Democrats

[Noleader]

Anyone find it funny that it was the Democrats using the fillibuster in the Senate for damn near everything from 2000 to 2006 and the Republicans calling for fillibuster reform, but now that the tables are turned you see all the Democrats (or those that like to call themselves 'progressives') bitching that we need fillibuster reform?

I just find it stupid funny that people really are that short sighted. Do they think the guys they like will be in power forever? Don't they know that whatever they ram down the pipeline can be undone in a second if they lose the majority and reformed their way right out of a fillibuster option?

I use to get upset at our government... I always thought the American people deserved a fairer, more transparent, and less entrusive government. It is often said that the people get the government they deserve, and the more I read popular blogs from the left and the right the more I conclude we have just that.

[Post]

I honestly don't know what to do with the filibuster. We need it in my opinion. I just wish there was some way to enforce it not being used for purely political purposes. ie, making the other party look like they can't get anything done, then when it does pass, using it as part of your running platform next election (yes, that's happening right now). I don't know how to do that without taking away its "good" purposes, and frankly, I'd rather live with the damage it causes with it than without it.

[MickeyFinn]

The only way to accomplish that is to have at least one more solid party.

[Post]

As a side note, which Dems are asking for filibuster change and what changes do they want? I don't doubt they're taking the slimiest path they can, I just haven't heard of anything. Anything that's being taken seriously, anyway.

[Noleader]

When I said Democrats I was referring to the far left of the population. In a lot of the back channels, like the Daily KOS, there is a big push on to get majority vote only in the senate... yes the same thing they were up in arms over during the start of the Bush years (Nuclear Option).

[Post]

Pretty lame. I've stated before that given a choice between no filibuster and forcing 2/3 every time, I'd rather have the 2/3 option.

I wouldn't worry about it, though - the Democrats have absolutely no balls. You know what they *could* do? Force the Republicans to stand up and actually filibuster, then raise hell and point fingers once they do. Their votes for cloture have been for pretty much anything short of don't-kill-puppies bills. The #1 complaint about the Democrat-held branches is that they're ineffectual, and forcing actual filibusters would raise a big fat red flag.

They can't even do that, which would be wayyyy easier than trying to push some nuclear option agenda. I guess it makes a self-fulfilling prophecy when people accuse them of not getting anything done.

[Post]

This is why the Republicans scare me so much. Look, politicians are slime. There's not an honest one in the bunch at the higher ranks; only ones that are more honest than others. I have no delusion that side A is an ethically better side than side B.

I DO feel that one side (the Republicans) are better at political strategy in general, though. You don't get the inner fighting like you did with the health care bill, for example. Furthermore, they just have an "easier" agenda to scare with. Let's face it, the Earth's climate has a better chance of directly and adversely affecting your life than a terrorist, but a terrorist is just scarier.

And scaring the bejesus out of the public seems like the core way to win elections these days. Even Obama, with his change campaign, was really an "if you don't vote for me you won't get change" campaign.

[MickeyFinn]

Republicans have some pretty heavy hitters for backup. Oil, the NRA... Everybody on their team has a loooot of practice putting spin on things. How many billions has big oil spent trying to convince the world that global warming doesn't exist again? They are the modern day Popes from the Crusades; so much power that even science itself cannot overcome them

[Noleader]

Republicans have some pretty heavy hitters for backup. Oil, the NRA... Everybody on their team has a loooot of practice putting spin on things. How many billions has big oil spent trying to convince the world that global warming doesn't exist again? They are the modern day Popes from the Crusades; so much power that even science itself cannot overcome them

Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans... The point of this thread was to show how both parties are equally stupid but it seems that peoples personal bias has worked its way in here.

[Post]

Am I being biased? That's an honest question.

[Noleader]

Post we all have a bias... Mine is more global in nature and I look at all those in government first as if they are up to no good.

You tend to paint Republicans as evil masterminds and Democrats as more benevolent rulers that have the peoples best interest at heart.

[Post]

Well, that's not what I'm trying to convey. In this thread, at least. I'm trying to say that all are equally evil (even the ones not Republican and Democrat); just that the Republicans have been better at the strategy. Do you disagree?

[Hollus]

The only way to accomplish that is to have at least one more solid party.


QFT

[Noleader]

Well, that's not what I'm trying to convey. In this thread, at least. I'm trying to say that all are equally evil (even the ones not Republican and Democrat); just that the Republicans have been better at the strategy. Do you disagree?

Have you considered the fact they in a unstable political setting the Democrats don't really want to push any other agenda items to protect some of their more vulnerable members without looking that way. Basically claim the Republicans blocked them to save face with their supporters while not exposing themselves to legislative items that might not sit well in their home districts.

[Post]

I think that's a completely legitimate theory as to their strategy. It just doesn't get results, though. The overall population thinks they're getting nothing done, and their supporters (like me) think - and I quote - the Democrats have absolutely no balls. Hence my assessment that they're lousy strategists.

[Noleader]

Yea you think they have no balls but you are not ready to put someone else in, say a republican, to get some results. While there are some states, or districts, that have a large population of swing voters that would remove one party and put the other in power if a legislative item was pushed that did not sit well with them.

In short they take a small hit to image while protecting the more vulnerable members and can pass it off on the republicans for lack of progress. I truely think that 9 out of 10 sitting democrats are smarter then the vast majority of the republican law makers... thats why I think they would play their hand like that.

The Republicans think they are scoring points back home but in fact they are being used as the scape goats for a tactic they are to slow or stupid to pick up on.

Think about it... they are in the majority of all the legislative branches of government yet they play the victim that can't get anything done because the evil republicans block it all. So those who support the policies they promised (out of Iraq, Balanced Budget, etc) don't see it as a lie on their part but as a rally call to unseat more republicans to give the democrats a crushing majority. They basically blamed the Repubicans for all the failures of their party and the stupid repubicans run around and take credit for it. It is no mistake that in the last 40 years the repubicans only controlled both house for maybe a total of 10 to 12 years.

It is really some Art of War type shit.

[Post]

The Democrats lost the 2000 election for precisely that reason, and paid a HUGE price for it. Again, results...

[MickeyFinn]

Let's all watch an episode of Boston Legal about this. who's in?

Seriously though, get 25% of the population into the libertarian voting party that most of you secretly are and we have enough margin to force politicians to compete via results instead of just the letter by their name on a ballot.

DAoC was great because it had three realms... That surely applies to everything in life.

[Bohdan]

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. In Canada we have three major political parties (and a handful of wannabes). This often results in a party getting a crushing majority with about 39% of the popular vote, followed by 4 years of that party running amok while the majority of the people are complaining, "I didn't vote for them."

If you want to go with three parties, then you also want to go with a system of proportional representation rather than our silly "first past the post" system.

Boh

[Post]

Well, I think that will be kept in check with our system, and the fact that the legislative and judicial branches are bodies of people more so than the executive. The executive is pretty much a first past the post system, and exactly what you describe is what happened in 2000.

That being said, we've become so polarized, that it happens anyway with 50.1% of the vote. I mean, anything less than 70% of the vote should have lots of compromise, since 30% didn't vote for you, but some (most) treat that 50.1% as a mandate. A third party would at least force SOME melding of ideas from both of the current ones in power.

Ironically, the first past the post system is kept in check by the other two branches with the original topic of this thread.

[MickeyFinn]

And Canada never spent trillions on diving into Iraq :)