The Bama Girls Looked So SmartFollow

I agree. The conservatives are ruining everything.

Sure. Obama has shown that he is only able of getting things done when he only has to get the cooperation of people who already agree with him. He's shown absolutely zero ability to work with anyone who doesn't. Which honestly shouldn't surprise us. His entire work history consisted of working only with people who all agreed with him. He's never needed to actually win someone over to his position, nor to find common ground and agreement with those who disagreed with him in any substantial way.

I suspect he honestly doesn't know how to compromise. It's not even a matter of him not wanting to. He's like a child who's always gotten exactly what he wanted one day running into someone who says "no", and has absolutely no clue what to do at that point. He has no experience with it. The very concept of having to work with anyone who doesn't just automatically give him whatever he wants is foreign to him. So it's not surprising that partisan gridlock has been nearly absolute since he's taken office.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 2:47pm by gbaji

I'm sure he does, I'm sure they all do. But until compromise is what gets them elected, there's no reason to sell out your supporters for the greater good. No evil empire to scare us into unity these days I suppose.

Sounds like the world needs a good, alien invasion. Maybe The Borg will happen by.

After the 50th time they've passed a budget bill to the Senate and had Harry Reid simply ignore it and not put it on the schedule for a vote, what do you expect them to do? At some point, you kinda have to point to the other guy and ask "Ok. If you don't like my ideas, what ideas do you have?".



It's pretty much anything of consequence. The hold up in our congress is not in the House. It's in the Senate. The Dems have realized that any solution they propose will cost them votes by moderates or votes by liberals, so they've chosen to just not do anything at all. By not voting they aren't held to any position on anything. Failing to govern has become their best course of action.



If those were the only bills not going anywhere in the Senate, you'd have a point.

I'll take that seriously the second you find me a post from yourself on this forum arguing to remove the filibuster dated anytime between 2001 and 2005. Until then, can we safely assume that this is complete BS?


I'll also point out that these are bills passed by the GOP in the House and handed to the Senate. The question of a filibuster (by the GOP) isn't relevant. The reason Reid doesn't want these coming to a vote is because it would force his own party members to have to vote on the record against balancing the budget, or cutting taxes, or whatever other publicly popular things the GOP is proposing but the Democrats don't want to pass. The reality is that the bills the GOP is passing in the House have greater public support than what the Dems are doing right now. But the Dems don't want to appear to be the ones blocking the will of the people, so they just don't bring them to a vote and hope no one notices.

It's not a filibuster thing. It's a "we don't want to be seen on the record opposing what the people want, cause it'll cost us votes" thing. The Democrats aren't governing, they are campaigning. And that's why nothing is getting done. There are hard choices which need to be made, and they've realized that they look better by doing nothing at all than by taking any position at all on those choices. That's why nothing has gotten done.

Does it? Does it really?

Sadly it does. I should also note that it amazes me that I am stupid enough to think that Gbaji will eventually realize what a moron he is.

Edited down to the actual part that matters.

Legislation is intended to pass the Senate with 51 votes (or 50+VP), not 60 votes which has become the norm. Hell, media doesn't even bother to report on the filibusters anymore. They just say "Such and such bill failed in the Senate with only 55 votes" as though that's the norm. I guess these days it is the new norm. But it shouldn't be.

It doesn't really happen that way anyway. And if the balance has shifted to the extent that both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch have majorities opposed to what came a year or two before, well, there's probably a good reason for it and it's what the public wants. Not to have 41 Senators out of a hundred block it from happening.

I won't say it never has a place which is why I said "reform or eliminate", just that it's used far too often (needless to say, especially as of late). If I had to make a binary choice between "Keep the barrier for legislation at 60 votes" or "Do away with the filibuster entirely", I'd easily choose the latter.

I won't say it never has a place which is why I said "reform or eliminate", just that it's used far too often (needless to say, especially as of late). If I had to make a binary choice between "Keep the barrier for legislation at 60 votes" or "Do away with the filibuster entirely", I'd easily choose the latter.

I wouldn't. Minority party power is an important check against wild swings in legislation from congress to congress. Even though it's also used for occasional rampant douchebaggery, it's far too import to eliminate. The modern parliamentary process is ****** and corrupt, but the 60 vote threshold isn't why.

Of course not. They could read the phone book from downtown Hong Kong for all I care. Just something more than "We're going to filibuster, who wants Quisnos?"