bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,439
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jan 26, 2021 12:21:18 GMT -5
Portman was/is one of the few Republicans that gives a rip about deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives have been continuing to be run out of the party and replaced with populist free spending Republicans. I don't see this as a good trade off...
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 26, 2021 12:23:51 GMT -5
Portman was/is one of the few Republicans that gives a rip about deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives have been continuing to be run out of the party and replaced with populist free spending Republicans. I don't see this as a good trade off... L- and I can't stress this enough- OL
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 26, 2021 12:24:24 GMT -5
Senate is suppose to be in place to stop a narrow majority from raming anything they want through congress. I don't consider this a bad thing. Where do you get that idea from?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 26, 2021 12:27:51 GMT -5
Portman was/is one of the few Republicans that gives a rip about deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives have been continuing to be run out of the party and replaced with populist free spending Republicans. I don't see this as a good trade off... L- and I can't stress this enough- OL Where does this fall on the Susan Collins levels of concern?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 26, 2021 12:57:02 GMT -5
L- and I can't stress this enough- OL Where does this fall on the Susan Collins levels of concern? A troubled-looking frown, a definite "I hope this is a lesson to people", and a vote to support more deficit-increasing tax cuts.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,439
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jan 26, 2021 13:32:32 GMT -5
Senate is suppose to be in place to stop a narrow majority from raming anything they want through congress. I don't consider this a bad thing. Where do you get that idea from? The filibuster obviously prevents passing legislation from passing w/o 60% - requiring more of a consensus than a narrow majority. I don't have a problem with this other than the extremes in each party has forced non compromises.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 26, 2021 14:00:07 GMT -5
Where do you get that idea from? The filibuster obviously prevents passing legislation from passing w/o 60% - requiring more of a consensus than a narrow majority. I don't have a problem with this other than the extremes in each party has forced non compromises. Except that it doesn't as long as it is part of "budget reconciliation" anyway.
|
|
|
The Senate
Jan 26, 2021 14:03:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Jan 26, 2021 14:03:35 GMT -5
Where do you get that idea from? The filibuster obviously prevents passing legislation from passing w/o 60% - requiring more of a consensus than a narrow majority. I don't have a problem with this other than the extremes in each party has forced non compromises. Ah, so the thing which wasn't part of the Senate's design is a sign of what the Senate is supposed to be?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jan 26, 2021 14:57:21 GMT -5
Where do you get that idea from? The filibuster obviously prevents passing legislation from passing w/o 60% - requiring more of a consensus than a narrow majority. I don't have a problem with this other than the extremes in each party has forced non compromises. Many of the democrats' proposals have support near or over 60% and would pass overwhelmingly by popular referendum. Considering how minoritarian rule is engrained in the Senate, a 60% threshold there pumps the number up even higher.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,439
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jan 26, 2021 15:31:33 GMT -5
If we are going to go with public opinion polls for legislation - then we should just have direct voting. This would have created horrible legislation in the past and certainly increases the chances of the majority discriminating against a minority (which sadly happened in our past anyway).
Days after 9/11 - probably 60% of the population would have supported banning of Muslims - or some kind of restrictions. This would have been a horrible idea.
There are many Republican ideas that also have over 60% support for popular referendum - like partial birth abortion.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jan 26, 2021 15:34:54 GMT -5
If we are going to go with public opinion polls for legislation - then we should just have direct voting. This would have created horrible legislation in the past and certainly increases the chances of the majority discriminating against a minority (which sadly happened in our past anyway). Days after 9/11 - probably 60% of the population would have supported banning of Muslims - or some kind of restrictions. This would have been a horrible idea. There are many Republican ideas that also have over 60% support for popular referendum - like partial birth abortion. That's why we have the bill of rights/14th amendment/etc, to prevent that sort of discrimination. Partial birth abortion is largely illegal anyway, so it seems like the law aligns with public opinion. For someone with apparently deep seated political and civic views you have a very tenuous grasp on politics and civics.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 26, 2021 17:08:25 GMT -5
The reason we don't put everything up for public vote is not because we don't trust the public. It's because it's not efficient. If everybody is spending 20-60 hours a week studying legislation and deciding how to vote on it, who does anything else? That's why we elect representatives to do this for us.
The reason we have things like the Bill Of Rights is to ensure that some basic things are not up for vote (at least, not easily -- the Bill Of Rights is itself an amendment, after all).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 17:45:29 GMT -5
It would certainly help if we elected competent people to represent us, instead of the clowns (mostly GOP) who are in there now.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Jan 26, 2021 17:48:42 GMT -5
The reason we don't put everything up for public vote is not because we don't trust the public. It's because it's not efficient. If everybody is spending 20-60 hours a week studying legislation and deciding how to vote on it, who does anything else? Except that most people wouldn't bother studying legislation, and would just vote however the echo chamber of whatever media bubble they are in tells them to vote (or they wouldn't bother voting to begin with). Granted, most representatives/senators do the same thing these days (just voting however the echo chamber of their party tells them to vote).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 17:56:17 GMT -5
We have a simple job: elect competent reps/senators. We can't even do that.
|
|