DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Inside the Republican Suicide Machine
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 187, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/22/2013 06:30:10 PM · #126
The last number I heard is that in the entire history of the Senate there have been 168 filibusters of Presidential nominees, half of which have occurred during the Obama administration. Who is forcing the issue here, who is greasing the slippery slope?
 11/22/2013 06:54:21 PM · #127
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The last number I heard is that in the entire history of the Senate there have been 168 filibusters of Presidential nominees, half of which have occurred during the Obama administration. Who is forcing the issue here, who is greasing the slippery slope?


Uh huh.

I'm reminded of the titular lyric of a great Nickel Creek song..."others have excuses, I have my reasons why"

Or maybe the better lyrics is from The Who..."meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

It all looks the same to me, Paul. It all looks the same to me.
 11/22/2013 06:56:55 PM · #128
Here.. I think this really does explain it VERY well..

You know he had to hit some nerves to get fired from Fox in 5 minutes flat.

Andrew Napolitano - Why we're in deep shit.
 11/22/2013 07:12:46 PM · #129
For what it's worth, this is the chart the Dems presented when making their case.

11/22/2013 07:37:25 PM · #130
Originally posted by bohemka:
For what it's worth, this is the chart the Dems presented when making their case.



explain this. Does this mean Obama has made (or is projected to make) 73 judicial nominations or do the Republicans keep filibustering the same nominations (perhaps because the Dems keep bringing it up?). How many nominations has Obama actually made? How many did Bush make? What is a "projected filibuster" in reality? That might be good to know since it's the largest bar on the graph.

You always have to look at charts like this closely...

EDIT: Chew over this since it is as unbiased as we will ever get and then come back to make the case that it's one party more guilty than the other...

Congressional Research Service report on Obama judicial nominees

Message edited by author 2013-11-22 19:59:45.
 11/22/2013 11:56:08 PM · #131
You do realize that you're decrying dysfunction at the same time that you're defending the use of a tactic that is, more than any other single factor, responsible for that dysfunction? And it's not just the raw number that's important, it's the reason the Republicans are using the filibuster so much, not because they have any actual substantive problem with the nominees, but just to create chaos and, as Obama said, gum up the works. Many Republican senators have admitted to not having a problem with the nominees. Often these nominees are delayed for long periods and then confirmed later with virtually no nay votes, so it's obvious that there wasn't ever any substantive objection. It's sabotage, pure and simple. Do you support our government being "managed" this way?
 11/23/2013 04:03:48 PM · #132
I'm pretty sure you've been skimming my posts Judith. I never defended obstructionism. I actually called it out and declared it "lame"...

No tactic in my mind is defensible unless you can consider the other party doing it as part of a reasonable strategy. I don't think obstructionism OR changing Senate rules is defensible, but between the two I think the latter is more dangerous.

Message edited by author 2013-11-23 16:06:33.
 11/23/2013 08:01:47 PM · #133
The rules around the filibuster have been changed many times over the past 20 years. Look it up, or I'll look it up and post it later tonight (I was just looking at this last night). These aren't rules written in stone, or in the Constitution.

Did you declare "I defend obstructionism"? No, of course not. But that is, in effect, what you're doing if you defend the use of this tactic in the way it has been used the last five years. You can't have it both ways.
 11/23/2013 09:42:22 PM · #134
Look it up. You will be wrong. The last time the rules were changed was in the 1970s. That's closer to 40 years ago now.
 11/23/2013 09:49:55 PM · #135
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
The rules around the filibuster have been changed many times over the past 20 years. Look it up, or I'll look it up and post it later tonight (I was just looking at this last night). These aren't rules written in stone, or in the Constitution.

Did you declare "I defend obstructionism"? No, of course not. But that is, in effect, what you're doing if you defend the use of this tactic in the way it has been used the last five years. You can't have it both ways.


So just to be clear, the obstructionism of 2005 by the Democrats is equally repugnant, right? Or is it going to be "reasons" vs. "excuses"?

I'm pretty sure I think both are dumb. I'm pretty sure you think the 2005 obstruction was for a good cause while the more recent obstruction is terrible.
 11/23/2013 09:56:32 PM · #136
This pretty well speaks volumes...a few choice quotes from those nearest and dearest to us...Obama...McConnell...Reid about changing the filibuster rules in 2005 and in 2013. I am shocked....SHOCKED, I TELL YOU! If I didn't know better I would say the quotes almost sound like different people talking. ;)

NPR flip-flop quotes
 11/24/2013 12:37:38 AM · #137
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Look it up. We're both wrong.


Edited for accuracy
11/24/2013 12:38:24 AM · #138
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This pretty well speaks volumes...a few choice quotes from those nearest and dearest to us...Obama...McConnell...Reid about changing the filibuster rules in 2005 and in 2013. I am shocked....SHOCKED, I TELL YOU! If I didn't know better I would say the quotes almost sound like different people talking. ;)

NPR flip-flop quotes


What is the take away from this? That they're politicians? Duh.

Message edited by author 2013-11-24 00:38:47.
 11/24/2013 01:20:57 AM · #139
The fact that the Republicans saw a problem with the filibuster in 2005 when they were the majority and Bush was President was interesting because the minority filibustered only slightly more often in the previous 8 years when the positions were reversed under Clinton. Then during Obama's presidency filibusters have sky rocketed. What was once a last gasp desperate measure was being used in 18% of bills brought to the floor. What was once a slightly over used emergency tool, is now being used as part of the day to day tool kit.

Number of closure motions filed to end minority filibuster by year
1973-1980 20-40 per year Republican minority
1981-1986 30-40 per year Democratic minority
1988-1994 45-80 per year Republican minority
1995-2006 60-80 per year Democratic minority
2007-2010 110-140 per year Republican minority

So it is indeed possible for people to have the opinion that using a tool of desperation in 2005 was not being over used, and a few years later when it is being used twice as often, feel that it is.

Some may not see any difference between using something 9% of the time and 18% of the time, but I saw 8% as too high, but 19% is just way way too much. And as any parent who has raised a 3 year old knows, If you can't play nice, sometimes you have to take away the toy.

When I took civics I learned that the Vice President could cast the deciding 51st vote in the Senate in case of a tie. Dick Cheney cast 8 tie breaking votes in the Senate when Bush was president. That was the standard until Obama took office. Then we had a different magic number, the goal posts were pushed back. We kept hearing about the need for the all important 60th vote, because nothing could possibly pass unless you had a filibuster proof majority. Until Obama I never heard a news story about seeking the all important 60th vote, but suddenly that was the way we were playing the game. That is an abuse of the way our system was set up to operate, and I am happy the 60 vote minimum to consider legislation in the Senate is now done. Now maybe Biden can cast a few tie breakers.

Message edited by author 2013-11-24 01:57:50.
 11/24/2013 02:55:28 AM · #140
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fact that the Republicans saw a problem with the filibuster in 2005 when they were the majority and Bush was President was interesting because the minority filibustered only slightly more often in the previous 8 years when the positions were reversed under Clinton. Then during Obama's presidency filibusters have sky rocketed. What was once a last gasp desperate measure was being used in 18% of bills brought to the floor. What was once a slightly over used emergency tool, is now being used as part of the day to day tool kit.

Number of closure motions filed to end minority filibuster by year
1973-1980 20-40 per year Republican minority
1981-1986 30-40 per year Democratic minority
1988-1994 45-80 per year Republican minority
1995-2006 60-80 per year Democratic minority
2007-2010 110-140 per year Republican minority

So it is indeed possible for people to have the opinion that using a tool of desperation in 2005 was not being over used, and a few years later when it is being used twice as often, feel that it is.

Some may not see any difference between using something 9% of the time and 18% of the time, but I saw 8% as too high, but 19% is just way way too much. And as any parent who has raised a 3 year old knows, If you can't play nice, sometimes you have to take away the toy.

When I took civics I learned that the Vice President could cast the deciding 51st vote in the Senate in case of a tie. Dick Cheney cast 8 tie breaking votes in the Senate when Bush was president. That was the standard until Obama took office. Then we had a different magic number, the goal posts were pushed back. We kept hearing about the need for the all important 60th vote, because nothing could possibly pass unless you had a filibuster proof majority. Until Obama I never heard a news story about seeking the all important 60th vote, but suddenly that was the way we were playing the game. That is an abuse of the way our system was set up to operate, and I am happy the 60 vote minimum to consider legislation in the Senate is now done. Now maybe Biden can cast a few tie breakers.


That is how I remembered it as well. This change was bound to happen, if not this Senate then the next. All this does is reset things to the way it was prior to the recent party polarization.
 11/24/2013 10:01:39 AM · #141
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Look it up. You will be wrong. The last time the rules were changed was in the 1970s. That's closer to 40 years ago now.


Yes, I was wrong. I was confusing two different but related articles I'd read the night before:

U.S. Senate Has Changed Its Practices By Simple Majority Vote 18 Times Since 1977

Filibuster Reform Since 1917
 11/24/2013 10:05:18 AM · #142
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fact that the Republicans saw a problem with the filibuster in 2005 when they were the majority and Bush was President was interesting because the minority filibustered only slightly more often in the previous 8 years when the positions were reversed under Clinton. Then during Obama's presidency filibusters have sky rocketed. What was once a last gasp desperate measure was being used in 18% of bills brought to the floor. What was once a slightly over used emergency tool, is now being used as part of the day to day tool kit.

Number of closure motions filed to end minority filibuster by year
1973-1980 20-40 per year Republican minority
1981-1986 30-40 per year Democratic minority
1988-1994 45-80 per year Republican minority
1995-2006 60-80 per year Democratic minority
2007-2010 110-140 per year Republican minority

So it is indeed possible for people to have the opinion that using a tool of desperation in 2005 was not being over used, and a few years later when it is being used twice as often, feel that it is.

Some may not see any difference between using something 9% of the time and 18% of the time, but I saw 8% as too high, but 19% is just way way too much. And as any parent who has raised a 3 year old knows, If you can't play nice, sometimes you have to take away the toy.

When I took civics I learned that the Vice President could cast the deciding 51st vote in the Senate in case of a tie. Dick Cheney cast 8 tie breaking votes in the Senate when Bush was president. That was the standard until Obama took office. Then we had a different magic number, the goal posts were pushed back. We kept hearing about the need for the all important 60th vote, because nothing could possibly pass unless you had a filibuster proof majority. Until Obama I never heard a news story about seeking the all important 60th vote, but suddenly that was the way we were playing the game. That is an abuse of the way our system was set up to operate, and I am happy the 60 vote minimum to consider legislation in the Senate is now done. Now maybe Biden can cast a few tie breakers.


Agree with everything you've said here, except the 60-vote threshold still holds for most legislation. The Dems did not do away with the filibuster altogether, only for judicial and executive branch nominees. I'm quite sure the Republicans will continue to require 60 votes for most pieces of legislation.
 11/24/2013 10:12:12 AM · #143
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
The rules around the filibuster have been changed many times over the past 20 years. Look it up, or I'll look it up and post it later tonight (I was just looking at this last night). These aren't rules written in stone, or in the Constitution.

Did you declare "I defend obstructionism"? No, of course not. But that is, in effect, what you're doing if you defend the use of this tactic in the way it has been used the last five years. You can't have it both ways.


Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So just to be clear, the obstructionism of 2005 by the Democrats is equally repugnant, right? Or is it going to be "reasons" vs. "excuses"?

I'm pretty sure I think both are dumb. I'm pretty sure you think the 2005 obstruction was for a good cause while the more recent obstruction is terrible.


So if you think they're both dumb, why is dumping the filibuster for judicial and executive branch nominees such a terrible thing?

The fact that hypocrisy exists here goes without saying. Feel better now?

Also, what BrennanOB said... it's hard to argue that the process hasn't deteriorated dramatically since Obama took office.
 11/24/2013 10:15:07 AM · #144
Another chart:

11/24/2013 01:38:53 PM · #145
"Republicans have filibustered more of President Obama’s executive branch nominees than were filibustered under all other presidents combined. From 1949 through the end of 2008, the Senate held cloture votes to end filibusters of 20 executive branch nominees. So far in the Obama administration, the Senate has held cloture votes on 27 executive branch nominees. That means the Senate GOP is on pace to filibuster over twice as many of President Obama’s executive branch nominees as the total number filibustered under all previous presidents combined." [emphasis added]

From this article.
 11/24/2013 04:27:50 PM · #146
Obama has added more to the public debt than all other presidents COMBINED.
 11/24/2013 04:43:55 PM · #147
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This pretty well speaks volumes...a few choice quotes from those nearest and dearest to us...Obama...McConnell...Reid about changing the filibuster rules in 2005 and in 2013. I am shocked....SHOCKED, I TELL YOU! If I didn't know better I would say the quotes almost sound like different people talking. ;)

NPR flip-flop quotes


What is the take away from this? That they're politicians? Duh.


We are of alike mind. :)
 11/24/2013 04:57:28 PM · #148
Originally posted by David Ey:
Obama has added more to the public debt than all other presidents COMBINED.

Actually G.W.Bush did that, more or less: he added nearly 6 trillion in his two terms. Note the bolded statements below.

+++++++++++++++++++

President Barack Obama: Added $5.081 trillion, a 44% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to Bush's at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.

FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

President George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion.(Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 billion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

Message edited by author 2013-11-24 16:58:04.
 11/24/2013 05:46:27 PM · #149
Hogwash.

FACT FILIBUSTER
 11/24/2013 05:47:38 PM · #150
Originally posted by bohemka:
Hogwash.

FACT FILIBUSTER


... a bit short on information this is... could you elaborate a tad. :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-11-24 17:47:54.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 09:09:10 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 09:09:10 PM EDT.