If the Dems win in Georgia today

[Turtlesoup]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

Its very bad if you like centrist government

Had no chance for centrist government under trump and trump republicans.

The libs aren't centrists---they are communists to dictatorists now.

 

[bendog]

What does it mean? Well, for starters it means the seats in the Senate would be split 50-50 and VP Kamala Harris would cast the deciding vote. But what it really means is that the democrats could change our gov't forever if they have the votes to abolish the filibuster, which as you no doubt know means the majority party in the Senate could pass any bill with only a simple majority. The Senate currently requires 60 votes to stop the debate on a given bill, and you can't vote on any bill until that vote (called cloture) passes.

There is a reason for that requirement. The 60 votes for cloture is there to prevent what is called the "tyranny of the majority". It was feared that the minority party would have no say at all in the Senate, as it currently doesn't in the House. They can squawk all they want but they cannot do anything of substance in the House. Not so in the Senate, up to now at least; these days there is no appetite in either party to cooperate and compromise, it' all obstruction to politically hurt the majority and hopefully get them voted out of office in the next election. And it works too at least sometimes. Hence, no working together on just about anything.

There are 2 Senate seats up for grabs today; if the GOP takes one or both of them then the controversy is over and the filibuster lives for at least 2 more years. But if the democrats take both seats, well..

I believe that if the democrats take both seats they will abolish the filibuster in some way that tries to avoid looking like a power grab but fools no one. The intense pressure from their base will be too hard to ignore IMHO. And if that happens then compromise and cooperation will forever be gone. When one side does that, the other side will follow suit when they take over, and they eventually will. Maybe that will spur the rise of a 3rd political party that would require some kind of coalition; I think that would be a good thing with or without the filibuster. Otherwise, it's a one-party gov't if you can manage to control everything.

Pack the court
DC and PR become states
Green New Deal
UH
Reparations

Fascism 101

Calm down. You appear to not have noticed what the Progressives accomplished in the House elections.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What does it mean? Well, for starters it means the seats in the Senate would be split 50-50 and VP Kamala Harris would cast the deciding vote. But what it really means is that the democrats could change our gov't forever if they have the votes to abolish the filibuster, which as you no doubt know means the majority party in the Senate could pass any bill with only a simple majority. The Senate currently requires 60 votes to stop the debate on a given bill, and you can't vote on any bill until that vote (called cloture) passes.

There is a reason for that requirement. The 60 votes for cloture is there to prevent what is called the "tyranny of the majority". It was feared that the minority party would have no say at all in the Senate, as it currently doesn't in the House. They can squawk all they want but they cannot do anything of substance in the House. Not so in the Senate, up to now at least; these days there is no appetite in either party to cooperate and compromise, it' all obstruction to politically hurt the majority and hopefully get them voted out of office in the next election. And it works too at least sometimes. Hence, no working together on just about anything.

There are 2 Senate seats up for grabs today; if the GOP takes one or both of them then the controversy is over and the filibuster lives for at least 2 more years. But if the democrats take both seats, well..

I believe that if the democrats take both seats they will abolish the filibuster in some way that tries to avoid looking like a power grab but fools no one. The intense pressure from their base will be too hard to ignore IMHO. And if that happens then compromise and cooperation will forever be gone. When one side does that, the other side will follow suit when they take over, and they eventually will. Maybe that will spur the rise of a 3rd political party that would require some kind of coalition; I think that would be a good thing with or without the filibuster. Otherwise, it's a one-party gov't if you can manage to control everything.

Pack the court
DC and PR become states
Green New Deal
UH
Reparations

Fascism 101

Calm down. You appear to not have noticed what the Progressives accomplished in the House elections.

What did they accomplish? BDS vs Israel?

 

[Care4all]

I think the filibuster needs to be fully reinstated as it was when first created... to allow extended debate on contentious issues instead of a limited time of 1 hour or 15 minutes....

BUT the senators must debate on the issue on the Senate floor,

not filibustered with no actual extended debate, just to kill the proposal

MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON

style

 

[bendog]

What does it mean? Well, for starters it means the seats in the Senate would be split 50-50 and VP Kamala Harris would cast the deciding vote. But what it really means is that the democrats could change our gov't forever if they have the votes to abolish the filibuster, which as you no doubt know means the majority party in the Senate could pass any bill with only a simple majority. The Senate currently requires 60 votes to stop the debate on a given bill, and you can't vote on any bill until that vote (called cloture) passes.

There is a reason for that requirement. The 60 votes for cloture is there to prevent what is called the "tyranny of the majority". It was feared that the minority party would have no say at all in the Senate, as it currently doesn't in the House. They can squawk all they want but they cannot do anything of substance in the House. Not so in the Senate, up to now at least; these days there is no appetite in either party to cooperate and compromise, it' all obstruction to politically hurt the majority and hopefully get them voted out of office in the next election. And it works too at least sometimes. Hence, no working together on just about anything.

There are 2 Senate seats up for grabs today; if the GOP takes one or both of them then the controversy is over and the filibuster lives for at least 2 more years. But if the democrats take both seats, well..

I believe that if the democrats take both seats they will abolish the filibuster in some way that tries to avoid looking like a power grab but fools no one. The intense pressure from their base will be too hard to ignore IMHO. And if that happens then compromise and cooperation will forever be gone. When one side does that, the other side will follow suit when they take over, and they eventually will. Maybe that will spur the rise of a 3rd political party that would require some kind of coalition; I think that would be a good thing with or without the filibuster. Otherwise, it's a one-party gov't if you can manage to control everything.

Pack the court
DC and PR become states
Green New Deal
UH
Reparations

Fascism 101

Calm down. You appear to not have noticed what the Progressives accomplished in the House elections.

What did they accomplish? BDS vs Israel?

You answered your own question but apparently forgot the question.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What does it mean? Well, for starters it means the seats in the Senate would be split 50-50 and VP Kamala Harris would cast the deciding vote. But what it really means is that the democrats could change our gov't forever if they have the votes to abolish the filibuster, which as you no doubt know means the majority party in the Senate could pass any bill with only a simple majority. The Senate currently requires 60 votes to stop the debate on a given bill, and you can't vote on any bill until that vote (called cloture) passes.

There is a reason for that requirement. The 60 votes for cloture is there to prevent what is called the "tyranny of the majority". It was feared that the minority party would have no say at all in the Senate, as it currently doesn't in the House. They can squawk all they want but they cannot do anything of substance in the House. Not so in the Senate, up to now at least; these days there is no appetite in either party to cooperate and compromise, it' all obstruction to politically hurt the majority and hopefully get them voted out of office in the next election. And it works too at least sometimes. Hence, no working together on just about anything.

There are 2 Senate seats up for grabs today; if the GOP takes one or both of them then the controversy is over and the filibuster lives for at least 2 more years. But if the democrats take both seats, well..

I believe that if the democrats take both seats they will abolish the filibuster in some way that tries to avoid looking like a power grab but fools no one. The intense pressure from their base will be too hard to ignore IMHO. And if that happens then compromise and cooperation will forever be gone. When one side does that, the other side will follow suit when they take over, and they eventually will. Maybe that will spur the rise of a 3rd political party that would require some kind of coalition; I think that would be a good thing with or without the filibuster. Otherwise, it's a one-party gov't if you can manage to control everything.

Pack the court
DC and PR become states
Green New Deal
UH
Reparations

Fascism 101

Calm down. You appear to not have noticed what the Progressives accomplished in the House elections.

What did they accomplish? BDS vs Israel?

You answered your own question but apparently forgot the question.

I appreciate your deflection

 

[BlindBoo]

The House and Senate over turned one of Obama's firsts Executive Orders.

Until documented your anecdotal tales don't carry any weight.

Your lack of recent US historical knowledge will not change the fact that Democrats joined Republicans in blocking the Obama EO that would have closed Gitmo.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Your lack of recent US historical knowledge will not change the fact that Democrats joined Republicans in blocking the Obama EO that would have closed Gitmo.

That isn't really bucking the DNC leadership though is it?
In any event the one exception you can find, maybe, just illustrates the rule.

 

[White 6]

Blind support for a proven liar and rabble-rouser is not a centrist position.

Thats your spin

trump voters are well informed and support trump based on the issues

dont blame us if your candidates are stiff and boring while ours is not

Not spin by me. You copying only that one line to hide the other actions he carried out and posting based on that one line is an excellent example of spin.
How well informed and reasoning is a matter of opinion and not very provable either way it is argued.
I have been around a while and prefer the boring actual centrists. Not a job for fighter pilots. It is not a zero sum game and it is not a war. Think of it like pilots for the plane you ride in. There are old pilots and bold pilots but not too many bold pilots get to be old pilots, but their ride is much smoother and the landings not near as rough. Would you rather your airliner with everybody on board flown by Maverick from Top Gun or Captain Sully, who didn't have a single casualty, even when things went to shit?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

Its very bad if you like centrist government

Had no chance for centrist government under trump and trump republicans.

Or, Obama and Obama democrats.
Obama was the reason we ended up with Trump.
Incredible to watch the wheels in motion with government.

It wasn't so much Obama as to why we ended up with Trump. It was Hillary.

And Obama does not explain why Trump beat Cruz and the other 17 Republican candidates in the primaries.

Trump won the primary because the GOP is a hollowed out shell of its former self. It is filled with psychos, retards, hypocrites, liars, self-dealers, and bigots.

Obama wasn't the reason for Trump. Neither was Hillary. Trump was the result of the crazy right wingers who would prefer to burn it all down than to change the direction of their party.

The entire tyrannical govt is filled with corruption and needs to be burnt to the ground.

What a cry baby little quitter. Anarchism is no way to save the country of the founding fathers, dude.

Who said anything about anarchism. Anarchists are crazy nihilists. Quitter? No. If the founders saw the foul sewage steaming up now, they'd keep their clippers sailing.

 

[White 6]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

Its very bad if you like centrist government

Had no chance for centrist government under trump and trump republicans.

Or, Obama and Obama democrats.
Obama was the reason we ended up with Trump.
Incredible to watch the wheels in motion with government.

No. Hillary was the reason we ended up with trump. True, it was Democrats in general that seemed like they want to give it to her because it was her turn, though I never saw a reason she would automatically have a turn, and of course she used the power of the democratic apparatus to sink Burnie. Seeing the Burn this year, I cannot say I am sorry about that either. Be that as it may, I have come to the theory that if one party runs a truly shitty, duplicitous candidate, simply out for themself and whatever fools they can carry or attract, the other party will settle for a similarly rotten self serving candidate. Kind of like playing tennis, you will never play your best game if your opponent is not worth a $hit. Or in basketball, if playing a truly $hitty team it is time to trot out your "B" team and bench warmers.

Well TR's and LBJ's parties controlled all of the Congress for their entire terms. TR couldn't get civil rights for blacks to move ever, and he was only partially successful in regulating interstate commerce and anti-competitive agreements by creating the interstate commerce commission after he won his election. LBJ did not get Medicare passed till his landslide election, and even then Wilber Mills played the roll of reluctant debutante. Obama ended up with Obamacare because their weren't the dem votes for single payor.

BUT the difference was that McConnell decided to pretty much filibuster EVERYTHING he could with Obama. To make him a one termer. McConnell's motivations haven't been entirely made clear, at least I haven't seen it. They intensely disliked each other personally. Given McConnell's packing the Courts, it seems to me that he fears the dems will enact laws that are contrary to individual rights, and they will pursue a "socialism of the middle class." McConnell's tax cuts have already created a safety net for millionaires.

Not thrilled with McConnells style or judgement, though if you are a fan, he is effective. I think he simply want Obama to be a one term president so a republican could be brought it to get things done. B.O. got enough done to get re-elected anyway, even if McConnell did block major moves for the sole value of blocking a democrat from making the moves, even if originally suggested by republicans. Pure politics, not racism, though the racism motivation was enough in an of itself for many republican voters. Packing the courts is one of those to the victor goes the spoils things, even though he successfully hypocritically block the victor Obama from his court pick even being considered. Never surprised by republican tax cuts for the rich. It's their thing, not as better for the economy but better for rich contributors. Hey, and now corporations are people too so the political money can really flow.

 

[White 6]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

Its very bad if you like centrist government

Had no chance for centrist government under trump and trump republicans.

The libs aren't centrists---they are communists to dictatorists now.

The actual libs suck as much in their way as the trumpers. Neither really good for the country and sometimes (often actually) not even good for themselves.

 

[Mac-7]

You copying only that one line to hide the other actions he carried out and posting based on that one line is an excellent example of spin.

I try to limit my posts to a manageable size

which got your attention

unlike your endless complaints that put people to sleep

 

[task0778]

Didn't realize there were that many people who believe a one-party gov't is good thing. Most of 'em I'm guessing only believe that when it's their party in power, but not so much when it's the other guys. Even so, if either party gets to that point where they can pretty much do as they please, half the population will be okay with that but the other half would HATE it. >> Permanent divided country. The party that's in would spend all their time undoing what the other did, and back and forth it would go.

I dunno, maybe we need to hit bottom before we finally have a paradigm shift. But if and when that happens, IMHO a lot of people are going to suffer big time.

 

[White 6]

You copying only that one line to hide the other actions he carried out and posting based on that one line is an excellent example of spin.

I try to limit my posts to a manageable size

which got your attention

unlike your endless complaints that put people to sleep

Good night Mac.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to remember, what goes around, comes around. I have talked about how making rule changes can bite people in the ass and in the future, you can count on it.

Remember Reid tabling all the bills from the Republican House, then everyone was outraged that McConnell did the same?

Wait for the Republican House and a Democratic President, we could see another round of endless investigations and impeachment hearings.

Too bad politicians never think ahead.

Exactly. And ironically, Harry Reid also gets the credit (or the blame, depending on one's perspective) for ACB getting confirmed to the Supreme Court.

 

[candycorn]

What does it mean? Well, for starters it means the seats in the Senate would be split 50-50 and VP Kamala Harris would cast the deciding vote. But what it really means is that the democrats could change our gov't forever if they have the votes to abolish the filibuster, which as you no doubt know means the majority party in the Senate could pass any bill with only a simple majority. The Senate currently requires 60 votes to stop the debate on a given bill, and you can't vote on any bill until that vote (called cloture) passes.

There is a reason for that requirement. The 60 votes for cloture is there to prevent what is called the "tyranny of the majority". It was feared that the minority party would have no say at all in the Senate, as it currently doesn't in the House. They can squawk all they want but they cannot do anything of substance in the House. Not so in the Senate, up to now at least; these days there is no appetite in either party to cooperate and compromise, it' all obstruction to politically hurt the majority and hopefully get them voted out of office in the next election. And it works too at least sometimes. Hence, no working together on just about anything.

There are 2 Senate seats up for grabs today; if the GOP takes one or both of them then the controversy is over and the filibuster lives for at least 2 more years. But if the democrats take both seats, well..

I believe that if the democrats take both seats they will abolish the filibuster in some way that tries to avoid looking like a power grab but fools no one. The intense pressure from their base will be too hard to ignore IMHO. And if that happens then compromise and cooperation will forever be gone. When one side does that, the other side will follow suit when they take over, and they eventually will. Maybe that will spur the rise of a 3rd political party that would require some kind of coalition; I think that would be a good thing with or without the filibuster. Otherwise, it's a one-party gov't if you can manage to control everything.

I think the GOP sweeps the run-offs.

But I think you guys may lose Romney and he becomes an Independent.

Whichever party controls the Senate should raise the cloture limit back to 75, filibusters should once again be actual filibusters to where someone has to hold the floor by physically speaking, they should get rid of the unconstitutional senate majority leader and codify rules in the Senate it requires 75 senators to change going forward. ...first of which is that every bill from the House gets a floor vote. No more pocket vetoes by the likes of Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell. It's batshit crazy that we have a political appointee with this much authority.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Didn't realize there were that many people who believe a one-party gov't is good thing. Most of 'em I'm guessing only believe that when it's their party in power, but not so much when it's the other guys. Even so, if either party gets to that point where they can pretty much do as they please, half the population will be okay with that but the other half would HATE it. >> Permanent divided country. The party that's in would spend all their time undoing what the other did, and back and forth it would go.

I dunno, maybe we need to hit bottom before we finally have a paradigm shift. But if and when that happens, IMHO a lot of people are going to suffer big time.

If the Democrats got control of both Congress and the presidency such that they could do whatever they want, I guarantee you that half the population would not be okay with the agenda they would implement. Not even close. The problem is, most of the people voting for Democrats are low-information voters who don't actually know the extent of the Democrats' agenda and how it will actually affect them. They're just heavily indoctrinated to believe things like orange man bad, Republicans are racist, Republicans want you to be poor, Republicans want you dead, and that Democrats love you unconditionally and will selflessly and altruisticly fight for your best interests against the evil Republicans.

They believe this despite decades of unequivocal evidence to the contrary, and that's because because most of them have never been exposed to the objective truth about this. And whenever they are actually exposed to the truth about something corrupt or harmful to Americans involving Democrat politicians/policies, the armies of leftwing propoganda peddlers are quick to attack the information as "debunked" or "disinformation," as well as attacking whomever is exposing it with fabricated claims about their credibility or motives.

Recent studies that probed people's views on various policy positions, without reference to political party associated with the policy, demonstrate that the vast majority of Americans, including the majority of self-identified Democrats, do not support the radically progressive policies being espoused by the current Democrat leadership, and instead, support rather traditional policies. So the percentage of people voting Democrat who fully comprehend and endorse the party's current agenda is relatively small, and those people are unfortunately represented disproportionately high on this forum.

 

[task0778]

Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to remember, what goes around, comes around. I have talked about how making rule changes can bite people in the ass and in the future, you can count on it.

Remember Reid tabling all the bills from the Republican House, then everyone was outraged that McConnell did the same?

Wait for the Republican House and a Democratic President, we could see another round of endless investigations and impeachment hearings.

Too bad politicians never think ahead.

Exactly. And ironically, Harry Reid also gets the credit (or the blame, depending on one's perspective) for ACB getting confirmed to the Supreme Court.

I would not be surprised to see the GOP Senate continue their investigations into Hunter Biden's activities, which will disappear if the Dems win both Senate seats today. And whatever else they can find to attack Biden/Harris with. And I'm sure the Dems in the House will spend the next 2 years going after Trump even though he's out of office. So it goes in DC these days, but I also think if the GOP can keep their Senate majority then Biden isn't going to get his radical Lefty judges and justices through through Senate, and THAT is a big deal.

 

[busybee01]

Another example of Democrat election fraud. China Joe's Chicom buddies set up the Pandemic to create the unverified mail in ballot scam.

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer Confirms Mail-In Ballots Were Received with Votes Already Filled In By Machine | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

Jovan Hutton Pultizer reported yesterday that ballots were received in the 2020 election that were completed by machine.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Another examole of a right wing crackpot.