just WOW

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...agenda-schadenfreude

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just WOW

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...agenda-schadenfreude

And you're surprised?

Joe Manchin always supported the filibuster.

Ultimately, I do as well. It forces compromise and no-partisanship to move matters through.

It is a rule of procedure created by the Senate. The Constitution does not demand it.

If the GOP or the Dems want to kill it out right w a majority, go for it.

The matter can then be presented to the people in the next election.

I will say removing the filibuster as a procedure of the Senate is not very conservative.


The Senste already no long requires the filibustering Senator(s) to even speak. In the good ole days, they literally had to keep talking. If they quit talking bf a the bill was withdrawn, the filibuster ended. If folks had to lesson to Sen. Ted Cruz until 2 in the morning, some filibusters might get broke by the vote to end that particular filibuster, and advance the bill.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Joe Manchin always supported the filibuster.

Ultimately, I do as well. It forces compromise and no-partisanship to move matters through.

It is a rule of procedure created by the Senate. The Constitution does not demand it.

If the GOP or the Dems want to kill it out right w a majority, go for it.

The matter can then be presented to the people in the next election.

I will say removing the filibuster as a procedure of the Senate is not very conservative.


The Senste already no long requires the filibustering Senator(s) to even speak. In the good ole days, they literally had to keep talking. If they quit talking bf a the bill was withdrawn, the filibuster ended. If folks had to lesson to Sen. Ted Cruz until 2 in the morning, some filibusters might get broke by the vote to end that particular filibuster, and advance the bill.

Conceptually, I agree. However, the Democrats were going to use it to install favorable voting regulations that would insure they never lost another election, thus nullifying the ability of the voters to vote out undesirable candidate.

I'll add a coulee examples of what they had planned.

Stacking the SCOTUS and making DC and Puerto Rico states, thus adding 4 extremely liberal Senators. And god knows how many House Representatives.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Joe Manchin always supported the filibuster.

Ultimately, I do as well. It forces compromise and no-partisanship to move matters through.

It is a rule of procedure created by the Senate. The Constitution does not demand it.

If the GOP or the Dems want to kill it out right w a majority, go for it.

The matter can then be presented to the people in the next election.

I will say removing the filibuster as a procedure of the Senate is not very conservative.


The Senste already no long requires the filibustering Senator(s) to even speak. In the good ole days, they literally had to keep talking. If they quit talking bf a the bill was withdrawn, the filibuster ended. If folks had to lesson to Sen. Ted Cruz until 2 in the morning, some filibusters might get broke by the vote to end that particular filibuster, and advance the bill.

Conceptually, I agree. However, the Democrats were going to use it to install favorable voting regulations that would insure they never lost another election, thus nullifying the ability of the voters to vote out undesirable candidate.

Congress does not and cannot pass regulations. Regs are the purview of the Executive Branch. The Dems did not kill off the Filibuster.

You say the Dems were. The Dems with their majority did not modify or limit the Filibuster w their majority. That was in large part because of one Dem, Joe Manchin. Your statement does not cover factual water.

The GOP is the last party to walk back Filibuster rules to get Fed judges approved after blocking President Obama’s nominations.

The GOP is the worse actor here, if you care about the Filibuster of the two.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Joe Manchin always supported the filibuster.

Ultimately, I do as well. It forces compromise and no-partisanship to move matters through.

It is a rule of procedure created by the Senate. The Constitution does not demand it.

If the GOP or the Dems want to kill it out right w a majority, go for it.

The matter can then be presented to the people in the next election.

I will say removing the filibuster as a procedure of the Senate is not very conservative.


The Senste already no long requires the filibustering Senator(s) to even speak. In the good ole days, they literally had to keep talking. If they quit talking bf a the bill was withdrawn, the filibuster ended. If folks had to lesson to Sen. Ted Cruz until 2 in the morning, some filibusters might get broke by the vote to end that particular filibuster, and advance the bill.

Conceptually, I agree. However, the Democrats were going to use it to install favorable voting regulations that would insure they never lost another election, thus nullifying the ability of the voters to vote out undesirable candidate.

Congress does not and cannot pass regulations. Regs are the purview of the Executive Branch. The Dems did not kill off the Filibuster.

You say the Dems were. The Dems with their majority did not modify or limit the Filibuster w their majority. That was in large part because of one Dem, Joe Manchin. Your statement does not cover factual water.

The GOP is the last party to walk back Filibuster rules to get Fed judges approved after blocking President Obama’s nominations.

The GOP is the worse actor here, if you care about the Filibuster of the two.

Your telling half truth's. The Dems wanted Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema to vote for both statehood and ending the Filibuster, and you know it. THAT is the reason Sinema changed he affiliation to I and didn't run for another term.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13...ng-rights/index.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...he-democratic-party/

I always bring receipts.

. . . in 2018 Trump called for the elimination of the filibuster. Imagine that, whether a party is in power or out of power impacts their view of the filibuster . . . just WOW.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . in 2018 Trump called for the elimination of the filibuster. Imagine that, whether a party is in power or out of power impacts their view of the filibuster . . . just WOW.

I didn't realize that the President has the power to end the filibuster? Wow...who knew.


As opposed to a party that had both the power and authority to do so. Only two Independent Senators stopped it.

Washington 51st State Bill.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...-51st-state-n1255841

I always bring receipts.

. . . called for is the phrase you must’ve missed . . . and he called for it in a meeting with GOP Senators.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . called for is the phrase you must’ve missed . . . and he called for it in a meeting with GOP Senators.

I'll do something you never do.

I WOULD HAVE OPPOSED IT...PERIOD. Trump doesn't represent everything I believe in.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Joe Manchin always supported the filibuster.

Ultimately, I do as well. It forces compromise and no-partisanship to move matters through.

It is a rule of procedure created by the Senate. The Constitution does not demand it.

If the GOP or the Dems want to kill it out right w a majority, go for it.

The matter can then be presented to the people in the next election.

I will say removing the filibuster as a procedure of the Senate is not very conservative.


The Senste already no long requires the filibustering Senator(s) to even speak. In the good ole days, they literally had to keep talking. If they quit talking bf a the bill was withdrawn, the filibuster ended. If folks had to lesson to Sen. Ted Cruz until 2 in the morning, some filibusters might get broke by the vote to end that particular filibuster, and advance the bill.

Conceptually, I agree. However, the Democrats were going to use it to install favorable voting regulations that would insure they never lost another election, thus nullifying the ability of the voters to vote out undesirable candidate.

Congress does not and cannot pass regulations. Regs are the purview of the Executive Branch. The Dems did not kill off the Filibuster.

You say the Dems were. The Dems with their majority did not modify or limit the Filibuster w their majority. That was in large part because of one Dem, Joe Manchin. Your statement does not cover factual water.

The GOP is the last party to walk back Filibuster rules to get Fed judges approved after blocking President Obama’s nominations.

The GOP is the worse actor here, if you care about the Filibuster of the two.

Your telling half truth's. The Dems wanted Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema to vote for both statehood and ending the Filibuster, and you know it. THAT is the reason Sinema changed he affiliation to I and didn't run for another term.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13...ng-rights/index.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...he-democratic-party/

I always bring receipts.

Man him did not. Like I said the Filbuster was saved by one person. I Dem Senator.

There is no half truth in that nor Joe the GOO used its majority to restrict the filibuster to push judicial nominations after blocking judicial nominations when they were the minority.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . called for is the phrase you must’ve missed . . . and he called for it in a meeting with GOP Senators.

I'll do something you never do.

I WOULD HAVE OPPOSED IT...PERIOD. Trump doesn't represent everything I believe in.

I call far more shots down the middle than you have of late. For the record, I support the filibuster and always have. I also favor a split government with neither party in control of all branches. I oppose increasing the size of the Supreme Court. I thought the Trump impeachments were a complete waste of time and money. I thought Trump deserved a honest chance his first term and was encouraged by his cabinet picks . . . until he fired them all for disagreeing with him. Candidly there are several here who like to espouse being untethered to either side of the aisle and then defend one side of the aisle come rain or shine. I’m not one.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . called for is the phrase you must’ve missed . . . and he called for it in a meeting with GOP Senators.

I'll do something you never do.

I WOULD HAVE OPPOSED IT...PERIOD. Trump doesn't represent everything I believe in.

I call far more shots down the middle than you have of late. For the record, I support the filibuster and always have. I also favor a split government with neither party in control of all branches. I oppose increasing the size of the Supreme Court. I thought the Trump impeachments were a complete waste of time and money. I thought Trump deserved a honest chance his first term and was encouraged by his cabinet picks . . . until he fired them all for disagreeing with him. Candidly there are several here who like to espouse being untethered to either side of the aisle and then defend one side of the aisle come rain or shine. I’m not one.

Ok, I'll not dispute you and take you at your word. However, your obvious and on display dislike for Trump voters is a curiosity.

MAGAt's?

Trump; I've stated many times before that I find him to be a reprobate. He openly mocked the disabled reporter who has CP. My son has CP. How do you think that makes me feel?

I've been faithful to my one and only wife for 42 years. ANYONE who not only has extramaritail affairs, specially one while your beautiful wife is pregnant, deserves no respect.

I believe the stories about not paying contractors in NYC.

However, I do not believe the stories about "losers and suckers". He shows a love and deference to our brave military.

All this said, my vote was voting against all those things I've openly stated, numerous times. Do not read it as anything but what it is, not a vote of supporting Trumps character.

An election, so consequential, you just cannot afford to sit on your hands, either way.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . called for is the phrase you must’ve missed . . . and he called for it in a meeting with GOP Senators.

I'll do something you never do.

I WOULD HAVE OPPOSED IT...PERIOD. Trump doesn't represent everything I believe in.

I call far more shots down the middle than you have of late. For the record, I support the filibuster and always have. I also favor a split government with neither party in control of all branches. I oppose increasing the size of the Supreme Court. I thought the Trump impeachments were a complete waste of time and money. I thought Trump deserved a honest chance his first term and was encouraged by his cabinet picks . . . until he fired them all for disagreeing with him. Candidly there are several here who like to espouse being untethered to either side of the aisle and then defend one side of the aisle come rain or shine. I’m not one.

Ok, I'll not dispute you and take you at your word. However, your obvious and on display dislike for Trump voters is a curiosity.

MAGAt's?

Trump; I've stated many times before that I find him to be a reprobate. He openly mocked the disabled reporter who has CP. My son has CP. How do you think that makes me feel?

I've been faithful to my one and only wife for 42 years. ANYONE who not only has extramaritail affairs, specially one while your beautiful wife is pregnant, deserves no respect.

I believe the stories about not paying contractors in NYC.

However, I do not believe the stories about "losers and suckers". He shows a love and deference to our brave military.

All this said, my vote was voting against all those things I've openly stated, numerous times. Do not read it as anything but what it is, not a vote of supporting Trumps character.

An election, so consequential, you just cannot afford to sit on your hands, either way.

People world wide say stupid things. Just look at what many here write. Not a single anti-trumper here can deny they have never personally written lies, copy and paste twisted words, or made their personal opinions as if they were truth concerning trump or any other opposing political figure.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

However, your obvious and on display dislike for Trump voters is a curiosity.

Nothing curious to it. I have this naive view that character matters in a man. Same with integrity. Likewise with honesty. Fidelity is a virtue and one lost on many today. Loyalty as well. When I see a man devoid of all the foregoing, I find that disturbing. When that person is the leader of the free world it is worse than disturbing it is deeply troubling. Therefore when I see people that support and advocate for such a person, and defend the actions of such a person, it makes me question their character, integrity, honesty, loyalty and fidelity. If they valued those virtues, how could they support and defend such a person . . . and many of those people obviously supported the man in the primary since he was the party’s candidate.

[Congrats on your marriage by the way. My wife and I celebrated our 44th anniversary this year.]

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:


People world wide say stupid things. Just look at what many here write. Not a single anti-trumper here can deny they have never personally written lies, copy and paste twisted words, or made their personal opinions as if they were truth concerning trump or any other opposing political figure.

Your point?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:


People world wide say stupid things. Just look at what many here write. Not a single anti-trumper here can deny they have never personally written lies, copy and paste twisted words, or made their personal opinions as if they were truth concerning trump or any other opposing political figure.

Your point?

I made it as clear as possible.

If you recall properly, it was Harry Reid, a democrat who changed the rules in what was termed the nuclear option that changed the longstanding rules of the Senate.

I’ve said here for quite some time that I feel the GOP has rammed a bunch through to show the democrats the error of their ways with this, and that they should go bact to the pre Reid rules of the senate.

That being said, given the democrat penchant for running roughshod over a Republican minority, you need to do better than saying “it’s not fair to my side” to convince folks who were the victims of this abuse that now you give it up before you can get yours back.

The GOP has an opportunity. They need to be the adults in the room. They have the majority on their side, so giving up some of the autocratic control the Dems used in a very even senate and keeping it in the public eye will result in making America great AGAIN(emphasis mine) as opposed to continuing this politics as usual winner take all for 2 years.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Joe Manchin always supported the filibuster.

Ultimately, I do as well. It forces compromise and no-partisanship to move matters through.

It is a rule of procedure created by the Senate. The Constitution does not demand it.

If the GOP or the Dems want to kill it out right w a majority, go for it.

The matter can then be presented to the people in the next election.

I will say removing the filibuster as a procedure of the Senate is not very conservative.


The Senste already no long requires the filibustering Senator(s) to even speak. In the good ole days, they literally had to keep talking. If they quit talking bf a the bill was withdrawn, the filibuster ended. If folks had to lesson to Sen. Ted Cruz until 2 in the morning, some filibusters might get broke by the vote to end that particular filibuster, and advance the bill.

Conceptually, I agree. However, the Democrats were going to use it to install favorable voting regulations that would insure they never lost another election, thus nullifying the ability of the voters to vote out undesirable candidate.

Congress does not and cannot pass regulations. Regs are the purview of the Executive Branch. The Dems did not kill off the Filibuster.

You say the Dems were. The Dems with their majority did not modify or limit the Filibuster w their majority. That was in large part because of one Dem, Joe Manchin. Your statement does not cover factual water.

The GOP is the last party to walk back Filibuster rules to get Fed judges approved after blocking President Obama’s nominations.

The GOP is the worse actor here, if you care about the Filibuster of the two.

Your telling half truth's. The Dems wanted Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema to vote for both statehood and ending the Filibuster, and you know it. THAT is the reason Sinema changed he affiliation to I and didn't run for another term.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13...ng-rights/index.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...he-democratic-party/

I always bring receipts.

Man him did not. Like I said the Filbuster was saved by one person. I Dem Senator.

There is no half truth in that nor Joe the GOO used its majority to restrict the filibuster to push judicial nominations after blocking judicial nominations when they were the minority.