General Political Thread

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I suppose I fail to see how "cut the snark" and "put me on ignore" are different, but for you happened to use the word request and happened to hear the comment as a command.

 

 

What I actually posted was "If anyone here would prefer not to read my posts – and, hey, I can imagine there are several – please feel free to ignore me."

 

I would call that a suggestion or request at best...maybe a plea, at most.

 

Your comments about having a conversation demonstrate that you are willing and able to do that. Writing in paragraphs helps. What I cannot abide is when someone posts only one-liners, or even just one word answers, for every single topic. Impossible to have a dialogue like that. This ain't Twitter.

 

As for Palin: even when she speaks or writes in paragraphs, I find her grating beyond words. She was McCain's biggest mistake.

[lost highway]

It would seem any lengthily political discussion inevitably (necessarily?) veers at some point in to how to have a political discussion.  I only hope our tiffs can be instructive.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

It would seem any lengthily political discussion inevitably (necessarily?) veers at some point in to how to have a political discussion.  I only hope our tiffs can be instructive.

I hope they can be instructive too. I even provided some instructions for what people can do if they want to "opt out" of someone's online life.

[Atticus]

I would give Jules a kidney.

 

Don't hate him just because he's snarky.  Being a drug overlord does that to a guy.

 

He's under pressure that most of us can only imagine in bad movies.

[bleedorange]

I guess if you think that whatever you post in this thread is that important, a one-word response can be kind of annoying.

[Guest Don Draper]

Re-reading his post, would more words have improved it? I think brevity is great on message boards, so long as you're careful to not read into the tone. He thought it was stupid, and I'm pretty sure the explanation would have had to do with conflating Zimmerman supporters and ACA detractors, and not the punctuation of the Huffpost comment.

[Atticus]

pendentary

[Guest Don Draper]

Exactly.

[Sir Stewart]

I don't read any posts longer than three lines.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Brevity is not my strong point, at least not on here. I really prefer to have much longer conversations, because most message board "one-word post" conversations quickly devolve into sarcasm, satire, flame wars, etc. Tone is well nigh impossible to determine from a single word.

 

This thread has gone on for more than 150 pages, through all kinds of topics, including arguments, name-calling, people getting made fun of, and so on, and no one has gotten banned from the board (to my knowledge, anyway). I think it's a good place to discuss issues of the day, and I can tell KevinG agrees and posts thoughtful material. I may take it more seriously than I should, but that is only because I am sincere in what I post here. Some things make me happy, and some upset me, just like any human being. I am sure there are plenty of other threads on VC that are better suited to irony, shooting from the hip, standup comedy, etc.

[NoJ]

I don't read any posts longer than three lines.

 

Yeah, whos got the time or the cognitive capacity for that?

[JUDE]

Venezuela!

[KevinG]

So a very interesting political thing happened today.  The senate voted to change its rules regarding judicial and executive appointees.  No longer will a filibuster be allowed, thus ending the gridlock in the Senate.  This is also known as the "nuclear" option.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/senate-filibuster-reform_n_4316325.html

 

While I am pleased that senate can start moving on many of these nominees and do its job, I worry about the precedent it sets.  Namely if you can't get things done within the rules just change them.  Now the GOP has backed the Dems in a corner with this, block several of PBO's nominees for no good reason. 

[John Smith]

Not several nominees, most nominees. It's one thing to put them through the ringer in committee, it's quite another to never let the nomination leave committee or be allowed on the floor for a vote.

[Doug C]

It (the above mentioned rule), along with holds on nominees, are undemocratic rules and should have been changed a long time ago. If you are the ruling party, you rule. The idea that one whiny child, see Lindsey Graham, can hold nominees until Benghazi is investigated to his liking, is real banana republic bullshit. These are Senate rules, not constitutionally mandated rules. When the Republican party controls the executive branch and the Senate, they can nominate and appoint anyone they want. If the majority of the country doesn't want Republicans to be able to rule, then the majority of the country should not vote for them. Petty nonsense like filibusters and holds are anti-American.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I agree. I'm glad they did it. The absurd notion that POTUS is "court packing," just because he's trying to do his job, is, well, absurd.

The level of obstructionism and utter disregard for the office of President is really unprecedented. I think it's disgusting.

One of my Facebook friends posted today that the total number of Presidential nominees blocked, in history, was 86. Another 82 have been blocked under PBO. Unreal.

[KevinG]

I agree. I'm glad they did it. The absurd notion that POTUS is "court packing," just because he's trying to do his job, is, well, absurd.

The level of obstructionism and utter disregard for the office of President is really unprecedented. I think it's disgusting.

One of my Facebook friends posted today that the total number of Presidential nominees blocked, in history, was 86. Another 82 have been blocked under PBO. Unreal.

 

I actually quite like the rule, I felt it should have been used as a last resort kind of option.  It does indeed prevent the majority from steam rolling whatever they want.  With that being said, the GOP abused this the rule and did not use it for its intended purpose.  The GOP used it out of spite and for no real reason and now they got it taken away from them.  As I said I do not like the precedent it has set, which is the long lasting implication of this whole thing.  

[IRememberDBoon]

truth be known is that when the democrats were in control of the senate and President GW was in office they gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't block in this manner but HEY both parties are just the same!

[Hixter]

truth be known is that when the democrats were in control of the senate and President GW was in office they gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't block in this manner 

Your photo appears to indicate otherwise.

[Doug C]

The information on that chart is shameful. That every Republican senator (plus 3 or 4 Democratic senators) saw that chart but voted against the rule change is telling. 7 filibusters on executive nominees for Geo. W. Bush over 2 terms. It isn't possible to justify 72 filibusters on executive nominees in less than 2 terms for Barack Obama. I keep hearing Bill Maher in my head, "Gee, there must be something different about this president. What could it be?".

 

Since every Rebulican senator is in favor of the old rule, obviously they will vote to reinstate it whenever they regain the Senate.

 

On NPR, I heard an interview with a Republican senator from Mississippi re the rule change. The interviewer said that surely it will be put back in when you gain control. The senator avoided the question. The interviewer, to his credit, pressed not once, but twice. Finally, the gentleman from Mississippi replied tha t it might happen.

 

Jesus Fucking Christ, how do these people sleep?

[Hixter]

It isn't possible to justify 72 filibusters on executive nominees in less than 2 terms for Barack Obama. 

There haven't been 72, there have been 27. The Dems are projecting a total of 45 over 2 terms (you can barely read it on the chart) but I don't know how they arrived at the figure.

 

Here's the chart and one generated by the Republicans:

 

 

 

From here.

[Doug C]

Okay, no problem. I'll change 72 to 27 and keep everything else that i wrote. 27 to 7 or 72 to 7. With what, 3 years to go? Shameful.

 

Any thoughts on the Republicans voting to reinstate when they have the chance?

[Hixter]

Another interesting chart:

 

[IRememberDBoon]

I actually believe that filibusters on nominees from any party are stupid as sh*t. I think if theres a republican president he should get to nominate who he wants to empty seats.

[IRememberDBoon]

I think youre confused Hixter. that chart makes republicans look like DBags