EPTarticle: www.reuters.com
interactive poll: fingfx.thomsonreuters.com
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7278
| 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. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
article: www.reuters.com interactive poll: fingfx.thomsonreuters.com | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On April 07 2017 01:40 opisska wrote: Even after reading some explanations, I don't understand how the fillibuster works. The talking has to end eventually, no? I understand it as a delaying tactics, but how does it prevent passing something completely? In Czech it was sometimes done at the end of the term, when the parliament dissolves and everything gets rebooted, but US is not anywhere near elections now. It also all hinges on one party having between 50-60 percent of votes, that happens so often? The split is so stable? Basically, it's a way for a senator to stop a bill or item from being considered, and while the tradition used to require that the invoker speak throughout the filibuster, they allow them to use a "silent filibuster" and wuss out and leave. And yeah, the Senate is incredibly stable, all things considered. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 07 2017 01:46 farvacola wrote: Basically, it's a way for a senator to stop a bill or item from being considered, and while the tradition used to require that the invoker speak throughout the filibuster, they allow them to use a "silent filibuster" and wuss out and leave. And yeah, the Senate is incredibly stable, all things considered. So they can just declare that they are stalling and go home and it never ends? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
So here we are. We all lose because Congress is broken. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On April 07 2017 01:48 opisska wrote: So they can just declare that they are stalling and go home and it never ends? Yep, so long as the filibusterer has the support of at least 40 other senators, they are allowed to basically stop anything and everything from passing through the senate, including statutes, appointments, and treaty ratifications. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On April 07 2017 00:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: They can already reach Japan and South Korea, no? Both significantly more densely populated than the american west coast. In a way, the timer ran out quite some time ago. I mean, in a sense I also agree, because if you let North Korea develop actual MAD capabilities, then who knows wtf they'd demand. But 'reach american soil' isn't a significant timer at all, imo. I also think the Kim Dynasty cares about self-preservation more than anything else, and I think targeting American soil is about as non-self-preservationy as it gets. I'm fairly sure they don't even need nukes for that. I would not be surprised if at this very moment a barrage of conventional artillery is already pointed as Seoul just in case something happens. And I'm not really sure how you would want to stop that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On April 07 2017 01:46 farvacola wrote: Basically, it's a way for a senator to stop a bill or item from being considered, and while the tradition used to require that the invoker speak throughout the filibuster, they allow them to use a "silent filibuster" and wuss out and leave. And yeah, the Senate is incredibly stable, all things considered. Presumably a real filibuster could actually be delaying this, because they can't vote on ending the talking until the talking is over, but since they did that last night instead, they just voted against cloture (55 in favor 45 against) and Republicans moved on to removing the rule. Interestingly, the it sounds like some Democrats voted to end the rule too, that's a weird thing to make bipartisan. Or rather they needed 51 for cloture and got 55 with some Democrats it appears. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28683 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 07 2017 01:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Oh, that is most definitely the case. And you can't stop it. That's the thing. Any military action taken towards NK, even disregarding their nuclear arsenal, will lead to tens of thousands of dead south koreans and trillions of dollars in material damage. Write that down as another failure for "hope countries you don't like that want nukes will collapse before it becomes problem." | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 01:48 opisska wrote: So they can just declare that they are stalling and go home and it never ends? Yes, once they removed the requirement to remain speaking, it sort of broke the entire thing. The filibuster was not used that often before that and for a little while after. Use started to rise slowly as senators who remembered that rule slowly worked their way out of the senate. | ||
|
chicbot2000
United States45 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42957 Posts
On April 07 2017 01:51 Toadesstern wrote: I'm fairly sure they don't even need nukes for that. I would not be surprised if at this very moment a barrage of conventional artillery is already pointed as Seoul just in case something happens. And I'm not really sure how you would want to stop that. Oddly enough conventional artillery is actually easier to stop. We have systems that will track incoming projectiles and map them to the launch site based upon the arc in order to immediately and automatically return fire to obliterate launch sites. We also have systems that will shoot down incoming projectiles. Take a look at this. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote: Congratulations Democrats. You have proven your chops in short-sighted obstructionism. except not. the blame mostly falls on the Reps anyways. but I know you like hating in unsound ways. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:10 KwarK wrote: Oddly enough conventional artillery is actually easier to stop. We have systems that will track incoming projectiles and map them to the launch site based upon the arc in order to immediately and automatically return fire to obliterate launch sites. We also have systems that will shohot down incoming projectiles. Take a look at this. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVUISS8oHs Well don't have the first strike capability to take out most of the conventional artillery before they have a chance to respond? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote: Congratulations Democrats. You have proven your chops in short-sighted obstructionism. If nothing else, the democrats should have let their vulnerable senators up for re-election in red states allow the vote. I think that the democrats miscalculated here. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:15 zlefin wrote: except not. the blame mostly falls on the Reps anyways. but I know you like hating in unsound ways. You have an addiction to making non-arguments and claiming someone else is unsound. There was no victory to be had here. Only forcing the nuclear option. Good job. Republicans aren't going to be blamed for this. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:16 Slaughter wrote: Well don't have the first strike capability to take out most of the conventional artillery before they have a chance to respond? some of the conventional artillery from NK is inside hardened bunkers inside mountains with eht entire barrel inside the hole. they have no ability to adjust their aim, they're fixed at seoul. it's very very hard to take them out. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote: If nothing else, the democrats should have let their vulnerable senators up for re-election in red states allow the vote. I think that the democrats miscalculated here. They did more or less. Problem was that McCaskill and others FINALLY realized they needed progressives if they wanted to keep their seat and they had 0 chance at getting them by voting for Gorsuch. | ||
| ||
