|
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. |
On October 26 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:55 Blisse wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. 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. "I don't know anything about your argument, so I will assume you are wrong" wtf lol
Throughout this entire campaign I have heard extremely weak recommendations for clinton. It has always been because it is essentially her turn for the White House, and anti-republican/trump justifications. She doesn't even cite her 400 bills herself, so I'm pretty secure in my assumption that she has done nothing noteworthy. If she has done something noteworthy, her campaign has utterly failed to communicate this because I haven't heard any thing about it. So when I see people in her own campaign/party shit talk her, while having very little to say about her 20 some years in the political sphere, you can bet my assumption was pretty legit.
|
United States41965 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:06 joon wrote:
trump gonna win in a landslide. $hillary has no chance
Well I mean he did say that it was rigged and at this point the only way he could win is if that were true.
|
On October 26 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:55 Blisse wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. 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. "I don't know anything about your argument, so I will assume you are wrong" wtf lol Throughout this entire campaign I have heard extremely weak recommendations for clinton. It has always been because it is essentially her turn for the White House, and anti-republican/trump justifications. She doesn't even cite her 400 bills herself, so I'm pretty secure in my assumption that she has done nothing noteworthy. If she has done something noteworthy, her campaign has utterly failed to communicate this because I haven't heard any thing about it. So when I see people in her own campaign/party shit talk her, while having very little to say about her 20 some years in the political sphere, you can bet my assumption was pretty legit.
it's more that the media doens't cover such things much because policy is boring; and hillary is boring.
I vaguely recall a story about how hillary put forth a very detailed major policy proposal, and nobody cared because it was boring. I could probably find the article if you'd like.
|
On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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.
Didn't Powell formally endorse Hillary Clinton and say Trump was a national disgrace? I'd avoid quoting him if I were you.
|
Claiming that Hilary doesn’t talk about her time in the Senate only shows you are doing a bad job at paying attention.
|
On October 26 2016 03:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:55 Blisse wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. 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. "I don't know anything about your argument, so I will assume you are wrong" wtf lol Throughout this entire campaign I have heard extremely weak recommendations for clinton. It has always been because it is essentially her turn for the White House, and anti-republican/trump justifications. She doesn't even cite her 400 bills herself, so I'm pretty secure in my assumption that she has done nothing noteworthy. If she has done something noteworthy, her campaign has utterly failed to communicate this because I haven't heard any thing about it. So when I see people in her own campaign/party shit talk her, while having very little to say about her 20 some years in the political sphere, you can bet my assumption was pretty legit. it's more that the media doens't cover such things much because policy is boring; and hillary is boring. I vaguely recall a story about how hillary put forth a very detailed major policy proposal, and nobody cared because it was boring. I could probably find the article if you'd like.
Sure.
|
A top Republican on national security said he advised Donald Trump that Russia was using hacked information to influence the election process, but the GOP presidential nominee didn't appear to believe him.
“I think he has in his mind that there’s not the proof,” House Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul said Tuesday during a Texas Tribune event in Austin. "Now he hasn't had the briefing I had, but I made it clear that in my judgment it was a nation-state."
McCaul, a Trump supporter, told Tribune CEO Evan Smith that he was brought in to brief Trump on national security after the first presidential debate — a topic the Texas Republican conceded is “not [Trump’s] strength.”
Despite the coaching from the congressman, Trump stated during the final presidential debate last week that the U.S. has no idea who is behind hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. The material was released by WikiLeaks.
“She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else,” Trump said during the debate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “You have no idea. Our country has no idea.”
As Clinton pointed out, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement directly blaming Russia earlier this month.
Clinton senior national spokesperson Glen Caplin called Trump's refusal to heed McCaul's advice "troubling."
"Trump's actions as Putin's puppet have gone from bizarre to disqualifying," Caplin said in a statement.
Source
|
On October 26 2016 03:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. Didn't Powell formally endorse Hillary Clinton and say Trump was a national disgrace? I'd avoid quoting him if I were you.
If I'm about to hire someone for a job I want to hear strong recommendations, not "the other guy sucks"
|
On October 26 2016 03:17 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. Didn't Powell formally endorse Hillary Clinton and say Trump was a national disgrace? I'd avoid quoting him if I were you. If I'm about to hire someone for a job I want to hear strong recommendations, not "the other guy sucks"
There are plenty of those too, so you don’t have to look far. But as your previous post on the subject shows, you haven’t really put a lot of effort into reading up on the other side.
|
On October 26 2016 03:16 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:14 zlefin wrote:On October 26 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:55 Blisse wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. 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. "I don't know anything about your argument, so I will assume you are wrong" wtf lol Throughout this entire campaign I have heard extremely weak recommendations for clinton. It has always been because it is essentially her turn for the White House, and anti-republican/trump justifications. She doesn't even cite her 400 bills herself, so I'm pretty secure in my assumption that she has done nothing noteworthy. If she has done something noteworthy, her campaign has utterly failed to communicate this because I haven't heard any thing about it. So when I see people in her own campaign/party shit talk her, while having very little to say about her 20 some years in the political sphere, you can bet my assumption was pretty legit. it's more that the media doens't cover such things much because policy is boring; and hillary is boring. I vaguely recall a story about how hillary put forth a very detailed major policy proposal, and nobody cared because it was boring. I could probably find the article if you'd like. Sure.
have'nt found it yet, still looking, found this article of note on the topic:
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-professor-finds-campaign-policy-issues-absent-from-media-2016-9
|
On October 26 2016 03:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:16 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 03:14 zlefin wrote:On October 26 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:55 Blisse wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. 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. "I don't know anything about your argument, so I will assume you are wrong" wtf lol Throughout this entire campaign I have heard extremely weak recommendations for clinton. It has always been because it is essentially her turn for the White House, and anti-republican/trump justifications. She doesn't even cite her 400 bills herself, so I'm pretty secure in my assumption that she has done nothing noteworthy. If she has done something noteworthy, her campaign has utterly failed to communicate this because I haven't heard any thing about it. So when I see people in her own campaign/party shit talk her, while having very little to say about her 20 some years in the political sphere, you can bet my assumption was pretty legit. it's more that the media doens't cover such things much because policy is boring; and hillary is boring. I vaguely recall a story about how hillary put forth a very detailed major policy proposal, and nobody cared because it was boring. I could probably find the article if you'd like. Sure. have'nt found it yet, still looking, found this article of note on the topic: http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-professor-finds-campaign-policy-issues-absent-from-media-2016-9
IIRC the proposal was about post secondary education costs and student loans.
|
On October 26 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:
Throughout this entire campaign I have heard extremely weak recommendations for clinton. It has always been because it is essentially her turn for the White House, and anti-republican/trump justifications. She doesn't even cite her 400 bills herself, so I'm pretty secure in my assumption that she has done nothing noteworthy. If she has done something noteworthy, her campaign has utterly failed to communicate this because I haven't heard any thing about it. So when I see people in her own campaign/party shit talk her, while having very little to say about her 20 some years in the political sphere, you can bet my assumption was pretty legit.
The irony of you saying this while simultaneously telling us we should bother to listen to what James O'Keefe says is pretty hilarious.
You haven't even bothered to do legitimate research on one of the candidates, but instead say it's worthwhile to pay any attention to a fraudulent filmmaker instead?
|
On October 26 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On October 26 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:55 Blisse wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. 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. "I don't know anything about your argument, so I will assume you are wrong" wtf lol Throughout this entire campaign I have heard extremely weak recommendations for clinton. It has always been because it is essentially her turn for the White House, and anti-republican/trump justifications. She doesn't even cite her 400 bills herself, so I'm pretty secure in my assumption that she has done nothing noteworthy. If she has done something noteworthy, her campaign has utterly failed to communicate this because I haven't heard any thing about it. So when I see people in her own campaign/party shit talk her, while having very little to say about her 20 some years in the political sphere, you can bet my assumption was pretty legit.
I've heard Hillary mention her 400 bills twice in the past 2 weeks, and I haven't even been paying attention.
|
Norway28555 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Standing upright and talking for 8 hours is not that big of a sacrifice lol, especially for a politician.. If it required lighting yourself on fire or something, I could agree that you have a point, but the way filibustering works is just a pretty easy way of obstructing government. If you add those aforementioned rules seen in texas, that you can't repeat yourself and that you must stay on point, it looks a little better; becomes pretty damn hard to filibuster for 8 hours unless you're talking about something really complex.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just a dumb anachronism. I get that filibustering has blocked laws that you and I are happy were blocked, but it's fundamentally anti-democratic.
I also think that certain laws should require more than 51% of the vote to pass (and while I'm not too well versed on the technicalities of how congress passes laws, I assume this is actually the case), but this should be determined based on some other quality of the law than 'some senator was willing to speak for 8 hours until people went home'.
|
Norway28555 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:17 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. Didn't Powell formally endorse Hillary Clinton and say Trump was a national disgrace? I'd avoid quoting him if I were you. If I'm about to hire someone for a job I want to hear strong recommendations, not "the other guy sucks"
But if you are about to hire someone for a job and there are two possible candidates, and you're basing your choice on the opinion of one guy, do you go for the 'this guy is a national disgrace' or the 'I'm not a big fan of this person, but I endorse him or her anyway because the other guy is a national disgrace'?
|
bio -> I couldn't fidn the article I was looking for.
|
On October 26 2016 03:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:04 Plansix wrote: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. Standing upright and talking for 8 hours is not that big of a sacrifice lol, especially for a politician.. If it required lighting yourself on fire or something, I could agree that you have a point, but the way filibustering works is just a pretty easy way of obstructing government. If you add those aforementioned rules seen in texas, that you can't repeat yourself and that you must stay on point, it looks a little better; becomes pretty damn hard to filibuster for 8 hours unless you're talking about something really complex. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a dumb anachronism. I get that filibustering has blocked laws that you and I are happy were blocked, but it's fundamentally anti-democratic. I also think that certain laws should require more than 51% of the vote to pass (and while I'm not too well versed on the technicalities of how congress passes laws, I assume this is actually the case), but this should be determined based on some other quality of the law than 'some senator was willing to speak for 8 hours until people went home'.
Laws will get blocked no matter how you change the rules. They won’t make it out of committee or poison pill amendments will be added to kill them. Whatever stage is right before the vote will be when the bill dies. If people are going to obstruct the process, I would rather it be done in public, in the well of the senate and out loud.
|
On October 26 2016 03:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:17 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 03:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 26 2016 02:45 biology]major wrote:On October 26 2016 02:38 mahrgell wrote:On October 26 2016 02:34 biology]major wrote:
Trump really needs to capitalize on Obamacare failing, it's a golden opportunity 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. Didn't Powell formally endorse Hillary Clinton and say Trump was a national disgrace? I'd avoid quoting him if I were you. If I'm about to hire someone for a job I want to hear strong recommendations, not "the other guy sucks" But if you are about to hire someone for a job and there are two possible candidates, and you're basing your choice on the opinion of one guy, do you go for the 'this guy is a national disgrace' or the 'I'm not a big fan of this person, but I endorse him or her anyway because the other guy is a national disgrace'?
Relevant: http://www.theonion.com/article/precious-little-voter-needs-feel-inspired-candidat-52566
Ego starts playing a big role here. People feel like voting for someone is some sort of endorsement of their entire being. People identify with candidates/leaders and feel like they lose something in themselves by voting for lesser of two evils .
|
Netherlands21351 Posts
On October 26 2016 03:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 26 2016 03:04 Plansix wrote: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. Standing upright and talking for 8 hours is not that big of a sacrifice lol, especially for a politician.. If it required lighting yourself on fire or something, I could agree that you have a point, but the way filibustering works is just a pretty easy way of obstructing government. If you add those aforementioned rules seen in texas, that you can't repeat yourself and that you must stay on point, it looks a little better; becomes pretty damn hard to filibuster for 8 hours unless you're talking about something really complex. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a dumb anachronism. I get that filibustering has blocked laws that you and I are happy were blocked, but it's fundamentally anti-democratic. I also think that certain laws should require more than 51% of the vote to pass (and while I'm not too well versed on the technicalities of how congress passes laws, I assume this is actually the case), but this should be determined based on some other quality of the law than 'some senator was willing to speak for 8 hours until people went home'. Laws will get blocked no matter how you change the rules. They won’t make it out of committee or poison pill amendments will be added to kill them. Whatever stage is right before the vote will be when the bill dies. If people are going to obstruct the process, I would rather it be done in public, in the well of the senate and out loud.
The US amendment process is just as stupid as the filibuster.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
There was one election where the Republican Party had a majority in Congress but was about to lose the election, so they determined on their own (because they lost the votes in those states) that three strongly Dem-leaning states all voted Republican. It went through a biased court that voted party line and had a Republican majority, then had to pass through Congress. It met with a filibuster, obviously, and rightfully so. That's what they should be for.
Granted, in that case the Republican was elected, but they had to make a compromise. Still a tool with a purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
