Going nuclear in the Senate

BaltimoreSkins · 11-22-2013, 02:04 PM

What are peoples thoughts? I find it a touch ironic from Obama's and McConnell's part and I know it isn't a complete relaxation of the filibuster, but I have mixed emotions about this one.

Chico23231 · 11-22-2013, 02:08 PM

GOP deserves this because it has been their stratagdy to delay Obama's appointments for no reason other than politics. These posts need to be filled, so eff the GOP. They asked for it.

Daseal · 11-22-2013, 03:58 PM

I like the changes from a completely non-partisan position. I hate the idea of a fillibuster, and especially the frequency in which they have started to happen. According to the CNN article I read: "According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who spearheaded Thursday's nuclear option rule change, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations in Senate history, with about half of them occurring during the Obama administration."

That's way too many fillibusters. I would like to see these rules expand to actual legislation, not just political/judicial nominations. Unfortunately, we need rules to force Congress to do their jobs and to make actual decisions on laws. Currently all they do is political posturing and are more concerned with hurting the other party than the good of the American people.

over the mountain · 11-24-2013, 04:32 PM

agree with what has already been said here. i dont like the idea but it seems the repubs really have been the party of no to a historical degree.

not only have they used more than of all total filibusters on president obama the average wait time for a nominated person to fill a vacant position is 2.5 years when the avg is something like 6 mos.

what i dont like is i read one democrat said the repubs would have changed the rule anyway if and when they had control of the senate and presidency.

how about president obama on foreign policy though!

averted a long drawn out occupation in Syria when a strike seemed imminent (which would have greatly escalated tensions all around)

averted all out war with Iran through diplomacy.

Amazing, if we had a repub president we would be replacing afghanistan with syria and iraq and with iran.

just amazing we averted another decade of huge military expenses and US lives.

amazing!

That Guy · 11-25-2013, 07:51 PM

you're silly if you think we'd ever have a boots on the ground war with iran. they have over 70million people. we'd have to re-institute the draft.

11-22-2013, 02:04 PM	#1
BaltimoreSkins Pro Bowl Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Parkton, MD Posts: 5,639	Going nuclear in the Senate What are peoples thoughts? I find it a touch ironic from Obama's and McConnell's part and I know it isn't a complete relaxation of the filibuster, but I have mixed emotions about this one.

11-22-2013, 02:08 PM	#2
Chico23231 Warpath Hall of Fame Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 34,295	Re: Going nuclear in the Senate GOP deserves this because it has been their stratagdy to delay Obama's appointments for no reason other than politics. These posts need to be filled, so eff the GOP. They asked for it. __________________ My pronouns: King/Your ruler He Gets Us

11-22-2013, 03:58 PM	#3
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	Re: Going nuclear in the Senate I like the changes from a completely non-partisan position. I hate the idea of a fillibuster, and especially the frequency in which they have started to happen. According to the CNN article I read: "According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who spearheaded Thursday's nuclear option rule change, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations in Senate history, with about half of them occurring during the Obama administration." That's way too many fillibusters. I would like to see these rules expand to actual legislation, not just political/judicial nominations. Unfortunately, we need rules to force Congress to do their jobs and to make actual decisions on laws. Currently all they do is political posturing and are more concerned with hurting the other party than the good of the American people. __________________ Best. Player. Available.

11-24-2013, 04:32 PM	#4
over the mountain Playmaker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: close to the edge Posts: 4,926	Re: Going nuclear in the Senate agree with what has already been said here. i dont like the idea but it seems the repubs really have been the party of no to a historical degree. not only have they used more than of all total filibusters on president obama the average wait time for a nominated person to fill a vacant position is 2.5 years when the avg is something like 6 mos. what i dont like is i read one democrat said the repubs would have changed the rule anyway if and when they had control of the senate and presidency. how about president obama on foreign policy though! averted a long drawn out occupation in Syria when a strike seemed imminent (which would have greatly escalated tensions all around) averted all out war with Iran through diplomacy. Amazing, if we had a repub president we would be replacing afghanistan with syria and iraq and with iran. just amazing we averted another decade of huge military expenses and US lives. amazing! __________________ Life is brutal, but beautiful

11-25-2013, 07:51 PM	#5
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 41 Posts: 17,553	Re: Going nuclear in the Senate you're silly if you think we'd ever have a boots on the ground war with iran. they have over 70million people. we'd have to re-institute the draft.

Going nuclear in the Senate

Debating with the enemy