2024 Presidential Election | 42 Days to Election Day

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 92K
  • Politics 
Lolol Manchin was never ever going to endorse Harris, and most likely wasn’t going to vote for her, anyway. Fuck off into retirement and obscurity, old man.

Lmao at the notion that the fucking filibuster is the “Holy Grail of democracy.” FOH man.
 
nycfan said:


What kind of coffee does he drink?
Click to expand...

Or ham or potatoes. I can't remember the last time I paid the same price for ham and potatoes. That he's got them at the same price (both before and after) is hilarious. Who thinks that those two things cost the same?
 
CFordUNC said:
Lolol Manchin was never ever going to endorse Harris, and most likely wasn’t going to vote for her, anyway. Fuck off into retirement and obscurity, old man.

Lmao at the notion that the fucking filibuster is the “Holy Grail of democracy.” FOH man.
Click to expand...
Manchin was responsible for getting a lot of democratic policies made into law and a lot of democratic judges appointed to the bench. Everyone of those 51/50 votes had Manchin to thank. Considering the alternative to Manchin from W.Va, Democrats were hugely fortunate to have him in the senate.

A bad Democrat is worth more than a good Republican in such an evenly divided and tribal senate.
 
I would be fine with the filibuster if the Senate actually represented America more fairly.

The 49 GOP senator represent 150 million Americans while the 51 Democratic senators represent 204 million.

Land over people simply has to be fixed somehow. A vote in wyoming is worth a hell of a lot more than a vote in California and that is just not right. Particularly when California pays for all the red states.
 
superrific said:
IDK. Just look at all the democratic systems out in the world that have a 60% vote threshold to make new laws.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It’s just frustrating that the Constitution includes so many other checks and balances as it stands, yet the minority party still has veto power over widely supported legislation. Seems unnecessary at best and obstructive at worst, which is why most U.S. states and most other Democratic countries do not allow their legislators to filibuster.
 
Calheel said:
Manchin was responsible for getting a lot of democratic policies made into law and a lot of democratic judges appointed to the bench. Everyone of those 51/50 votes had Manchin to thank. Considering the alternative to Manchin from W.Va, Democrats were hugely fortunate to have him in the senate.

A bad Democrat is worth more than a good Republican in such an evenly divided and tribal senate.
Click to expand...
Fair points, for sure.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

As usual Manchin and his backwards take on the filibuster can get effed. The filibuster is the main cause of complete Congressional inertia on most major issues. it's what enables obstructionism, rather than compromise, as the primary strategy of a minority party in the Senate. It doesn't encourage people to work together; it encourages the minority to hold the majority hostage. it's an anachronism that is contrary to the basic principles of representative democracy that the founders intended.
 
superrific said:
IDK. Just look at all the democratic systems out in the world that have a 60% vote threshold to make new laws.
Click to expand...
OK but we don't. And leaving aside the issue of which makes more sense as a vote threshold for legislation, 50% or 60%, having a 60% threshold for taking a vote and a 50% threshold for something passing is idiotic. No sane person thinks the Senate, or Congress as a whole, functions well at the moment. it is a system designed to get nothing done; one that prevents us from passing legislation meant to address difficult issues facing the country. And now that the administrative state is getting dismantled, that's going to be an even bigger issue.
 
rodoheel said:
OK but we don't. And leaving aside the issue of which makes more sense as a vote threshold for legislation, 50% or 60%, having a 60% threshold for taking a vote and a 50% threshold for something passing is idiotic. No sane person thinks the Senate, or Congress as a whole, functions well at the moment. it is a system designed to get nothing done; one that prevents us from passing legislation meant to address difficult issues facing the country. And now that the administrative state is getting dismantled, that's going to be an even bigger issue.
Click to expand...
I was being sarcastic. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who despises the filibuster more than I do. As much, maybe, but I'm pretty sure my filibuster hate is at the maximum, or close at least.

And I'm not aware of ANY democratic systems that have a higher threshold than 50%+1, except as to special votes like constitutional amendments and the like. The 60% threshold is, to my knowledge, unique to the U.S. Senate (and perhaps some states that have aped it).

The easiest way to demolish Manchin's argument, though, is to point to reconciliation. If the filibuster is so great, why did the Senate have to make an exception for the most important stuff it does?
 
superrific said:
I was being sarcastic. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who despises the filibuster more than I do. As much, maybe, but I'm pretty sure my filibuster hate is at the maximum, or close at least.

And I'm not aware of ANY democratic systems that have a higher threshold than 50%+1, except as to special votes like constitutional amendments and the like. The 60% threshold is, to my knowledge, unique to the U.S. Senate (and perhaps some states that have aped it).

The easiest way to demolish Manchin's argument, though, is to point to reconciliation. If the filibuster is so great, why did the Senate have to make an exception for the most important stuff it does?
Click to expand...
Gotcha - sorry, I didn't detect the sarcasm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top