BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1024 Pages +
  • « First
  • 966
  • 967
  • 968
  • 969
  • 970
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#19341 User is offline   akwoo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,106
  • Joined: 2010-November-21

Posted 2021-December-22, 15:20

View Postkenberg, on 2021-December-22, 14:46, said:

I very much like the idea of requiring 41 filibustering senators on the floor to maintain the filibuster. Your general assessment is very pessimistic but, I am sorry to say, also pretty realistic. We are in desperate need of having people in leadership positions who think a well-functioning democracy is more important than getting their own way on everything. When push comes to shove, we need good people. Good structure yes, but bad people can screw up anything.


I think we are desperately in need of voters who prioritize having a functioning democracy over getting their way on everything.

Pick an important issue X. Take a poll - if a clear majority of the country disagrees with you on X, do you think they should have their way? I'm pretty sure you'd get 70-80% saying 'No', noting of course that some of the people saying 'No' have one opinion on X and others have the contrary opinion.

Sadly, we can't replace the voters.
0

#19342 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,037
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2021-December-22, 17:37

View Postakwoo, on 2021-December-22, 15:20, said:

I think we are desperately in need of voters who prioritize having a functioning democracy over getting their way on everything.

Pick an important issue X. Take a poll - if a clear majority of the country disagrees with you on X, do you think they should have their way? I'm pretty sure you'd get 70-80% saying 'No', noting of course that some of the people saying 'No' have one opinion on X and others have the contrary opinion.

Sadly, we can't replace the voters.


What people need to maintain a healthy and wise society where the weak are cared for takes more than a popularity contest.
Otherwise Spiderman would rule America.

To illustrate what a poor method polling is for governing take a look at any of the Bridge polls conducted elsewhere on this forum.
Anyone that thinks that my opinion about when to bid 2NT is as good as anyone else's may need to rethink polling as a sensible method of governance.

Polling is not the same as democracy.
Government cannot function without expertise.

Even at the height of the cold war, engineers on both sides of the Berlin wall collaborated to make sure the ***** flowed in the right direction.
Texas being a notable exception where they have a separate power grid and when it fails the wealthy flee to Mexico where all the cool people live.
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek.
0

#19343 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,036
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-December-25, 09:40

The answer to #6 is to vote out the corrupt Senators and replace them with people who are willing to get things done, making compromises when necessary.

Which is why GOP state legislatures are actively increasing voting restrictions, and GOP Senators are blocking voting reform that would put a stop to this.

#19344 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,896
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-January-03, 22:17

It's impossible at this point to describe the hypocrisy of the GOP. Criminal laws define "corrupt" as an action or inaction that is for the benefit of oneself or of another. An Oklahoma legislator has just introduced a bill that would allow those who have been fired for refusing a Covid-19 vaccination to receive unemployment benefits.

Keep in mind that this is the same political party who were complaining about unemployment benefits during the pandemic because they claimed the Burger King employees were getting rich sitting home instead of flipping fries for fat fuc#s in their Mercedes.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#19345 User is online   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2022-January-04, 09:00

Osita Nwanevu, contributing editor at The New Republic said:

https://www.nytimes....&smid=url-share

In December 1972, the critic Pauline Kael famously admitted that she’d been living in a political bubble. “I only know one person who voted for Nixon,” she said. “Where they are, I don’t know. They’re outside my ken.” A pithier version of her quote (“I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”) has been used to exemplify liberal insularity ever since, both by conservative pundits and by the kind of centrist journalists who have spent the past several years buzzing in the ears of heartland diner patrons, looking for clues about Donald Trump’s rise.

The most important fact about the Trump era, though, can be gleaned simply by examining his vote tallies and approval ratings: At no point in his political career — not a single day — has Mr. Trump enjoyed the support of the majority of the country he governed for four years. And whatever else Jan. 6 might have been, it should be understood first and foremost as an expression of disbelief in — or at least a rejection of — that reality. Rather than accepting, in defeat, that much more of their country lay outside their ken than they’d known, his supporters proclaimed themselves victors and threw a deadly and historic tantrum.

The riot was an attack on our institutions, and of course, inflammatory conservative rhetoric and social media bear some of the blame. But our institutions also helped produce that violent outburst by building a sense of entitlement to power within America’s conservative minority.

The structural advantages that conservatives enjoy in our electoral system are well known. Twice already this young century, the Republican Party has won the Electoral College and thus the presidency while losing the popular vote. Republicans in the Senate haven’t represented a majority of Americans since the 1990s, yet they’ve controlled the chamber for roughly half of the past 20 years. In 2012 the party kept control of the House even though Democrats won more votes.

And as is now painfully clear to Democratic voters, their party faces significant barriers to success in Washington even when it manages to secure full control of government: The supermajority requirement imposed by the Senate filibuster can stall even wildly popular legislation, and Republicans have stacked the judiciary so successfully that the Supreme Court seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, an outcome that around 60 percent of the American people oppose, according to several recent polls. Obviously, none of the structural features of our federal system were designed with contemporary politics and the Republican Party in mind. But they are clearly giving a set of Americans who have taken strongly to conservative ideology — rural voters in sparsely populated states in the middle of the country — more power than the rest of the electorate.

With these structural advantages in place, it’s not especially difficult to see how the right came to view dramatic political losses, when they do occur, as suspect. If the basic mechanics of the federal system were as fair and balanced as we’re taught they are, the extent and duration of conservative power would reflect the legitimate preferences of most Americans. Democratic victories, by contrast, now seem to the right like underhanded usurpations of the will of the majority — in President Biden’s case, by fraud and foreign voters, and in Barack Obama’s, by a candidate who was himself a foreign imposition on the true American people.

But the federal system is neither fair nor balanced. Rather than democratic give and take between two parties that share the burden of winning over the other side, we have one favored party and another whose effortful victories against ever-lengthening odds are conspiratorially framed as the skulduggery of schemers who can win only through fraud and covert plans to import a new electorate. It doesn’t help that Republican advantages partly insulate the party from public reproach; demagogy is more likely to spread among politicians if there are few electoral consequences. This is a recipe for political violence. Jan. 6 wasn’t the first or the deadliest attack to stem from the idea that Democrats are working to force their will on a nonexistent conservative political and cultural majority. We have no reason to expect it will be the last.

And while much of the language Republican politicians and commentators use to incite their base seems outwardly extreme, it’s important to remember that what was done on Jan. 6 was done in the name of the Constitution, as most Republican voters now understand it — an eternal compact that keeps power in their rightful hands. Tellingly, during his Jan. 6 rally, Mr. Trump cannily deployed some of the language Democrats have used to decry voting restrictions and foreign interference. “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy,” he said. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for the integrity of our elections.”

The mainstream press has also had a hand in inflating the right’s sense of itself. Habits like the misrepresentation of Republican voters and operatives as swing voters plucked off the street and the constant, reductive blather about political homogeneity on the coasts — despite the fact that there were more Trump voters in New York City in 2016 and 2020 than there were in both Dakotas combined — create distorted impressions of our political landscape. The tendency of journalists to measure the wisdom of policies and rhetoric based on their distance from the preferences of conservative voters only reinforces the idea that it’s fair for politicians, activists and voters on the left to take the reddest parts of the country into account without the right taking a reciprocal interest in what most Americans want.

That premise still dominates and constrains strategic thinking within the Democratic Party. A year after the Capitol attack and all the rent garments and tears about the right’s radicalism and the democratic process, the party has failed to deliver promised political reforms, thanks to opposition from pivotal members of its own Senate caucus — Democrats who argue that significantly changing our system would alienate Republicans.

Given demographic trends, power in Washington will likely continue accruing to Republicans even if the right doesn’t undertake further efforts to subvert our elections. And to fix the structural biases at work, Democrats would have to either attempt the impossible task of securing broad, bipartisan support for major new amendments to the Constitution — which, it should be said, essentially bars changes to the Senate’s basic design — or pass a set of system-rebalancing workarounds, such as admitting new states ⁠like the District of Columbia. It should never be forgotten that fully enfranchised voters from around the country gathered to stage a riot over their supposedly threatened political rights last January in a city of 700,000 people who don’t have a full vote in Congress.

Jan. 6 demonstrated that the choice the country now faces isn’t one between disruptive changes to our political system and a peaceable status quo. To believe otherwise is to indulge the other big lie that drew violence to the Capitol in the first place. The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered. It was the supposedly stabilizing features of our vaunted system that made him president to begin with and incubated the extremism that turned his departure into a crisis.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#19346 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,589
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2022-January-04, 16:17

View PostWinstonm, on 2022-January-03, 22:17, said:

It's impossible at this point to describe the hypocrisy of the GOP.

It is possible to describe all the hypocrisy of the QOP, but it would take all the computing power in the world to keep up with all the lies, half-truths, and deception that is generated by the QOP hypocrisy machine. So while possible, this won't be probable until the next generation of quantum computers are widely available.
0

#19347 User is online   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2022-January-05, 09:21

Chris Hayes @MSNBC said:

One of the very first things McConnell himself did in 2017 was to create a “narrow exception” to the filibuster that allowed Republicans to confirm a Supreme Court Justice with a simple majority vote.

Manu Raju, Chief Congressional Correspondent @CNN said:

"There is no such thing as a narrow exception,” McConnell says of Dem talk to create a filibuster carveout for voting and elections legislation. “This is genuine radicalism.”

Bring it.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#19348 User is online   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2022-January-05, 09:51

Chris Hayes said:

Adam McKay’s #DontLookUp starring Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio has recorded the biggest week of views in Netflix history with more than 152 million hours streamed.

Quote

President Janie Orlean (Meryl Streep): "So, how certain is this?"
Dr. Mindy: "There's 100 percent certainty of impact."
President: "Please, don't say 100 percent."
Aide: "Can we just call it a 'potentially significant event'?"
Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence): "But it isn't 'potentially' going to happen."
Dr. Mindy: "99.78%, to be exact."
Chief of Staff: "Oh, great. Okay, so it's not 100%."

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#19349 User is online   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,842
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2022-January-05, 09:58

A couple of thoughts.
Very possibly Rs will have a Senate majority next year. Assuming that they have more than 50 and less than 60 seats, this will bring an end to the filibuster.

As to the Nwanevu quote:
"The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered."
Dems might want to think a bit about whether they really want to run with the idea that the American Constitution is no longer suited for governance. This position would get very enthusiastic yeses from a very small number of people.

Solutions are tough.
Ken
0

#19350 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,896
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-January-05, 10:53

View Postkenberg, on 2022-January-05, 09:58, said:

A couple of thoughts.
Very possibly Rs will have a Senate majority next year. Assuming that they have more than 50 and less than 60 seats, this will bring an end to the filibuster.

As to the Nwanevu quote:
"The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered."
Dems might want to think a bit about whether they really want to run with the idea that the American Constitution is no longer suited for governance. This position would get very enthusiastic yeses from a very small number of people.

Solutions are tough.

Yes, self-governance by zoo monkeys is difficult if not downright impossible.

*we may have better luck using aversion therapy with Beethoven's Ninth playing in the background.

This post has been edited by Winstonm: 2022-January-05, 14:20

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#19351 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,896
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-January-05, 14:37

I strongly recommend anyone who cares about the future of the U.S. to read this summation of the actions surrounding the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.


Quote

You might not understand this from following just traditional news outlets, but over the course of a year, the news-friendly January 6 Select Committee and even the public parts of the locked-down DOJ investigation have met at a common pivot point in their investigation of January 6: on Trump’s efforts to pressure Mike Pence to violate the Constitution. Trump did so, first, with personal pressure. Then he sent his mob.
my italics

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#19352 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,589
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2022-January-05, 15:30

View Postkenberg, on 2022-January-05, 09:58, said:

A couple of thoughts.
Very possibly Rs will have a Senate majority next year. Assuming that they have more than 50 and less than 60 seats, this will bring an end to the filibuster.

As to the Nwanevu quote:
"The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered."
Dems might want to think a bit about whether they really want to run with the idea that the American Constitution is no longer suited for governance. This position would get very enthusiastic yeses from a very small number of people.

Solutions are tough.

You won't find the filibuster or individual senator holds on bills anywhere in the Constitution. Both are perversions that let a minority of the Senate sabotage the work of the majority of the Senate. Getting rid of the filibuster and individual holds would bring the Senate a lot closer to what the Constitution originally intended.
0

#19353 User is online   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,842
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2022-January-05, 16:53

View Postjohnu, on 2022-January-05, 15:30, said:

You won't find the filibuster or individual senator holds on bills anywhere in the Constitution. Both are perversions that let a minority of the Senate sabotage the work of the majority of the Senate. Getting rid of the filibuster and individual holds would bring the Senate a lot closer to what the Constitution originally intended.


Yes, I know that the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. I guess it is also not forbidden by the Constitution. But neither of these was my point. Not what I said.

Suppose that after the 2022 elections the Senate consists of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. I am suggesting that we might then see the end of the filibuster, or at least the end of its effectiveness when Ds try to use it. . That was what I said.

Theoretically, there is something to be said for writing a bill in such a way that is supported by more than a razor-thin Senate majority. It would be nice, or I think it would be nice, if the Senate did not go through a huge reversal when it changed from 51-49 to 49-51, no matter which direction the change moves. Telling the 49 Senators, and the people that they represent, to drop dead since the 51 will be doing exactly what the 51 want, no input wanted or accepted from the 49, is not a great way to do things. But reality must be faced, and right now the reality is winner-take-absolutely-everything. Any sort of cooperation is scorned as weakness. So sure, dump the fil. For now, the Ds will do as they please, the hell with the Rs. When the Senate balance shifts, the Rs will do exactly as they please, the hell with the Ds. No reason for any D to cooperate with any R, no reason for any r to cooperate with any D. Hoping for anything better is naive.
I understand.
Ken
0

#19354 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,896
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-January-05, 23:22

View Postkenberg, on 2022-January-05, 16:53, said:

Yes, I know that the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. I guess it is also not forbidden by the Constitution. But neither of these was my point. Not what I said.

Suppose that after the 2022 elections the Senate consists of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. I am suggesting that we might then see the end of the filibuster, or at least the end of its effectiveness when Ds try to use it. . That was what I said.

Theoretically, there is something to be said for writing a bill in such a way that is supported by more than a razor-thin Senate majority. It would be nice, or I think it would be nice, if the Senate did not go through a huge reversal when it changed from 51-49 to 49-51, no matter which direction the change moves. Telling the 49 Senators, and the people that they represent, to drop dead since the 51 will be doing exactly what the 51 want, no input wanted or accepted from the 49, is not a great way to do things. But reality must be faced, and right now the reality is winner-take-absolutely-everything. Any sort of cooperation is scorned as weakness. So sure, dump the fil. For now, the Ds will do as they please, the hell with the Rs. When the Senate balance shifts, the Rs will do exactly as they please, the hell with the Ds. No reason for any D to cooperate with any R, no reason for any r to cooperate with any D. Hoping for anything better is naive.
I understand.


I believe the issues you are thinking of are tolerance and forbearance. Tolerance is antithetical to much of American Christianity - tolerance requires at its heart the realization and inner acknowledgment that what you believe may not be correct and others could be right. This is direct conflict with I am the way the truth and light - there’s no maybe in faith.

Forbearance has to do with restraint from using all your elected powers solely for one side’s benefit. If one side is painted as baby devouring satanists see tolerance above.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#19355 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,037
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2022-January-05, 23:31

Winston said:

tolerance requires at its heart the realization and inner acknowledgment that what you believe may not be correct and others could be right.
Well now we know why Bridge is popular in America.
Bridge players are always right.
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek.
0

#19356 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,500
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2022-January-06, 05:47

View Postkenberg, on 2022-January-05, 16:53, said:

Theoretically, there is something to be said for writing a bill in such a way that is supported by more than a razor-thin Senate majority. It would be nice, or I think it would be nice, if the Senate did not go through a huge reversal when it changed from 51-49 to 49-51, no matter which direction the change moves. Telling the 49 Senators, and the people that they represent, to drop dead since the 51 will be doing exactly what the 51 want, no input wanted or accepted from the 49, is not a great way to do things. But reality must be faced, and right now the reality is winner-take-absolutely-everything. Any sort of cooperation is scorned as weakness. So sure, dump the fil. For now, the Ds will do as they please, the hell with the Rs. When the Senate balance shifts, the Rs will do exactly as they please, the hell with the Ds. No reason for any D to cooperate with any R, no reason for any r to cooperate with any D. Hoping for anything better is naive.
I understand.

The thing is, we would say more incentives for bipartisan cooperation without the filibuster.

Imagine in the year 2040, Democrats have retaken the senate after 18 years of being in the minority, and there are now 53 Democrats in the senate, as well as a Democratic president. The asymptotic-removal-of-filibuster-process has reduced the threshold of passing legislation to 55 votes.
What incentive is there for two Republicans to cooperate? If they do, they help deliver President LeBron James a win, making his reelection more likely. Moreover, many in their base will be furious at them for giving in, and the primary challengers would start announcing their candidacies the same evening.

What if the filibuster had been abolished instead? There would still be incentives for the Democrats to find those two Republican senators, to burnish the bipartisan credentials of the bill and thus President JAmes. And now there would be incentives for the two Republican senators to negotiate. They can tell their base "The bill would have passed anyway, but I prevented them from hiking your your CEO's tax bill". After some good old-fashioned horse trading, they can tell their constituents they got funding for a bridge to their state's main airport.

Of course, this is all fictitious. Democrats will be out of power in the senate for much longer than 18 years.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#19357 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,589
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2022-January-06, 05:53

View Postkenberg, on 2022-January-05, 16:53, said:

Yes, I know that the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. I guess it is also not forbidden by the Constitution. But neither of these was my point. Not what I said.

Suppose that after the 2022 elections the Senate consists of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. I am suggesting that we might then see the end of the filibuster, or at least the end of its effectiveness when Ds try to use it. . That was what I said.

Theoretically, there is something to be said for writing a bill in such a way that is supported by more than a razor-thin Senate majority. It would be nice, or I think it would be nice, if the Senate did not go through a huge reversal when it changed from 51-49 to 49-51, no matter which direction the change moves. Telling the 49 Senators, and the people that they represent, to drop dead since the 51 will be doing exactly what the 51 want, no input wanted or accepted from the 49, is not a great way to do things. But reality must be faced, and right now the reality is winner-take-absolutely-everything. Any sort of cooperation is scorned as weakness. So sure, dump the fil. For now, the Ds will do as they please, the hell with the Rs. When the Senate balance shifts, the Rs will do exactly as they please, the hell with the Ds. No reason for any D to cooperate with any R, no reason for any r to cooperate with any D. Hoping for anything better is naive.
I understand.

There is no question that if the Democrats weaken or eliminate the filibuster that the QOP will not restore the filibuster if they take back the Senate. The primary difference is that Democrats actually want to pass legislation to help the country, while the QOP is perfectly happy to do absolutely nothing to help the country in general, but to only pass special interest legislation that helps the QOP. Take for instance raising the deficit which should be basically a 100% pro forma vote to pass, or better yet, to just get rid of the requirement to raise the deficit. And yet, the QOP has shut down the Federal government for entirely bogus reasons by filibustering when the Democrats hold power. As it is, it has been decades since anything substantial has been passed on a real bipartisan vote, so the delusion that cooperation between the parties is necessary is laid bare.
0

#19358 User is online   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,842
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2022-January-06, 07:25

View Postcherdano, on 2022-January-06, 05:47, said:

The thing is, we would say more incentives for bipartisan cooperation without the filibuster.

Imagine in the year 2040, Democrats have retaken the senate after 18 years of being in the minority, and there are now 53 Democrats in the senate, as well as a Democratic president. The asymptotic-removal-of-filibuster-process has reduced the threshold of passing legislation to 55 votes.
What incentive is there for two Republicans to cooperate? If they do, they help deliver President LeBron James a win, making his reelection more likely. Moreover, many in their base will be furious at them for giving in, and the primary challengers would start announcing their candidacies the same evening.

What if the filibuster had been abolished instead? There would still be incentives for the Democrats to find those two Republican senators, to burnish the bipartisan credentials of the bill and thus President JAmes. And now there would be incentives for the two Republican senators to negotiate. They can tell their base "The bill would have passed anyway, but I prevented them from hiking your your CEO's tax bill". After some good old-fashioned horse trading, they can tell their constituents they got funding for a bridge to their state's main airport.

Of course, this is all fictitious. Democrats will be out of power in the senate for much longer than 18 years.


Right now I am seeing the situation as dire, so I am in search of a solution. I am no great fan of the filibuster. But try this.

Suppose the Dems wants to give ten million dollars to the bluish state of Minnesota, in honor of ken berg being born there. Forty-one Rs could use the filibuster to stop that. In another year, maybe the Rs want to give ten million to the reddish state of Wisconsin in honor of Ken Berg not being born there. Forty-one Ds could use the filibuster to stop that. So Rs and Ds would have to cooperate to give twenty million, split between the states. Obviously a victory for cooperation.


Maybe a slightly more realistic example: Student debt is massive, Ds speak of spending a trillion or so to ease the burden. However, the system is still in place, lending large amounts of money with little regard for what the student is studying, whether the program is any good, and, in short, setting things up so that more and more nineteen-wear-olds will be putting themselves in debt that they will be unable to pay. So we have a problem, and maybe a lot of money has to be spent to solve it, but there could be a push to stop making the problem worse. Acknowledging that there is a problem is good, acknowledging that the program was set up idiotically would also be good. It's really hard to contend that a program in need of a trillion-dollar fix was well designed, but senators seem to have difficulty in seeing this.


I am in favor of almost anything that would get people working together. I am not claiming that the world was beautiful when I was growing up in the 1940s-50s but Rs and Ds could sit at the same dinner table without throwing food at each other. We need to work on this.
Ken
0

#19359 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,896
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-January-06, 08:12

View Postkenberg, on 2022-January-06, 07:25, said:

Right now I am seeing the situation as dire, so I am in search of a solution. I am no great fan of the filibuster. But try this.

Suppose the Dems wants to give ten million dollars to the bluish state of Minnesota, in honor of ken berg being born there. Forty-one Rs could use the filibuster to stop that. In another year, maybe the Rs want to give ten million to the reddish state of Wisconsin in honor of Ken Berg not being born there. Forty-one Ds could use the filibuster to stop that. So Rs and Ds would have to cooperate to give twenty million, split between the states. Obviously a victory for cooperation.


Maybe a slightly more realistic example: Student debt is massive, Ds speak of spending a trillion or so to ease the burden. However, the system is still in place, lending large amounts of money with little regard for what the student is studying, whether the program is any good, and, in short, setting things up so that more and more nineteen-wear-olds will be putting themselves in debt that they will be unable to pay. So we have a problem, and maybe a lot of money has to be spent to solve it, but there could be a push to stop making the problem worse. Acknowledging that there is a problem is good, acknowledging that the program was set up idiotically would also be good. It's really hard to contend that a program in need of a trillion-dollar fix was well designed, but senators seem to have difficulty in seeing this.


I am in favor of almost anything that would get people working together. I am not claiming that the world was beautiful when I was growing up in the 1940s-50s but Rs and Ds could sit at the same dinner table without throwing food at each other. We need to work on this.


I can’t speak for other states but here in Oklahoma there used to be the thinking that the senators tried to use their power to steer money or jobs to their states; now, the senators work only for special interests (here that means oil) or “the party”.

A large part of the solution is better candidates.*Better meaning having personal integrity strong enough to resist pressure from both sticks and sugar.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#19360 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,896
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-January-06, 09:00

Imagine if you will someone's crazy uncle, sitting in his recliner in his robe and house shoes , stubble of 3-day- old beard and hair disheveled, one long strand hanging at a right angle to his head. He's engaged in a conversation with his tv, nodding sometimes then shouting expletives at something said with which he disagrees. The floor is covered with the paper wrappers of Big Macs and cardboard containers used to ship French fries to his expanding gut. Sixteen empty Diet Coke cans are scattered on chairs, desk and furniture. He glances at his phone while typing a response to something Hannity just said on tv, hits send, then wipes secret sauce from his own and his phone's memories.

Now imagine this crazy uncle had inherited $400 million from his father.

Now imagine he is sitting in the White House as president.

And now imagine he is black.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

  • 1024 Pages +
  • « First
  • 966
  • 967
  • 968
  • 969
  • 970
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

15 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 15 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google