- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It's time for McConnell to go nuclear on the filibuster rule
Posted on 7/18/17 at 10:03 am to joshnorris14
Posted on 7/18/17 at 10:03 am to joshnorris14
This would open Pandora's box leading to too much radical policy on both sides every 4-8 years. Would cause extreme instability in the markets and politics.
However I wouldn't mind lowering the filibuster to say 55-56 votes
However I wouldn't mind lowering the filibuster to say 55-56 votes
1
Posted on 7/18/17 at 11:08 am to Scruffy
quote:
You do realize that those who oppose you will have that same ability once they gain power?
I think they should.
I also think it is very arguable that the Filibuster is a significant driver in polarizing the nation.
Think about it. With a filibuster rule, ANY deviation from the pack completely fricks your party.
The filibuster rule effectively makes it a PLUS to be the most cohesive, monolithic thinking party.
Being a party with individuals who vote their own minds is basically political suicide with a filibuster rule because the party that is monolithic can "get things done" while in charge but claim you are "do nothing" when they are not.
Posted on 7/18/17 at 11:13 am to deltaland
quote:
This would open Pandora's box leading to too much radical policy on both sides every 4-8 years. Would cause extreme instability in the markets and politics.
Actually, quite the opposite would occur.
With a filibuster, the minority part has absolutely zero reason to engage the other party if they have less than 60 votes. Sure, that prevents the occasional radical legislation although cmon.......you STILL need the House AND the President too!
Meanwhile, what the filibuster DOES do is pretty much disincentives any and all working across party lines.
You can bet your arse that if Republicans or Democrats were about to pass significant legislation with 50 votes, several in the other party would SUDDENTLY want to be engaged in the process.
I think people underestimate the damage the filibuster has ALWAYS done.
I'm 100% fine with the reality that if a party manages to win ALL 3, they probably get to pass what they want.
And, I mean, how "radical" can that really be? Let's be honest here. If you own all 3, it probably ain't that "radical".
And don't bring up that Deem and Pass bull shite the Democrats did. That was a perversion and even they know it.
Posted on 7/18/17 at 11:13 am to ShortyRob
I agree in the main.
It does move power to the parties and provides too much deflection from getting things accomplished.
It does move power to the parties and provides too much deflection from getting things accomplished.
Posted on 7/18/17 at 11:38 am to Sentrius
quote:
We would be basically be committing suicide if dems win senate and they give us single payer with no filibuster to stop them.
it would be worse than that. You would get $15/min wage, you would get paid maternity leave, you would get pretty much every wishlist democratic idea.
Posted on 7/18/17 at 11:45 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
So a guy with a reagan pic would be voting for bernie fricking sanders....
If Trump wins the nomination, I will vote for anyonebutTrump.
(unless a Clinton sneaks back in for the demorats.)
Posted on 7/18/17 at 1:38 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
it would be worse than that. You would get $15/min wage, you would get paid maternity leave, you would get pretty much every wishlist democratic idea.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News