Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Biden calls for changing Senate rules to allow voting bills to pass


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

President Biden on Tuesday gave his full-throated endorsement for changing Senate rules to allow federal voting rights legislation to pass via a simple majority instead of a 60-vote threshold.

Biden has in the past expressed an openness to tweaking Senate rules, such as reinstating the talking filibuster. But in Tuesday’s remarks, he made clear he supports changing the rules “whichever way they need to be changed to prevent a minority of senators from blocking action on voting rights," setting the stage for a high stakes fight in the Senate.

“Sadly, the U.S. Senate, designed to be the world’s greatest deliberative body, has been rendered a shell of its former self. It gives me no satisfaction in saying that as an institutionalist, as a man who was honored to serve in the Senate,” Biden said. “But as an institutionalist, I believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills.

“Debate them, vote, let the majority prevail,” Biden continued. “And if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster for this.”

 

Link

And what is in the Bill?

  • Automatic voter registration
  • Online and same-day registration
  • Election Day as a holiday
  • Voters with disabilities and older voters
  • Early voting
  • Voting by mail
  • Signature verification
  • Drop boxes
  • Voter ID
  • Felon re-enfranchisement
  • Food and water
  • Voting on American Indian lands

More information here https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/21/whats-senate-democrats-new-voting-rights-bill/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a word...

STUPID.

Edit: not necessarily the voter reform, but breaking the filibuster rule.

If the two main parties weren't so polarized, this wouldn't be a problem. But thanks to Trump, and Biden, and to an extent Obama... We've got all or nothing on almost everything. Biden campaigned on fixing that, but lied, and now is as unpopular as Trump was. Self inflicted injury.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't all of those topics in need of debate and discussion?  Do we want all citizens to vote or restrict voters with the requirements we set?

Or should we resolve it all by saying only white males age 35 to 70 owing property and a net worth of over $1 million get to vote? 

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Aren't all of those topics in need of debate and discussion?  Do we want all citizens to vote or restrict voters with the requirements we set?

Or should we resolve it all by saying only white males age 35 to 70 owing property and a net worth of over $1 million get to vote? 

Completely false narrative.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Aren't all of those topics in need of debate and discussion?  Do we want all citizens to vote or restrict voters with the requirements we set?

Or should we resolve it all by saying only white males age 35 to 70 owing property and a net worth of over $1 million get to vote? 

I'm fine with voting reform. Work it so Republicans will vote for it.

Disabling the filibuster isn't worth it. Imagine 2025 with Trump in office again, and a slim majority of Republicans in the House and Senate.....

Imagine ANY legislation Trump doesn't like being removed with a simple majority vote. ANY... ANYTHING... could easily be just slapped into place. 

The 60 votes requires either a overwhelming public support for a party in an election, or bipartisan support. Thus no crazy one-sided partisan bills get passed. 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of Election Day holiday for you lot, we vote on Saturday - makes getting to the ballot boxes easy. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

In a word...

STUPID.

He listed what was in the bill...what part is stupid?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Completely false narrative.  

I'm not narrating, just asking questions.  I've been taking lessons from Tucker.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'm fine with voting reform. Work it so Republicans will vote for it.

Disabling the filibuster isn't worth it. Imagine 2025 with Trump in office again, and a slim majority of Republicans in the House and Senate.....

Imagine ANY legislation Trump doesn't like being removed with a simple majority vote. ANY... ANYTHING... could easily be just slapped into place. 

The 60 votes requires either a overwhelming public support for a party in an election, or bipartisan support. Thus no crazy one-sided partisan bills get passed. 

Mitch McConnell already got around the filibuster to appoint Supreme Court Justice.  If it suits him, he will do it again when he has the power to do so.  The whole, scenario of " if you do this the Republicans will take advantage" is a strategy to scare the sissy Democrats and the few left with a sense of fair play.  If the Democrats don't so it now, they waste their slim majority.  You can't possibly believe unity and brotherhood are going to break out   Time to put up or shut up.  Republicans still have some tricks and can take care of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I'm not narrating, just asking questions.  I've been taking lessons from Tucker.

I never watch him but I hear all my friends talk enough to know he’s just an opportunist. He mixes enough truth with enough outrage to draw people in. He’s a bit like Limbaugh but possibly worse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you thought he was waiting to the last minute on his master plan. I’m surprised it doesn’t say these people can vote.

1: The deceased may vote like last time. 

2: Anyone over the age of 3 months.

3: Anyone suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s. You jumped in and saved my bacon last time so let’s get them walkers out and get that vote counted.

4: Anymore crossing the border illegally. Why not they voted the last time.

5: And anyone wishing to vote more than once like last time just know you are on you’re own if you get caught.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Mitch McConnell already got around the filibuster to appoint Supreme Court Justice.

And that was after Harry Reid got around the filibuster to appoint Obama's nominees, the whole nuclear option back in 2013.  McConnell did say if Reid used the nuclear option, which he did, that it would come back to hurt the Democrats, which it did with the Supreme Court.

For the past decade or so its generally been the Democrats that first break tradition/protocol then get shocked when the Republicans then do it themselves later, often with much greater effect and far larger impact.

Edited by DarkHunter
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I never watch him but I hear all my friends talk enough to know he’s just an opportunist. He mixes enough truth with enough outrage to draw people in. He’s a bit like Limbaugh but possibly worse.

Good, then I did him a creditable imitation.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

And that was after Harry Reid got around the filibuster to appoint Obama's nominees, the whole nuclear option back in 2013.  McConnell did say if Reid used the nuclear option, which he did, that it would come back to hurt the Democrats, which it did with the Supreme Court.

For the past decade or so its generally been the Democrats that first break tradition/protocol then get shocked when the Republicans then do it themselves later, often with much greater effect and far larger impact.

So there you go.  Hatfield and McCoy feud, been going on for decades.  All the more reason to dump it.   it goes along well with our age too.  We are past the age of compromise and decorum and into the era of Mortal Kombat and trash talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

 Imagine 2025 with Trump in office again, and a slim majority of Republicans in the House and Senate.....

 

THEY(live) would lose their minds! 

:D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

So there you go.  Hatfield and McCoy feud, been going on for decades.  All the more reason to dump it.   it goes along well with our age too.  We are past the age of compromise and decorum and into the era of Mortal Kombat and trash talk.

It's not a Hatfield and McCoy type feud, it's a handful of powerful Democrats having complete faith in a political prediction, and making a strategy based on that prediction,  that was very appealing but ultimately fundamentally flawed and wrong.

Essentially in the early 2000s a book was written that essentially predicted with demographic trends, with a coalition made up of women, minorities, and certain professional fields the Democratic party would have uncontested control over the nation for decades at the federal level.  Some Democrats, such as Reid, bought heavily into that and were thus fine with breaking tradition and protocol as that would just speed up their inevitable ascent to power and control.  Problem is the prediction was wrong, key assumptions that were made ended up not occuring.

Getting rid of things like the filibuster is one of the worst and outright stupidest things that could possibly be done.  It's hard to state just how horrible of an idea that is.  

In the short term the Democrats will get what they want but it wont be long before it gets used against them. Every two years there would be risk of massive changes in law and policy.  The instability for citizens, businesses, and even allies would be extremely damaging as no one would be able to have a guarantee on America's standing that last more then two years.

It also drastically raises the stakes for each election massively as effectively the minority party would have no power anymore.  The only end result of removing the filibuster is a guaranteed civil war.

The traditions and protocols in place are meant to slow or stop sudden and rapid changes, provide long term stability, and guarantee the minority elements in government dont get disenfranchised.  Throwing all of that away for instaneous political gain is just an insane and stupid idea.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Essentially in the early 2000s a book was written that essentially predicted with demographic trends, with a coalition made up of women, minorities, and certain professional fields the Democratic party would have uncontested control over the nation for decades at the federal level.  Some Democrats, such as Reid, bought heavily into that and were thus fine with breaking tradition and protocol as that would just speed up their inevitable ascent to power and control.  Problem is the prediction was wrong, key assumptions that were made ended up not occuring.

Yes indeed they were wrong.  A good lesson is not to base the future policy on chancy predictions with undefined odds. Now they have something more immanent and certain. 

 It is clear that leading voices in the Republican party want nothing to do with majority rule if it is not their majority.  They have made it pretty clear that when they become the  majority they will not protect minority party viewpoints. or be open to compromise. In fact they are already bloviating on revenge and  removing all power from Democrats. This has become the age  of Mortal Kombat rules and trash talk.  Democrats cannot worry about what happens after two years because if they do not achieve some of their goals in the next year  they will be done for the foreseeable future..  Naïve to think that if the Democrats preserve the filibuster, the Republicans will consider it sacred.  They will eliminate it or bypass it as soon as it fits their needs and is to their advantage.

 There is not one representative in Congress today who can hold a candle to any of the founding fathers in intelligence or public spirit.  Half of them are dedicated people that want to do some good fore  the country. The other half from each party are self serving publicity seekers, some with little intelligence, no grasp of history, understanding of cause and effect or the ideas that formed our country.  They have lost the capability to lead us with any sort of forethought or view of history.  Not to excuse them completely but they have successfully pandered to voters who are content to vote on fear and a "we good they bad" platform with no definition of issues beyond slogans.  

Like the representatives, the filibuster has devolved into a degenerate form.  At the beginning, an opponent of a bill in question had to hold the floor and speak, ostensibly about the bill. When the filibuster was over the vote was taken. Now declaring intent to filibuster is all it takes to stop something from coming up for vote.  Lazy and not as the Constitution envisioned the working of Congress. 

Eliminating the filibuster might lead to exactly what you said, violently whipsawing policies.  Keeping the filibuster  gives us more of the same, a decaying political body.   

As you point out, whipsawing policies are bad for citizens and bad for business.  The responsibility for mitigating that lies with the citizens and the businesses of this country, we cannot depend on our representatives to do it for us.

It will take more effort and involvement from citizens to preserve the union,   The act of keeping or removing the filibuster is not enough to save us. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

It is clear that leading voices in the Republican party want nothing to do with majority rule if it is not their majority.  They have made it pretty clear that when they become the  majority they will not protect minority party viewpoints. or be open to compromise. In fact they are already bloviating on revenge and  removing all power from Democrats.

What you describe here is what was done under Obama when the democrats had power and what did not happen under trump when the republicans had power.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

What you describe here is what was done under Obama when the democrats had power and what did not happen under trump when the republicans had power.  

Yes, I am not saying there are good guys and bad guys or that one party did it first or what.  That is why if becomes like the Hatfield McCoy feud, both dysfunctional sides keep it going so long that who started it is immaterial, the damage to our country just keeps adding up.  Keeping the filibuster will not stop the feud or the damage.  If we don't do it by voting them out, we deserve what we get. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Yes, I am not saying there are good guys and bad guys or that one party did it first or what.  That is why if becomes like the Hatfield McCoy feud, both dysfunctional sides keep it going so long that who started it is immaterial, the damage to our country just keeps adding up.  Keeping the filibuster will not stop the feud or the damage.  If we don't do it by voting them out, we deserve what we get. 

But keeping the filibuster is a useful tool from too great of change happening too quickly. Drastic course changes are how you sink the ship

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OverSword said:

Drastic course changes are how you sink the ship

Think about this a second,  Donors control both Republicans and Democrats, both are on a leash.  If business is opposed to drastic change they press members of both parties.  Business is the only power in Congress that is truly bipartisan.

No course changes is how you hit the iceberg.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 6:24 PM, Agent0range said:

He listed what was in the bill...what part is stupid?

I made an edit at 3:45. Not sure how you missed it 3 hours later.

Go read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I made an edit at 3:45. Not sure how you missed it 3 hours later.

Go read.

Ummm...you edited it after I quoted you.  I didn't delete anything from the reply, which is clearly missing your additions.  So, the "go read" is clearly not necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 6:43 PM, Tatetopa said:

Mitch McConnell already got around the filibuster to appoint Supreme Court Justice.  If it suits him, he will do it again when he has the power to do so.  The whole, scenario of " if you do this the Republicans will take advantage" is a strategy to scare the sissy Democrats and the few left with a sense of fair play.  If the Democrats don't so it now, they waste their slim majority.  You can't possibly believe unity and brotherhood are going to break out   Time to put up or shut up.  Republicans still have some tricks and can take care of themselves.

So you're ok with Voting reform now, that will be removed, or changed "For the Worse", by Republicans a year from now? 

This wasn't started by McConnell. It was started by Sen. Reid, (RIP) to push Obama people through. I said at the time it was a bad idea. We would have THREE moderate SCOTUS justices from Trump if they required 60% to approve. Rather then more right oriented justices. THUS... If Roe V Wade gets wolloped, it's Reid's fault not Trump's. 

The 60% prevents crazy stuff from happening, that we already have Appointees and Justices using this idiot rule is Stupid enough. Why go full Stupid??

That people Do Not come together is entirely the point. Only if enough Senators think is good does it pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Ummm...you edited it after I quoted you.  I didn't delete anything from the reply, which is clearly missing your additions.  So, the "go read" is clearly not necessary.

Thats really weird, because I posted at 3:34 and edited at 3:45. And you're post was at 6:24 almost 3 hours later. Maybe some kind of server update delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.