Filibuster - An Interesting Observation

[bcm119]

Clinton was guilty of carelessness and, like many baby boomers, cluelessness about technology.

[Mark Kelly]

Let's put on our thinking caps here and pretend that you're the head of a major geopolitical rival to the united states. Would you want your rival to be helmed by a competent but maybe not overly popular career politician that's unlikely to make radical changes to foreign policy and is likely to opperate with a large degree of continuity from the previous administration? or by a malignant narcissist who is at a minimum easily influenced to make policy changes in your favor for minimal ROI (and generally a personal ROI), is likely to further partisan divide in the country (making it less likely that your rival can react to fluid changes), and is quite possibly has deep financial ties to your country?

It's 2021. Occam's razor still applies.

Add one more point: the election of Trump predictably trashed US prestige in the rest of the world, your government became a laughing stock.

That is exactly what Putin wanted: anything that tarnishes the appeal of democracy is PR gold to a dictator.

[bdaghisallo]

Somebody had better get on to Joe Manchin.

Opinion: Joe Manchin: I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...b78_story.html

"I have said it before and will say it again to remove any shred of doubt: There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster."

[Saab2000]

My brother works for the federal government and has reported to me that what she (Mrs. Clinton) is known to have done would have cost him his job and probably some level of prosecution. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Nor is the lack of knowledge of technology. Her behavior is especially troublesome because after it was brought to her attention that her use of technology was a security threat she continued to knowingly engage in it.

I voted for her but only because I felt like the alternative, which we got, was far worse. And yes, I believe that outside players like Russia had a hand in his election through their campaigns of mis- and disinformation.

Peoples' attempts here to defend 45 are silly. The damage to our nation, domestic and abroad, is massive. He compromised institutions and deliberately spread lies and I believe was a security threat far greater than HRC.

2016 was a choice between pretty bad and far worse. Hopefully we will have better choices in the future. Personally, I think we made the right choice in 2020.

As to the filibuster, if adults in congress ran the show, rather than uncompromising partisan extremists who place party loyalty far above national loyalty, this wouldn't be a big deal. Sadly, compromise is a filthy word to the electorate and members of congress will lose their seats if they engage in adult behavior like compromising.

In my mind it all circles back to the highly partisan TV networks which spread misinformation that misinforms voters.

[jclay]

My brother works for the federal government and has reported to me that what she (Mrs. Clinton) is known to have done would have cost him his job and probably some level of prosecution. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Nor is the lack of knowledge of technology. Her behavior is especially troublesome because after it was brought to her attention that her use of technology was a security threat she continued to knowingly engage in it.

I voted for her but only because I felt like the alternative, which we got, was far worse. And yes, I believe that outside players like Russia had a hand in his election through their campaigns of mis- and disinformation.

Peoples' attempts here to defend 45 are silly. The damage to our nation, domestic and abroad, is massive. He compromised institutions and deliberately spread lies and I believe was a security threat far greater than HRC.

2016 was a choice between pretty bad and far worse. Hopefully we will have better choices in the future. Personally, I think we made the right choice in 2020.

As to the filibuster, if adults in congress ran the show, rather than uncompromising partisan extremists who place party loyalty far above national loyalty, this wouldn't be a big deal. Sadly, compromise is a filthy word to the electorate and members of congress will lose their seats if they engage in adult behavior like compromising.

In my mind it all circles back to the highly partisan TV networks which spread misinformation that misinforms voters.

I couldn't agree more (and it was so nicely and succinctly expressed; you do write well and thoughtfully).

As to the last sentence, I'll say it and post it again: Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was extremely damaging to our country, as was his populist codification of the notion that government is inherently illegitimate and not to be trusted. Republicans of his ilk actively undermine many governmental programs and, when they fail, say "see, it doesn't work". That doesn't mean that the Democratic Party is blameless but certainly since Trump came on the scene the Rs have been far more carcinogenic. In many circles political activity has devolved to thoughtless, tribal warfare. It's depressing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[j44ke]

The House used to be where the crazy people went to live out their careers while the Senate was the adults. But various factors have resulted in the Senate becoming more House-like of the last 20-30 years.

What needs to happen in this country is that all the manufacturing that started leaving in the 1960's be brought back and re-staffed with workers. Pretty simple. Just have all the factories come back. US Steel, all the car manufacturers, coal mines, petro-chemical industry, tool-and-die, etc. That would stabilize working class life economically, provide a sense of purpose and community to a segment of society that feels like the rug was pulled out from under them and reduce the political instability they bring into our system of government. I am not sure why someone hasn't done it already.

[jclay]

The House used to be where the crazy people went to live out their careers while the Senate was the adults. But various factors have resulted in the Senate becoming more House-like of the last 20-30 years.

What needs to happen in this country is that all the manufacturing that started leaving in the 1960's be brought back and re-staffed with workers. Pretty simple. Just have all the factories come back. US Steel, all the car manufacturers, coal mines, petro-chemical industry, tool-and-die, etc. That would stabilize working class life economically, provide a sense of purpose and community to a segment of society that feels like the rug was pulled out from under them and reduce the political instability they bring into our system of government. I am not sure why someone hasn't done it already.

The rug was pulled out from under them. The current talk of, and I don't recall the precise term or details (just heard about it), but essentially/something like forcing a common, corporate (and substantial) tax rate across manufacturers regardless of global location is at least the beginning of discussions concerning how to dis-incentivize corporate utilization of wealth inequalities to the detriment of the developed countries (where these technologies were hatched, and paid for).

One thing that continually amazes me is that social/political conservatives scream "free enterprise" and "deregulation" yet fail to realize that manufacturing flight (and increasingly white collar jobs) to areas of lower opportunity cost is precisely what capitalism does, absent opposing externalities or regulatory prevention. That flight wasn't the result of some innate governmental (or Democratic Party or Socialist or Commie) conspiracy but rather the rational pursuit of maximum ROI (or annual performance bonuses??); and buying legislators to prevent hindrance. I wonder how many of those social conservatives woulda supported strong government regulations dis-incentivizing such flight?

The reason it hasn't happened is because it's practically and politically difficult....and we'd rather have, metaphorically (and literally) five cheap TVs rather than one Curtis Mathis...even if it means self (industrial/social) evisceration.

[Sino]

But do you even ride bicycles?

So I don't fit into your narrative of what a cyclist is, and you attempt to marginalize me though some sort of weird call out trying to shame me that I'm not one of the pack?

Sounds exactly like bullies and fascists do. Weird, certainly no one here would do that. Especially not a liberal.

[Sino]

отличная история, брат

Спасибо товарищ. Хотите что-нибудь предложить в качестве аргумента?

Speaking more than one language. wOw I'm ImPreSseD!

[j44ke]

The rug was pulled out from under them. The current talk of, and I don't recall the precise term or details (just heard about it), but essentially/something like forcing a common, corporate (and substantial) tax rate across manufacturers regardless of global location is at least the beginning of discussions concerning how to dis-incentivize corporate utilization of wealth inequalities to the detriment of the developed countries (where these technologies were hatched, and paid for).

One thing that continually amazes me is that social/political conservatives scream "free enterprise" and "deregulation" yet fail to realize that manufacturing flight (and increasingly white collar jobs) to areas of lower opportunity cost is precisely what capitalism does, absent opposing externalities or regulatory prevention. That flight wasn't the result of some innate governmental (or Democratic Party or Socialist or Commie) conspiracy but rather the rational pursuit of maximum ROI (or annual performance bonuses??); and buying legislators to prevent hindrance. I wonder how many of those social conservatives woulda supported strong government regulations dis-incentivizing such flight?

The reason it hasn't happened is because it's practically and politically difficult....and we'd rather have, metaphorically (and literally) five cheap TVs rather than one Curtis Mathis...even if it means self (industrial/social) evisceration.

I was employing ironic understatement.

[jclay]

I was employing ironic understatement.

Fast ball smoked this batter.

[Matthew Strongin]

This thread has gone off the rails. I hate closing threads, particularly on subjects that I think are ripe for interesting discussion like the role of the filibuster in politics. But the pissing match and logical fallacies are tiresome. So here's what I propose...we keep this discussion reasonably centered on the filibuster, we support our arguments with sound reason and we use references where possible to back up a claim. Or we can just keep shouting past each other and I'll gladly shut it down.

I'll go first...

While the Manchin opinion piece in WaPo is easy to agree with (in broad strokes), I'd like to know what he's doing to actually improve the situation. He claims that representative government depends on trust in the elected members of Congress to do what's right and then goes on and on about all that they do wrong. So, is this just bloviating to justify his unwillingness to take a hard stand against the Republican obstructionists or is he/will he try to unblock the machine? Also, what about putting the hard work back into the filibuster. I'd like to see more of this:

[72gmc]

If Manchin really wanted my support, he'd stand and read that op-ed over and over again until tomorrow.

[Too Tall]

So here's the deal (cough). One of the most compelling reasons to continue this discussion are the fair points being made about a topic few of us understand. The most compelling reason to shut the mother down are the foghorn replies.

Please please start another thread, this one's cooked.