EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5762
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote: It's a desaster, really, a desaster. It is very sad. So sad. But he will get rid of it, in 30 days after he becomes president. And then there will be a new plan. A great plan. He knows great people, with great knowledge. The greatest people. They have great plans. And then, everything will be great. Even ISIS. I wonder if Trump knows how the filibuster works. I bet he would push the Senate to change the rule, because it got in the way of what he wants. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote: It's a desaster, really, a desaster. It is very sad. So sad. But he will get rid of it, in 30 days after he becomes president. And then there will be a new plan. A great plan. He knows great people, with great knowledge. The greatest people. They have great plans. And then, everything will be great. Even ISIS. Hillary has bad instincts bro, she's more articulate, well connected, and has more resources but fails even with all the advantages. Hard to evaluate instincts, not going to comment on trumps but hrc is a disaster (tm). Look at what Powell had to say: everything she touches is ruined. I'm sure Bernie had something similar to say, oh and don't forget Wikileaks. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28555 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Trump is just going to funnel money into his own businesses for two more weeks and then forget were all the campaign funds went. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
remember medicare and social security and how both parties got together to pass changes to make the programs work because its really, really hard to get a huge program like that right the first time? also wait till the full penalty kicks in 2017. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote: Hillary has bad instincts bro, she's more articulate, well connected, and has more resources but fails even with all the advantages. Hard to evaluate instincts, not going to comment on trumps but hrc is a disaster (tm). Look at what Powell had to say: everything she touches is ruined. I'm sure Bernie had something similar to say, oh and don't forget Wikileaks. She has her name on what, like 400 bills that passed through the Senate. Do you want to go through each one and tell us how they're all disasters? Otherwise you're just parroting shit you know is incorrect. Also do you know how the Senate works? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2016 02:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: tbh the filibuster is a pretty retarded concept, wouldn't be saddened to see that go. (not that I propose knowing how to make filibustering impossible, obviously people should also be allowed to talk for long periods of time if they have something legitimate to say. But the principle of talking so long that voting on legislation becomes impossible? that's fucking stupid. ) Personally, I like that one branch of goverment requires 60 votes to move something forward, rather than just 51 out of 100. It has shown problems in the last 20 years, but it is an age old way of preventing legislation that one or many people think is terrible from moving forward. Plus the rules are awesome. You can't sit, lean or ask for a bathroom break. You must keep speaking. You can yield the floor for a question or to give it to someone else. But if its just you, you have to stand and talk until you fall over. And it means freebooter, or buccaneer. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 26 2016 02:55 Plansix wrote: Personally, I like that one branch of goverment requires 60 votes to move something forward, rather than just 51 out of 100. It has shown problems in the last 20 years, but it is an age old way of preventing legislation that one or many people think is terrible from moving forward. Plus the rules are awesome. You can't sit, lean or ask for a bathroom break. You must keep speaking. You can yield the floor for a question or to give it to someone else. But if its just you, you have to stand and talk until you fall over. And it means freebooter, or buccaneer. the problem is those ARENT the current rules; nowadays they let people just "declare" a filibuster without having to actually stand there talking. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28555 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On October 26 2016 02:55 Blisse wrote: She has her name on what, like 400 bills that passed through the Senate. Do you want to go through each one and tell us how they're all disasters? Otherwise you're just parroting shit you know is incorrect. Also do you know how the Senate works? I'm not aware of her 400 bills, they are probably all disasters. Was more referring to her tenure as SoS. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:02 zlefin wrote: the problem is those ARENT the current rules; nowadays they let people just "declare" a filibuster without having to actually stand there talking. I was not aware and now I am angry. Who broke it? They need to change it back to force them to talk, stay standing and hold the floor. If they are not reading the rules to chess and poker, it isn't a filibuster. On October 26 2016 03:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: Because whether a law passes or not should depend on the stamina of the person thinking it shouldn't pass? I get that it's hilarious, I think so too, but it's really, really stupid. Also backs up the idea that an inefficient government is preferable to an efficient one, which is an idea I am personally really opposed to. I have to disagree. It is publicly standing in opposition to a bill that will be passed if it moves forward. It garners attention for the subject, forced people to pay attention and requires something of the person opposing the bill. If people are willing to stand on the Senate floor day and night because they truly believe a bill is bad, I'm all for it. They at least deserve the attention of the press and public, even if the law gets passed. Not this system where they declare a filibuster and go home, that is shit. | ||
|
dragoon
United States695 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15394 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote: I'm not aware of her 400 bills, they are probably all disasters. Was more referring to her tenure as SoS. "I don't know anything about your argument, so I will assume you are wrong" wtf lol | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21351 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote: I'm not aware of her 400 bills, they are probably all disasters. Was more referring to her tenure as SoS. Its amazing how many people do not know that Hillary was a Senator. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On October 26 2016 02:41 zlefin wrote: if the republicans had a viable alternative plan for obamacare they'd have done something already; but I suppose trump could just yell nonsense about it without any real solutions. The republicans couldn't pass a plan if they wanted too because Obama would veto... If trump wins and republicans have congress, there will be some type of new plan. (a lot of people won't like it... but that was true of the plan Obama passed with a Democratic congress) | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:04 Plansix wrote: I was not aware and now I am angry. Who broke it? They need to change it back to force them to talk, stay standing and hold the floor. If they are not reading the rules to chess and poker, it isn't a filibuster. my vague recollection on the topic, is that the rule was changed in the 1970s, but that a gentleman's agreement kept it from being abused at the time; it didn't start getting abused until sometime in the 90s or 00s. I agree it was far better when they had to actually stand and hold the floor. iirc the texas state senate has a couple extra rules on filibustering that I liked: That you have to say something on topic, and that you can't keep repeating yourself. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote: Its amazing how many people do not know that Hillary was a Senator. Or they choose to ignore it because she did good work as a junior Senator and it undercuts the argument that she is terrible at everything. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:06 Krikkitone wrote: The republicans couldn't pass a plan if they wanted too because Obama would veto... If trump wins and republicans have congress, there will be some type of new plan. (a lot of people won't like it... but that was true of the plan Obama passed with a Democratic congress) they can't pass a plan because they don't have one and they know it. because the reality prevent an alternative from truly being a good thing. If the republicans had an actual decent plan to put forth, they'd put it forth and campaign on it. | ||
| ||
