Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-21-2013, 05:57 PM
 
59,113 posts, read 27,340,319 times
Reputation: 14289

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bily Lovec View Post
this will be a blast when Republicans win the Senate back @ mid-terms.

watch all the *******s whine cry like obama having his ice cream taken away by the wookie...
Just like Obama, Reid and Biden did when THEY were Senators in the minority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2013, 05:59 PM
 
59,113 posts, read 27,340,319 times
Reputation: 14289
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
The nuclear option only pertains to Presidential nominees. It does not affect proposed legislation.
I heard it only pertains to judge appointments except the Supreme Court.

However, once the cat is out of the bag, there is no stopping it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2013, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,981 posts, read 22,167,958 times
Reputation: 13811
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Suck it up Republicans. Time to roll up the sleeves and get something done. Judges nominated by the president will now be seated after 5 long years of republican obstructionism.

Senate Democrats invoke ‘nuclear option’, changes filibuster rules – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
The Republicans bluffed about this, just as 0bama bluffs about defaulting on our national debt, but the Democrats actually flipped the nuclear switch. These people just keep getting more and more tyrannical.

What was their reasoning behind this, the Republicans gave 0bama 78% of every one of his nominations.

Last edited by Wapasha; 11-21-2013 at 07:31 PM.. Reason: typo 78% not 98%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2013, 06:03 PM
 
59,113 posts, read 27,340,319 times
Reputation: 14289
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazerunner View Post
One other thing--what ever happened to "Majority rules?" When did "majority rules" become "supermajority rules?" Why should it take 60 votes to do anything, even if it is a routine or inconsequential matter?

Okay, so the Republicans might take back the Senate in 2014. Big deal. Obama would still be making appointments until January 2017. The only way the shoe would really be on the other foot would be if the Senate and White House were controlled by Republicans after the 2016 election. And that's fine because, well, the GOP would have the votes to do what they want. And if the public rejects it, then that's what elections are for.

Long story short, we have public elections so we can determine the direction we want to go in as a nation. After the election, we should give the governing party a chance to implement their ideas. And if we don't like their ideas after they've been implemented, they should be voted out in the next election. Unfortunately, it seems as if Republicans are conducting themselves as if 2008 and 2012 had never happened. Yes, 2010 did happen, and that's why they have the House. But 2008 and 2012 are why we have a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Senate.

Oh yeah, and in 2016, Senate Republicans will be overexposed because a lot of Tea Party Republicans got swept into the Senate during the wave election of 2010. So even if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, that candidate will likely face a Democratic Senate. And if the Dems hold on in 2014, then this will potentially be a lost decade for Senate Republicans, just like it's a lost decade for House Democrats.
"One other thing--what ever happened to "Majority rules?" When did "majority rules" become "supermajority rules?" Why should it take 60 votes to do anything, even if it is a routine or inconsequential matter?"

You need to brush up on WHY the Founding fathers set up our system the way that they did.

It will answer your questions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2013, 06:10 PM
 
59,113 posts, read 27,340,319 times
Reputation: 14289
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfman View Post
Then the poster was correct, and you just contradicted yourself. This would have done nothing to stop Cruz from his filibuster.

Furthermore, the pendulum swings both ways, and this is setting up a president that both parties will abuse, and cause an even bigger divide. We are witnessing the end of bi-partisan politics.

The Democrats fear their majority in the Senate will evaporate in November, and they're doing exactly what they did when they rammed through Obamacare in a totally partisan fashion. I'm sick of both parties ignoring the people, but this is really showing how little regard some have for the Constitution. Reid is by far the worst Senator since McCarthy.



Isn't it funny how their agendas change when they are the minority. I guarantee that as soon as Republicans control both branches of Congress, the Democrats will whine about how the super-majority needs to be reinstated. It really is a circus in DC.



Exactly right, if everything is as it seems. I have a sinking feeling there's something far more sinister going on.
Obama. "I will fundamentally change America"!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2013, 06:21 PM
 
59,113 posts, read 27,340,319 times
Reputation: 14289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jareb View Post
This was a pretty dumb move on the Democrats part because the Dam has now been broken and will never be put back in place by either side of the aisle. It goes to the old saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile". This move may only apply to judicial appointees as of now but you can pretty much make a safe bet that in the future both sides will use and expand this for USSC appointees and any controversial pending legislation. What is to stop either party from using the 51 vote majority rule to pass anything in the Senate? There is no turning back now....the minority party in the Senate has just been castrated. Sit down and shut up will be the new modus operandi of the Senate.
Like my father used to tell me: "be careful what you wish for...you just might get it"
I think the dems did it because of the abject failure and what is to come of obamacare that they are trying to get whatever they can now because they know they won't be charge much longer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2013, 06:33 PM
 
1,922 posts, read 1,746,503 times
Reputation: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Suck it up Republicans. Time to roll up the sleeves and get something done. Judges nominated by the president will now be seated after 5 long years of republican obstructionism.

Senate Democrats invoke ‘nuclear option’, changes filibuster rules – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
What does this mean for the nation that has you so delighted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2013, 06:46 PM
 
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,736,880 times
Reputation: 20050
nuclear options can be deadly just look at Chernobyl, Fukushima.. one should be aware of politicians they are like radiation one of the worst poisons on earth..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2013, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,821,329 times
Reputation: 40166
Wait, I thought it was the 'Constitutional Option'? Oh, that was just the silly name Republicans were calling this when they were pushing it back in 2005. No surprise from the party that brought us such NewSpeak as 'freedom fries' and 'homicide bombers'.

Anyway, this about sums it up:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2013, 06:56 PM
 
1,922 posts, read 1,746,503 times
Reputation: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Wait, I thought it was the 'Constitutional Option'? Oh, that was just the silly name Republicans were calling this when they were pushing it back in 2005. No surprise from the party that brought us such NewSpeak as 'freedom fries' and 'homicide bombers'.

Anyway, this about sums it up:
Maybe Obama should nominate people who aren't radical leftist activists. Of course this won't happen because he wants like-minded judges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top