| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| "Go Nuclear" https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=104845 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | "Go Nuclear" |
Defend it. |
|
| Author: | sinicalypse [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
you can't spell "wincest" without "win" ?? |
|
| Author: | Peoria Matt [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Is there any other logical response from Trump? I would once again like to thank the Democratic Party for running Hillary. They better get their shit together. |
|
| Author: | denisdman [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
It's just Senate tradition against the idea of majority rules. The Senate is a deliberative body, so that is the reason why they allow long debates. If my history is right, there used to be no way to end debate, so they came up with a rule that it took 60 to do so. Hell Senators used to be appointed and not elected, so it's always been an odd animal. |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Nucular. It's pronounced nucular. |
|
| Author: | Zizou [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
|
|
|
| Author: | JORR [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
leashyourkids wrote: Defend it. I'll have to check with Harry Reid. |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. |
|
| Author: | Curious Hair [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
denisdman wrote: It's just Senate tradition against the idea of majority rules. The Senate is a deliberative body, so that is the reason why they allow long debates. If my history is right, there used to be no way to end debate, so they came up with a rule that it took 60 to do so. Hell Senators used to be appointed and not elected, so it's always been an odd animal. Master of the Senate has taught me a lot about what petty, vindictive, backbiting freaks our senators were (and probably still are). Grown men having nervous breakdowns over parking spaces and four rooms to an office instead of three. |
|
| Author: | denisdman [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
CH, is that a book. Sounds interesting. I am reading Michael Lewis' latest but need more for my queue. |
|
| Author: | Seacrest [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. That's exactly what Harry Reid thought. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: leashyourkids wrote: Defend it. I'll have to check with Harry Reid. Of course. He's one of the scumbags who promoted it. |
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Seacrest wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. That's exactly what Harry Reid thought. And he counted on the next republicans not to take it the last step. I would love to read an interview with him about this. |
|
| Author: | America [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Scorched Earth > Going nuclear |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
leashyourkids wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. Minority would be useless. Reid did it to fill positions that were being held up for no reason at all. |
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
leashyourkids wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. Well if you aren't sure ask yourself if you were mad when Reid did away with filibusters for judicial appointments up to the SCOTUS? |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
pittmike wrote: leashyourkids wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. Well if you aren't sure ask yourself if you were mad when Reid did away with filibusters for judicial appointments up to the SCOTUS? Read the fucking threads or I'm gonna kick your teeth in when we drink. |
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
leashyourkids wrote: pittmike wrote: leashyourkids wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. Well if you aren't sure ask yourself if you were mad when Reid did away with filibusters for judicial appointments up to the SCOTUS? Read the fucking threads or I'm gonna kick your teeth in when we drink.  funny thing is I read you post and wrote mine anyway.
|
|
| Author: | JORR [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Nas wrote: leashyourkids wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. Minority would be useless. Reid did it to fill positions that were being held up for no reason at all. Of course there's a justification for when Democrats did it. I'm sure Gorsuch is going to be held up "for no reason at all" as well.
|
|
| Author: | Hockey Gay [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
"Go Nuclear" sounds pretty metal |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
leashyourkids wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. Nor I. American government is not typically conducive to rushed, emotional legislative action, which overall is for the best (see, for example, the so-called Patriot Act). pittmike wrote: Well if you aren't sure ask yourself if you were mad when Reid did away with filibusters for judicial appointments up to the SCOTUS? It sure as hell pissed me off at the time for it's short-sightedness not to mention laziness. So now with the other asswipes in power, unless they decide to learn from that mistake and work it out properly rather than be lazy, short-sighted shmucks, it'll all come around again next time when the pendulum swing as it's prone to do. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Nas wrote: leashyourkids wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. Minority would be useless. Reid did it to fill positions that were being held up for no reason at all. Of course there's a justification for when Democrats did it. I'm sure Gorsuch is going to be held up "for no reason at all" as well.Murder in self defense isn't viewed the same as first degree murder. Changing rules after 4 years of appointments being held up "just because" is viewed differently from changing the rules "because I can". |
|
| Author: | Baby McNown [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
pittmike wrote: Seacrest wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. That's exactly what Harry Reid thought. And he counted on the next republicans not to take it the last step. I would love to read an interview with him about this. Why don't you ask Mitch his thoughts on keeping a SCOTUS seat open too? |
|
| Author: | Curious Hair [ Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
denisdman wrote: CH, is that a book. Sounds interesting. I am reading Michael Lewis' latest but need more for my queue. It's the third volume of The Years of Lyndon Johnson. Fascinating read, but it never feels like you're reading for fun. The first 150 pages aren't even about Johnson, they're just a history of the Senate. I enjoy the part about Richard Russell that spends a good ten or fifteen pages talking about how great he seemed only to take a sharp turn. "He was a gentleman the likes of which the Senate had rarely seen. No one was so polite, so hard-working, so erudite, or so honest with his peers. Also, one more thing, he didn't think black people should vote." |
|
| Author: | lipidquadcab [ Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Don Tiny wrote: leashyourkids wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Not so sure about that. Nor I. American government is not typically conducive to rushed, emotional legislative action, which overall is for the best (see, for example, the so-called Patriot Act). That argument would be all well and good if the 60 votes needed to pass something actually led to spirited debate which actually changed hearts and minds in the upper house, but we both know that's not what happens. Either you slap enough pork onto a bill to make it more to someone's liking (see ACA) or you don't get anything done (see pretty much everything else after the ACA). The 60 vote rule is a relic from a time where people actually wanted to negotiate and get shit done. Now the goal isn't to carry the ball into the end zone but to run out the clock until the next election when you hope your numbers increase. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Meanwhile, the real GO NUCLEAR of the day was his exhortation to South Korea and Japan |
|
| Author: | Baby McNown [ Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Still waiting PittMike. |
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
Baby McNown wrote: pittmike wrote: Seacrest wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. That's exactly what Harry Reid thought. And he counted on the next republicans not to take it the last step. I would love to read an interview with him about this. Why don't you ask Mitch his thoughts on keeping a SCOTUS seat open too? I already know what Mitch thinks. He stuck it to Obama. But in keeping with the question regarding this thread what do you think Reid thinks now? |
|
| Author: | Baby McNown [ Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: "Go Nuclear" |
pittmike wrote: Baby McNown wrote: pittmike wrote: Seacrest wrote: lipidquadcab wrote: Getting rid of the need for a 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. That's exactly what Harry Reid thought. And he counted on the next republicans not to take it the last step. I would love to read an interview with him about this. Why don't you ask Mitch his thoughts on keeping a SCOTUS seat open too? I already know what Mitch thinks. He stuck it to Obama. But in keeping with the question regarding this thread what do you think Reid thinks now? I think he's annoyed he did it for the Cabinet but such is life. Oh and he's gone now. It's McConnell who has the issue. He spent the last year proud as all get out that he wouldn't even bring Garland, who had wide bi-partisan love until Obama said his name, up for a hearing let alone a vote. Now it won't be stood for if the Dem's block the guy who literally wrote the Hobby Lobby decision? Fuck him. Are you ok with that level of blatant hypocrisy? |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|