Posted on Dec 8, 2016
If Democrats want to win, they should filibuster Trump early and often
17.1K
100
85
3
3
0
Wear your comfortable shoes.
From the article:
An individual mandate to buy health insurance is a market-friendly intervention that drew past support from Republicans, but Senate Republicans voted as one to filibuster the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s other signature proposals, such as the stimulus spending bill. They filibustered at twice the rate that Democrats did during George W. Bush’s first two years. Republicans even adopted the habit of filibustering routine business and noncontroversial appointments.
From the article:
An individual mandate to buy health insurance is a market-friendly intervention that drew past support from Republicans, but Senate Republicans voted as one to filibuster the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s other signature proposals, such as the stimulus spending bill. They filibustered at twice the rate that Democrats did during George W. Bush’s first two years. Republicans even adopted the habit of filibustering routine business and noncontroversial appointments.
If Democrats want to win, they should filibuster Trump early and often
Posted from washingtonpost.com
Government
United States Senate
Democrats
Republicans
Corruption
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 23
12
12
0
Yes I read the article. Yes I read the "supporting" links.
Factual Error Number 1) Because a small minority of a political support in principle an aspect of a legislative measure, does not mean that they support the articulated version of that aspect that is included within a given bill. One or two Republicans voting for a bill hardly constitutes "bi-partisan" support.
Factual Error Number 2) A single filibuster may face multiple cloture votes. Twice as many cloture votes does not mean twice as many filibusters.
Factual Error Number 3) One or two "examples" does not constitute a routine. Furthermore, unrelated riders are quite often attached to routine bills hoping to "slide one by" or to specifically to create a plausible, but false assertion that a political opponent is against something that has universal or overwhelming support.
Factual Error Number 4) Many Republicans were elected on the platform that they would oppose the unpopular Obama Agenda. In the mid-term, the same opposition mandate may or may not help the Democrats win or retain seats. If it does, they should oppose and obstruct to their hearts content.
As the article states, the Democrats changed the rules. It is far easier to achieve cloture than prior to the 2013 rules change. The Democrats cooked their own goose. Personally, I hope the Republicans change it back in the first week. If they don't they will prove that they are as morally bankrupt as the Democrats. The United States was not supposed to be a government that moves on razor thin majorities. I prefer gridlock to rule by any one political party. But significant consensus (super majorities of 60%) is best.
Factual Error Number 1) Because a small minority of a political support in principle an aspect of a legislative measure, does not mean that they support the articulated version of that aspect that is included within a given bill. One or two Republicans voting for a bill hardly constitutes "bi-partisan" support.
Factual Error Number 2) A single filibuster may face multiple cloture votes. Twice as many cloture votes does not mean twice as many filibusters.
Factual Error Number 3) One or two "examples" does not constitute a routine. Furthermore, unrelated riders are quite often attached to routine bills hoping to "slide one by" or to specifically to create a plausible, but false assertion that a political opponent is against something that has universal or overwhelming support.
Factual Error Number 4) Many Republicans were elected on the platform that they would oppose the unpopular Obama Agenda. In the mid-term, the same opposition mandate may or may not help the Democrats win or retain seats. If it does, they should oppose and obstruct to their hearts content.
As the article states, the Democrats changed the rules. It is far easier to achieve cloture than prior to the 2013 rules change. The Democrats cooked their own goose. Personally, I hope the Republicans change it back in the first week. If they don't they will prove that they are as morally bankrupt as the Democrats. The United States was not supposed to be a government that moves on razor thin majorities. I prefer gridlock to rule by any one political party. But significant consensus (super majorities of 60%) is best.
(12)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
SP5 Christine Conley - You also seem to not realize that the bronze plans that are covered by the tax credit don't actually help if someone has a medical emergency.
When I last looked at the marketplace, the lowest plan ($375 a month or so out of my pocket) had a 10k deductible before the insurance company would pay. How does that help someone who can't afford to go to the doctor?
When I last looked at the marketplace, the lowest plan ($375 a month or so out of my pocket) had a 10k deductible before the insurance company would pay. How does that help someone who can't afford to go to the doctor?
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SP5 Christine Conley - Supposedly the burden of the uninsured was paid by their care all went to the emergency room, where they could not be refused. Has the ACA bent the price graph one bit down?
Plus if I understand PFC Jim Wheeler correctly he is supposed to pay $4,500 in premiums, and preventative care for he and his wife are covered, but he doesn't get a dime for unexpected illness or injury until he is $10,000 out of pocket. Then he still probably has a 20% or 30% co-pay on the unexpected. So the man $14,500 out of pocket for the unexpected. If it is a chronic condition and he isn't wealthy he still has his life circling the economic drain. The ACA is an OK idea so badly put together that it does more harm than good. Most people in America who are not currently making over $100,000 a year can expect to leave nothing to their surviving spouse or children if they die of a chronic illness that does not kill them in 3-5 years.
I am almost 57. My wife and I make a low six figure income. We have good insurance. I suffer from a chronic cardiac problem. If I pursue a medically intensive medical intervention over the next five or six years, I will literally lose an 80 acre farm and debt free agricultural business and become eligible for welfare. My life expectancy will then be about 75. If I do nothing I will not live 8 years, but my wife will be able to hire someone or my daughter and husband will be able to take over the business and my wife will be spared the indignity of becoming a burden on our daughter. I am currently exploring the costs of medical tourism to India. Once I understand all of the financials I will choose between longer life and debt or financial security for my wife. I will probably choose an early death.
The Democrats gave people access to crappy insurance, not affordable health care.
Plus if I understand PFC Jim Wheeler correctly he is supposed to pay $4,500 in premiums, and preventative care for he and his wife are covered, but he doesn't get a dime for unexpected illness or injury until he is $10,000 out of pocket. Then he still probably has a 20% or 30% co-pay on the unexpected. So the man $14,500 out of pocket for the unexpected. If it is a chronic condition and he isn't wealthy he still has his life circling the economic drain. The ACA is an OK idea so badly put together that it does more harm than good. Most people in America who are not currently making over $100,000 a year can expect to leave nothing to their surviving spouse or children if they die of a chronic illness that does not kill them in 3-5 years.
I am almost 57. My wife and I make a low six figure income. We have good insurance. I suffer from a chronic cardiac problem. If I pursue a medically intensive medical intervention over the next five or six years, I will literally lose an 80 acre farm and debt free agricultural business and become eligible for welfare. My life expectancy will then be about 75. If I do nothing I will not live 8 years, but my wife will be able to hire someone or my daughter and husband will be able to take over the business and my wife will be spared the indignity of becoming a burden on our daughter. I am currently exploring the costs of medical tourism to India. Once I understand all of the financials I will choose between longer life and debt or financial security for my wife. I will probably choose an early death.
The Democrats gave people access to crappy insurance, not affordable health care.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
TSgt Frank Shirley
There are 2 deadly things wrong with the ACA:
First the program can’t sustain itself, that’s the biggest deadly.
Second the majority of the people don’t want it. The Congress was stacked with social progressives from about 9 years of lying when Obama took office. He had a super majority and could do anything he wanted. Don’t you remember: By the end of the second year when they were trying to push the ACA through there was a special election to replace a Congress member (I forget who) that would have made the vote impossible for them? They rushed reconciliation through just before the New Year when the change would not give them the votes they needed. I remember a big snow storm coming up the coast right before the New Year: They had snowmobiles standing by so they could get their vote through come hell or high water.
That’s what’s wrong with the ACA.
There are 2 deadly things wrong with the ACA:
First the program can’t sustain itself, that’s the biggest deadly.
Second the majority of the people don’t want it. The Congress was stacked with social progressives from about 9 years of lying when Obama took office. He had a super majority and could do anything he wanted. Don’t you remember: By the end of the second year when they were trying to push the ACA through there was a special election to replace a Congress member (I forget who) that would have made the vote impossible for them? They rushed reconciliation through just before the New Year when the change would not give them the votes they needed. I remember a big snow storm coming up the coast right before the New Year: They had snowmobiles standing by so they could get their vote through come hell or high water.
That’s what’s wrong with the ACA.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
PFC Jim Wheeler
Our government is supposed to run (rely) on principled compromise. It’s designed so if principled compromise can’t be reached gridlock occurs. I believe they did this to keep one side of an argument from killing the other side when a slim majority is reached with a lot of undecided (only what I believe).
Principled compromise takes two side to negotiate. We’re at a point in our country’s history where the socialist progressives believe they have the majority and they can move legally or illegally to get the country changed to the way they believe it should be run (basically change our constitution). They will not compromise when they smell total victory. My take on where our country’s at, I could be wrong.
Our government is supposed to run (rely) on principled compromise. It’s designed so if principled compromise can’t be reached gridlock occurs. I believe they did this to keep one side of an argument from killing the other side when a slim majority is reached with a lot of undecided (only what I believe).
Principled compromise takes two side to negotiate. We’re at a point in our country’s history where the socialist progressives believe they have the majority and they can move legally or illegally to get the country changed to the way they believe it should be run (basically change our constitution). They will not compromise when they smell total victory. My take on where our country’s at, I could be wrong.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Democrats changed many of the rules a couple of years ago to benefit themselves. Things like cabinet appointments, federal judges, and certain other items require only a majority vote which the republicans have. They can try to filibuster, but it will do no good. Democrats can't seem to understand that they lost every branch for a reason. Until they come to the understanding that they lost because they tried to force a socialist agenda on a population that did not support it, republicans will continue to remain in office for 8 or more years
(7)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SP5 Christine Conley - I bet when people call you a "snowflake", you think it is a compliment
(0)
(0)
SGT Damaso V Santana
SP5 Christine Conley - Chjristine, the Huff post is pure progressive trash and not even obamas's progressive dept. of just us could find anything in Ferguson. The don't shoot bull was found to be just that. The real result of all that false narrative is called BLM and it encourages the shooting of Police Officers.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SP5 Christine Conley - it's odd that the democrats didn't feel that way before this election. Obama will go down in history as having used an executive memorandum (or whatever he chose to call it) more times than any president to enact rules and procedures that he couldn't get into law (example-immigration).
(0)
(0)
SFC Bobby Thompson
Christine,
I know he is not the mayor of Chicago, but he could do something about the crime if he wanted to. His former chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel ) is the Mayor and they both could do more to stop crime there.
I know he is not the mayor of Chicago, but he could do something about the crime if he wanted to. His former chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel ) is the Mayor and they both could do more to stop crime there.
(0)
(0)
"If democrats want to win"
Interesting that "win" seems to be defined as halting the democratic process.
I would have thought "win" might have been described as something productive and helpful to the nation.
Interesting that "win" seems to be defined as halting the democratic process.
I would have thought "win" might have been described as something productive and helpful to the nation.
(7)
(0)
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
If winning means not allowing the GOP to remake the US as an anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-LGBT right-wing Christian theocracy, then I'm all for it.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
, if you really want to see a good and ironic and sarcastic win for the Democrats, we should rename the 16 billion-dollar nuclear depository that is almost complete but purposely shut down by the Democrats we should rename it to the Harry Reid nuclear depository and underground soccer field and actually make it useful where we store nuclear waste and keep it there for Millennia until it becomes safe instead of having it sitting outside in pools of every nuclear power plant in the country. the win for Harry Reid is his depository in his home state will pashley be used as a nuclear depositories should have just some giant incomplete empty salt mine.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google