Nuclear option by Reid

[HonestChieffan]

I know why he is doing this but I cannot see this being good for democrats. Its as if he and Obama will watch the majority crash and burn as long as Obama gets his way till midterms. Or maybe they have the numbers that show the Rs will have House and Sennate after midterms and they only have a year to do all the damage they can.

[BucEyedPea]

Warren is an anti-Capitalist Marxist who thinks a socialist/fascist mix is a solution to crony capitalism aka today's brand of mercantilism. It's not the answer. True free markets with some moderate but sane and easy to understand rules that don't create barriers to competition is the answer.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Warren is an anti-Capitalist Marxist who thinks a socialist/fascist mix is a solution to crony capitalism aka today's brand of mercantilism. It's not the answer. True free markets with some moderate but sane and easy to understand rules that don't create barriers to competition is the answer.

Business regulations are evil, except for the ones that I happen to think are ok.

/BEP

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

WHAT??? Warren isn't qualified to wipe her own ass. She may actually be functionally retarded. How you can say she is "qualified" for anything with a straight face is amazing.

I'm personally not a fan of Warren. But, who would the Republicans find acceptable? Is there anyone on the face of the earth?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I didn't say you were referencing a thread.

I said you're nakedly changing the subject as your denialism exposes itself.

You want to talk about something else? I don't blame you. I'm happy to meet you in the appropriate thread. As I already have.

Yeah I didn't think you'd answer a simple question. Next time you question my credibility take a long look in the mirror.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

What should you have said? I'm not sure what replacement word would make it any better.

I should have said 'bargained'. Obama promised he would change politics in DC. I even am on record back in 2008 he might be the right guy to do it. Instead he has proven to be the most divisive, narcissist president on record.

Going nuclear in this case will only make things worse and democrats know it. This isn't about getting through nominees, a trained chimp could do that. It's all about a one sided picture on what Obama thinks the country should look like.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by patteeu

When it speaks for itself does it tell you that Republicans are big meanies who just want to say no or that Barack Obama isn't working as hard as previous Presidents to nominate people acceptable by at least a handful of Senators from the other party? Because it's not clear to me so I'm inclined to think that it doesn't really speak for itself.

I could be wrong on this but from my memory the nominees the Republicans have filibustered when they finally allowed them to get a vote they passed with bi-partisan support.

Some of these filibusters\blocking of nominees doesn't have anything to do with the nominees themselves but what agency they are going to head, like the ATF, Consumer Protection, Housing..etc

[Mod98Ban]

Originally Posted by FD

This was just a matter of time. As the GOP correctly argued in 2005, the rule is out of date with modern politics. In the long run neither party gains from this, but the government will function better.

That part is total BS. The current government we have hasn't worked right, since Odumber took office. The Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, and the FAST and FURIOUS SCANDALS, and nothing has been done about any of them, as of now. I suppose that my pointing out all of those will draw some stupid reply from FD, or as his name should be Facist Dumbass.

[bandwagonjumper]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It's not really my party. ASSume much?

Still have to ask the reason? Don't you know, since you're the history buff.

You're still registered as republican so its still you're party. Plus when was the last time you didn't vote republican?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

Um, thanks for that wall of text with no context or anything to compare it too.

As it turns out, this graph is being used in a fraudulent way like so many of the things we see from this Obamacare-era crop of democrats. Apparently, a lot of cloture motions are filed and cloture votes are taken in contexts other than a filibuster. That makes cloture motions and votes poor proxies for filibusters. A better measure would be cloture votes defeated. Ed Whelan in National Review:

As the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler observed in a column disputing the Left’s extravagant claims, Senate majority leader Harry Reid “often files cloture on multiple bills or nominations at once to speed things along even if no one is slowing things down.” Thus, Dionne’s observation that a very high percentage of the cloture motions ever filed on nominations have “happened under Obama” may well say far more about Reid’s trigger-happy cloture finger than anything else. That impression would seem to be bolstered by a review of Table 6 of the CRS report, which shows that the vast majority of the cloture motions that Reid has filed during the Obama administration either have been withdrawn or have won strong Republican support.

And, of course, it’s very much in Reid’s partisan interest to manufacture a high number of cloture motions when he has so many dupes, willing or otherwise, ready to equate every such motion with a filibuster.

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by patteeu

As it turns out, this graph is being used in a fraudulent way like so many of the things we see from this Obamacare-era crop of democrats. Apparently, a lot of cloture motions are filed and cloture votes are taken in contexts other than a filibuster. That makes cloture motions and votes poor proxies for filibusters. A better measure would be cloture votes defeated. Ed Whelan in National Review:

What spin.

And it doesn't at all disprove the record number of Filibusters over uncontroversial nominees.

here is a graph that shows actual time cloture was invoked... notice how it is still record high.

This is an imperfect measure. On the one hand, it’s susceptible to changes in congressional strategy: If the majority begins trying to break the filibuster more often, you could see more cloture votes, even though the filibuster isn’t actually being used any more frequently. On the other side, it misses the many, many, many filibusters that never receive a cloture vote, either because the majority decides that a cloture vote is too time-consuming — simply holding a cloture vote takes about 30 hours of floor time — or because they won’t win it. (I'm sure you want to just ignore that part of it, correct?)

That said, it is, at least, a relatively consistent measure, and it’s the best one we have. And most observers agree that its basic point is correct: We’re seeing many more filibusters today than we ever did before. But I actually think that’s the wrong way to think about it.

The issue today isn’t that we see 50, or 100, or 150 filibusters. It’s that the filibuster is a constant where it used to be a rarity. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be called “the filibuster”: It has nothing to do with talking, or holding the floor. It should be called the 60-vote requirement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f0RU_blog.html

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

What spin.

And it doesn't at all disprove the record number of Filibusters over uncontroversial nominees.

here is a graph that shows actual time cloture was invoked... notice how it is still record high.






http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f0RU_blog.html

You didn't contradict anything I said. You just reposted the same fraudulent data again. Even your own WashPost blurb points out that the measure is flawed. The quote in my previous post anticipates you:

... so many dupes, willing or otherwise, ready to equate every such motion with a filibuster."

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You didn't contradict anything I said. You just reposted the same fraudulent data again. Even your own WashPost blurb points out that the measure is flawed. The quote in my previous post anticipates you:

Spin all you want patty. Fraudulent data? lol

I know you like to ignore things you don't like, but unless you can disprove the record number of filibusters over the last 5 years, you got nothing, which you haven't done.


And, as I predicted, you ignored this:

" On the other side, it misses the many, many, many filibusters that never receive a cloture vote, either because the majority decides that a cloture vote is too time-consuming — simply holding a cloture vote takes about 30 hours of floor time — or because they won’t win it.

Record number of filibusters. That is what the problem is.

Nice distraction attempt though.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

Spin all you want patty. Fraudulent data? lol

I know you like to ignore things you don't like, but unless you can disprove the record number of filibusters over the last 5 years, you got nothing, which you haven't done.


And, as I predicted, you ignored this:

Record number of filibusters. That is what the problem is.

Nice distraction attempt though.

I didn't miss it. I'm the one saying that the measure you're using to support your filibuster argument doesn't accurately measure filibusters. With every post, you support my contention.

Here's a challenge for you. The data is public so why don't you just go back and count the number of actual filibusters of judicial nominees. When you have those numbers, we can talk about them.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

Spin all you want patty. Fraudulent data? lol

I know you like to ignore things you don't like, but unless you can disprove the record number of filibusters over the last 5 years, you got nothing, which you haven't done.


And, as I predicted, you ignored this:

Record number of filibusters. That is what the problem is.

Nice distraction attempt though.

There's some serious gold in this thread. This ^^^ was one of my faves. LoneIdiot ranting against fillibustering judicial nominees.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Uhh... they're supposed to stack the courts.

That's what happens when you win POTUS and the Senate.

They're... not supposed to fill vacancies with judges they agree with?

Awesome^^^