NationStates Jolt Archive

loses election in 04, and Kerry is back in the news, on a much smaller scale.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html



Cant win an election in 04 over the entire country and cant win the members of your own party over to participate in a fillibuster.

theres a word for people who keep losing, first person to post it here wins 5 points, (the same points form whos line is it anyway;) )

loses election in 04, and Kerry is back in the news, on a much smaller scale.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html



Cant win an election in 04 over the entire country and cant win the members of your own party over to participate in a fillibuster.

theres a word for people who keep losing, first person to post it here wins 5 points, (the same points form whos line is it anyway;) )

The Bills?

Can someone please tell me what a filibuster is? :rolleyes:

theres a word for people who keep losing, first person to post it here wins 5 points, (the same points form whos line is it anyway;) )

Ermm ....

"20+ year career in the United States Senate"?
"Junior Officer in the United States Navy"?
"Major Party Candidate for President of the United States who lost by the thinnest re-election margin in US history"?
"Married up ... way up"?
"Harvard Graduate"?

What have you accomplished?

Beam ... mote ... eye ... look it up.

where hte mionority oppose (in this case) allito, so they just make hteir speaches long as hell until the cancel the vote or something of the sort. Don't feel like going into detail.

Can someone please tell me what a filibuster is? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

in short, a tactic for senaters to waste time not having to vote on something

Can someone please tell me what a filibuster is? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

Can someone please tell me what a filibuster is? :rolleyes:

Part of Senatorial procedure.

Before there is a vote, there is a discussion. When the discussion ends, there is a vote on the issue. If one party knows that they wil lose the vote(which is a simple majority of 51 votes), they can force the Senate to KEEP discussing the issue indefinitly. They call that perpetual discussion a Filibuster. To break a filibuster and proceed to a vote, there has to be 60 votes to end it.

Republicans have 55 seats in the Senate. Which means that if they remain together on an issue, they can always outvote the Democrats. However, they cannot break a filibuster without the aid of at least 5 Democrats.

Kerry should consider being an street comedian.

in short, a tactic for senaters to waste time not having to vote on something

Noooo ... it's a tactic to maintain traditional minority rights in government.

It's a necessary thing.

Part of Senatorial procedure.

Before there is a vote, there is a discussion. When the discussion ends, there is a vote on the issue. If one party knows that they wil lose the vote(which is a simple majority of 51 votes), they can force the Senate to KEEP discussing the issue indefinitly. They call that perpetual discussion a Filibuster. To break a filibuster and proceed to a vote, there has to be 60 votes to end it.

Republicans have 55 seats in the Senate. Which means that if they remain together on an issue, they can always outvote the Democrats. However, they cannot break a filibuster without the aid of at least 5 Democrats.
Thanks. :) So it kind of maintains a balance within the system?

The Bills?

As a Bills fan I'm hurt...because its true. :(

Thanks. :) So it kind of maintains a balance within the system?

Basically, it keeps a simple majority from having total control of the Senate. Yes. It isn't a tactic limited to just Democrats. Republicans did their share of filibustering when they were the minority party too.

Noooo ... it's a tactic to maintain traditional minority rights in government.

It's a necessary thing.

Comon, it's a way for the minority to control the majoirty. When the majority of the people want to pass a bill, or a person, they should be allowed to. I really wish the Republican used the nuclear options back when the democrats tried to block Bush's last Supreme Court nominee.

Comon, it's a way for the minority to control the majoirty. When the majority of the people want to pass a bill, or a person, they should be allowed to.

That's not how this country works, though. We are not a majority rule nation, we are a Constitutional Republic.

What the majority wants isn't always good for the country. The Founding Fathers were smart enough to realise that.

After all, what then is to stop the 55 Republican Senators from simply voting George Bush as King for Life? After all ... if it's what the majority wants ... (not saying they do or would, just using hyperbole for example purposes).

That's not how this country works, though. We are not a majority rule nation, we are a Constitutional Republic.

What the majority wants isn't always good for the country. The Founding Fathers were smart enough to realise that.

After all, what then is to stop the 55 Republican Senators from simply voting George Bush as King for Life? After all ... if it's what the majority wants ... (not saying they do or would, just using hyperbole for example purposes).

Yea, but the foundings father didn't invision for the filibutster to be used on every single occasion. It's suspose to rarely be used. Jeez, it's being used more than a Las Vegas Prositute.

Republicans did their share of filibustering when they were the minority party too.

True! Strom Thurmond still holds the record for longest.

Yea, but the foundings father didn't invision for the filibutster to be used on every single occasion. It's suspose to rarely be used. Jeez, it's being used more than a Las Vegas Prositute.

What are you talking about?

The last time it was used was in 2000 when Majority Leader Bill Frist voted against cloture (85-14) on the Richard Paez nomination to the Ninth Circuit.

Before that, it wasn't used since 1968 when the Abe Fortas appointment to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was derailed by Republicans.

Now it's a possibility on the Alito nomination.

Noooo ... it's a tactic to maintain traditional minority rights in government.

It's a necessary thing.


I absolutely agree, but, the group that is doing the philibuster should actually have to do it. They shouldn't just be allowed to say, "okay, now we're giving speeches, let's go home and have a good night's sleep."

Basically, it keeps a simple majority from having total control of the Senate. Yes. It isn't a tactic limited to just Democrats. Republicans did their share of filibustering when they were the minority party too.
Yet, theoretically, where the Republicans to get some Democrats over to their side (or vice-versa), through any means necessary, they could more or less do as the pleased, no? In any case, measures used to regulate majority power are always a good thing.

What are you talking about?

The last time it was used was in 2000 when Majority Leader Bill Frist voted against cloture (85-14) on the Richard Paez nomination to the Ninth Circuit.

Before that, it wasn't used since 1968 when the Abe Fortas appointment to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was derailed by Republicans.

Now it's a possibility on the Alito nomination.

The guy that got nominated to the court (forgot his name) before Alito was fillibustered. It ended with a comprromise. At that time the Republican Party had the vote and the means to get rid of Filibustering right then and there with the Nuclear Option. They should've taken it.

I absolutely agree, but, the group that is doing the philibuster should actually have to do it. They shouldn't just be allowed to say, "okay, now we're giving speeches, let's go home and have a good night's sleep."

Heh ... you can blame the '75 Senate for that one. They made the filibuster invisible by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster.

The guy that got nominated to the court (forgot his name) before Alito was fillibustered. It ended with a comprromise. At that time the Republican Party had the vote and the means to get rid of Filibustering right then and there with the Nuclear Option. They should've taken it.

And if they had, what happens when the Democrats control the Senate again?

The Republicans will beg for it back.

Also, Roberts was never filibustered. It was talked about, but it never happened.

Last time the Senate saw a filibuster was 2000 ... by Republicans. Prior to that was 1968 ... by Republicans.

The last time there was a Democrat filibuster was Huey Long in 1935.

Don't take my word for it ... look it up.

Heh ... you can blame the '75 Senate for that one. They made the filibuster invisible by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster.

That's so lame. If you're going to filibuster, I say strap on the depends undergarments, and start reading the tax code into the record.

No wonder people in this country are so lazy.

And if they had, what happens when the Democrats control the Senate again?

The Republicans will beg for it back.

Also, Roberts was never filibustered. It was talked about, but it never happened.

Last time the Senate saw a filibuster was 2000 ... by Republicans. Prior to that was 1968 ... by Republicans.

The last time there was a Democrat filibuster was Huey Long in 1935.

Don't take my word for it ... look it up.

Facts. You're having a political debate on NationStates and all you bring are...facts?

*sigh*

That's so lame. If you're going to filibuster, I say strap on the depends undergarments, and start reading the tax code into the record.

No wonder people in this country are so lazy.

YAY! Old people shitting themselves! Now that's Democracy in Action!

I'd pay to see that! :)

Keruvalia is right. The filibuster is a vital part of our democracy, and hasn't been used very much. In fact, I believe it's been used more by the right than the left.

The real story here is the fact that Kerry is all but powerless, KNOWS the filibuster isn't going to even pass the first test vote, and is only trying to secure his radical left-wing base.

Couple that with the Wicked Witch of the West (Feinstein (D)) bowing to the pressures of a media whore like Sheehan, and you have a soap opera that will have the Republicans BEGGING for more! :D

If I could get the Republicans to disavow Christianity and welfare, I'd be the happiest man on earth!

Facts. You're having a political debate on NationStates and all you bring are...facts?

*sigh*

I'm sorry. *hangs head in shame*

The real story here is the fact that Kerry is all but powerless, KNOWS the filibuster isn't going to even pass the first test vote, and is only trying to secure his radical left-wing base.

Actually, we radical left-wingers voted Kucinich and collectively grimaced in great pain when Kerry got the nomination.

Actually, we radical left-wingers voted Kucinich and collectively grimaced in great pain when Kerry got the nomination.
Kucinich? come on now. Believe it or not, but I agree with ALOT of Democratic policies, but if you want to actually win an election, you need a person who isn't a radical bomb thrower. You need to put just a bit of pride back in your pocket and get yourself a decent candidate.

If not, you'll be bitching about the President Bush's of the world for the rest of your life. You didn't see the radical Right endorse Pat Robertson, now did you?


EDIT - Not to mention the fact that, as much as it pisses me off, you have to LOOK Presidential to win the vote! Kucinich looks like an inbred elf.

Kucinich? come on now. Believe it or not, but I agree with ALOT of Democratic policies, but if you want to actually win an election, you need a person who isn't a radical bomb thrower. You need to put just a bit of pride back in your pocket and get yourself a decent candidate.

If not, you'll be bitching about the President Bush's of the world for the rest of your life. You didn't see the radical Right endorse Pat Robertson, now did you?


EDIT - Not to mention the fact that, as much as it pisses me off, you have to LOOK Presidential to win the vote! Kucinich looks like an inbred elf.

Why weren't they just smart about it and endorse Clark?

They were befuddled by Al Sharpton. :p

I absolutely agree, but, the group that is doing the philibuster should actually have to do it. They shouldn't just be allowed to say, "okay, now we're giving speeches, let's go home and have a good night's sleep."i agree too, i want to see them reading the phone book aloud: "AAron A. Aaronson 555-..."

Kucinich? come on now. Believe it or not, but I agree with ALOT of Democratic policies, but if you want to actually win an election, you need a person who isn't a radical bomb thrower. You need to put just a bit of pride back in your pocket and get yourself a decent candidate.

Unless there's a sudden and massive shift in the way this country collectively thinks, there is no way any radical far-left candidate will go any further than the ... *aherm* ... US House of Representatives. (As Kucinich did)

What I was mostly trying to do there was remind you that John Kerry is in absolutely no way "radical" or "far-left". Kerry has spentt 20+ years in the Senate being careful. The only radical thing he ever did was his testimony concerning Vietnam and that was about it. He's barely left. Practically centrist, but not so right as Clinton or Leiberman.

To line it up:

Me/Kucinich ....... Sharpton ...... Boxer ...... Kerry ..... H.Clinton ..... Leiberman ..... RushLimbaugh

Get it? Good.

this quote did it for me, don't know about you:
"One of the first responsibilities of someone in Congress is to learn how to count," the Illinois senator said.

The last time there was a Democrat filibuster was Huey Long in 1935.
Heh! Now THERE'S a name to conjure with! Huey Long! OMFG! LOL!

YAY! Old people shitting themselves! Now that's Democracy in Action!

I'd pay to see that! :)
:rolleyes: :(

At that time the Republican Party had the vote and the means to get rid of Filibustering right then and there with the Nuclear Option. They should've taken it.
Why on earth would they do that? It would neuter them when they returned to being in the minority.

Keruvalia is right. The filibuster is a vital part of our democracy, and hasn't been used very much. In fact, I believe it's been used more by the right than the left.

You say it as if there is a right and left in US politics. There are just two parties. No ideological coalitions!

Kucinich? come on now. Believe it or not, but I agree with ALOT of Democratic policies, but if you want to actually win an election, you need a person who isn't a radical bomb thrower. You need to put just a bit of pride back in your pocket and get yourself a decent candidate.
Is Kucinich really considered an "extreme leftist" and "radical bomb-thrower" (presumably, verbal bombs?) in America? He would probably be in the mainstream Green Party (http://www.greenparty.ie/) here in Ireland.

In fact, do you even think Kerry is a radical leftist? I don't remember him arguing in favour of many left-wing policies.

IT's also a bit hypocritical for a right-wing American to put pride back in the pocket, given that most of the support for the current foreign policy appears to be based on "patriotism" and nationalist pride. I think we've heard enough times about how America is "the greatest country on earth". :rolleyes: