Mancin and Sinema Have Saved the Democrats From Themselves

[candycorn]

And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses. Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.

Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule. While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.

While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do. And that would really suck. But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.

 

[JoeB131]

And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses. Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.

Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule. While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.

While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do. And that would really suck. But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.

That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.

The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.

 

[Anomalism]

Filibusters seem like bullshit to me. Our government moves slow enough as it is.

 

[Penelope]

Well if the shoe were on the other foot, watch out. I agree , it is obstruction.

 

[candycorn]

That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.

The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.

Do we really need a Senate?

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there. It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control. The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Meister]

Filibusters seem like bullshit to me. Our government moves slow enough as it is.

That is a good thing. Who wants a runaway government?

 

[Anomalism]

That is a good thing. Who wants a runaway government?

It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.

 

[marvin martian]

The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.

Because our founding fathers weren't mob rule fascists like you.

 

[ProfessorHawthorne]

The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.

I'm going to assume you're young enough to have avoided taking Civics in junior high school. It's clear that you do not have a clear understanding of how our government is organized. That whole "checks and balances" thing probably annoys you anyway.

Those scarcely populated rectangles in the desert are states also and despite what you think, have US citizens living there. The Senate is probably one of the wisest creations in our government. While the number of House members varies with the population of a state - and most often a state with one or two very large cities - the Senate is fixed. It provides a safeguard against states with large populous cities from taking over the government. The House, packed with representatives from these large cities, can pass all the bills that favor them and their like-minded ilk. But.... but... that bill has to pass in the Senate also. So, those states with smaller cities who don't share the same values or concerns as their big city counterparts can and often do "bitch smack" those bleeding heart pinko progressives. Thus, ends todays Civic's lesson.

Cheers

 

[Meister]

It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.

When you have an AUTORITARIAN GOVERNMENT, I guess you can do that. How is their human rights effort in that country? Hmmm
We aren't a communist Government, we still are a democrat republic, the rules are different

 

[justoffal]

And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses. Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.

Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule. While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.

While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do. And that would really suck. But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.

I seriously doubt that the Republicans will do away with it I think there should be a constitutional Congress to raise the bar for it anyway. It should require 3/5 of state legislatures to be on board... Not just 3/5 of elected senators. Put that thing so far out of reach that the only way you can pass it is if the Republic has already gone over to one party rule. In that event it won't be any problem to reach 3/5 still have the votes and they won't need to do away with the filibuster. Put it Way out of reach it's too tempting.

 

[martybegan]

And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses. Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.

Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule. While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.

While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do. And that would really suck. But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.

Trying to suck up to them for the SC confirmation?

 

[martybegan]

That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.

The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.

To stop small concentrated parts of the country from fucking over the larger more open parts.

If people in urban areas want a set of laws, they have their State and Local governments to implement them. Many of the laws we have passed at the federal level are way beyond the scope of what the founders intended, and rightly so.

 

[JoeB131]

'm going to assume you're young enough to have avoided taking Civics in junior high school. It's clear that you do not have a clear understanding of how our government is organized. That whole "checks and balances" thing probably annoys you anyway.

Those scarcely populated rectangles in the desert are states also and despite what you think, have US citizens living there. The Senate is probably one of the wisest creations in our government. While the number of House members varies with the population of a state - and most often a state with one or two very large cities - the Senate is fixed. It provides a safeguard against states with large populous cities from taking over the government. The House, packed with representatives from these large cities, can pass all the bills that favor them and their like-minded ilk. But.... but... that bill has to pass in the Senate also. So, those states with smaller cities who don't share the same values or concerns as their big city counterparts can and often do "bitch smack" those bleeding heart pinko progressives. Thus, ends todays Civic's lesson.

Okay, but then you have to look at WHY those rectangles are "States". Because in the 19th century, the GOP wanted to pad their senate majorities... not because a lot of people lived in those places.

There is no real good reason for there to be a Senate.

 

[JoeB131]

To stop small concentrated parts of the country from fucking over the larger more open parts.

If people in urban areas want a set of laws, they have their State and Local governments to implement them. Many of the laws we have passed at the federal level are way beyond the scope of what the founders intended, and rightly so.

So if my state wants to ban guns, we should be able to do that, right?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.

Depends on what you want to get done. Passing communist style legislation doesn't qualify as "getting shit done".

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

So if my state wants to ban guns, we should be able to do that, right?

No. That would be unconstitutional.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Okay, but then you have to look at WHY those rectangles are "States". Because in the 19th century, the GOP wanted to pad their senate majorities... not because a lot of people lived in those places.

There is no real good reason for there to be a Senate.

Except that the Constitution says there is to be a senate.

 

[hjmick]

Mancin and Sinema Have Saved the Democrats From Themselves​

Now if only someone would do the same for the GOP...

 

[marvin martian]

So if my state wants to ban guns, we should be able to do that, right?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That goes for free states and blue states.