American Politics VII: Virginia Reel

[Michel Meilleur]

~

[Kowani]

McConnel is a partisan hack, but democrats gave him the precedent to do it. You're just lying to yourself by ignoring it.

except, you know, the inconvenient fact that mcconnell wanted to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees long before obama was in office
i know the rational centrist cloak that comes from leaving the republican party requires you to try and spin everything as a bothsides situation but this is an extremely bad hill to die on

[Michel Meilleur]

Do other nations have the equivalent of our Senate's filibuster?

I'm not aware of any that does.

The EU (which is not a nation) has "qualified majority" mechanism, requiring 55% of states representing 65% of the population to pass a bill in the Council. But the Council is a meeting between head of states/governments, who are supposed to reach agreement through diplomacy, not an hyper-partisan chamber with two antagonist parties.

We should bring back officially the politique de la chaise vide, tbh. The shift from unanimity to the "qualified majority" was a direct attack on the national sovereignty of European Nations.

[Antipatros]

Do other nations have the equivalent of our Senate's filibuster?

If so, is it used as judiciously as it is here? If not, how does that impact their ability to govern?

to be fair, our filibuster isn't what it used to be either. They need to bring back the talking filibuster, not eliminate it altogether

I've heard that the talking filibuster was removed because the long floor speeches were interfering with the Senate's ability to do business. Is that true?

The other use of the filibuster that irks me is when it's used to block debate altogether, by blocking a motion to proceed.

[Tarsonis]

(Am I accidentally witnessing a filibuster being made while talking about filibusters, or am I blind? It could be both, but man this has gone on for a long time with lots of big posts.)

Kowani's effort post are a thing to behold. The Dark Side is the pathway to many abilities some consider to be....unnatural.

[Tarsonis]

McConnel is a partisan hack, but democrats gave him the precedent to do it. You're just lying to yourself by ignoring it.

except, you know, the inconvenient fact that mcconnell wanted to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees long before obama was in office
i know the rational centrist cloak that comes from leaving the republican party requires you to try and spin everything as a bothsides situation but this is an extremely bad hill to die on

in my experiencd anything that isn't blowing up the whole system is a bad hill to die on according to you. The question is whether or not I find it worth it to commit the time to refute your effort post, or just let it go.

[Genivaria]

(Am I accidentally witnessing a filibuster being made while talking about filibusters, or am I blind? It could be both, but man this has gone on for a long time with lots of big posts.)

Kowani's effort post are a thing to behold. The Dark Side is the pathway to many abilities some consider to be....unnatural.

I mean it looks like a whole lot of not listening and strawmanning on your part.

[Caleonia]

Kowani's effort post are a thing to behold. The Dark Side is the pathway to many abilities some consider to be....unnatural.

I mean it looks like a whole lot of not listening and strawmanning on your part.

It probably is that, I will admit.

[Antipatros]

Update on the Haitian refugees: They got expelled

[Tarsonis]

Kowani's effort post are a thing to behold. The Dark Side is the pathway to many abilities some consider to be....unnatural.

I mean it looks like a whole lot of not listening and strawmanning on your part.

Well that means nothing coming from you, so okay.

[Genivaria]

I mean it looks like a whole lot of not listening and strawmanning on your part.

Well that means nothing coming from you, so okay.

Lol how fucking petty.

[Tarsonis]

Well that means nothing coming from you, so okay.

Lol how fucking petty.

Oh was I supposed to take your bad faith comment seriously?

[Kowani]

(Am I accidentally witnessing a filibuster being made while talking about filibusters, or am I blind? It could be both, but man this has gone on for a long time with lots of big posts.)

minor point, but common misunderstanding-the filibuster is not actually "stand up and talk for a long time"
it is simply "senator claims to be filibustering legislation and if the other side can't bring up 60 votes to override it, it dies"

except, you know, the inconvenient fact that mcconnell wanted to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees long before obama was in office
i know the rational centrist cloak that comes from leaving the republican party requires you to try and spin everything as a bothsides situation but this is an extremely bad hill to die on

in my experiencd anything that isn't blowing up the whole system is a bad hill to die on according to you. The question is whether or not I find it worth it to commit the time to refute your effort post, or just let it go.

if you had examples of any of the relevant political figures from this era (i'd say the bush era is a good place to start, since that's when it became a near omnipresent feature of senate legislation) wanting to blow it up and getting any actual traction from senate leadership prior to mcconnell and frist in the judicial nomination debacle, doing so should be trivial

[Genivaria]

Lol how fucking petty.

Oh was I supposed to take your bad faith comment seriously?

'bad faith' Because your behavior is called out. Right.

[Ifreann]

I'm ignoring nothing. McConnell has proven by his actions that he does not give a shit about precedent, he'll ignore it whenever it suits him. He didn't ram through appointments to the Supreme Court under a Republican president because Democrats gave him the precedent to do it. He did it because that's his political agenda. He was always going to do it, precedent or not. We know this, because when precedent did get in his way, he ignored it.

He didn't warn Democrats against the nuclear option because he was trying to help them out, he warned them against the nuclear option because he was afraid of them thwarting his agenda, that being Republican control of the courts, by appointing their own judges.

Yep yep yep. Democrat good, republican bad.

Democrats are shit too, but if you need me to say that before you'll give any real response to my points then it's probably not worth it.

[Tarsonis]

Oh was I supposed to take your bad faith comment seriously?

'bad faith' Because your behavior is called out. Right.

You didn't call out behavior, you made a baseless ad hominem. You made a bad faith posts to carry the water for Ifrean's bad faith posting. It's typical.

Yep yep yep. Democrat good, republican bad.

Democrats are shit too, but if you need me to say that before you'll give any real response to my points then it's probably not worth it.

I gave responses to your points, but you doubled down on the line that all Republicans are, essentially, bad faith actors. Never mind the ridiculous partisanship to the point of being false on its face, it's incredibly telling of the real agenda. You didn't engage with merits of the poster's argument, you just called him a disingenuous Republican because he has a thin blue line flag. It's a bullshit take, and you should know better.

[Kowani]

I gave Manchin that award too soon

Sen. KYRSTEN SINEMA (D-AZ) delivered a tough message to President joe Biden at a private meeting Wednesday, we’re told: If the House delays its scheduled Sept. 27 vote on the bipartisan infrastructure plan — or if the vote fails — she won’t be backing a reconciliation bill. Sinema is not the only moderate taking this stand. Rep. KURT SCHRADER (D-Ore.) — one of approximately 10 moderate Democratic House members playing hardball with leadership — said he and several members of their group are on the same page. Some of the lawmakers have conveyed that message up the chain to leadership and the White House. A senior Democratic aide confirmed the warnings.

“If they delay the vote — or it goes down — then I think you can kiss reconciliation goodbye,” Schrader told Playbook. “Reconciliation would be dead.”

This is obviously big news if moderates follow through. The threat comes days after Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-Wash.) declared that House progressives had the votes to tank the infrastructure plan, aka BIF, unless it’s paired with the larger $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. But it’s become abundantly clear the reconciliation bill won’t be ready a week from today, the date when Speaker NANCY PELOSI promised moderates a vote on the $1.2 trillion bill to rebuild the nation’s roads and bridges.

The time crunch and threat from the left has led many to question whether the speaker will try to postpone the infrastructure vote. House Majority Whip JIM CLYBURN (D-S.C.) told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday that a delay is possible.

But the mods’ new threat indicates that a delay would not end well. “That’d be foolish on their part,” Schrader told us, noting that Clyburn, Pelosi and House Majority Leader STENY HOYER were in the room when the promise was made to them to take up the infrastructure plan on Sept. 27. “That would indicate they’re not playing fair in the sandbox. … It would be a travesty if they try to play games.”

Asked about her exchange with Biden, Sinema’s office neither confirmed nor denied the account: “Kyrsten does not share details of private conversations with President Biden or her colleagues.” However, her office added: “She does look forward to House leadership making good on their commitment to an up-or-down vote on the historic and bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act next Monday — to create jobs and expand economic opportunities across the country.” (In another sign of trouble for Democrats, our Laura Barrón-López scooped Sunday night that Sinema has also told the White House she opposes the Democrats’ prescription drug plan — a critical source of funding for the reconciliation package. Schrader voted against it in committee last week.)

The White House similarly declined to comment. “We don't discuss the president’s private conversations with senators,” said one senior administration official. Progressives think if they band together and threaten to kill the infrastructure bill, it will convince moderate members to go along with the larger reconciliation package. But multiple sources — including a senior Democratic aide and several in the centrist camp — tell us the left is misreading their colleagues.

The upshot: Some moderates privately have decided that no infrastructure bill is better than one that’s paired with $3.5 trillion in spending.

SO LET’S PLAY THIS OUT: If the vote happens Sept. 27, it’s going to be close. Moderates think progressives are bluffing when they say half their 96-person caucus is willing to vote “no” — especially once Pelosi and Biden start whipping. But even if only 20 progressives oppose the bill, that means the party is going to have to rely on Republicans to pass it, since Pelosi can lose only three votes.

That could be a real problem. Leadership aides have openly acknowledged they don’t know if they have the votes to pass it. While 19 Republicans backed the BIF in the Senate, few expect that level of support to translate to the House, where DONALD TRUMP’s hold on GOP members is much stronger.

Perhaps you're an optimist and think these threats are the kind of posturing you’d expect with major legislation, and that Democrats will ultimately figure it out because the alternative would be a lot worse. It could happen! But at this moment, it does not look promising.

[The Reformed American Republic]

It's accurate though. Plus, the GOP would bypass the filibuster or try some other sneaky method to wield power if they only had a slim majority.

it really isn't. It paints a broad brush of everybody being only interested in immediate gain, and perfectly willing to tear down the institutions to get it. While it's certainly true of some of our elected leaders on both sides, claiming everybody thinking that way is not only cravenly cynical, but a bad faith attempt to side step having to actually deal with the posters point.

We aren't living in a good political era.

[Kowani]

SCOTUS to hear Mississippi's direct challenge to Roe v. Wade on December first

[Thermodolia]

To which point are you responding too?

The difference between rcv and Irv?

Oh. Well RCV stands for Ranked Choice Voting, which covers things like condorcet voting and STV or any other system which ranks votes.

IRV or Instant-Runoff Voting is what you primarily support, where you rank candidates 1 through whatever for a single office

[San Lumen]

SCOTUS to hear Mississippi's direct challenge to Roe v. Wade on December first

I think they are going to overturn Roe but tailor it in such a way as to allow states to decide.

[Thermodolia]

Fun fact, when the Dems win back the Senate there's nothing stopping them too. And certain programs have become the third rail, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

When the republicans win, everyone's gonna be like: NOOOOOOOOO BRING BACK THE FILIBUSTER!!!!!!!!

Which is why we should reform the filibuster back to just talking

[Immortan Khan]

Fun fact, when the Dems win back the Senate there's nothing stopping them too. And certain programs have become the third rail, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

When the republicans win, everyone's gonna be like: NOOOOOOOOO BRING BACK THE FILIBUSTER!!!!!!!!

Very true.

[San Lumen]

When the republicans win, everyone's gonna be like: NOOOOOOOOO BRING BACK THE FILIBUSTER!!!!!!!!

Which is why we should reform the filibuster back to just talking

It never should have been changed from that.

[Thermodolia]

Getting rid of the filibuster be like:
Every body Gangsta till the republicans win the senate and pass all the laws the dems don't like.

Well, 1) The filibuster doesn't actually prevent that, because the Democrats are unwilling to use it effectively. (e.g,, the survival of Obamacare hinged on McCain's vote, not a Democratic filibuster.)

2) The Republicans have shown willingness to trim back the filibuster when they need to in order to push through parts of their agenda. (e.g. stacking the courts)

Keep in mind that the GOP only did that after the democrats previously removed the filibuster for all judicial appointees outside of SCOTUS. Then the GOP did the final straw.