Agreed. It's a bad idea. What happens when there is a power shift and the "other team" has the power. However obviously many of our elected officials (both parties) primarily think about the coming election cycles and no further. Getting reelected matters MOST and they will deal (or not) with the consequences after.Is this a good idea? Personally I am against it. I believe both sides lose. You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way.
You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way.
The most persuasive argument I have seen for getting rid of it is this:
Let the party in the majority have their way. Let them pass legislation they believe in, no matter how crazy. In the end, the people will hold them accountable. Their constituents will let them know if they go too far.
Second most persuasive: there have been dozens if not hundreds of changes to the filibuster over the years.
After saying that, my preference would be to alter it rather than get rid of it. If we leave it the way it is, the Senate will get nothing done, ever.
Yep. Filibuster if you must, but you have to be there, speaking on the floor about the bill/issue, until such time as you cannot physically continue.Same. The fact that legislation can have 59 votes (more than enough to pass), yet 41 people can prevent it from even being voted on by simply not showing up to work is ridiculous. If you want to filibuster, great. Get your arse to the microphone and start talking.
curious, are you applying this idea to just this specific instance? Or the dozens of new voter suppression bills enacted in republican controlled states?
First you would have to explain what these voter repression rule changes are. Specifically I was referring to the filibuster. I wouldn't mind discussing the voter rules in another thread.
Umm I would say change should be made on a case by case basis. I don't like one side of our government having too much power and that goes both ways. We should be required to find common ground in our governing rules so our politicians should figure out a way to work together for the good of the country.well I was trying to draw a line between your comment of "You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way." and yet things of this nature are already happening in other areas. So I was curious, are you only just against changes to this one specific issue, or all examples of: change the rules to get your way? And if just one issue (filibuster) then why do other "You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way." get a pass? I personally think if this (filibuster change) is a worrisome or concerning topic, then all instances of this happening should also be concerning.
Umm I would say change should be made on a case by case basis. I don't like one side of our government having too much power and that goes both ways. We should be required to find common ground in our governing rules so our politicians should figure out a way to work together for the good of the country.
Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
I am not under a rock. I haven't cast blame on either party. I simply stated an opinion. I know what the R's did and I know what the D's did. They are petulant children who believe there way is the only way. I just happen to believe it takes common ground to make this country great for everyone.Semper just confirmed, he has in fact been living under a rock.
The GOP's no-compromise pledgeRepublicans are promising to do "everything" they can to block the president.www.politico.com
You know the reason I gave up on the political board and quit posting for so long? This small experiment is the same as the shirt show in D.C. Self righteous people who believe they are right and the other side is wrong. If we can't debate and discuss ideas without personal attacks, on such a small scale, why would we assume the clowns in D.C. can do it?Donk, you don’t have to make it personal. Uncalled for, IMO.
I don't believe he meant it in an insulting manner either.Yeah, a thick skin really helps, lol. Let me know how to get one if you find out. 😁
Seriously, I do think the current trend online everywhere is to go for the irreverent quip to try to seem edgy and - for lack of a better term - “cool”. I have found myself doing it too, even though I try not to. It is one of my NY resolutions to try to “assume good intent” first, and answer forthrightly without any snark.
Not to mention, not falling into the “outrage trap” is good for my blood pressure and peace of mind. How long will the “zen” me last? Stay tuned, lol.
FWIW, I don’t think Donk meant to be personally insulting. I hope so anyway.