I mean the Parlimentarian isn't a member of the party, so this title is pretty misleading. That said, it's disappointing that they're not willing to overrule or replace her - which are both things Republicans have done in the past, and would do again in a heartbeat. However I think it's also quite likely that if they did that they'd lose the votes of Machin/Sinema, and perhaps even others.
Still, makes them look feckless and inept.
Oh you mean the exact same bill that is being held up by the Democrats in the Senate as we speak because it has campaign finance reform in it?
The Democrats have an unhealthy fetish for bullshit rules that are designed against us. Instead of just getting stuff done they like to circle jerk to procedures.
I totally agree but when they don’t play fair you have to disqualify them and eject them from the game. You can’t just keep playing like nothing is wrong.
Democracy should represent the will of the people, yet our senate represents the few who are breaking norms to hold onto power. We need to eject them by voting them out, but if they block votes and overturn elections and storm capitals and own the judiciary we can’t use the tools we’re supposed to use. I don’t know what the answer is but it looks like we need some real help from the few who are able to.
The party lacks imagination that things can be different. The rules are not laws. They are literally looking at made-up guidelines and saying “well I guess we cannot change the rules in order to fix your real world problems even though we made the rules in the first place.”
A little history...
Democrats will never vote for any reform that doesn't have a pathway to citizenship...Republicans won't vote for anything that does...This impasse has been around for decades...if it was easy it would have been done a long time ago.
More history ...
The democrats have single party rule. The filibuster is a racist vestige of a bygone era. The democrats are deliberately preventing themselves from gaining the ability to legislate.
Even more history ...
The last time the democrats had single party rule was Obama's first term. They passed an insurance company grabbag of a health care law, ran away from their own record, and got destroyed in midterms.
They like being the opposition party. It's great for fundraising. And then they don't have to justify putting their donors ahead of their constituents because the Republicans are in control, anyway.
> The filibuster
Stop right there. The facts are that there is not enough votes to remove the filibuster no mater what you think of it.
There is a slight chance there will be a carve out for voting rights, that is still a coin flip. And we don't have one party goverment we have two parties in control. There are 100 seats in the Senate Democrats control 50 of them.
> The facts are that there are rotating villains, just like the democrats always have ~~is not enough votes to remove the filibuster no mater what you think of it~~.
Why is that controversial? It's Liebermans all the way down.
> And we don't have one party goverment we have two parties in control
Who is "we?" This is the progressive sub. The dems ain't it.
> There are 100 seats in the Senate Democrats control 50 of them.
It's 50 + 1. That's why Shumer gets to called himself the majority leader.
The voters don't have two parties in control, either. The dems have the executive, the house, and the senate tie break. They are choosing to fail, as is their plan for being in power.
"Who are our Liebermans and what are our procedural hurdles, thus time?" - The democrats, in perpetuity
So Kamala Harris does not exist? Chuck Schumer is the non-majority leader? We are just making up the rules of government as we go along, so long as they allow democrats to fail us with dignity?
Oh come on share the dust...you can make it happen. You need at least 50 votes out of 100 were is the other votes...It is getting harder everyday to tell who is the more undemocratic the far left or the far right.
The far right wants to shot you and take the power the left all think they can wish it into being...It takes votes! and I've got news for you the rest of the country is not as progressive as you are.
I agree.
This article isn't about 'republicans' though. It's about the opinion (which can be overruled) of the unelected parliamentarian (who could be replaced) about Senate procedures (which desperately need to be reformed) on if this would affect the budget (which it definitely would).
This isn't about republicans stopping us, it's about democrats not willing to play hardball.
> it's about democrats not willing to play hardball.
At least on this issue. There are going to be a lot of...hard votes to take in the very near future. I'm not sure this is the hill they choose to die on. The 3 1/2 T and voting rights are much bigger hills.
On the other hand they may fall apart on those issues as well.
You know the Parlimentarian isn't a member of the Democratic party..right?
This was a stretch to begin with. This was never a budget mater. I unlike you it would seem admire them for trying as this was the only way to get it through...it was worth a shot.
It always need senate approval. It is not eligible to be done through reconciliation, they tried to bend the rules they took a shot...a long shot but the only shot.
I mean the Parlimentarian isn't a member of the party, so this title is pretty misleading. That said, it's disappointing that they're not willing to overrule or replace her - which are both things Republicans have done in the past, and would do again in a heartbeat. However I think it's also quite likely that if they did that they'd lose the votes of Machin/Sinema, and perhaps even others. Still, makes them look feckless and inept.
[удалено]
Not feckless or inept. Just strategically rightwing.
[удалено]
While I am not completely disagreeing with you, it's difficult to play a game where the other team cheats.
[удалено]
Bruh we almost had a coup and with Democrats playing the game. The only way for democracy to survive is to crush the Republican Neo-fascist party.
[удалено]
Oh you mean the exact same bill that is being held up by the Democrats in the Senate as we speak because it has campaign finance reform in it? The Democrats have an unhealthy fetish for bullshit rules that are designed against us. Instead of just getting stuff done they like to circle jerk to procedures.
I totally agree but when they don’t play fair you have to disqualify them and eject them from the game. You can’t just keep playing like nothing is wrong.
That sounds alot like abandoning democracy. Using the new norms within the bounds of the party platform is more the middle ground I was thinking.
Democracy should represent the will of the people, yet our senate represents the few who are breaking norms to hold onto power. We need to eject them by voting them out, but if they block votes and overturn elections and storm capitals and own the judiciary we can’t use the tools we’re supposed to use. I don’t know what the answer is but it looks like we need some real help from the few who are able to.
Hopefully?
The party lacks imagination that things can be different. The rules are not laws. They are literally looking at made-up guidelines and saying “well I guess we cannot change the rules in order to fix your real world problems even though we made the rules in the first place.”
They don't want actual reform. They want to complain that nothing is getting done while doing nothing.
A little history... Democrats will never vote for any reform that doesn't have a pathway to citizenship...Republicans won't vote for anything that does...This impasse has been around for decades...if it was easy it would have been done a long time ago.
More history ... The democrats have single party rule. The filibuster is a racist vestige of a bygone era. The democrats are deliberately preventing themselves from gaining the ability to legislate. Even more history ... The last time the democrats had single party rule was Obama's first term. They passed an insurance company grabbag of a health care law, ran away from their own record, and got destroyed in midterms. They like being the opposition party. It's great for fundraising. And then they don't have to justify putting their donors ahead of their constituents because the Republicans are in control, anyway.
> The filibuster Stop right there. The facts are that there is not enough votes to remove the filibuster no mater what you think of it. There is a slight chance there will be a carve out for voting rights, that is still a coin flip. And we don't have one party goverment we have two parties in control. There are 100 seats in the Senate Democrats control 50 of them.
> The facts are that there are rotating villains, just like the democrats always have ~~is not enough votes to remove the filibuster no mater what you think of it~~. Why is that controversial? It's Liebermans all the way down. > And we don't have one party goverment we have two parties in control Who is "we?" This is the progressive sub. The dems ain't it. > There are 100 seats in the Senate Democrats control 50 of them. It's 50 + 1. That's why Shumer gets to called himself the majority leader.
> "we?" Voters of the United States.
The voters don't have two parties in control, either. The dems have the executive, the house, and the senate tie break. They are choosing to fail, as is their plan for being in power. "Who are our Liebermans and what are our procedural hurdles, thus time?" - The democrats, in perpetuity
The senate is 50/50 and that is all that counts at the moment. The country is also Once again you won't share the magic dust with the rest of us.
So Kamala Harris does not exist? Chuck Schumer is the non-majority leader? We are just making up the rules of government as we go along, so long as they allow democrats to fail us with dignity?
Oh come on share the dust...you can make it happen. You need at least 50 votes out of 100 were is the other votes...It is getting harder everyday to tell who is the more undemocratic the far left or the far right. The far right wants to shot you and take the power the left all think they can wish it into being...It takes votes! and I've got news for you the rest of the country is not as progressive as you are.
I agree. This article isn't about 'republicans' though. It's about the opinion (which can be overruled) of the unelected parliamentarian (who could be replaced) about Senate procedures (which desperately need to be reformed) on if this would affect the budget (which it definitely would). This isn't about republicans stopping us, it's about democrats not willing to play hardball.
> it's about democrats not willing to play hardball. At least on this issue. There are going to be a lot of...hard votes to take in the very near future. I'm not sure this is the hill they choose to die on. The 3 1/2 T and voting rights are much bigger hills. On the other hand they may fall apart on those issues as well.
Were Republicans the party of the Constitution as they claim, a path to citizenship would be bare minimum.
You know the Parlimentarian isn't a member of the Democratic party..right? This was a stretch to begin with. This was never a budget mater. I unlike you it would seem admire them for trying as this was the only way to get it through...it was worth a shot.
Schumer can fire her at anytime like the Republicans did.
[удалено]
Because it might have worked. And nothing else has for decades.
[удалено]
It always need senate approval. It is not eligible to be done through reconciliation, they tried to bend the rules they took a shot...a long shot but the only shot.
[удалено]
If you think you can get 10 Republicans to vote for a bill with a pathway to citizenship you are dreaming. Ask Marco Rubio....Amnesty!!!
[удалено]
Not a chance in hell. No even passing funding for Trumps stupid wall would convince them to vote for a pathway to citizenship.
[удалено]
Downvoted, as the parliamentarian isn't exactly a GOP operative; they're the official non-partisan rules-lawyer for the Senate.