The democrat's Civil War
There is a war going on within the democratic party. It is being waged by the dominant wing of the party - the radical left - against the more moderate elements of the once mainstream political party. The latest episode involves the space shot elected by New York's 14th Congressional district, who unloaded yesterday on a key democrat Senator. It happened on NBC's once distinguished Sunday TV show "Meet the Press." Ms Ocasio-Cortez, (the party's real leader) is a little upset that the extreme left isn't getting all it wants after democrats barely hung on to the House and finished dead even with Republicans in the Senate in the 2020 election.
Senator Kyrsten Sinema
It seems that last week Sen Kyrsten Sinema had written an opinion piece in the once influential Washington Post. NBC host Chuck Todd had asked AOC about a specific section of that piece in which Ms Sinema raised a very reasonable question regarding ending the filibuster in order to enact a federal voting law to be passed only by democrats: "Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?"
(In other words there would: "repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government" be good for America) ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/21/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-for-the-people-act/
As many of us already know, AOC can't be bothered with concerns of a pendulum swerving back and forth with every election nor a divided America. All AOC wants is the nation transformed into something between the BU campus and Tiananmen Square. She responded to that question without a moments thought: "Our job is to legislate. Our job is to help people. Our job is to do as much as we can. And even if that's the case, even if that is the case, wouldn't it be better to get people health care and voting rights for three years instead of zero years, even if, even if you concede the point that I don't even think is true in the first place."
AOC doesn't believe that once Republicans regained control they wouldn't use the very same power to go off in the other direction? That defies common sense.
Evidently they don't have a course in common sense at BU.
Tags
Who is online
419 visitors
So far the Constitution is holding up against the totalitarians.
Or maybe we have only slowed them down?
The filibuster isn’t in the constitution.
Election law is and it was granted to the states.
yeah, and all that's left is to stand their 1/6 insurrectionist pals up against a wall, in sight of arlington...
if the left is having a civil war, what do you call what's happening in the GOP right now?
Who is Matt Lauer?
Somebody's uncle.
You should probably stop talking about Joe Biden being senile.
There are approximately 8 or 9 who want me to stop talking.
Maybe they can get Peter Strzok to investigate me?
You talk about Biden gaffes when you make numerous gaffes yourself.
But carry on.
I'm not a public figure. Isn't that the way the rules here work? We hear it from management every day.
It's about time it applied to you as well.
A basically anonymous member of a news comment board as opposed to the PotUS.
Who wants you to stop talking?
Don't mistake that with those who don't really give a damn what you post.
That guy is still around? I thought he fucked off a few years back.
he missed his big chance to join the FOX fuckfest or he could be macking on k-lay maganinny now.
As far as AOC about her comments "Our job is to legislate. Our job is to help people. Our job is to do as much as we can." Well, based on her legislative record to date, she currently has one of the most dismal to date and has not done much at all to help anyone but herself.
Someone told us the "people" can't be fooled all of the time.
Yeah, I can understand your comparison with a pendulum - sort of 3 steps forward followed by two back. It does take a longer time to get anything beneficial done that way doesn't it, especially compared to the method of setting long term goals and continuously proceeding to accomplishment, as planned.
The difference lies in what we might view as progress.
Marxism isn't it!
Seeding the waters with the bait of charged words for piranhas also isn't progress. Your concern is with power, not progress.
Yawn, toss out radical and socialist and you will get the trifecta of meaningless words out of the way quicker. Then maybe you can type something worth reading.
AOC is a progressive member of Congress. It is her role to advocate for her political and policy positions.
As far as the filibuster goes, when it is working well, as it did occasionally over the years, it has a purpose, but when it is misused , as it has been repeatedly over the past couple decades, it has no worthwhile purpose. I don't remember if it was AOC or someone else who said yesterday that most other countries pass their legislation with a simple majority vote, and they don't have a see saw situation where a change of legislative control reverses previous bills.
There is a consensus that the filibuster will end one way or another within the decade.
It would be better to reform it to make exceptions more doable.
Will the Republicans agree to that?
How about something like, if the majority party does not have 60 votes, the so called super majority, they could defeat the filibuster by getting two or three members of the other party to join them in a vote to end it. ?
This would make the requirement to end the filibuster doable in some cases, but also still require bi partisanship.
I have a better idea - How about 70 Senate votes to change any Senate rule?
Thats not a better idea.
I think it is. That would stop all the politically motivated rule changes.
You would really need the peoples support and neither side has that right now.
That’s is a god awful idea. I mean it is great if you want the senate to be even more worthless.
Fuck it, I’m gonna be a senator. Easiest job in the world.
That actually sounds like a pretty descent compromise.
And to add fairness to that pretty descent compromise, we'll begin it with the next congress. To the winner belongs the spoils!
Thanks for turning your attention to the article.
As far as the filibuster goes, when it is working well, as it did occasionally over the years, it has a purpose, but when it is misused , as it has been repeatedly over the past couple decades, it has no worthwhile purpose
Does that mean when the democrats used it, it was for good and when Republicans used it, it was for bad? You do realize that the filibuster forces a consensus. In times of great division, like now, it is much needed.
I don't remember if it was AOC or someone else who said yesterday that most other countries pass their legislation with a simple majority vote, and they don't have a see saw situation where a change of legislative control reverses previous bills.
I believe she said something like that yesterday.
There is a consensus that the filibuster will end one way or another within the decade.
Donald Trump wanted to do it right after he was inaugurated. Imagine the legislation the Republican Congress could have passed if they had done that? Just think about comprehensive immigration reform? Or think of all we know now. How about prison terms for public officials who enable rioting?
It would be better to reform it to make exceptions more doable.
You certainly don't mean for the next congress to do that.
Will the Republicans agree to that?
Why would they?
Mitch McConnell opposed it when Trump wanted it and he was majority leader. Why would he want to do it for the radical left?