They already have for Judicial appts remember? The Dems did that. The filibuster can go at any time.
Former Trump administration official Kellyanne Conway registers as lobbyist for Ukrainian billionaire with past ties to Trump
- Thread starter bver_hunter
- Start date
Doesn't matter, they didn't start it and when the US decides to go to war, it must be in a unified front for maximum strength but you know that.U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session
roll_call_vote.xmlwww.senate.gov
Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
To get the money Congress has to approve it. Look at the number of Dems who approved it.
If I remember correctly Joe Manchin and Sinema were completely against eliminating the filibuster. Joe's hands were tied with fake Dems on the team. You just like to grab on to nonsense. Why are you not harping on Trump and the Repugs not getting rid of the filibuster when they were in charge??
Because they have clearly stated they don't want to. But many Dems are on record saying they are.
And if you are going to use right wing corrupted Dems as an excuse that doesn't say much about the party, does it?
Maybe not started, but there is this.
You answer a question by asking another question.
Of course you will not answer it. My POVs are more in line with the Democrats!!
You are the one who claimed that The Dems are as bad as the Repubs. Then once again why do you only attack the Dems?
Last edited:
Can you not read? So here it is once again!!
Family Reunification Task Force
The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to the safe reunification of families that were unjustly separated at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Good wish list on how things ought to be. This would tend to indicate you would rather see Kamala win than Cheeto Mussolini...
Agree. Saying the Dems are as bad as the Repugs is just plain weird, isn't it?
Ahh... the panicked hand-waving part of the argument.
You claimed they admitted it in court.
The Observer article doesn't actually support you.
I have provided you with a link to the actual court documents.
Please proceed to back up your statement.
Yes.
That is his reason.
He will dress it up in the idea of being a "brave truth teller" about how they are as bad as the GOP and what he is really doing is exposing hypocrisy, but that's just cover.
He's anti-Democrat and that's all that matters.
The reason for this pathological focus on the Democratic Party being Evil is a mystery. One can form different theories about it. In the end it doesn't matter much.
The problem is that this mono-maniacal obsession of his results in him being singularly ineffective at his cause.
He can't make a cogent or serious criticism of the Democrats because (as that image I've posted many times shows) his internal flow chart always leads to the conclusion the Dems are bad.
Since it doesn't matter what the Dems do, it is just proof they are bad, Butler can't make a real critique.
He's retrofitting. It's the Clinton rules: "we know they are guilty, we just need to figure out of what".
The Dems are bad, therefore what they did was bad, he just needs to find the way to show that they are bad and you are a fool for thinking they aren't.
This also makes him susceptible to all kinds of bullshit if it looks like it can be used to say that the Dems are bad.
Killing the filibuster is a good idea.
Slow, but steady progress being made there.
Bad idea unless we are talking very long ones, 18-20 years minimum, probably longer.
Limits on lobbying, stronger revolving door laws, and more serious restrictions/enforcement of insider trading are all good policy.
Last edited:
It takes having enough votes in the Senate.
There has been progress, but it is slow going.
There is no way to force Senators to vote in favor of something.
It isn't like the party can kick them out.
(The fact both Manchin and Sinema became independents shows that the party can exert some pressure to maintain some discipline, but it is limited.)
Mostly progress has been made in eliminating it for specific things. (As it was for judicial nominees for example.)
But many people remain attached to it for romantic reasons. Others for the practicality of diffusing responsibility for gridlock.
The US system is overloaded with veto points and people have sort of internalized that as a good thing to handle the cognitive dissonance of it all.
The counter-majoritarian factors are similar. In that case, there is more of a venal reason for blocking it, though, as the people who get the asymmetrical benefit are motivated to keep that extra power.
Won't do that much for third parties at the national stage, but may help with regional parties. Getting some consistent congressional reps in just because there are more opportunities might give them a bit more time to build real party infrastructure.
That aside, expanding Congress is LONG overdue.
One for every 200,000 would put the US somewhere around 1800 reps if we go by anticipated 2030 population. (Since this obviously won't happen overnight.)
For comparison, the Cube root law as an approach would get you to 711 (or 708 if you use the slightly refined formula).
The Wyoming rule would get you to about 602.
(Least variation would get you to about 1,000)
You could also do the implication of the original proposed growth pattern of the house from the original first amendment, but that math gets you back to 1 per 200,000.
I am dubious that most people would go for a 400% increase in the House, but I wouldn't really oppose it. (Especially given how much could be done virtually.)
Regardless, it definitely needs to be expanded.
(The Senate should probably be abolished or wildly reformed, but that's a LOT harder.)
Term limits will likely produce *more* corruption, though. Maybe with some very strict lobbying controls it might work out.
Smaller constituencies would have several advantages, I agree.
Of course, I'd like to see Multi-member districts as well, so that would be a bit of a trade off.
Primaries have nothing in particular to do with perpetuating a two-party system. Most countries don't have the weird, convoluted formal primary system the US has, but they end up with dominant parties anyway.
That said, I'm fine with them going by the wayside. Get the state apparatus out of them and if individual parties want to run primaries as broad general elections they can pay for and organize them on their own.
Well obviously.
That's an incredibly easy choice to make.
Lots of the things I want are at least possible with pressure on the Democrats, plus there are lots of things they are doing that I like.
None of that is in play with Trump and the GOP.
Extremely so.
Even if you think both are bad, they aren't the same.
