Obama and the Nuke Option....here we go again

[JustRalph]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62zo6Ytkk2g#t=12

check it out......... another tape of him opening his mouth and just a short time later his party does the exact opposite.......right under his nose.........

62zo6Ytkk2g#t=12

[JustRalph]

TAKE NOTE............payback can be a bitch...........

note Obama in the headlines of the pic.......he backed it. after that magical transformative speech he gave in the video above.........

[Clocker]

Similar videos show Harry Reid and Joe Biden warning that the world would end if this ever happen. Harry Reid is particularly disgusting. He is the most unprincipled, hypocritical, petty little man in the Senate.

The Dems are seriously hurting themselves here. There is a good chance that they will lose the Senate in 2014. If that happens, Obama might as well just go play golf every day, because he won't get anything done in Congress for the rest of his term.

[RaceBookJoe]

gotta love it :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkXjYohzAOY

[johnhannibalsmith]

Nothing more comical than watching these guys swap out roles and positions depending upon their status this year.

[mostpost]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62zo6Ytkk2g#t=12

check it out......... another tape of him opening his mouth and just a short time later his party does the exact opposite.......right under his nose.........

62zo6Ytkk2g#t=12
That tape is eight years old. Who can blame him for changing his mind, given the unrelenting obstructionism of the Republicans? Eighty two Obama court nominees have never come up for a vote.

[JustRalph]

51 votes can now repeal any Dem program. Including Obamacare

[Clocker]

That tape is eight years old. Who can blame him for changing his mind, given the unrelenting obstructionism of the Republicans? Eighty two Obama court nominees have never come up for a vote.

Over 1200 Obama appointees have been approved by the Senate. That doesn't sound like "unrelenting obstructionism" to me. I guess I need to drink some Kool Aid to see the logic here.

[mostpost]

Similar videos show Harry Reid and Joe Biden warning that the world would end if this ever happen. Harry Reid is particularly disgusting. He is the most unprincipled, hypocritical, petty little man in the Senate.

The Dems are seriously hurting themselves here. There is a good chance that they will lose the Senate in 2014. If that happens, Obama might as well just go play golf every day, because he won't get anything done in Congress for the rest of his term.
I was wondering how long it would take for your heads to explode over this. The Democrats should have done this long ago.

Don't count your election victories before the voting ends. The repugs would need to gain six seats. That is about as many as there are incumbent Democrats who have significant challenges. You also have incumbent Republicans who are facing serious challenges-like McConnell. And it is still almost a year to the election. After the ACA is a success and people see how the Republicans tired to kill it their prospects will fall rapidly.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...The Democrats should have done this long ago.

...


They couldn't, they were too busy opposing it.

Correctly.

[TJDave]

A simple majority should be all that is necessary.

I like it. Democrats like it.

And when republicans are in charge they will like it.

[fast4522]

51 votes can now repeal any Dem program. Including Obamacare

I am not a layer, or well versed on Senate rules JR so correct me if I am wrong?

I thought the vote pertained to Judaical appointments only?

[TJDave]

I am not a layer, or well versed on Senate rules JR so correct me if I am wrong?

I thought the vote pertained to Judaical appointees only?

The rule pertains to whatever the Senate says. They can change their rules to whatever they want.

[Clocker]

I was wondering how long it would take for your heads to explode over this. The Democrats should have done this long ago.


I was opposed to it when the Republicans threatened it. Some of us are consistent and think for ourselves.

It must be really inconvenient to have to check with the DNC every time you need to expression an opinion.

[fast4522]

Right, but this vote to the rules change is for Judaical appointees only?

[Clocker]

I am not a layer, or well versed on Senate rules JR so correct me if I am wrong?

I thought the vote pertained to Judaical appointments only?

Harry Reid says that it only applies to court appointments, excluding SCOTUS. If you believe anything Harry says, I got a tip on a hot horse I can sell you.

[Mike at A+]

After the ACA is a success ...
ACA will be running in Maiden Claimers until 0bama's ghetto thugs start signing up. Don't hold your breath.

[JustRalph]

The rule pertains to whatever the Senate says. They can change their rules to whatever they want.

Exactly. There was a metaphorical line that was never crossed in what some call respect for the original framers intent.

Now that Reid has gone so called "Nuclear" all bets are off. It refers to the nuclear philosophy of mutually assured destruction. If one guy does, you have to cross the line also. All bets are officially off now. Whomever is in charge will now change the rules to get what they want, whenever they want. Filibusters are no longer available as option on appointments etc. but in a ten minute vote, that can change. And it will!

Check this thread out at DU. Payback will be earth shattering in the future. This goes to the original intent of the founders. These fools don't get it, at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024071416#post1

[fast4522]

To me this is a sign of the early implosion of the democratic party in 2014.
Without paving the way for some wins, the Senate Majority leader would look like any other 70 year old who is helpless.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Payback will be earth shattering in the future....

**** payback. We get so much stupid, ridiculous, self-serving legislation proposed as it is and this mechanism has long held some of that in check and more often than not, forced some compromise and statesmanship. This precedent will decay that as soon as possible and politically or personally beneficial.

Now, you accumulate power and then grant yourself more power. This was one of the only useful checks against unconstrained abuse by the majority left and now we are all subject to the whims of whomever happens to attain the power. It is now that much easier for the state to impose its will, at will, with no vocal minority... regardless of lapdog affiliations.

And people think this is somehow going to help them?

Unreal. Boxcar is less devout than some of you.

edited: to note that I wasn't directing 99% of this to Ralph, but that I see the implications as far more grave than how it can backfire on one party or the other. It will backfire on the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of everyone not caught up in the immediate, temporary benefit of whatever bullshit they dream up.

[sammy the sage]

After the ACA is a success and people see how the Republicans tired to kill it their prospects will fall rapidly.

You REALLY need to DOUBLE check your MED dosage...SERIOUSLY...like NOW...

[mostpost]

Exactly. There was a metaphorical line that was never crossed in what some call respect for the original framers intent.
What are you talking about? Original intent? Somehow I missed the part in the Constitution that says 41 Senators can stop legislation that 59 Senators support. Was it the original framers intent that any minority group should be able to thwart the will of the majority? Did I miss the announcement that democracy was no longer the will of the majority?

The whole theory of original intent is stupid. The framers were smarter than that. They setup a framework around later generations would construct a government.

[mostpost]

ACA will be running in Maiden Claimers until 0bama's ghetto thugs start signing up. Don't hold your breath.
Of course "ghetto thugs" has no racial overtones. :bang: :bang:

[mostpost]

You REALLY need to DOUBLE check your MED dosage...SERIOUSLY...like NOW...
My medications are fine, thank you. You, on the other hand will be needing something strong when every thing I say comes true.

Were you one of those who was so convinced Romney would win in 2012?

[Clocker]

Did I miss the announcement that democracy was no longer the will of the majority?



We don't have a democracy, we have a republic. You somehow missed the explicit expression of concern of the founders warning about the tyranny of the majority. It is a core belief in our republic, as expressed in the original design of the Senate and the Electoral College.

But as to the current issue, the Senate rules were established by mutual agreement of both parties. As Obama and Reid and others pointed out in the videos presented here, the Republicans were wrong in threatening to unilaterally change that rule. I would point out that they did not, in fact, unilaterally change the rule.

It is the height of hypocrisy, and the depth of political slime, to condemn the Republicans for threatening something and then turn around and actually do it yourself.

To argue that it was wrong then and it is right now compounds the hypocrisy and destroys all credibility of the Senators who did it and of the fan boys that support it. That argument is based on situational ethics. Sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong, and only we know the difference. That is school yard rationalization, not worthy of adult conversation.

[FantasticDan]

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/NOV13-Filibuster-Abuse-500x500.png

[Clocker]

Unprecedented obstruction? How about unprecedented refusal of the president to work with the other side about anything? Those numbers mean nothing without examining the underlying cause and effect.

[FantasticDan]

Unprecedented obstruction? How about unprecedented refusal of the president to work with the other side about anything? Those numbers mean nothing without examining the underlying cause and effect. :D Please, by all means, examine the cause and effect and report back. I'm keen to hear your analysis. :cool:

[mostpost]

We don't have a democracy, we have a republic. You somehow missed the explicit expression of concern of the founders warning about the tyranny of the majority. It is a core belief in our republic, as expressed in the original design of the Senate and the Electoral College.

A tyranny of the majority is when the majority puts a burden on a minority which the majority does not have to bear. Requiring Republican Senators to speak while standing in a bucket of water would be a tyranny of the majority. Not allowing them to block a vote on a judicial nominee is not a tyranny of the majority. The filibuster should not be used to thwart the will of the majority. Especially when the only reason you are doing it is because you can.

What we have had in the last several years in the Senate, is a tyranny of the minority; the use of arcane rules to block the passage, not of laws that target one group unfairly, but laws which the minority does not like. Or, nominees the minority does not like.

The Founding Fathers dealt with the problem of the tyranny of the majority by the way they structured the legislature and the Electoral college. They did not intend for it to be a catchphrase used to defeat any law that a few disagreed with.

[Clocker]

:D Please, by all means, examine the cause and effect and report back. I'm keen to hear your analysis. :cool:

You presented raw data without explanation. I was just curious as to whether or not there was a point or a theory. Far be it from me to infer your intended point, if any.

[mostpost]

:D Please, by all means, examine the cause and effect and report back. I'm keen to hear your analysis. :cool:
Now remember, when clocker says "work with the other side about anything?"
he means acquiesce to everyone of the other side's demands and don't complain when we double cross you afterward. :lol:

[FantasticDan]

You presented raw data without explanation. I was just curious as to whether or not there was a point or a theory. Far be it from me to infer your intended point, if any.Rachel Maddow did a great job tonight detailing the "explanation" as to why repubs have held up so many nominations despite having no actual objections. I hope this link works, I'm on ipad and her site is a bit hinky:

http://on.msnbc.com/1aAjwZH

[Clocker]

(Nothing on the central issue that the Dems claim to be right when they oppose the nuclear option and to be right when they use it.)

Thanks for playing.

[newtothegame]

What are you talking about? Original intent? Somehow I missed the part in the Constitution that says 41 Senators can stop legislation that 59 Senators support. Was it the original framers intent that any minority group should be able to thwart the will of the majority? Did I miss the announcement that democracy was no longer the will of the majority?

The whole theory of original intent is stupid. The framers were smarter than that. They setup a framework around later generations would construct a government.

Of course you missed it. You have to be able to look for it in order to not miss it....
It was never the intent to let ANY.....
It was always the intent that the number be 41 or higher.........
Two senators can not stop anything.......or, to help you out, SEVERAL senators (but less then many) can not stop anything....:lol:

[fast4522]

Rachel Maddow did a great job tonight detailing the "explanation" as to why repubs have held up so many nominations despite having no actual objections. I hope this link works, I'm on ipad and her site is a bit hinky:

http://on.msnbc.com/1aAjwZH

Rachel Maddow, well then this lady always shows both sides of the coin doesn't she? :lol:

Sometimes the whole picture has to be taken into account, failure of several democrats to win reelection in 2014 will result in massive disruptions to the liberal agenda. Here is just one item that has gone to the court, we the people are split on this too.
They are looking for more change on all fronts.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/nsa-surveillance-challenge-lands-in-federal-court/

[sammy the sage]

Were you one of those who was so convinced Romney would win in 2012?

NOPE...however I've voted against EVERY incumbent at EVERY level since 2008..

and if you check my posts 6/7 years back I railed just as much about Bush's agenda (to point of being threatened w/a ban..and many post/threads deleted :lol: )... as I do now about the current LIAR in charge.

What's even more disgusting...Bush/Obama have/had much the EXACT same agenda...

Way more POLICE state powers & spying against US.
Giving the upper 1% even MORE...despite commentary to the contrare...even more out of balance than 1929...

[Clocker]

I was for the filibuster before I was against it.

And claims to be right both times.

Bartender, another round of Kool Aid please.

[Tom]

Rachel Maddow, well then this lady always shows both sides of the coin doesn't she?

Well, now that the WH is openly calling left-wing-nuts to give them news and how to report it, you better be careful - openly disagreeing with the gang at PMSNBC might get you in the cross hairs of a drone, or at least an IRS audit.
Obama now controls the press.

[JustRalph]

Actually I think she only plays one side anymore.........metaphorically and literally

[fast4522]

Wrong Sammy, but JD will do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFYiRTPsrqg