luvyablue256 Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 For fucks sake, stop the hand-wringing and let the game play itself out. The Democrats KNOW what they're dealing with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvyablue256 Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Titans279 said: I'm not sure this is true. Why do you think so? This tweet shows why I think the incentives for Republicans are actually aligned against working together with a President of the opposite party. Read this: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 7 minutes ago, ctm said: The senate committees stay organized under the previous arrangement until they are changed. Meaning republicans are in charge. How long will Manchin say NO while McConnell refuses to change? Manchin is empowering McConnell's obstruction. Is Manchin signaling to McConnell the filibuster is safe so he might as well agree to the organizing resolution? Sounds like Manchin is fine preventing the democrats from enacting Biden's agenda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvyablue256 Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, oldschool said: Is Manchin signaling to McConnell the filibuster is safe so he might as well agree to the organizing resolution? Sounds like Manchin is fine preventing the democrats from enacting Biden's agenda. Or maybe they want to get people confirmed before throwing molotov cocktails around the chamber? Or maybe they don't want to deal with a GOP senate without a filibuster? Would you want President Cruz, Speaker McCarthy and Majority Leader McConnell WITHOUT a filibuster? Don't think it can't happen.... Edited January 25, 2021 by luvyablue256 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, oldschool said: Is Manchin signaling to McConnell the filibuster is safe so he might as well agree to the organizing resolution? Sounds like Manchin is fine preventing the democrats from enacting Biden's agenda. K. Sinema has essentially now said the same thing as Manchin. The problem with having no votes to spare in the senate is that it enables every single democratic senator with leverage. Edited January 25, 2021 by ctm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just now, ctm said: K. Sinema has essentially now said the same thing as Manchin. Yup here it is. Cornyn is in leadership and does nothing without McConnell signing off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 18 minutes ago, luvyablue256 said: Read this: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htm I don't understand how this means the Senate is structured for bipartisan compromise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 The Senate was structured for bipartisan compromise once upon a time. Then one party decided that they were better off by refusing to compromise... oldschool 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 I think Manchin and Sinema would actually rather things be held up by Republicans so they don't take the blame. They would not actually support a lot of Biden's agenda and would get the blame if it were actually possible to pass things with 51 votes. This is basically just a way to protect themselves. oldschool 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 25, 2021 Report Share Posted January 25, 2021 1 minute ago, Starkiller said: The Senate was structured for bipartisan compromise once upon a time. Then one party decided that they were better off by refusing to compromise... This is not true. It was structured to pass things with a majority of votes. The filibuster was created by mistake and wasn't even discovered for years after the rule change that created it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvyablue256 Posted January 26, 2021 Report Share Posted January 26, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Titans279 said: I don't understand how this means the Senate is structured for bipartisan compromise. Because why else would their terms be 6 years instead of 2 if they weren't meant to be pragmatic and make decisions their base may not like, as opposed to the House that has to worry about near-immediate fallout? The Senate isn't designed for every vote to fall along party lines. It's designed to be a balance on the House. The entire structure of government is designed for negotiation and compromise. Everybody is meant to win and lose something in a bicameral legislature. Its how we got the ACA, only without a public option. And it kept the ACA from being gutted under 3-headed GOP rule. Now with that said, Bidens agenda can be passed. It will just be negotiated and compromised on. He said as much in his presser today. Edited January 26, 2021 by luvyablue256 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvyablue256 Posted January 26, 2021 Report Share Posted January 26, 2021 Now what really needs to happen is a limiting the filibuster to once or twice per 2 years. That makes the minority pick their battles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 26, 2021 Report Share Posted January 26, 2021 (edited) Hot take: get ride of the House entirely since the Senate is the bottleneck anyway. What's even the point? Edited January 26, 2021 by Titans279 tgo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 26, 2021 Report Share Posted January 26, 2021 (edited) 33 minutes ago, luvyablue256 said: Because why else would their terms be 6 years instead of 2 if they weren't meant to be pragmatic and make decisions their base may not like, as opposed to the House that has to worry about near-immediate fallout? The Senate isn't designed for every vote to fall along party lines. It's designed to be a balance on the House. The entire structure of government is designed for negotiation and compromise. Everybody is meant to win and lose something in a bicameral legislature. Its how we got the ACA, only without a public option. And it kept the ACA from being gutted under 3-headed GOP rule. Now with that said, Bidens agenda can be passed. It will just be negotiated and compromised on. He said as much in his presser today. It was definitely structured to be calmer and cooler, but that doesn't necessarily mean bipartisan compromise. It was still structured to pass things with a just simple majority of votes. That means the party in the majority could pass what they wanted. The Senate would still be a force for moderation due to the 2 Senators from each state rule. Smaller more conservative states get outsized power. For example, the House could pass more progressive legislation and the 51 Democratic votes in the Senate would still be a sieve through which the more progressive legislation would have to pass. Manchin and Sinema would be the ultimate deciders of what passes in this hypothetical. I think they REALLY don't want to actually have that power. They would rather not pass things and be able to blame the lack of bipartisan compromise than have to take tough votes on things like a public option, minimum wage boost, or child tax credits, etc. Edited January 26, 2021 by Titans279 tgo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvyablue256 Posted January 26, 2021 Report Share Posted January 26, 2021 Just now, Titans279 said: It was definitely structured to be calmer and cooler, but that doesn't necessarily mean bipartisan compromise. It was still structured to pass things with a just simple majority of votes votes. For example, the House could pass more progressive legislation and the 51 Democratic votes in the Senate would still be a sieve through which the more progressive legislation would have to pass. Manchin and Sinema would be the ultimate deciders of what passes in this hypothetical. I think they REALLY don't want to actually have that power. They would rather not pass things and be able to blame the lack of bipartisan compromise than have to take tough votes on thinks like a public option, minimum wage boost, or child tax credits, etc. Why would they not want to pass these things? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.