What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Democratic agenda HALTED (1 Viewer)

timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
This morning there is an op-Ed by Krysten Sinema in the Washington Post, putting an end to any speculation that she’s going to agree to end the 60 vote filibuster, or reduce it to 55 votes even. It ain’t happening: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-democrats-760fbd2c-72f9-4644-a82e-db3e4908beee.html

Sinema argued that it’s bad for stability to get rid of the filibuster. And she may be right. But here’s what it means for the Democratic agenda: 

No voting rights law. 

No gun restrictions. 

No DACA or immigration reform. 

No police reform. 

No tax increase on the wealthy. 

No climate change legislation. 
No committee to investigate January 6. 

MAYBE some infrastructure spending- but at best it will be heavily watered down. And even then it’s no guarantee given that there is a strong movement among Republicans to deny the Democrats even this so that they can campaign in 2022 against an ineffective Congress and President. 
 

Everything I listed above is supported by over 50% of the American public. In most cases it’s over 60%. Yet none of it is going to be done. And this isn’t going to change anytime soon either. Whether the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, or the Republicans are put back in charge, it’s hard to see either side getting a 60 vote majority. And it’s hard to see a lot of bipartisan agreement if any. 
We’re at a permanent standstill it seems. 

 
I think higher taxes on the wealthy could be part of a reconciliation bill and pass with just Dems (if Sienna and Manchin go for it).

Agreed about the rest of it. 

 
timschochet said:
This morning there is an op-Ed by Krysten Sinema in the Washington Post, putting an end to any speculation that she’s going to agree to end the 60 vote filibuster, or reduce it to 55 votes even. It ain’t happening: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-democrats-760fbd2c-72f9-4644-a82e-db3e4908beee.html

Sinema argued that it’s bad for stability to get rid of the filibuster. And she may be right. But here’s what it means for the Democratic agenda: 

No voting rights law. 

No gun restrictions. 

No DACA or immigration reform. 

No police reform. 

No tax increase on the wealthy. 

No climate change legislation. 
No committee to investigate January 6. 

MAYBE some infrastructure spending- but at best it will be heavily watered down. And even then it’s no guarantee given that there is a strong movement among Republicans to deny the Democrats even this so that they can campaign in 2022 against an ineffective Congress and President. 
 

Everything I listed above is supported by over 50% of the American public. In most cases it’s over 60%. Yet none of it is going to be done. And this isn’t going to change anytime soon either. Whether the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, or the Republicans are put back in charge, it’s hard to see either side getting a 60 vote majority. And it’s hard to see a lot of bipartisan agreement if any. 
We’re at a permanent standstill it seems. 
Click to expand...
Dont you argue that the majority of americans want a wall.   But they are wrong so ignore the polls.

 
timschochet said:
This morning there is an op-Ed by Krysten Sinema in the Washington Post, putting an end to any speculation that she’s going to agree to end the 60 vote filibuster, or reduce it to 55 votes even. It ain’t happening: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-democrats-760fbd2c-72f9-4644-a82e-db3e4908beee.html

Sinema argued that it’s bad for stability to get rid of the filibuster. And she may be right. But here’s what it means for the Democratic agenda: 

No voting rights law. 

No gun restrictions. 

No DACA or immigration reform. 

No police reform. 

No tax increase on the wealthy. 

No climate change legislation. 
No committee to investigate January 6. 

MAYBE some infrastructure spending- but at best it will be heavily watered down. And even then it’s no guarantee given that there is a strong movement among Republicans to deny the Democrats even this so that they can campaign in 2022 against an ineffective Congress and President. 
 

Everything I listed above is supported by over 50% of the American public. In most cases it’s over 60%. Yet none of it is going to be done. And this isn’t going to change anytime soon either. Whether the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, or the Republicans are put back in charge, it’s hard to see either side getting a 60 vote majority. And it’s hard to see a lot of bipartisan agreement if any. 
We’re at a permanent standstill it seems. 
Click to expand...
in favor of increased background checks on guns.

as for the rest good riddance.

 
quick-hands said:
Dont you argue that the majority of americans want a wall.   But they are wrong so ignore the polls.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing here that the majority of Americans are always right. I’m simply pointing out that under our current structure the Senate is blocking everything. 
 

If you recall, President Trump tried to get spending for the wall. He couldn’t get 60 votes to do it. He publicly urged McConnell to ditch the filibuster. McConnell refused. So it’s no different than what it is now. 

I am not, in this thread, arguing for the Democratic agenda. I happen to personally agree with a lot of it, but that’s besides the point. The subject here is senate dysfunction. 

 
The founding fathers wanted major change to be difficult to achieve.  And I would love you to support your assertion that there aren't any gun restrictions.  That's patently false.  I would also dispute your assertion as to the popularity of those topics, or whether that should even matter, but that's another thread.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
We’re at a permanent standstill it seems. 
Click to expand...
This part isn't true.  The composition of the Senate will change at the beginning of 2023.  Maybe the Republicans will take control, in which case the Democrats will be happy they didn't dump the filibuster.  Maybe the Democrats will add a seat or two, in which case Sinema's vote to keep the filibuster may not matter.

 
timschochet said:
I am not arguing here that the majority of Americans are always right. I’m simply pointing out that under our current structure the Senate is blocking everything. 
 

If you recall, President Trump tried to get spending for the wall. He couldn’t get 60 votes to do it. He publicly urged McConnell to ditch the filibuster. McConnell refused. So it’s no different than what it is now. 

I am not, in this thread, arguing for the Democratic agenda. I happen to personally agree with a lot of it, but that’s besides the point. The subject here is senate dysfunction. 
Click to expand...
Its 60 votes.   Id say its working as planned.    The democratic agenda that you agree with shouldnt be passed.

Mcconell was right not to dump the filibuster.

 
John123 said:
The founding fathers wanted major change to be difficult to achieve.  And I would love you to support your assertion that there aren't any gun restrictions.  That's patently false.  I would also dispute your assertion as to the popularity of those topics, or whether that should even matter, but that's another thread.
Click to expand...
I meant no new gun restrictions as called for by Biden 

 
shadrap said:
well then come up with something both sides like?  not easy I know.
Click to expand...
When 1 side's leadership boasts about being obstructionists whether they agree with the policies proposed or not there is no "something both sides like".  I full realize that the party who is in control usually loses in mid term elections but I think the anti Trump/ anti obstructionist message can carry over to the mid terms and we can find 2 extra votes that will make Manchins and Sienemas votes less important....  Of the 34 senate seats up for election 20 are republicans with 5 of them retiring vs 14 democrats with nobody retiring.   I think the answer to actually getting legislation passed is hold the house and increase the hold on the senate.  

 
timschochet said:
This morning there is an op-Ed by Krysten Sinema in the Washington Post, putting an end to any speculation that she’s going to agree to end the 60 vote filibuster, or reduce it to 55 votes even. It ain’t happening: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-democrats-760fbd2c-72f9-4644-a82e-db3e4908beee.html

Sinema argued that it’s bad for stability to get rid of the filibuster. And she may be right. But here’s what it means for the Democratic agenda: 

No voting rights law. 

No gun restrictions. 

No DACA or immigration reform. 

No police reform. 

No tax increase on the wealthy. 

No climate change legislation. 
No committee to investigate January 6. 

MAYBE some infrastructure spending- but at best it will be heavily watered down. And even then it’s no guarantee given that there is a strong movement among Republicans to deny the Democrats even this so that they can campaign in 2022 against an ineffective Congress and President. 
 

Everything I listed above is supported by over 50% of the American public. In most cases it’s over 60%. Yet none of it is going to be done. And this isn’t going to change anytime soon either. Whether the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, or the Republicans are put back in charge, it’s hard to see either side getting a 60 vote majority. And it’s hard to see a lot of bipartisan agreement if any. 
We’re at a permanent standstill it seems. 
Click to expand...
#RESIST

Remember that?  At least today the resistance is ideological rather than personal.

 
quick-hands said:
Its 60 votes.   Id say its working as planned.    The democratic agenda that you agree with shouldnt be passed.

Mcconell was right not to dump the filibuster.
Click to expand...
I’m in favor of the filibuster regardless of who’s in power.  The Senate was designed to be the place where thoughtful deliberation and compromise takes place.  And it has worked pretty well.  The last thing we want is a wild swing in policy every 4 to 8 years.  Look at how that turned out with regard to the EO’s on immigration.

 
timschochet said:
No DACA or immigration reform. 

No police reform. 

No tax increase on the wealthy. 
Click to expand...
Democrats had their shot at significant immigration reform and blew it with Trump.  He was likely the least conservative Republican on that subject we'll see for a while.

Police reform is moving forward on a bipartisan basis.

Tax and spending can be pushed through by reconciliation.

---

And it's good to see a bit of logic coming from the blue side of the Senate.  A bright light in a morass of power grubbing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
This part isn't true.  The composition of the Senate will change at the beginning of 2023.  Maybe the Republicans will take control, in which case the Democrats will be happy they didn't dump the filibuster.  Maybe the Democrats will add a seat or two, in which case Sinema's vote to keep the filibuster may not matter.
Click to expand...
Veto still looms. 

 
ekbeats said:
I’m in favor of the filibuster regardless of who’s in power.  The Senate was designed to be the place where thoughtful deliberation and compromise takes place.  And it has worked pretty well.  The last thing we want is a wild swing in policy every 4 to 8 years.  Look at how that turned out with regard to the EO’s on immigration.
Click to expand...
I'd love for Republicans to actually pass what they profess to want. Let Americans get a good taste of that policy and see how it works out for them. And vicey versey. 

 
Jackstraw said:
I'd love for Republicans to actually pass what they profess to want. Let Americans get a good taste of that policy and see how it works out for them. And vicey versey. 
Click to expand...
We've had an open border for the last six months and no one seems to care.  I'd rather not let them pass anything they want just to see if people care.  It's clear they don't.

 
timschochet said:
This morning there is an op-Ed by Krysten Sinema in the Washington Post, putting an end to any speculation that she’s going to agree to end the 60 vote filibuster, or reduce it to 55 votes even. It ain’t happening: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-democrats-760fbd2c-72f9-4644-a82e-db3e4908beee.html

Sinema argued that it’s bad for stability to get rid of the filibuster. And she may be right. But here’s what it means for the Democratic agenda: 

No voting rights law. 

No gun restrictions. 

No DACA or immigration reform. 

No police reform. 

No tax increase on the wealthy. 

No climate change legislation. 
No committee to investigate January 6. 

MAYBE some infrastructure spending- but at best it will be heavily watered down. And even then it’s no guarantee given that there is a strong movement among Republicans to deny the Democrats even this so that they can campaign in 2022 against an ineffective Congress and President. 
 

Everything I listed above is supported by over 50% of the American public. In most cases it’s over 60%. Yet none of it is going to be done. And this isn’t going to change anytime soon either. Whether the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, or the Republicans are put back in charge, it’s hard to see either side getting a 60 vote majority. And it’s hard to see a lot of bipartisan agreement if any. 
We’re at a permanent standstill it seems. 
Click to expand...
Call me naïve but while I am in favor of most of the above I don't like the idea of damn near everything that congress/senate passes does so along party lines.  This has been the case for a long time and it bugs me.  Bugged me when the Republicans held the majority and it bugs me now that the Democrats have it.     

Used appropriately, gridlock in the Senate is a feature, not a bug.   If you can't convince enough to get 60% to vote for your proposition it needs reworked.  The problem is that our representatives are so hyper-partisan they won't agree to anything.  Then they can say the majority aren't doing anything and the majority can call the minority obstructionists. 

 
Godsbrother said:
Call me naïve but while I am in favor of most of the above I don't like the idea of damn near everything that congress/senate passes does so along party lines.  This has been the case for a long time and it bugs me.  Bugged me when the Republicans held the majority and it bugs me now that the Democrats have it.     

Used appropriately, gridlock in the Senate is a feature, not a bug.   If you can't convince enough to get 60% to vote for your proposition it needs reworked.  The problem is that our representatives are so hyper-partisan they won't agree to anything.  Then they can say the majority aren't doing anything and the majority can call the minority obstructionists. 
Click to expand...
Right.  Very few items are being voted on based on merits

 
Godsbrother said:
Used appropriately, gridlock in the Senate is a feature, not a bug.   If you can't convince enough to get 60% to vote for your proposition it needs reworked.  The problem is that our representatives are so hyper-partisan they won't agree to anything.  Then they can say the majority aren't doing anything and the majority can call the minority obstructionists. 
Click to expand...
Can we at least agree before winter that DST all the time is a good thing?  Dagnabit!

 
Biden never had any intention of bi-partisanship or actually getting things done. This is evidenced by his very first executive decision: selecting a VP.

Biden chose the most politically left of all senators, one of the least effective, and the one who joined the least number of bi-partisan bills.

From the beginning this was a "go-big or go home" administration held hostage by the Progressive wing.

No surprise we are where we are.

 
ekbeats said:
#RESIST

Remember that?  At least today the resistance is ideological rather than personal.
Click to expand...
:bs:  

The republican party's only ideal in 2021 is to "own the libs", to see "liberal tears".  Positions that conservatives have held sacred for just about forever are quickly jettisoned just to express hatred for everything democrat.  And there is no both sides equivalent.  At least not yet.

 
Thunderlips said:
I think he means "reform" as in reforming it to not have it anymore.  
Click to expand...
@Sand has this completely wrong anyhow. Trump negotiated a deal in which DACA would be approved in exchange for funding for the wall. To my great surprise, Schumer actually agreed. Then the nativists in Trump’s party got in Trump’s face: no deal on DACA no matter what, no negotiation, only wall funding. Trump abruptly walked away from the deal. 

 
Godsbrother said:
Call me naïve but while I am in favor of most of the above I don't like the idea of damn near everything that congress/senate passes does so along party lines.  This has been the case for a long time and it bugs me.  Bugged me when the Republicans held the majority and it bugs me now that the Democrats have it.     

Used appropriately, gridlock in the Senate is a feature, not a bug.   If you can't convince enough to get 60% to vote for your proposition it needs reworked.  The problem is that our representatives are so hyper-partisan they won't agree to anything.  Then they can say the majority aren't doing anything and the majority can call the minority obstructionists. 
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm the naive one, but I think eliminating the filibuster would lead to more bipartisan legislation.

The minority party would have to change their negotiating strategy. (In other words, they'd have to actually have one since they can't just kill everything).

And right now whenever the majority can't get something done they just throw up their hands and shout "darn you filibuster" in mock outrage. If we get rid of it they have no excuses. Can't get Machin and Sinema on board? Then re-work to get two Republicans or the failure is on you.

 
The Sinema-Portman bi-partisan infrastructure bill has 11 GOP and 10 Democratic Senators already signed up.

Someone please tell me where the problem lies in getting this done.

(hint: it's a Democrat and his initials are B.S.).

 
timschochet said:
This morning there is an op-Ed by Krysten Sinema in the Washington Post, putting an end to any speculation that she’s going to agree to end the 60 vote filibuster, or reduce it to 55 votes even. It ain’t happening: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-democrats-760fbd2c-72f9-4644-a82e-db3e4908beee.html

Sinema argued that it’s bad for stability to get rid of the filibuster. And she may be right. But here’s what it means for the Democratic agenda: 

No voting rights law. 

No gun restrictions. 

No DACA or immigration reform. 

No police reform. 

No tax increase on the wealthy. 

No climate change legislation. 
No committee to investigate January 6. 

MAYBE some infrastructure spending- but at best it will be heavily watered down. And even then it’s no guarantee given that there is a strong movement among Republicans to deny the Democrats even this so that they can campaign in 2022 against an ineffective Congress and President. 
 

Everything I listed above is supported by over 50% of the American public. In most cases it’s over 60%. Yet none of it is going to be done. And this isn’t going to change anytime soon either. Whether the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, or the Republicans are put back in charge, it’s hard to see either side getting a 60 vote majority. And it’s hard to see a lot of bipartisan agreement if any. 
We’re at a permanent standstill it seems. 
Click to expand...
I think it is time to ask some serious questions about whether the American Presidential form of government is viable today.  The system is fundamentally broken in terms of serving the people.  It now only serves itself.

 
Sand said:
Democrats had their shot at significant immigration reform and blew it with Trump.  He was likely the least conservative Republican on that subject we'll see for a while.
Click to expand...
ummm....what?  My memory was that Trump and Schumer had gotten a DACA deal done, then Trump got bullied by the likes of Ann Coulter and her ilk and he dumped the deal.  

 
ekbeats said:
I’m in favor of the filibuster regardless of who’s in power.  The Senate was designed to be the place where thoughtful deliberation and compromise takes place.  And it has worked pretty well.  The last thing we want is a wild swing in policy every 4 to 8 years.  Look at how that turned out with regard to the EO’s on immigration.
Click to expand...
It hasn’t worked recently.  There has been no deliberation or debate and certainly nothing thoughtful in the senate.

 
The filibuster works if the parties are willing to compromise.  But in the last 10-20 years, they are simply too far apart to do so. 
Part of this, I think, is due to the redistricting. It used to be that in general elections politicians ran to the center. Now it’s more important to energize your base. Thus my fear, which I stated in another thread, that we’re approaching a situation where all the races are going to be Marjorie Taylor Green vs AOC. If that happens, I’m going to have to reluctantly vote for AOC. And if that happens, I’m sure that conservatives reading this will have to reluctantly vote for MTG. But none of us are going to be happy. We’re being forced into this division and I have no idea how to stop it. 

 
timschochet said:
The filibuster works if the parties are willing to compromise.  But in the last 10-20 years, they are simply too far apart to do so. 
Part of this, I think, is due to the redistricting. It used to be that in general elections politicians ran to the center. Now it’s more important to energize your base. Thus my fear, which I stated in another thread, that we’re approaching a situation where all the races are going to be Marjorie Taylor Green vs AOC. If that happens, I’m going to have to reluctantly vote for AOC. And if that happens, I’m sure that conservatives reading this will have to reluctantly vote for MTG. But none of us are going to be happy. We’re being forced into this division and I have no idea how to stop it. 
Click to expand...
I don't know man. From 2016 to 2020 the left all but ensured that there would be no bipartisanship with their behavior over those four years. I mean, it was absolutely disgusting.

I don't think there was one tear shed for bipartisanship from the left during those years. No laments or diatribes on the loss of bipartisanship.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ekbeats said:
I’m in favor of the filibuster regardless of who’s in power.  The Senate was designed to be the place where thoughtful deliberation and compromise takes place.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your first sentence, your second, particularly the bolded, hasn’t taken place for decades.  

 
BladeRunner said:
I don't know man. From 2016 to 2020 the left all but ensured that there would be no bipartisanship with their behavior over those four years. I mean, it was absolutely disgusting.

I don't think there was one tear shed for bipartisanship from the left during those years. No laments or diatribes on the loss of bipartisanship.
Click to expand...
Name the bill that Trump proposed during those years that you believe the Democrats should have accepted. 

 
BladeRunner said:
I don't know man. From 2016 to 2020 the left all but ensured that there would be no bipartisanship with their behavior over those four years. I mean, it was absolutely disgusting.

I don't think there was one tear shed for bipartisanship from the left during those years. No laments or diatribes on the loss of bipartisanship.
Click to expand...
While obstructionism was certainly true of the left under Trump it was so too from the right under Obama.  Both parties care far more about the other party not getting a win then they care about getting a win themselves.  And certainly neither give 2 ####s about their constituents. It’s a zero sum game at this point all while the American public points their fingers at each other.  We are getting played, used and laughed at.  Disgusting is certainly the right term to use, it just needs to be applied to the whole lot of them.  

 
zoonation said:
I think it is time to ask some serious questions about whether the American Presidential form of government is viable today.  The system is fundamentally broken in terms of serving the people.  It now only serves itself.
Click to expand...
It's way past time to ask those questions. This story won't end well.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
:bs:  

The republican party's only ideal in 2021 is to "own the libs", to see "liberal tears".  Positions that conservatives have held sacred for just about forever are quickly jettisoned just to express hatred for everything democrat.  And there is no both sides equivalent.  At least not yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah you’re right, there is no both sides equivalent.  Democrats used the filibuster 314 times when Trump was president for 4 years, compared to Republicans who used it 175 times in the 8 years of the Obama term.

You Liberals don’t have a foot to stand on when it comes to the filibuster or “obstructionism”.  It’s laughable that this topic was brought up.  You reap what you sow, so suck it up buttercup.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ekbeats said:
Yeah you’re right, there is no both sides equivalent.  Democrats used the filibuster 314 times when Trump was president for 4 years, compared to Republicans who used it 175 times in the 8 years of the Obama term.

You Liberals don’t have a foot to stand on when it comes to the filibuster or “obstructionism”.  It’s laughable that this topic was brought up.  You reap what you sow, so suck it up buttercup.
Click to expand...
Hard to argue with this.  Again, both parties are guilty of being obstructionists when they are in the minority and are hardnosed and unbending when in the majority.  

Like I said earlier in some cases this gridlock is not always a bad thing and it should promote bills that are leaner and more balanced.  Unfortunately way too often these compromises just don't happen due to partisan politics and the Amercian people suffer because of it.    

We elect and then re-elect these people so it is our own fault but then the American people seem to be getting more partisan by the day so our representatives are a reflection of ourselves.  

You reap what you sow indeed.

 
timschochet said:
The filibuster works if the parties are willing to compromise.  But in the last 10-20 years, they are simply too far apart to do so. 
Part of this, I think, is due to the redistricting. It used to be that in general elections politicians ran to the center. Now it’s more important to energize your base. Thus my fear, which I stated in another thread, that we’re approaching a situation where all the races are going to be Marjorie Taylor Green vs AOC. If that happens, I’m going to have to reluctantly vote for AOC. And if that happens, I’m sure that conservatives reading this will have to reluctantly vote for MTG. But none of us are going to be happy. We’re being forced into this division and I have no idea how to stop it. 
Click to expand...
1. Ranked choice voting

2. Proportional representation

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Don’t blame Manchin
2 3
Replies
115
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
235
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
timschochet
Voting restrictions and the “For the People Act”
6 7 8
Replies
380
Views
9K
John123
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top