Other Resources The Political Joe » Protests Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2017-01-24 12:38 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by tuwood

You guys watched the Big Joe video?

Holy smokes, this guy gets it.
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/828052167332680/

 

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  I notice nobody took a swing at Big Joe.  

All the tough guys from Friday's protests must have still been asleep. LMAO



Edited by Left Brain 2017-01-24 12:41 PM


2017-01-24 4:00 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Protests

haha, I like this kid too.  Have to stand up for what you believe in. 

2017-01-24 4:08 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Protests

I haven't worn a uniform in 20 years, but the next big protest I'm going to get myself one and march with a sign that says, "I love donuts".

2017-01-24 4:17 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Protests
Originally posted by Left Brain

I haven't worn a uniform in 20 years, but the next big protest I'm going to get myself one and march with a sign that says, "I love donuts".





Just make sure you are packin'.
2017-01-24 4:44 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Left Brain

I haven't worn a uniform in 20 years, but the next big protest I'm going to get myself one and march with a sign that says, "I love donuts".

Just make sure you are packin'.

You mean to tell me there are people who don't like donuts?  Liberals I bet.

2017-02-03 7:44 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Protests

In general I feel the protesters are just a minority group of thugs who like to cause trouble.  They obviously don't care about people or tolerance because they're simply hate filled despicable terrorists.
With Milo at Berkley they were spewing their hate towards a gay jewish immigrant, so they most definitely don't care about gays, jews, or immigrants unless they profess their ideology of hate.

Anyways, here's my rub.  It's one thing to have a domestic terrorist group, but why is the left embracing this group?  Veritas is going to be putting forth video in the next couple days proving that Soros is behind the funding of this group and he's also one of the primary funders of Hillary's campaign.  The Berkley police were forced to stand down by the mayor to allow the rioters to assault people and destroy stuff.  There are pictures of the riot police sitting inside and being forced to allow the terror.  Multiple prominent Democrats are cheering the riots and egging them on and even stating how proud they are of these people.

What the F is wrong with the left and how on Gods earth do they believe this is going to help them win elections?



2017-02-03 10:11 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Protests
Originally posted by tuwood

In general I feel the protesters are just a minority group of thugs who like to cause trouble.  They obviously don't care about people or tolerance because they're simply hate filled despicable terrorists.
With Milo at Berkley they were spewing their hate towards a gay jewish immigrant, so they most definitely don't care about gays, jews, or immigrants unless they profess their ideology of hate.

Anyways, here's my rub.  It's one thing to have a domestic terrorist group, but why is the left embracing this group?  Veritas is going to be putting forth video in the next couple days proving that Soros is behind the funding of this group and he's also one of the primary funders of Hillary's campaign.  The Berkley police were forced to stand down by the mayor to allow the rioters to assault people and destroy stuff.  There are pictures of the riot police sitting inside and being forced to allow the terror.  Multiple prominent Democrats are cheering the riots and egging them on and even stating how proud they are of these people.

What the F is wrong with the left and how on Gods earth do they believe this is going to help them win elections?




I have been thinking the same thing. What started out as peaceful protest turned into a radical, flag-burning, window smashing, fire starting, riot endangering lives in confrontations between police and protesters. The overwhelming majority of Americans see this and are totally sickened by it. When you protests devolve into chaos you have a negative impact on whatever your cause was originally. And the sad thing is, the original protesters seem helpless to stop their protests from being taken over by the anarchist, BLM and rioters.

Democrats lost both houses of congress, the White House and 1,048 state legislator seats in the last 8 years. And if this continues they are going to lose even more seats in the mid-term elections. The idea that democrats are going to 'oppose the SCOTUS justice nominee regardless of who is nominated' does not sit well with most fair minded people. The constant protests/demonstration/riots are wearing thin. If it continues, I predict the end of the democrat party as we know it.



Edited by Rogillio 2017-02-03 10:19 AM
2017-02-03 12:07 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Protests
Originally posted by Rogillio
The idea that democrats are going to 'oppose the SCOTUS justice nominee regardless of who is nominated' does not sit well with most fair minded people. The constant protests/demonstration/riots are wearing thin. If it continues, I predict the end of the democrat party as we know it.



It does with me because if you were going to be fair Obama should have gotten the nominee. Though I wonder if Hilary won if republicans would have push Obama's pick through.
2017-02-03 12:11 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Protests
Originally posted by Rogillio


Democrats lost both houses of congress, the White House and 1,048 state legislator seats in the last 8 years. And if this continues they are going to lose even more seats in the mid-term elections.



Maybe. If movements like the Justice Democrats win I think they have a shot. If they lose the DNC only hope is to expose RNC they are bigger corporatist tool than they are. If the justice democrats win then there might be a huge swing in the next couple of elections the other way. One big thing is they will not take any corporate money.
2017-02-03 12:24 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by Rogillio The idea that democrats are going to 'oppose the SCOTUS justice nominee regardless of who is nominated' does not sit well with most fair minded people. The constant protests/demonstration/riots are wearing thin. If it continues, I predict the end of the democrat party as we know it.
It does with me because if you were going to be fair Obama should have gotten the nominee. Though I wonder if Hilary won if republicans would have push Obama's pick through.

No question they would have approved him in a heartbeat had Hillary won.  He was of course a liberal judge, but fairly tame in comparison to anyone Hillary would have nominated. 

2017-02-03 1:00 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Protests
Originally posted by chirunner134

Originally posted by Rogillio


Democrats lost both houses of congress, the White House and 1,048 state legislator seats in the last 8 years. And if this continues they are going to lose even more seats in the mid-term elections.



Maybe. If movements like the Justice Democrats win I think they have a shot. If they lose the DNC only hope is to expose RNC they are bigger corporatist tool than they are. If the justice democrats win then there might be a huge swing in the next couple of elections the other way. One big thing is they will not take any corporate money.


From what I can tell, Justice Democrats are progressives - AKA far left liberals.

I think Obama squandered his chance to be a great president. He had the support of the world....they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for his campaign rhetoric! Had he come into office and moved towards the center like Bill Clinton and GWB did before him, he could have gotten a lot done. But he let the support he got (from the left) convince him that he didn't need to compromise.....and subsequently he alienated the right and nothing got done.

Trump started off by holding a meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of both parties. I really hope he continues this! The other party is not the enemy. They are just dumb. Sorry. Let that slip. They are just Americans who were dropped on their collective heads as babies. Ooops. OK, they are American with a different view of the world. So you bring them in and you pick the low hanging fruit....the stuff that both sides agree on. Then you move to things that both sides agree is a problem and but have different solutions. You take the best of both sides and make a bipartisan solution.



2017-02-03 1:36 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Protests

No.  He couldn't get anything done because he was black, and certain segments of the legislative branch decided that they wouldn't compromise anymore.

2017-02-03 1:41 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by dmiller5

No.  He couldn't get anything done because he was black, and certain segments of the legislative branch decided that they wouldn't compromise anymore.

ok, that's the funniest thing I've seen all day. 

2017-02-03 2:07 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by Rogillio Democrats lost both houses of congress, the White House and 1,048 state legislator seats in the last 8 years. And if this continues they are going to lose even more seats in the mid-term elections.
Maybe. If movements like the Justice Democrats win I think they have a shot. If they lose the DNC only hope is to expose RNC they are bigger corporatist tool than they are. If the justice democrats win then there might be a huge swing in the next couple of elections the other way. One big thing is they will not take any corporate money.
From what I can tell, Justice Democrats are progressives - AKA far left liberals. I think Obama squandered his chance to be a great president. He had the support of the world....they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for his campaign rhetoric! Had he come into office and moved towards the center like Bill Clinton and GWB did before him, he could have gotten a lot done. But he let the support he got (from the left) convince him that he didn't need to compromise.....and subsequently he alienated the right and nothing got done. Trump started off by holding a meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of both parties. I really hope he continues this! The other party is not the enemy. They are just dumb. Sorry. Let that slip. They are just Americans who were dropped on their collective heads as babies. Ooops. OK, they are American with a different view of the world. So you bring them in and you pick the low hanging fruit....the stuff that both sides agree on. Then you move to things that both sides agree is a problem and but have different solutions. You take the best of both sides and make a bipartisan solution.

Funny how your view is.

I would say he was getting stonewalled from day 1.  The Republicans in Congress even said as much.

Accusing Obama of being a socialist, being a radical leftist, etc is a really narrow view.  Take a look at South America if you want a real taste of that.  Obama is liberal yes, and big government yes.  But he wasn't fully nationalizing entire industries, wasn't making himself president-for-life, wasn't a Marxist revolutionary.  Chavez, Castro, Bolivar, Guevara, etc are true leftists.  Everything in the USA is centrist by comparison.

2017-02-03 2:37 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Protests
Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by Rogillio Democrats lost both houses of congress, the White House and 1,048 state legislator seats in the last 8 years. And if this continues they are going to lose even more seats in the mid-term elections.
Maybe. If movements like the Justice Democrats win I think they have a shot. If they lose the DNC only hope is to expose RNC they are bigger corporatist tool than they are. If the justice democrats win then there might be a huge swing in the next couple of elections the other way. One big thing is they will not take any corporate money.
From what I can tell, Justice Democrats are progressives - AKA far left liberals. I think Obama squandered his chance to be a great president. He had the support of the world....they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for his campaign rhetoric! Had he come into office and moved towards the center like Bill Clinton and GWB did before him, he could have gotten a lot done. But he let the support he got (from the left) convince him that he didn't need to compromise.....and subsequently he alienated the right and nothing got done. Trump started off by holding a meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of both parties. I really hope he continues this! The other party is not the enemy. They are just dumb. Sorry. Let that slip. They are just Americans who were dropped on their collective heads as babies. Ooops. OK, they are American with a different view of the world. So you bring them in and you pick the low hanging fruit....the stuff that both sides agree on. Then you move to things that both sides agree is a problem and but have different solutions. You take the best of both sides and make a bipartisan solution.

Funny how your view is.

I would say he was getting stonewalled from day 1.  The Republicans in Congress even said as much.

Accusing Obama of being a socialist, being a radical leftist, etc is a really narrow view.  Take a look at South America if you want a real taste of that.  Obama is liberal yes, and big government yes.  But he wasn't fully nationalizing entire industries, wasn't making himself president-for-life, wasn't a Marxist revolutionary.  Chavez, Castro, Bolivar, Guevara, etc are true leftists.  Everything in the USA is centrist by comparison.




His use of executive orders to bypass congress suggest he thought he was the King. The courts had to rein him in. The Obama administration lost most of its lawsuits that wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Overall, the Obama's record of 79-96 was 45%.

George W. Bush 89-59 (60%)

Bill Clinton (63%)

George H.W. Bush 91-39 (70%)

Ronald Reagan 260-89 (75 %).

In his last term the federal government argued 10 cases without gaining a single vote, not even that of one of President Obama’s own nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That brought his total to 44 unanimous losses.


2017-02-03 3:09 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by Rogillio Democrats lost both houses of congress, the White House and 1,048 state legislator seats in the last 8 years. And if this continues they are going to lose even more seats in the mid-term elections.
Maybe. If movements like the Justice Democrats win I think they have a shot. If they lose the DNC only hope is to expose RNC they are bigger corporatist tool than they are. If the justice democrats win then there might be a huge swing in the next couple of elections the other way. One big thing is they will not take any corporate money.
From what I can tell, Justice Democrats are progressives - AKA far left liberals. I think Obama squandered his chance to be a great president. He had the support of the world....they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for his campaign rhetoric! Had he come into office and moved towards the center like Bill Clinton and GWB did before him, he could have gotten a lot done. But he let the support he got (from the left) convince him that he didn't need to compromise.....and subsequently he alienated the right and nothing got done. Trump started off by holding a meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of both parties. I really hope he continues this! The other party is not the enemy. They are just dumb. Sorry. Let that slip. They are just Americans who were dropped on their collective heads as babies. Ooops. OK, they are American with a different view of the world. So you bring them in and you pick the low hanging fruit....the stuff that both sides agree on. Then you move to things that both sides agree is a problem and but have different solutions. You take the best of both sides and make a bipartisan solution.

So you put the lack of compromise between the executive and legislative brances over the last 8 years entirely on Obama? Or do Republicans maybe share a little of the blame. Congressman Pence in 2010. "On spending, on values, on taxes, there will be no compromise."  If you take out spending, taxes, and values, what's left for politicians to discuss? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QvwCwKHcaM



2017-02-03 3:38 PM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by Rogillio Democrats lost both houses of congress, the White House and 1,048 state legislator seats in the last 8 years. And if this continues they are going to lose even more seats in the mid-term elections.
Maybe. If movements like the Justice Democrats win I think they have a shot. If they lose the DNC only hope is to expose RNC they are bigger corporatist tool than they are. If the justice democrats win then there might be a huge swing in the next couple of elections the other way. One big thing is they will not take any corporate money.
From what I can tell, Justice Democrats are progressives - AKA far left liberals. I think Obama squandered his chance to be a great president. He had the support of the world....they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for his campaign rhetoric! Had he come into office and moved towards the center like Bill Clinton and GWB did before him, he could have gotten a lot done. But he let the support he got (from the left) convince him that he didn't need to compromise.....and subsequently he alienated the right and nothing got done. Trump started off by holding a meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of both parties. I really hope he continues this! The other party is not the enemy. They are just dumb. Sorry. Let that slip. They are just Americans who were dropped on their collective heads as babies. Ooops. OK, they are American with a different view of the world. So you bring them in and you pick the low hanging fruit....the stuff that both sides agree on. Then you move to things that both sides agree is a problem and but have different solutions. You take the best of both sides and make a bipartisan solution.

So you put the lack of compromise between the executive and legislative brances over the last 8 years entirely on Obama? Or do Republicans maybe share a little of the blame. Congressman Pence in 2010. "On spending, on values, on taxes, there will be no compromise."  If you take out spending, taxes, and values, what's left for politicians to discuss? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QvwCwKHcaM

My opinion:
Obama set a very arrogant tone right out of the gate when he dressed down McCain.  He had a super majority though for two years so he really didn't need any help.  He and his colleagues pretty much did everything they wanted, but obviously spent a ton of cycles on the ACA and didn't get a whole lot else accomplished during that time.  The R's let his nominees go through without much resistance that I can recall and essentially let him do whatever he wanted.
Then after he lost the super majority they finally got a little "obstructionist" power to mess with things and Obama didn't recognize it and continued to push an aggressive agenda, but due to his inability to work with R's during the first two years he had already set his fate. 
I do completely agree with you that the Republicans started obstructing his agenda as soon as they had the ability to do so because they felt the country didn't want his agenda to continue.  Based on the continued landslides towards Republicans and ultimately Trump I would go so far as to say they were correct and the Country rewarded them. 
The Democrats are now making a conscious decision to do what they think is the best strategy going forward to get back into power by obstructing and blocking.  Unfortunately Trump has a super majority now so they're burning a lot of political capital for zero gain.  At least when the R's were obstructing they actually obstructed. 
We shall see how it works out in 4 years, but as of right now I feel very strongly Trump's support has grown tremendously since he took office and if he keeps going the way he's going it's going to be near impossible for anyone to compete.  

2017-02-03 4:22 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by Rogillio Democrats lost both houses of congress, the White House and 1,048 state legislator seats in the last 8 years. And if this continues they are going to lose even more seats in the mid-term elections.
Maybe. If movements like the Justice Democrats win I think they have a shot. If they lose the DNC only hope is to expose RNC they are bigger corporatist tool than they are. If the justice democrats win then there might be a huge swing in the next couple of elections the other way. One big thing is they will not take any corporate money.
From what I can tell, Justice Democrats are progressives - AKA far left liberals. I think Obama squandered his chance to be a great president. He had the support of the world....they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for his campaign rhetoric! Had he come into office and moved towards the center like Bill Clinton and GWB did before him, he could have gotten a lot done. But he let the support he got (from the left) convince him that he didn't need to compromise.....and subsequently he alienated the right and nothing got done. Trump started off by holding a meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of both parties. I really hope he continues this! The other party is not the enemy. They are just dumb. Sorry. Let that slip. They are just Americans who were dropped on their collective heads as babies. Ooops. OK, they are American with a different view of the world. So you bring them in and you pick the low hanging fruit....the stuff that both sides agree on. Then you move to things that both sides agree is a problem and but have different solutions. You take the best of both sides and make a bipartisan solution.

So you put the lack of compromise between the executive and legislative brances over the last 8 years entirely on Obama? Or do Republicans maybe share a little of the blame. Congressman Pence in 2010. "On spending, on values, on taxes, there will be no compromise."  If you take out spending, taxes, and values, what's left for politicians to discuss? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QvwCwKHcaM

My opinion:
Obama set a very arrogant tone right out of the gate when he dressed down McCain.  He had a super majority though for two years so he really didn't need any help.  He and his colleagues pretty much did everything they wanted, but obviously spent a ton of cycles on the ACA and didn't get a whole lot else accomplished during that time.  The R's let his nominees go through without much resistance that I can recall and essentially let him do whatever he wanted.
Then after he lost the super majority they finally got a little "obstructionist" power to mess with things and Obama didn't recognize it and continued to push an aggressive agenda, but due to his inability to work with R's during the first two years he had already set his fate. 
I do completely agree with you that the Republicans started obstructing his agenda as soon as they had the ability to do so because they felt the country didn't want his agenda to continue.  Based on the continued landslides towards Republicans and ultimately Trump I would go so far as to say they were correct and the Country rewarded them. 
The Democrats are now making a conscious decision to do what they think is the best strategy going forward to get back into power by obstructing and blocking.  Unfortunately Trump has a super majority now so they're burning a lot of political capital for zero gain.  At least when the R's were obstructing they actually obstructed. 
We shall see how it works out in 4 years, but as of right now I feel very strongly Trump's support has grown tremendously since he took office and if he keeps going the way he's going it's going to be near impossible for anyone to compete.  

I think the days of compromise and bi-partisanship are behind us, at least in the House. 435 seats were up for grabs, and only a couple dozen were even considered competitive. Of those, something like 12 actually flipped. Representatives can push themselves to the extreme right/left and it only helps their re-election campaigns. There's a district in California that's so blue, a Democrat beat out a Democrat in the general election. How is that even possible? My rep is one of the idiots who boycotted the inauguration, and he can do it because he won in an absolute landslide. That little stunt didn't hurt him one bit. It's been 70 years since a Republican held his seat, and I guarantee that won't be changing next election. 

I have a little more hope for Senators, they have to appeal to a much broader base. But let's face it, a Democrat senator from California or a GOP from Texas doesn't have a whole lot of incentive to cross the aisle.

2017-02-03 4:30 PM
in reply to: 0

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: Protests

@tuwood Just to be clear, I assume you mean "majority of both sides of Congress".  When I see super majority, I think of 60+ votes in the Senate.

The Democrats had 58 plus 2 independents for brief moments during Obama's first term (I think they had it for like a month, then Ted Kennedy died, then there was another month before his replacement was appointed, etc...).



Edited by spudone 2017-02-03 4:31 PM
2017-02-03 4:35 PM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

I think the days of compromise and bi-partisanship are behind us, at least in the House. 435 seats were up for grabs, and only a couple dozen were even considered competitive. Of those, something like 12 actually flipped. Representatives can push themselves to the extreme right/left and it only helps their re-election campaigns. There's a district in California that's so blue, a Democrat beat out a Democrat in the general election. How is that even possible? My rep is one of the idiots who boycotted the inauguration, and he can do it because he won in an absolute landslide. That little stunt didn't hurt him one bit. It's been 70 years since a Republican held his seat, and I guarantee that won't be changing next election. 

I have a little more hope for Senators, they have to appeal to a much broader base. But let's face it, a Democrat senator from California or a GOP from Texas doesn't have a whole lot of incentive to cross the aisle.

This just reminded me how much I hate redistricting / gerrymandering.  I view it as flat out un-American because it makes some of our votes worth less than others.  This is an interesting site to browse -- someone made a computerized population-neutral districting setup:

http://bdistricting.com/2010/

Of course the major parties would never go for it...

2017-02-03 4:44 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by spudone

@tuwood Just to be clear, I assume you mean "majority of both sides of Congress".  When I see super majority, I think of 60+ votes in the Senate.

The Democrats had 58 plus 2 independents for brief moments during Obama's first term (I think they had it for like a month, then Ted Kennedy died, then there was another month before his replacement was appointed, etc...).

Yes and no.  You are correct in the usage of the term super majority so I probably was incorrect with that.  What I'm getting at is the 51 vote majority in the senate which was elevated to the status of supermajority when the nuclear option was invoked (I believe in 2011).

I'm sure we can split hairs as to who is obstructing and who was obstructing and I most certainly agree with you guys that the Republicans made a tactical decision to obstruct and it paid off. 



2017-02-03 5:11 PM
in reply to: 0

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: Protests

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by spudone

@tuwood Just to be clear, I assume you mean "majority of both sides of Congress".  When I see super majority, I think of 60+ votes in the Senate.

The Democrats had 58 plus 2 independents for brief moments during Obama's first term (I think they had it for like a month, then Ted Kennedy died, then there was another month before his replacement was appointed, etc...).

Yes and no.  You are correct in the usage of the term super majority so I probably was incorrect with that.  What I'm getting at is the 51 vote majority in the senate which was elevated to the status of supermajority when the nuclear option was invoked (I believe in 2011).

I'm sure we can split hairs as to who is obstructing and who was obstructing and I most certainly agree with you guys that the Republicans made a tactical decision to obstruct and it paid off. 

That was for federal (but not Supreme Court) judge confirmations only.  I'm pretty sure the filibuster is still allowed for other things not related to appointments... correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

Edit: part of the problem with the filibuster is that the Senate is old and lazy.  Awhile back they changed it so a Senator just has to declare his *intent* to filibuster and then they must try to invoke cloture to stop him.  In other words, speaking isn't even required anymore.

If they went back to requiring someone to actually stand at the podium and talk, you'd see it being used much more sparingly :P



Edited by spudone 2017-02-03 5:14 PM
2017-02-05 9:32 AM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Protests
From Bob Loblaw -" I have a little more hope for Senators, they have to appeal to a much broader base. But let's face it, a Democrat senator from California or a GOP from Texas doesn't have a whole lot of incentive to cross the aisle."

I have to agree with you about the House side of things. The Senate, not so much. Particularly Texas. We're in the process of becoming a purple state. The jobs here are pulling people from blue states and they are bringing their ideology with them. I see new generations that are more progressive and socially liberal. The southern baptist stranglehold is losing it's death grip on the state and we're slowly becoming more socially accepting overall. I believe Ted Cruz is in for a fight next cycle as a result. He won't lose, but he'll have a much closer race. Rumor has is that Julian Castro's brother Joaquin will be challenging Ted. This brings the Hispanic vote in full play and it will be interesting to see how they affect the outcome. Cruz will probably be much more vulnerable the next cycle as the state gradually swings further left.

Lot's of us in Texas want to see our reps loosen up on social issues and stop pandering to the religious right. I just want them to continue being strong fiscal conservatives in the process. I voted Cruz in the primary because I liked his fiscal sensibility. This outweighed his pandering to the religious right, for me anyway.
2017-03-31 1:08 PM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Protests

Poor Terrorist, er Rioter, er "Protester" (oh, and that's a Yield sign.  "They're not sending their brightest, folks")

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Protests Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Protests

Started by Rogillio
Views: 970 Posts: 22

2016-07-22 1:18 PM chirunner134

Protests for $15 an hour minimum wage Pages: 1 2 3

Started by jmcconne
Views: 5004 Posts: 52

2014-01-02 7:46 AM TriMyBest

Sheep Protest

Started by tuwood
Views: 939 Posts: 3

2013-08-30 6:15 AM BrianRunsPhilly

Anti-mining protest on video

Started by bootygirl
Views: 1755 Posts: 8

2013-07-18 7:54 AM KateTri1