Rynar wrote:
Scott Brown, of Massachusetts, who has been a huge disappointment compiling a voting record more liberal than Olympia Snowe in the short time he has been a US Senator.
That's very conservative for Massachusetts
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Your Maths is Fail. https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3685 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Monte [ Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Your Maths is Fail. |
Recently, I have seen argued here and in the media that the Democratic Party has a super majority in the Senate. And I've been scratching my head pretty vigorously about it. There are currently 57 democrats, 41 Republicans, and 2 independent senators. One of those independents tends to vote with the Democrats, but Joe Lieberman is frequently on the Republican side of the aisle when it comes to the biggest and most important legislation. Before Ted Kennedy died, the Democrats had 58 seats. Again, there is one independent that pretty much votes with the Democrats, but Joe Liebermann is a wild card, especially on major agenda items. So, for those of you who want to believe that senate inaction is entirely the fault of the Democratic party, the math just doesn't add up. If one senator from the party of opposition filibusters, the Democrats are *forced* look look to independents or the other side of the aisle to stop that filibuster. At the moment, The Democrats have to flip two republicans to stop any filibuster that happens, and the number of cloture votes forced by republican filibusters and filibuster threats has been completely over the top. The Republican Party has put stops on scores of judicial appointments and literally hundreds of bills. And yet, there are people here and in the media still blaming Democrats for Republican obstructionism. Where was their fiscal discipline under the last administration? When did they oppose big spending and big deficits? Anyway, point of this is simple - if you think the Democrats have a super majority in congress, you are simply incorrect. If you think that a majority in congress is enough to get anything passed without supreme effort, you are also wrong. And if you blame Democrats for that choke hold on the Senate, you are being willfully ignorant. So quit it. Please. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Your Maths is Fail. |
There is no such thing as "obstructionism". It's not the job of Republicans to let the Democrats pass whatever they want. If they want Republicans to not filibuster, they need to write better legislation. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Your Maths is Fail. |
Diamondeye: I've posted the rules about a half dozen times. A bill must pass cloture in the Senate to be voted upon if it was put up for debate. That's just all there is to it. If the Democrats can't get a bill to pass cloture, then they need to shut the **** up. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't believe anyone on this board has made any point to complain about Senate inaction. So I'm not entirely sure who you think your intended audience is. Additionally, I find it highly ironic you would post thread with a title like this one given you just recently displayed a gross incapability to comprehend the simple concept of proportions versus total values by your posts here and here. Of course, it's pretty convenient that one can just ignore such a glaring error, and error which would be inconsistent with oft-made assertions that would require basic math skills to make, and pretend like it never happened. Or worse yet, be completely ignorant to the entire situation due to the aforementioned vacant math skills. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: the Democrats are *forced* look look to independents or the other side of the aisle to stop that filibuster. At the moment, The Democrats have to flip two republicans to stop any filibuster that happens, and the number of cloture votes forced by republican filibusters and filibuster threats has been completely over the top. Back in the day we used to call that building a consensus, and it was thought to be a good thing. Ya know since the government is supposed to represent the consensus of the people and all that. The harder it is to pass federal legislation ( the larger a consensus needed) the better off the people are, not matter what animal has the majority. Other Presidents, including Clinton (and I think pretty much everyone in the last 35 years)had worse numbers and they managed to pass good amounts of their adgenda. If you're having trouble with the senate it's because your adgenda is too much against the concenus of the people. |
|
| Author: | Uncle Fester [ Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
When some one does not vote for your legislation they are an obstructionist, when they do, they are Bi-partisan. When you vote against their legislation, or hold it up, you are standing up for your constituents. If you vote for their legislation you are a traitor. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Your Maths is Fail. |
Khross wrote: Diamondeye: I've posted the rules about a half dozen times. A bill must pass cloture in the Senate to be voted upon if it was put up for debate. That's just all there is to it. If the Democrats can't get a bill to pass cloture, then they need to shut the **** up. I know you have. I'm pointing out that expecting the other party to vote with you just because it's your turn to get your way, or something, is ridiculous. This isn't kindergarten. |
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rafael wrote: I don't believe anyone on this board has made any point to complain about Senate inaction. So I'm not entirely sure who you think your intended audience is. Perhaps Monty feels they aren't passing enough legislation? It'd probably be best if congress did nothing at all. YMMV. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd be curious to see how many of these contentious bills that didn't pass had 100% affirmative votes from the Democrats out of the total number of votes taken. |
|
| Author: | Dash [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some liberals are upset with what they perceive as a lack of progress on key issues with the Obama administration. Many of the issues he made his name on have either not panned out or have been ignored. He's basically run Iraq in the exact same manner Bush did. Gitmo is still open. They've seen only token gestures so far on dont ask dont tell and gay issues. As big a deal as the healthcare bill was, they didnt get single payer and feel they gave far too many concessions. All this with a large majority and the presidency. I think it's a stretch to nitpick numbers and try to imply blame on the republicans for lack of progress on their agenda. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Your Maths is Fail. |
Which seat recently changed hands to a Republican in an interim election? That's the thing missing here. I can't remember which seat it was, but that's neither here nor there. The Republicans had only 40 seats for the majority of the last 18 months. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Your Maths is Fail. |
Scott Brown, of Massachusetts, who has been a huge disappointment compiling a voting record more liberal than Olympia Snowe in the short time he has been a US Senator. |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You vouched that guy at one point, Rynar. What's the deal? |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Screeling wrote: You vouched that guy at one point, Rynar. What's the deal? I know him personally. He has done nothing but let me down. Apparently he is more interested in being a politician than a leader. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Your Maths is Fail. |
Rynar wrote: Scott Brown, of Massachusetts, who has been a huge disappointment compiling a voting record more liberal than Olympia Snowe in the short time he has been a US Senator. That's very conservative for Massachusetts
|
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, disappointing or not, as it's replacing Kennedy, it's still a conservative(-ish) turn for the seat. |
|
| Author: | RangerDave [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rorinthas wrote: The harder it is to pass federal legislation (the larger a consensus needed) the better off the people are, not matter what animal has the majority. Do you feel the same way about the difficulty with repealing existing legislation, cutting spending, etc.? Because procedural hurdles go both ways. Rorinthas wrote: If you're having trouble with the senate it's because your agenda is too much against the consensus of the people. Or it's because our political system is designed to slow down change by creating multiple veto points and enabling a committed minority to prevent even a clear majority from doing much. So, you can easily have a situation where 59 Senators, representing roughly two-thirds of the American people, want to do X, but 41 Senators, representing only one-third of the people, can stop them. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
RangerDave wrote: Rorinthas wrote: The harder it is to pass federal legislation (the larger a consensus needed) the better off the people are, not matter what animal has the majority. Do you feel the same way about the difficulty with repealing existing legislation, cutting spending, etc.? Because procedural hurdles go both ways. Yes. 1) Because those things never happen anyway. 2) Because legislative stagnation of any type is better for the people at large RD wrote: Rorinthas wrote: If you're having trouble with the senate it's because your agenda is too much against the consensus of the people. Or it's because our political system is designed to slow down change by creating multiple veto points and enabling a committed minority to prevent even a clear majority from doing much. So, you can easily have a situation where 59 Senators, representing roughly two-thirds of the American people, want to do X, but 41 Senators, representing only one-third of the people, can stop them. Yes, yes it is. This is good. And therefore, people should quit ***** about how it works just because they want their pet project to go through. "This damn system that exists to protect the population from change, tyranny, and mob rule needs to go, it's blatant obstructionism!" |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|