2024 Presidential Election | 42 Days to Election Day

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 92K
  • Politics 
Ddseddse said:
The Manchin examples are more numerous, but credit where credit is due, we shouldn't forget this...

1727200659545.png

ETA: I think this may be as literal an example of "The exception proves the rule" as you'll every find, though.
Click to expand...
That example always makes me cringe. McCain's objection wasn't to the substance of the bill. He didn't like the way it was pushed through the Senate. In particular, he didn't like that his committee had been excluded. And the fact that Trump insulted him probably didn't help matters. But it was not a principled stand.

If you want to give credit, give it to Murkowski and Collins who both voted no from the outset.
 
uncgriff said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here is the graphical representation. One white Wyoming vote compared to other states.

Add the filibuster on top of this there is no wonder why our politics is the way it is.

1000005187.png
 
uncgriff said:
I would be fine with the filibuster if the Senate actually represented America more fairly.
Click to expand...
It's still a bad idea no matter what. It's based on the fiction that the Senate is some great deliberative body. Maybe that was true at one point (again, doubtful), but that time was fairly long ago.

I would be less opposed to the filibuster if it was used only to block monumental changes without more than bare consensus. You know, the way it used to be deployed -- for exceptional circumstances only. Give the minority party one filibuster per year.

One of its worst effects is the way it clouds responsibility in our environment. To those of us who follow politics, we understand that there's not really a Senate majority without 60 votes. But you constantly hear American voters saying things like, "the Dems had control for two whole years and they did nothing with it." Well, they had a majority but they didn't have control. Explaining that to people who don't follow politics is excruciating. In fact, even explaining it to people who do follow politics can be maddening. I can't count the number of times I've had to remind my mother that stuff doesn't get done because it takes 60 votes, except for reconciliation.
 
superrific said:
It's still a bad idea no matter what. It's based on the fiction that the Senate is some great deliberative body. Maybe that was true at one point (again, doubtful), but that time was fairly long ago.

I would be less opposed to the filibuster if it was used only to block monumental changes without more than bare consensus. You know, the way it used to be deployed -- for exceptional circumstances only. Give the minority party one filibuster per year.

One of its worst effects is the way it clouds responsibility in our environment. To those of us who follow politics, we understand that there's not really a Senate majority without 60 votes. But you constantly hear American voters saying things like, "the Dems had control for two whole years and they did nothing with it." Well, they had a majority but they didn't have control. Explaining that to people who don't follow politics is excruciating. In fact, even explaining it to people who do follow politics can be maddening. I can't count the number of times I've had to remind my mother that stuff doesn't get done because it takes 60 votes, except for reconciliation.
Click to expand...
agree. just pointing out that even a 50/50 vote already greatly skews toward the GOP because of the senate representation problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top