Posted on Dec 8, 2016
If Democrats want to win, they should filibuster Trump early and often
17.3K
100
64
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: 22
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)
"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)
5
5
0
Seven years and 3 general elections, and some people have learned nothing. The tired tactics just aren’t working anymore. The media and most progressives are still in a state of denial. If they keep thinking this way they are going to complete running off a cliff. Right now one foot is in the air.
(5)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SP5 Christine Conley
MSG Christofaro is correct the word progressive has many meanings, one is to move forward. Move forward to what? Changing our Constitution and form of government?
I identify what happened during the last 8 years as “proceeding step-by-step; cumulative” another meaning of progressive. 99% of the time when I say progressives, I say “socialist progressive.” this last time I didn’t, that allowed you to make word games. Look up the word socialist and see what that means, and then compare it to the countries that are socialist. At best most are destitute, at worse they turn into a country like Nazi Germany; a country that pits one group of people against another to keep their “progress” going. How has race relations been going in our country the last 8 years? How about the 8 years before that, and before that? Do you see a pattern? I hope you do.
How has our economy been going the last 8 years? It hasn’t? Why not? Like it or not Trump is spurring our economy even before he takes office with his ideas, and how he conveys those ideas. Where has President Obama been the last 8 years? Where did his tax and spend ideas take us? Nowhere. We all have lived through this; there is no denying it, especially now that it is so fresh in our minds.
MSG Christofaro is correct the word progressive has many meanings, one is to move forward. Move forward to what? Changing our Constitution and form of government?
I identify what happened during the last 8 years as “proceeding step-by-step; cumulative” another meaning of progressive. 99% of the time when I say progressives, I say “socialist progressive.” this last time I didn’t, that allowed you to make word games. Look up the word socialist and see what that means, and then compare it to the countries that are socialist. At best most are destitute, at worse they turn into a country like Nazi Germany; a country that pits one group of people against another to keep their “progress” going. How has race relations been going in our country the last 8 years? How about the 8 years before that, and before that? Do you see a pattern? I hope you do.
How has our economy been going the last 8 years? It hasn’t? Why not? Like it or not Trump is spurring our economy even before he takes office with his ideas, and how he conveys those ideas. Where has President Obama been the last 8 years? Where did his tax and spend ideas take us? Nowhere. We all have lived through this; there is no denying it, especially now that it is so fresh in our minds.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SP5 Christine Conley
You read that fake news stuff, and can’t read between the lines. I read that associated press story this morning; it’s so full of holes it wouldn’t keep a person warm in Panama. Are you so full of hate that you have to spout off this half baked stuff as truth? Please… read the article again and figure out where the media insinuated facts from other facts until it was almost unrecognizable.
You read that fake news stuff, and can’t read between the lines. I read that associated press story this morning; it’s so full of holes it wouldn’t keep a person warm in Panama. Are you so full of hate that you have to spout off this half baked stuff as truth? Please… read the article again and figure out where the media insinuated facts from other facts until it was almost unrecognizable.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SP5 Christine Conley
CIA just announced that this election was rigged by Russia!??? Get real they did no such thing.
Like I asked before: go read the article carefully to see where the holes are in it. If you can’t see it yourself you won’t believe me: If you can’t see it yourself: you are purposely quoting misleading information, you don’t know the difference, or you drank the cool aid a long time ago.
CIA just announced that this election was rigged by Russia!??? Get real they did no such thing.
Like I asked before: go read the article carefully to see where the holes are in it. If you can’t see it yourself you won’t believe me: If you can’t see it yourself: you are purposely quoting misleading information, you don’t know the difference, or you drank the cool aid a long time ago.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SP5 Christine Conley
To quote what I just heard on the news: Is this the same CIA that said there were weapons of mass destruction? You really trust them? The way they were quoted?
To quote what I just heard on the news: Is this the same CIA that said there were weapons of mass destruction? You really trust them? The way they were quoted?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google