that democrats just can’t govern for a damn. Biden says, “we’ll get it done, when doesn’t matter”. That’s the kind of talk you hear when a politician gives the concession speech. And I give Mitch McConnell a pat on the back because McConnell knew when he and senate republicans supported the physical infrastructure plan that their votes would never matter. McConnell knew that in the end it would be democrats and not republicans that kill the plan.

Oh those silly democrats…
Learning nothing from the past and repeating disaster after disaster.
Repeating Obamacare during Obama, where in the last hour democrats could only deliver Obamacare-lite. No public option as promised over and over by Nancy Pelosi, and blue dog democrats running the show and getting their way. America never got Obamacare, America got watered down insurance industry driven crap-a-care.

Or consider Bill and Hillary Clinton, where the Clinton’s introduced their healthcare plan. Yet in the end, again, it was the democrats who killed that dream of universal healthcare for America. That dream died when then senate leader George Mitchell marched up to the Whitehouse at midnight with senate democrats announcing to the Clinton’s that healthcare reform was dead. Once again, death by democrat.

It is time to acknowledge the truth. Republicans will succeed in 2022, Donald Trump easily will be the next president come 2024, and democrats can’t govern for the life of them.
Republicans will succeed with elections in both 2022 and 2024 simply because democrats stay home. Nice going republicans…. Checkmate.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: shortylickens

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,851
5,801
136
Well, I guess Donald Trump just won in 2024 because it’s now clear that democrats just can’t govern for a damn. Biden says, “we’ll get it done, when doesn’t matter”. That’s the kind of talk you hear when a politician gives the concession speech. And I give Mitch McConnell a pat on the back because McConnell knew when he and senate republicans supported the physical infrastructure plan that their votes would never matter. McConnell knew that in the end it would be democrats and not republicans that kill the plan.

Oh those silly democrats…
Learning nothing from the past and repeating disaster after disaster.
Repeating Obamacare during Obama, where in the last hour democrats could only deliver Obamacare-lite. No public option as promised over and over by Nancy Pelosi, and blue dog democrats running the show and getting their way. America never got Obamacare, America got watered down insurance industry driven crap-a-care.

Or consider Bill and Hillary Clinton, where the Clinton’s introduced their healthcare plan. Yet in the end, again, it was the democrats who killed that dream of universal healthcare for America. That dream died when then senate leader George Mitchell marched up to the Whitehouse at midnight with senate democrats announcing to the Clinton’s that healthcare reform was dead. Once again, death by democrat.

It is time to acknowledge the truth. Republicans will succeed in 2022, Donald Trump easily will be the next president come 2024, and democrats can’t govern for the life of them.
Republicans will succeed with elections in both 2022 and 2024 simply because democrats stay home. Nice going republicans…. Checkmate.
I can probably find a post from you in 2019 where Donald Trump had just won 2020.

You realize the 2024 election isn't for another 3 years right?

Type out your post in Word or Notepad, and then cut back on 75% of it. Maybe take your predictions of the future and instead ask questions about that specific idea instead. Even when I do make it through one of your posts, there's not a lot I can respond to.
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,435
1,094
146
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the fix is more representatives. Congress capped the number and I’m pretty sure if challenged the law that capped it would be ruled unconstitutional.
1) a smaller house makes it easier to gerrymander.
2) due to the small size of some states you actually end up with significant disparities in how many people each rep represents.
3) they have too many constituents to adequately represent their district.
Wow, thanks for all the replies! Wow, I didn't know how much I didn't know :p. So, from time to time I actually still think republicans can act with some sanity, like they sometimes did when I started voting 40 years ago. My bad.


That seems reasonable, but.... One house seat for every 30,000 people (the max as per the constitution), seems to be the only real other option (IMHO). I didn't look to see how SCOTUS allowed the Permanent Apportionment Act to remain law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

This needs to be sent back to the states to be voted upon again.

Edit: My dumbass forgot a word


Edit 2: People in states with ballot initiatives, get to work on this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,109
12,928
126
I can probably find a post from you in 2019 where Donald Trump had just won 2020.

You realize the 2024 election isn't for another 3 years right?

Type out your post in Word or Notepad, and then cut back on 75% of it. Maybe take your predictions of the future and instead ask questions about that specific idea instead. Even when I do make it through one of your posts, there's not a lot I can respond to.
Dude, he's clearly fucking with you.
 

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
9,175
652
126
It appears that unlike Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema does have green bona fides about supporting climate policy in the reconciliation bill. Unfortunately, she doesn't want her billionaire buddies to foot the bill, so the end result is the same. Dems will have to trim the headline cost down to about $2T as suggested by POTUS.

 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,903
1,750
126
Something else occurred to me while watching some of those Sunday morning news shows like Fox News Sunday and Meet The Press and This Week on ABC. What occurred to me was that every host and every republican-orientated guest were asking nothing of "where are the republicans in all of this???"

They blame it all on Joe, they blame it on the democrats, and I have done the same myself. However, it seems that no one is asking the question WHAT ABOUT THOSE REPUBLICANS? Don't their states want child tax credits? Don't republican states want universal pre-K education? Don't republican states want seniors to have teeth and hearing aids and eye glasses? When Trump republicans were so willing to hand over billions to the rich republicans in the form of tax cuts, well then what's wrong with helping mom and dad get teeth, or eye glasses, or hearing aids?

It is all about messaging, and since everyone is focused on democrats and on division and on two senators and on dollar amounts, and while democrats work this out... why not have democrats simply turn the table, WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS? Do not allow republicans off the hook on this, or to give republicans the talking point of democrats in disarray, while not one republican in congress will stand up for the needs of the American people.

I think we are missing the point. I have been missing the point, I admit. The point? That the true outrage should be placed on the republicans for refusing to get onboard. For doing absolutely nothing to help. And just as with the Biden stimulus package, which was passed by and only by democrats yet right away we seen republicans in congress taking the credit for something they refused to take part in. Looks like this Biden build-back-better will be the same thing. In that democrats will eventually pass a plan, followed by republicans in congress take the credit.

Biden said this effort to pass the legislation could take weeks. Well.... that gives democrats weeks to focus on the true problem, the republicans in congress. Make them republicans feel the heat. Do not allow republicans to act like to do nothing is to do something. This is a real opportunity for democrats to build on 2022. Make those do-nothing republicans squeal like a pig.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chowderhead

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
12,100
8,758
136
The Republicans really really don't want old people to get coverage for vision and dental and hearing.

So pro-life.
 
  • Love
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Lezunto

Member
Oct 24, 2020
133
72
61
Term limits are a shitty bandaid for the real problems in the nation, and a lobbyist's dream. The government relations guy at work talks about how term limits make it so much easier to drive your agenda.
Term limits would only guarantee that those with money or access to it will control future agendas because they would have the power to elect and defeat. That would be horrendous and a diabolical leader's wet dream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

Franz316

Senior member
Sep 12, 2000
894
258
136
China and Russia have to loving this. Without firing a single bullet they are witnessing the slow collapse of the US at the hands of our very own GQP. All they have to do is wait. The GQP simply refuses to invest in America's future in order to win a few political points. It's disgusting and it's how countries fail. So much wasted time and energy on trivial things when we could be planning for the future. The Senate is more broken than the electoral college.
 
Last edited:

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,241
4,267
136
China and Russia have to loving this. Without firing a single bullet they are witnessing the slow collapse of the US at the hands of our very own GQP. All they have to do is wait. The GQP simply refuses to invest in America's future in order to win a few political points. It's disgusting and it's how countries fail. So much wasted time and energy on trivial things when we could be planning for the future. The Senate is more broken than the electoral college.
The Senate has the same fundamental flaw the EC does, it just gets dampened out some with the EC because the house isn't quite as flawed as the Senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,398
25,186
136
The Senate has the same fundamental flaw the EC does, it just gets dampened out some with the EC because the house isn't quite as flawed as the Senate.
The senate is even worse - it has the same flaw of over representing rural areas but combines that with a supermajority requirement to pass most legislation. It’s kind of like if Biden had needed 323 electoral votes to win instead of 270.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY