IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th October 2021, 10:12 AM   #1
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,142
No filibuster need for debt limit

GOP doesn't want to help the Democrats lift the debt ceiling. That's fine.

All they have to do is make sure none of their members object to a vote, forcing 60 votes to end debate, and bill can pass with 51 votes. No need for Reconciliation.

Will the GOP do this? If not, it shows they really want the nation to default, which is really sick.

And if they keep objecting to a vote, forcing a filibuster and 60 votes to break it, Dems should indeed just kill the filibuster for raising the debt ceiling.

Last edited by Hercules56; 6th October 2021 at 10:17 AM.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 03:11 PM   #2
Lennart Hyland
Muse
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 623
When is it okay to vote NO for raising the dept ceiling?
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman
Lennart Hyland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 03:19 PM   #3
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Why bother even considering the filibuster. It's a non-obligatory notional concept that has no backing in law. Ignore it, get on with the business of government.

And while the Dems are dealing with the economy, they could also pass anti-gerrymander and anti voter suppression laws. Stop REDMAP dead. THAT is what the GOP are scared of. They know that without the cheating, they are dead meat forever.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 04:09 PM   #4
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,142
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Why bother even considering the filibuster. It's a non-obligatory notional concept that has no backing in law. Ignore it, get on with the business of government.

And while the Dems are dealing with the economy, they could also pass anti-gerrymander and anti voter suppression laws. Stop REDMAP dead. THAT is what the GOP are scared of. They know that without the cheating, they are dead meat forever.
Well, can't ignore the filibuster as its currently written. But they could vote to get rid of it with 51 votes. But what do we do when an extremist GOP takes over the WH and Congress again? Without the filibuster they will pass some very scary ****.

So, sadly, I support keeping the filibuster in some fashion. Or maybe at least get rid of the silent filibuster and actually force Senators to speak to maintain one.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 06:05 PM   #5
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Well, can't ignore the filibuster as its currently written. But they could vote to get rid of it with 51 votes. But what do we do when an extremist GOP takes over the WH and Congress again? Without the filibuster they will pass some very scary ****.
Yes you can ignore it. If it can be voted to ignore it then it is hardly immutable. All it is now is a convenient sticking point for the GOP to block stuff. A veritable line in the sand, a pinkie-swear. So just punt the thing. Step over that line - nothing will change for the worse as a result.

Quote:
So, sadly, I support keeping the filibuster in some fashion. Or maybe at least get rid of the silent filibuster and actually force Senators to speak to maintain one.
Sure, but the GOP will do that anyway without a second thought. They will ignore anything and everything they need to to get their way. I believe they have done so before.

For goodness sake, grow a set, Dems.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 06:33 PM   #6
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,283
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Well, can't ignore the filibuster as its currently written. But they could vote to get rid of it with 51 votes. But what do we do when an extremist GOP takes over the WH and Congress again? Without the filibuster they will pass some very scary ****.

So, sadly, I support keeping the filibuster in some fashion. Or maybe at least get rid of the silent filibuster and actually force Senators to speak to maintain one.
Ditch it. The founding fathers were right, a supermajority requirement is stupid. Right now the filibuster is a powerful weapon in the hands of whoever wants to do nothing. The 70-30 Senate is coming soon, and having a supermajority requirement piled on top of that is just begging for dysfunction.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 01:21 AM   #7
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,424
I can't really understand the purpose of the filibuster, it looks like madness to me.

We have a 120 seat parliament - 61 votes passes any and all legislation.

The UK Commons has 650 seats, 326 votes moves legislation to the Lords, which has 788 seats - 395 votes passes legislation

The Australian Parliament has 151 seats, 76 votes moves legislation to the Senate, which has 76 seats, 39 votes passes the legislation.

I can think of no other western democracy that hamstrings its government by allowing the minority party to block everything.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 01:47 AM   #8
Susheel
Master Poster
 
Susheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 2,424
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can't really understand the purpose of the filibuster, it looks like madness to me.

We have a 120 seat parliament - 61 votes passes any and all legislation.

The UK Commons has 650 seats, 326 votes moves legislation to the Lords, which has 788 seats - 395 votes passes legislation

The Australian Parliament has 151 seats, 76 votes moves legislation to the Senate, which has 76 seats, 39 votes passes the legislation.

I can think of no other western democracy that hamstrings its government by allowing the minority party to block everything.
If I have understood correctly, they don't even have to take the pains to actually stand and speak until the deadline passes, they just have to announce they will do so.
__________________
I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon
Susheel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 02:27 AM   #9
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 14,738
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can't really understand the purpose of the filibuster, it looks like madness to me.

We have a 120 seat parliament - 61 votes passes any and all legislation.

The UK Commons has 650 seats, 326 votes moves legislation to the Lords, which has 788 seats - 395 votes passes legislation

The Australian Parliament has 151 seats, 76 votes moves legislation to the Senate, which has 76 seats, 39 votes passes the legislation.

I can think of no other western democracy that hamstrings its government by allowing the minority party to block everything.
Yeah - for regular legislation. Changing the constitution (yes, it can be done in some - perhaps most -countries) may require a significant majority. (If my memory serves, for us the majority needed is either 2/3 in two consecutive parliaments or 5/6 for an immediate change. The parliament has 200 seats, and right now we have three parties large enough to block an immediate change by themselves.)
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 05:28 AM   #10
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,142
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Yes you can ignore it. If it can be voted to ignore it then it is hardly immutable. All it is now is a convenient sticking point for the GOP to block stuff. A veritable line in the sand, a pinkie-swear. So just punt the thing. Step over that line - nothing will change for the worse as a result.

Sure, but the GOP will do that anyway without a second thought. They will ignore anything and everything they need to to get their way. I believe they have done so before.

For goodness sake, grow a set, Dems.
Dems can get rid of or severely amend the filibuster rule, but once its been acted upon they can't simply "ignore" it.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 05:36 AM   #11
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Dems can get rid of or severely amend the filibuster rule, but once its been acted upon they can't simply "ignore" it.
What prevents them from doing so? Suspend the senate while a procedural motion is taken to eliminate the filibuster rule. Passes, done, move on to push the legislation you want.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 07:32 AM   #12
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,294
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can't really understand the purpose of the filibuster, it looks like madness to me.

We have a 120 seat parliament - 61 votes passes any and all legislation.

The UK Commons has 650 seats, 326 votes moves legislation to the Lords, which has 788 seats - 395 votes passes legislation

The Australian Parliament has 151 seats, 76 votes moves legislation to the Senate, which has 76 seats, 39 votes passes the legislation.

I can think of no other western democracy that hamstrings its government by allowing the minority party to block everything.
51 votes still passes all legislation in the Senate. It is a myth that the filibuster changes that.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 07:38 AM   #13
ZiprHead
Critical Thinker
 
ZiprHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sag-Nasty
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Well, can't ignore the filibuster as its currently written. But they could vote to get rid of it with 51 votes. But what do we do when an extremist GOP takes over the WH and Congress again? Without the filibuster they will pass some very scary ****.
I have no problem with that. Let the Republicans show the world their true colors. When their policies start to affect people who generally do not pay attention to politics they will react and vote against them.

That's what happened in 2020 with Trump.
__________________
When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.
ZiprHead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 07:43 AM   #14
ZiprHead
Critical Thinker
 
ZiprHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sag-Nasty
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can't really understand the purpose of the filibuster, it looks like madness to me.

We have a 120 seat parliament - 61 votes passes any and all legislation.

The UK Commons has 650 seats, 326 votes moves legislation to the Lords, which has 788 seats - 395 votes passes legislation

The Australian Parliament has 151 seats, 76 votes moves legislation to the Senate, which has 76 seats, 39 votes passes the legislation.

I can think of no other western democracy that hamstrings its government by allowing the minority party to block everything.
Senate Filibuster Was Created By Mistake

"However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain.

The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.

What happened to the Senate’s rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.

Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.

Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837."
__________________
When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.
ZiprHead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 08:05 AM   #15
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,793
There shouldn't be a debt ceiling anyway. If the bills were already passed and the debt is there the treasuy (if that is who actually pays) should be able to pay.

But since there is a debt ceiling are the democrats only asking for it to be raised enough to handle existing debt or are they looking for more.

My guess is both sides are playing games as usual.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 08:10 AM   #16
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 16,151
The current need to increase the debt ceiling is entirely due to the Trump years spending.
No doubt the ceiling will have to be raised again during the Biden term due to Democrat tax and spending policies, but for now, Republicans are refusing to raise the money they've already spent.
__________________
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 09:37 AM   #17
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,793
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The current need to increase the debt ceiling is entirely due to the Trump years spending.
No doubt the ceiling will have to be raised again during the Biden term due to Democrat tax and spending policies, but for now, Republicans are refusing to raise the money they've already spent.
But are they only asking to have it raised for that amount or is the request to suspend it temporarily.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 09:42 AM   #18
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 16,151
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
But are they only asking to have it raised for that amount or is the request to suspend it temporarily.

The debt ceiling is being raised in line with the current budget.
The Biden Infrastructure bill is not counted in, as it hasn't passed yet.
__________________
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 10:57 AM   #19
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth
Posts: 13,967
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
When is it okay to vote NO for raising the dept ceiling?
Pretty much never. Congress already authorized this spending. It's ridiculous to vote on it again after the fact.
__________________
Religion and sex are powerplays.
Manipulate the people for the money they pay.
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards.
ZirconBlue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 10:58 AM   #20
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,402
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Well, can't ignore the filibuster as its currently written. But they could vote to get rid of it with 51 votes. But what do we do when an extremist GOP takes over the WH and Congress again? Without the filibuster they will pass some very scary ****.
That's not hypothetical. Republicans did it the last time they were in power. And guess what. Thanks to the filibuster, they have a better chance to regain power and just do what they did only worse.

Quote:
So, sadly, I support keeping the filibuster in some fashion. Or maybe at least get rid of the silent filibuster and actually force Senators to speak to maintain one.
McConnell has opposed even that type of change. Why not just go big?
__________________
SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 10:59 AM   #21
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 35,656
Congress is a little too much in love with it's own mythology, this idea that everything they do is super-serious (which is true) therefore it has to be full of pomp and circumstance and very deliberate procedural order (which is nonsense.)

But yeah I've long been on team "The filibuster literally sounds like what 5 year old would come up with when told how to win a debate."
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 11:11 AM   #22
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,874
There is a purpose to filibuster (or, as I know it, motions for cloture).

Every program created or expenditure made can be unmade just as easily. Without the ability for the party out of power to protect new systems it created, we would go lurching back and forth with every momentary change of public opinion. Sure, the house voted dozens of times to repeal the ACA. Thankfully those bills never reached the floor in the Senate.

Why? because of cloture.

Rules of order aren't the problem, that's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem remains woefully ignorant voters and politicians who exploit them.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 11:15 AM   #23
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 35,656
If only the Father of the Country had begged us to not let political party's take charge of politics in American because that was going to happen...

Whenever I hear some political skullduggery that does nothing but slow down the process by a group of politicians putting rules on themselves so they can limit the amount of damage they can do being defended via "Well we have to have it to protect us from political parties!" I have to sit down until the headache goes away.
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 11:29 AM   #24
Hercules56
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,142
Democrats should take the bait, and use Reconciliation to extend the Debt Limit to 2031.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 12:57 PM   #25
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Democrats should take the bait, and use Reconciliation to extend the Debt Limit to 2031.
I would be happy if they would just tie it to something that measurably changes every year - inflation, % of GDP, something like that.

That would actually give them a real limit, but also allow for real world growth without near-annual political drama over what is inventible.


(Do the same with minimum wage and federal salaries, but those would be subject of different threads regarding logic-based governance.)
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 01:18 PM   #26
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,294
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
There is a purpose to filibuster (or, as I know it, motions for cloture).

Every program created or expenditure made can be unmade just as easily. Without the ability for the party out of power to protect new systems it created, we would go lurching back and forth with every momentary change of public opinion. Sure, the house voted dozens of times to repeal the ACA. Thankfully those bills never reached the floor in the Senate.

Why? because of cloture.

Rules of order aren't the problem, that's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem remains woefully ignorant voters and politicians who exploit them.
I don't hear about this being a huge problem for parliaments without an equivalent rule.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 02:01 PM   #27
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,424
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
There is a purpose to filibuster (or, as I know it, motions for cloture).

Every program created or expenditure made can be unmade just as easily. Without the ability for the party out of power to protect new systems it created, we would go lurching back and forth with every momentary change of public opinion. Sure, the house voted dozens of times to repeal the ACA. Thankfully those bills never reached the floor in the Senate.

Why? because of cloture.

Rules of order aren't the problem, that's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem remains woefully ignorant voters and politicians who exploit them.
This literally does not happen in any other western democracy. If it happens there, then your system is broken.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 02:50 PM   #28
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 35,656
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This literally does not happen in any other western democracy. If it happens there, then your system is broken.
"We have to undo what the other side did or else we'll lose our base" is not part of other Western Democracies.
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 04:58 PM   #29
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"We have to undo what the other side did or else we'll lose our base" is not part of other Western Democracies.
Uh yeah, it sure is! Part and parcel. So much mud slung we could build another Tasmania every year.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 05:22 PM   #30
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,422
Lightbulb

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can't really understand the purpose of the filibuster, it looks like madness to me.

We have a 120 seat parliament - 61 votes passes any and all legislation.

The UK Commons has 650 seats, 326 votes moves legislation to the Lords, which has 788 seats - 395 votes passes legislation

The Australian Parliament has 151 seats, 76 votes moves legislation to the Senate, which has 76 seats, 39 votes passes the legislation.

I can think of no other western democracy that hamstrings its government by allowing the minority party to block everything.
Brexit.

It is often better to do nothing, or do only small things that are widely supported, than to push through a major and contentious change by a slim majority in the face of a significant electoral opposition.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 05:34 PM   #31
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,294
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Brexit.

It is often better to do nothing, or do only small things that are widely supported, than to push through a major and contentious change by a slim majority in the face of a significant electoral opposition.
If greater than 50% can't push through something contentious, that means a less than 50% are able to maintain their contentious preference. That is worse.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 05:39 PM   #32
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 43,963
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Uh yeah, it sure is! Part and parcel. So much mud slung we could build another Tasmania every year.
Tasmania is a non-standard Australian measurement. The measurement in British units would be "4.368 Wales," and in American units "74.759 Rhode Islands."
__________________
Every time you feed a troll, God kills a kitten. Please stop killing kittens.

I used to think that Republicans were just jerks. Now I'm convinced that they're all sick, evil, twisted pieces of [first of George Carlin's seven dirty words].

"Biden's a Commie, like the Rockefellers!" -- some idiot overheard

Last edited by shemp; 7th October 2021 at 05:42 PM.
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 08:07 PM   #33
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
Tasmania is a non-standard Australian measurement. The measurement in British units would be "4.368 Wales," and in American units "74.759 Rhode Islands."
In avoirdupois, 4-5/8 Wales, or 74-3/4 Rhode Islands.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 08:09 PM   #34
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Brexit.

It is often better to do nothing, or do only small things that are widely supported, than to push through a major and contentious change by a slim majority in the face of a significant electoral opposition.
That's only an example of something obviously wrong and going wronger. Would Brexit have been any less catastrophic had 80%-plus of the UK parliament had supported it?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 08:46 PM   #35
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,312
I think the filibuster is an important tool to force compromise. To keep it from being an easy method of simple obstruction, I favor a change to make it an expendable resource, like a time out. Or something that comes at a meaningful effort or cost.

I certainly missed the cabinet filibuster when DeVos was nominated. Or when ACB was nominated to SCOTUS.

Heck, at least once upon a time you had to keep a guy up there talking. Now you can just say you're filibustering for it to count. It needs to be something that you can use, but that you wouldn't want to use every time.
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 7th October 2021 at 08:48 PM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 08:48 PM   #36
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,294
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I think the filibuster is an important tool to force compromise. To keep it from being an easy method of simple obstruction, I favor a change to make it an expendable resource, like a time out. Or something that comes at a meaningful effort or cost.

Heck, at least once upon a time you had to keep a guy up there talking. Now you can just say you're filibustering for it to count. It needs to be something that you can use, but that you wouldn't want to use every time.
Except while 59 people are trying to compromise with the 60th, that means there are 41 people not compromising and getting their way....they get to maintain their preferred status quo without giving up anything to keep it.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2021, 02:52 AM   #37
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 32,577
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Brexit.
In 2016, if there had been a vote in parliament, then Brexit would have been roundly defeated. Remaining in the EU was the policy of Labour and LibDems and also had the support of the Conservative leader.

It was a narrow victory in a referendum which started Brexit and five years of bungling and attempting to square a circle that got the UK to our current sorry state.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2021, 06:42 AM   #38
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Except while 59 people are trying to compromise with the 60th, that means there are 41 people not compromising and getting their way....they get to maintain their preferred status quo without giving up anything to keep it.
Sure - but if we somehow make if difficult or costly to do a filibuster then those 41 are at least needing to put in time and effort.

I mean, it used to take a smaller group to cause a filibuster (1/3 of the Senate), but they had to keep talking the whole time and the Senate could not address any other business while that was happening. It was difficult to maintain the filibuster for any length of time, and blocking all Senate business put those senators under enormous pressure.

Now it just takes one email from one Senate staffer to trigger one. Everything else just keeps moving along. It is much, much too easy.

Let's at least make it hard. Make it the last ditch effort to block a thing, instead of the default easy way to block everything.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2021, 06:44 AM   #39
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 35,656
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I think the filibuster is an important tool to force compromise.
I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of Mitch McConnell laughing, could you repeat that?
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2021, 07:50 AM   #40
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,294
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of Mitch McConnell laughing, could you repeat that?
Mitch McConnell would definitely compromise. Do you think Mitch would turn down the infrastructure deal in exchange for the resignation of Biden and Harris?

You can compromise on nearly anything with a big enough offer.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.