The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Filibuster Reform Didn't Really Happen, Tell Senators how You Feel!(Please Read the OP)

1234568

Posts

  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    It's extremely unlikely that the Dems will retain control of the Senate in 2014, for almost every two term president, the second midterm election usually has major losses for that party.

    I don't know why Reid's not overhauling the filibuster now because there's a very good chance he wont be in the positon to do it next Congress.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Welp this thread is done

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    It's extremely unlikely that the Dems will retain control of the Senate in 2014, for almost every two term president, the second midterm election usually has major losses for that party.

    I don't know why Reid's not overhauling the filibuster now because there's a very good chance he wont be in the positon to do it next Congress.

    Assuming the Dems stay at 55, they need to lose 6 seats. That's a tall order even in 2014.

    Actually, shit, let's put this in perspective. The reverse happened in 2006. What is Obama going to fuck up so badly in the next two years to cause that kind of backlash?

    Tenek on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    It's extremely unlikely that the Dems will retain control of the Senate in 2014, for almost every two term president, the second midterm election usually has major losses for that party.

    I don't know why Reid's not overhauling the filibuster now because there's a very good chance he wont be in the positon to do it next Congress.

    Assuming the Dems stay at 55, they need to lose 6 seats. That's a tall order even in 2014.

    Have you seen the map? The map is hideous*. Plus lower midterm turnout.

    *Obviously, we said that about the 2012 map as well. But seriously, yikes.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    It's extremely unlikely that the Dems will retain control of the Senate in 2014, for almost every two term president, the second midterm election usually has major losses for that party.

    I don't know why Reid's not overhauling the filibuster now because there's a very good chance he wont be in the positon to do it next Congress.

    Assuming the Dems stay at 55, they need to lose 6 seats. That's a tall order even in 2014.

    Have you seen the map? The map is hideous*. Plus lower midterm turnout.

    *Obviously, we said that about the 2012 map as well. But seriously, yikes.

    Yes. Yes I have. Let's give up on AK, WV, SD, NC and LA. Who's #6?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Arkansas. Montana if Schweitzer doesn't run. Iowa and Colorado are swingy. God knows what New Hampshire is thinking at any given time. Cory Booker's egocentric pursuit of Lautenberg's seat could easily weaken both of them.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Only if the NJ GOP can actually find someone to challenge the victor. And it's not egocentric at all; Lautenberg is 91, and if he dies Christie will appoint a Republican successor. That's a serious concern in my book.

  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Tenek wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    It's extremely unlikely that the Dems will retain control of the Senate in 2014, for almost every two term president, the second midterm election usually has major losses for that party.

    I don't know why Reid's not overhauling the filibuster now because there's a very good chance he wont be in the positon to do it next Congress.

    Assuming the Dems stay at 55, they need to lose 6 seats. That's a tall order even in 2014.

    Actually, shit, let's put this in perspective. The reverse happened in 2006. What is Obama going to fuck up so badly in the next two years to cause that kind of backlash?

    Even Reagan and Eisenhower lost control of the Senate during their second midterms, Eisenhower lost 12 and Reagan lost 8.

    Despite Reagan's peak in popularity in '86 almost all of the Senator's elected during the Reagan revolution in '80 got kicked out.

    dbrock270 on
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Only if the NJ GOP can actually find someone to challenge the victor. And it's not egocentric at all; Lautenberg is 91, and if he dies Christie will appoint a Republican successor. That's a serious concern in my book.

    I don't particularly like Booker, and think Cory Booker is about Cory Booker and pretty much only Cory Booker. So I might be biased. Don't really like Lautenberg either.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    Only if the NJ GOP can actually find someone to challenge the victor. And it's not egocentric at all; Lautenberg is 91, and if he dies Christie will appoint a Republican successor. That's a serious concern in my book.

    I don't particularly like Booker, and think Cory Booker is about Cory Booker and pretty much only Cory Booker. So I might be biased. Don't really like Lautenberg either.

    I think Booker's real eyes are on the VP nom for the Dems in 2016, and maybe he's hoping he'll be more visible if he's a Senator.

  • Warlock82Warlock82 Never pet a burning dog Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I know the old line about never ascribing malice to anything that can be easily explained by incompetence...

    ...but Harry Reid really pushes the envelope there. I'm getting to the point where I'd almost have an easier time believing he was secretly working for the Republican party than that he was just this fucking bad at his job.

    Like seriously, why can't he just retire or die? We need to start finding super-popular Democrats and convincing them to move to Nevada and run against him in the next primary.

    The guy who outright lied about Romney paying 0% taxes is secretly working for the Republican party? :P

    No, I'm pretty sure he's just terrible in general.

    Wait, when did we get proof that it was a lie? Oh, that's right. We didn't.

    Although that's not really an argument against Reid's general terribleness.

    You don't remember him releasing a summary of like the last twenty years of tax returns that specifically called that out as a lie?

    Switch: 2143-7130-1359 | 3DS: 4983-4927-6699 | Steam: warlock82 | PSN: Warlock2282
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    what shit

    fuck harry reid

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I know the old line about never ascribing malice to anything that can be easily explained by incompetence...

    ...but Harry Reid really pushes the envelope there. I'm getting to the point where I'd almost have an easier time believing he was secretly working for the Republican party than that he was just this fucking bad at his job.

    Like seriously, why can't he just retire or die? We need to start finding super-popular Democrats and convincing them to move to Nevada and run against him in the next primary.

    The guy who outright lied about Romney paying 0% taxes is secretly working for the Republican party? :P

    No, I'm pretty sure he's just terrible in general.

    Wait, when did we get proof that it was a lie? Oh, that's right. We didn't.

    Although that's not really an argument against Reid's general terribleness.

    You don't remember him releasing a summary of like the last twenty years of tax returns that specifically called that out as a lie?

    What are you smoking? Romney never released a proper years tax returns, and the one year he did consent to publicising was the preperatory version and not the final version, because there were a large number of sections he had omitted or had notations that they would be revised again at a later time.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I know the old line about never ascribing malice to anything that can be easily explained by incompetence...

    ...but Harry Reid really pushes the envelope there. I'm getting to the point where I'd almost have an easier time believing he was secretly working for the Republican party than that he was just this fucking bad at his job.

    Like seriously, why can't he just retire or die? We need to start finding super-popular Democrats and convincing them to move to Nevada and run against him in the next primary.

    The guy who outright lied about Romney paying 0% taxes is secretly working for the Republican party? :P

    No, I'm pretty sure he's just terrible in general.

    Wait, when did we get proof that it was a lie? Oh, that's right. We didn't.

    Although that's not really an argument against Reid's general terribleness.

    You don't remember him releasing a summary of like the last twenty years of tax returns that specifically called that out as a lie?

    As I recall, that "summary" consisted of all of the money he'd made over that time, and all the taxes he'd paid, without actually being separated by year, so it was impossible to tell whether Reid was right or not.

  • This content has been removed.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I know the old line about never ascribing malice to anything that can be easily explained by incompetence...

    ...but Harry Reid really pushes the envelope there. I'm getting to the point where I'd almost have an easier time believing he was secretly working for the Republican party than that he was just this fucking bad at his job.

    Like seriously, why can't he just retire or die? We need to start finding super-popular Democrats and convincing them to move to Nevada and run against him in the next primary.

    The guy who outright lied about Romney paying 0% taxes is secretly working for the Republican party? :P

    No, I'm pretty sure he's just terrible in general.

    Wait, when did we get proof that it was a lie? Oh, that's right. We didn't.

    Although that's not really an argument against Reid's general terribleness.

    You don't remember him releasing a summary of like the last twenty years of tax returns that specifically called that out as a lie?
    That "summary" being a letter from the people he pays to help him avoid taxes saying "oh, yeah, Mitt Romney totally paid taxes; tons and tons of taxes. All of the taxes?"
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I don't give a shit if he lied or not, Harry Reid is a shitheel and not worth defending.

    I think the Senate would be better off with Sharron Angle in the seat. One more nutjob vote would do less harm than having Reid at the helm.
    I contributed to her campaign.

    And yes, we would be. At least then we would have a shot at having someone competent in the Majority Leader spot. Probably Chuck Schumer.

    Thanatos on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I don't give a shit if he lied or not, Harry Reid is a shitheel and not worth defending.

    I think the Senate would be better off with Sharron Angle in the seat. One more nutjob vote would do less harm than having Reid at the helm.

    When was the last time the Dems had an effective Senate leader? Reid is worse than Daschle now.

    dbrock270 on
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    You know you're supposed to raise the bar?

    Harry Reid thinks he's in a limbo competition.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    what shit

    fuck harry reid

    Also, fuck the people spinning this as "we got what we *really* wanted".

    I wanted Republicans to stand there and read the damn phone book, damnit.

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Updated the OP, yell at your senators because fuck those guys.

    No I don't.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Chuck Schumer would be worse than Reid. All of his fecklessness with a crippling ownership by Wall Street.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    fecklessness with a crippling ownership by Wall Street.

    Just like half of the Dems in the Senate?

    dbrock270 on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I'm pissed about this deal...but, when you think about it, I guess it was silly to expect good things to result from a meeting between these two:

    Piglet_WTP.pngSquirtle.gif

    Doesn't really spark a feeling of "leadership".

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    You take that back, Piglet is a hero.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    You take that back, Piglet is a hero.

    Not if he can't get a talking filibuster.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    You take that back, Piglet is a hero.

    Not if he can't get a talking filibuster.

    Man, you try getting anything done with that asshole McOwlnel blustering on and on all the time.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    You take that back, Piglet is a hero.

    Not if he can't get a talking filibuster.

    Man, you try getting anything done with that asshole McOwlnel blustering on and on all the time.

    Reid: I'd like to bring back the talking filibuster.

    Mcconnell: SQUIRTLE!

    Reid: Oh d-d-d-dear.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    fecklessness with a crippling ownership by Wall Street.

    Just like half of the Dems in the Senate?

    Not all of them are wholly owned subsidiaries like Schumer. They're partially owned by other companies.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • KelzorKelzor The Grey Man Registered User regular
    Man. That's disappointing. I'd write to my senator, but it's John McCain.

    I don't particularly want to get a letter back saying: "Mwa ha ha, your tears sustain me foolish liberal."

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Wonderful. My senators will be super upset, I'm sure. With Bill Nelson promising to look into whatever it was I asked him about and Marco Rubio being so busy caring about his office that he couldn't even have an intern draft a form letter.

    ~sigh~

    In another reality, I could've called Elizabeth Warren my Senator.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • ArdolArdol Registered User regular
    Durbin said there was overwhelming support for the deal among Senate Democrats, though he conceded that he was uncertain whether it would make it easier to pass bills.

    "It can," he said. "It requires good will [and] good faith."
    Goddamn it.

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    We got a bunch of worthless bags of air in the caucus, so Reid got almost nothing..

    ...Fuck.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    We got a bunch of worthless bags of air in the caucus, so Reid got almost nothing..

    ...Fuck.

    Wait wait wait. We got, at best, an easier way to confirm appointees, but in exchange Republicans get to add 2 amendments to every bill? what the FUCK

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    MSNBC's coverage is just depressing.

    Here are some things Harry Reid said. Here's what Harry Reid Did.

    Wah-waaaaaaaaa

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    I'd like to say I'm surprised by this turn of events.

    That would be nice to say.

  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bah! Stop chicken-littling guyz! LOLZ

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    I'm not emailing Merkley because he tried. he fucking tried, man.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'm not emailing Merkley because he tried. he fucking tried, man.

    Tell him that.

    Positive reinforcement!

    Lh96QHG.png
Sign In or Register to comment.