calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

They certainty did not. That is why only 50 senators can eliminate it as they have for certain debates in the past. So, I take it that you are now good with the purpose and existence of the senate?

---

1. If starting from scratch, I would not have designed our government to have exactly equal representation per state. I would have designed something more proportional for the upper body of the legislature.

2. I recognize that given how it WAS designed, doing so would require a Constitutional amendment, which would be a way harder task than eliminating a procedural rule within the Senate. Hence why I focus more on the filibuster as something that can be done away with.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.

---

Can you explain the point of this post?

I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?

You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.

So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.

---

Point is that we've taken something that is already far removed from direct democracy (the senate) and made it even more extremely un-democratic. Convo started with Syc griping that 55 senators voted for a bill and that it still wasn't enough. Those 55 senators probably represented 70% of the US and is certainly well beyond any reasonable majority required to pass simple legislation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be disappointed with this outcome.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.

---

Can you explain the point of this post?

I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?

You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.

So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.

---

Point is that we've taken something that is already far removed from direct democracy (the senate) and made it even more extremely un-democratic. Convo started with Syc griping that 55 senators voted for a bill and that it still wasn't enough. Those 55 senators probably represented 70% of the US and is certainly well beyond any reasonable majority required to pass simple legislation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be disappointed with this outcome.

---

Absolutely. Whenever you have rules intended to empower the minority and stop the majority, people will be disappointed and feel underrepresented. Suspect people felt that way when Obama vetoed bills passed by Congress or when the democrats engaged in filibuster all the time when McConnell controlled the senate. We can disagree on the merits of filibuster but we don't disagree on the source of the rule..

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.

---

Can you explain the point of this post?

I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?

You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.

So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.

---

Point is that we've taken something that is already far removed from direct democracy (the senate) and made it even more extremely un-democratic. Convo started with Syc griping that 55 senators voted for a bill and that it still wasn't enough. Those 55 senators probably represented 70% of the US and is certainly well beyond any reasonable majority required to pass simple legislation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be disappointed with this outcome.

---

Absolutely. Whenever you have rules intended to empower the minority and stop the majority, people will be disappointed and feel underrepresented. Suspect people felt that way when Obama vetoed bills passed by Congress or when the democrats engaged in filibuster all the time when McConnell controlled the senate. We can disagree on the merits of filibuster but we don't disagree on the source of the rule..

---

Most democracies have SOME rules to empower the minority. IMO the filibuster is a bridge too far. Actually IMO the Senate is already a bridge too far, but I acknowledge that we can't as easily change that.

The President tends to be popularly elected (or at least pretty close to it) and thus can claim some kind of mandate. Also, a lot more people vote in Presidential elections than Senate elections. Because of that I don't think the veto is nearly as big an issue.

Democrats definitely used the filibuster when McConnell controlled things, but this was in response to McConnell's caucus using the filibuster to previously unprecedented degrees when he was leading the minority. Hence why I think the filibuster is no longer good for anyone.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.

---

Can you explain the point of this post?

I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?

You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.

So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.

---

Point is that we've taken something that is already far removed from direct democracy (the senate) and made it even more extremely un-democratic. Convo started with Syc griping that 55 senators voted for a bill and that it still wasn't enough. Those 55 senators probably represented 70% of the US and is certainly well beyond any reasonable majority required to pass simple legislation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be disappointed with this outcome.

---

Absolutely. Whenever you have rules intended to empower the minority and stop the majority, people will be disappointed and feel underrepresented. Suspect people felt that way when Obama vetoed bills passed by Congress or when the democrats engaged in filibuster all the time when McConnell controlled the senate. We can disagree on the merits of filibuster but we don't disagree on the source of the rule..

---

Democrats definitely used the filibuster when McConnell controlled things, but this was in response to McConnell's caucus using the filibuster to previously unprecedented degrees when he was leading the minority. Hence why I think the filibuster is no longer good for anyone.

---

Just a question on whether your take is political or principle.

Here is my prediction on the results of the 2022 midterm.

The Republican will take the senate but have less than 60. Dems will use the filibuster quite a bit. Some on the far right will push for elimination of the filibuster but will have less than 50 from the Republicans to do so.

I suspect zero Democrats in the senate will join with the far right. How many here will be angry with the Democrat senators for not siding with the far right Republicans to eliminate the filibuster? Will you support the elimination? We can pull this thread up a year from now and see the discussion then.

calbear93 said:

---

Just a question on whether your take is political or principle.

Here is my prediction on the results of the 2022 midterm.

The Republican will take the senate but have less than 60. Dems will use the filibuster quite a bit. Some on the far right will push for elimination of the filibuster but will have less than 50 from the Republicans to do so.

I suspect zero Democrats in the senate will join with the far right. How many here will be angry with the Democrat senators for not siding with the far right Republicans to eliminate the filibuster? Will you support the elimination? We can pull this thread up a year from now and see the discussion then.

---

My take is part principle, part practical (I think it's much easier to get rid of the filibuster than to do other things that would help fix the federal government).

If Republicans take the Senate next year, I would still support eliminating the filibuster. IMO the good of that decision will easily outweigh the bad, in the long term.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Just a question on whether your take is political or principle.

Here is my prediction on the results of the 2022 midterm.

The Republican will take the senate but have less than 60. Dems will use the filibuster quite a bit. Some on the far right will push for elimination of the filibuster but will have less than 50 from the Republicans to do so.

I suspect zero Democrats in the senate will join with the far right. How many here will be angry with the Democrat senators for not siding with the far right Republicans to eliminate the filibuster? Will you support the elimination? We can pull this thread up a year from now and see the discussion then.

---

My take is part principle, part practical (I think it's much easier to get rid of the filibuster than to do other things that would help fix the federal government).

If Republicans take the Senate next year, I would still support eliminating the filibuster. IMO the good of that decision will easily outweigh the bad, in the long term.

---

I can respect that position. You and I may disagree most of the time, but enjoy discussing substance with you.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.

---

Can you explain the point of this post?

I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?

You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.

So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.

---

Point is that we've taken something that is already far removed from direct democracy (the senate) and made it even more extremely un-democratic. Convo started with Syc griping that 55 senators voted for a bill and that it still wasn't enough. Those 55 senators probably represented 70% of the US and is certainly well beyond any reasonable majority required to pass simple legislation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be disappointed with this outcome.

---

Absolutely. Whenever you have rules intended to empower the minority and stop the majority, people will be disappointed and feel underrepresented. Suspect people felt that way when Obama vetoed bills passed by Congress or when the democrats engaged in filibuster all the time when McConnell controlled the senate. We can disagree on the merits of filibuster but we don't disagree on the source of the rule..

---

Democrats definitely used the filibuster when McConnell controlled things, but this was in response to McConnell's caucus using the filibuster to previously unprecedented degrees when he was leading the minority. Hence why I think the filibuster is no longer good for anyone.

---

Just a question on whether your take is political or principle.

Here is my prediction on the results of the 2022 midterm.

The Republican will take the senate but have less than 60. Dems will use the filibuster quite a bit. Some on the far right will push for elimination of the filibuster but will have less than 50 from the Republicans to do so.

I suspect zero Democrats in the senate will join with the far right. How many here will be angry with the Democrat senators for not siding with the far right Republicans to eliminate the filibuster? Will you support the elimination? We can pull this thread up a year from now and see the discussion then.

---

Weird, for some reason my browser doesn't want to let me post this.

I don't think the filibuster will be particularly relevant in 2023/4 if the GOP takes the senate. Biden will still have veto power. It's possible that the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare 57 times but who cares. The filibuster only matters to prevent the signing into law by a party that holds the white house and both chambers of congress. That won't exist for the GOP until 2024 at the earliest.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.

---

Can you explain the point of this post?

I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?

You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.

So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.

---

Point is that we've taken something that is already far removed from direct democracy (the senate) and made it even more extremely un-democratic. Convo started with Syc griping that 55 senators voted for a bill and that it still wasn't enough. Those 55 senators probably represented 70% of the US and is certainly well beyond any reasonable majority required to pass simple legislation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be disappointed with this outcome.

---

Absolutely. Whenever you have rules intended to empower the minority and stop the majority, people will be disappointed and feel underrepresented. Suspect people felt that way when Obama vetoed bills passed by Congress or when the democrats engaged in filibuster all the time when McConnell controlled the senate. We can disagree on the merits of filibuster but we don't disagree on the source of the rule..

---

Democrats definitely used the filibuster when McConnell controlled things, but this was in response to McConnell's caucus using the filibuster to previously unprecedented degrees when he was leading the minority. Hence why I think the filibuster is no longer good for anyone.

---

Just a question on whether your take is political or principle.

Here is my prediction on the results of the 2022 midterm.

The Republican will take the senate but have less than 60. Dems will use the filibuster quite a bit. Some on the far right will push for elimination of the filibuster but will have less than 50 from the Republicans to do so.

I suspect zero Democrats in the senate will join with the far right. How many here will be angry with the Democrat senators for not siding with the far right Republicans to eliminate the filibuster? Will you support the elimination? We can pull this thread up a year from now and see the discussion then.

---

Weird, for some reason my browser doesn't want to let me post this.

I don't think the filibuster will be particularly relevant in 2023/4 if the GOP takes the senate. Biden will still have veto power. It's possible that the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare 57 times but who cares. The filibuster only matters to prevent the signing into law by a party that holds the white house and both chambers of congress. That won't exist for the GOP until 2024 at the earliest.

---

You are right from a practical standpoint.

I think the Democrats will still try to filibuster to protect Biden from having to veto. However, absolutely right that we have given one man under the constitution the right to veto. No way the republicans will have a veto proof majority any time soon in both houses. So, filibuster will be that much more important in 2024 since there is a great chance that the Republican will control both congress and the White House. Then I suspect most people here will love the filibuster. Imagine all the social issues that may be nationalized. Suspect most people here will also suddenly love state rights.

By the way, if you are posting from work and your work has cybersecurity checks on website visits and uploads, it may be that your post was flagged to IT. Just one possibility.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.

---

Can you explain the point of this post?

I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?

You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.

So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.

---

Point is that we've taken something that is already far removed from direct democracy (the senate) and made it even more extremely un-democratic. Convo started with Syc griping that 55 senators voted for a bill and that it still wasn't enough. Those 55 senators probably represented 70% of the US and is certainly well beyond any reasonable majority required to pass simple legislation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be disappointed with this outcome.

---

Absolutely. Whenever you have rules intended to empower the minority and stop the majority, people will be disappointed and feel underrepresented. Suspect people felt that way when Obama vetoed bills passed by Congress or when the democrats engaged in filibuster all the time when McConnell controlled the senate. We can disagree on the merits of filibuster but we don't disagree on the source of the rule..

---

Democrats definitely used the filibuster when McConnell controlled things, but this was in response to McConnell's caucus using the filibuster to previously unprecedented degrees when he was leading the minority. Hence why I think the filibuster is no longer good for anyone.

---

Just a question on whether your take is political or principle.

Here is my prediction on the results of the 2022 midterm.

The Republican will take the senate but have less than 60. Dems will use the filibuster quite a bit. Some on the far right will push for elimination of the filibuster but will have less than 50 from the Republicans to do so.

I suspect zero Democrats in the senate will join with the far right. How many here will be angry with the Democrat senators for not siding with the far right Republicans to eliminate the filibuster? Will you support the elimination? We can pull this thread up a year from now and see the discussion then.

---

Weird, for some reason my browser doesn't want to let me post this.

I don't think the filibuster will be particularly relevant in 2023/4 if the GOP takes the senate. Biden will still have veto power. It's possible that the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare 57 times but who cares. The filibuster only matters to prevent the signing into law by a party that holds the white house and both chambers of congress. That won't exist for the GOP until 2024 at the earliest.

---

You are right from a practical standpoint.

I think the Democrats will still try to filibuster to protect Biden from having to veto. However, absolutely right that we have given one man under the constitution the right to veto. No way the republicans will have a veto proof majority any time soon in both houses. So, filibuster will be that much more important in 2024 since there is a great chance that the Republican will control both congress and the White House. Then I suspect most people here will love the filibuster. Imagine all the social issues that may be nationalized. Suspect most people here will also suddenly love state rights.

By the way, if you are posting from work and your work has cybersecurity checks on website visits and uploads, it may be that your post was flagged to IT. Just one possibility.

---

Let's be honest about legislative agenda. Other than tax cuts and perhaps corporate welfare, the GOP has little in the way of legislative policy goals. So the filibuster is mainly a GOP priority, not a Dem one.

---

I think that's wishful thinking. Nationalizing abortion ban, defining legal marriage, voting rights, etc. could be on the table. But the democrats are not looking around the corner.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Weird, for some reason my browser doesn't want to let me post this.

---

FYI, this tends to happen if there are too many threaded replies in the chain. Delete a bunch of the quote text boxes and it will be easier to post.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.

---

Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.

---

I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.

And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.

---

Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?

---

Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)

---

Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.

---

No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.

---

It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.

---

I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.

---

If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.

---

The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.

---

Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.

---

Can you explain the point of this post?

I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?

You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.

So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.

---

Point is that we've taken something that is already far removed from direct democracy (the senate) and made it even more extremely un-democratic. Convo started with Syc griping that 55 senators voted for a bill and that it still wasn't enough. Those 55 senators probably represented 70% of the US and is certainly well beyond any reasonable majority required to pass simple legislation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be disappointed with this outcome.

---

Absolutely. Whenever you have rules intended to empower the minority and stop the majority, people will be disappointed and feel underrepresented. Suspect people felt that way when Obama vetoed bills passed by Congress or when the democrats engaged in filibuster all the time when McConnell controlled the senate. We can disagree on the merits of filibuster but we don't disagree on the source of the rule..

---

Democrats definitely used the filibuster when McConnell controlled things, but this was in response to McConnell's caucus using the filibuster to previously unprecedented degrees when he was leading the minority. Hence why I think the filibuster is no longer good for anyone.

---

Just a question on whether your take is political or principle.

Here is my prediction on the results of the 2022 midterm.

The Republican will take the senate but have less than 60. Dems will use the filibuster quite a bit. Some on the far right will push for elimination of the filibuster but will have less than 50 from the Republicans to do so.

I suspect zero Democrats in the senate will join with the far right. How many here will be angry with the Democrat senators for not siding with the far right Republicans to eliminate the filibuster? Will you support the elimination? We can pull this thread up a year from now and see the discussion then.

---

Weird, for some reason my browser doesn't want to let me post this.

I don't think the filibuster will be particularly relevant in 2023/4 if the GOP takes the senate. Biden will still have veto power. It's possible that the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare 57 times but who cares. The filibuster only matters to prevent the signing into law by a party that holds the white house and both chambers of congress. That won't exist for the GOP until 2024 at the earliest.

---

You are right from a practical standpoint.

I think the Democrats will still try to filibuster to protect Biden from having to veto. However, absolutely right that we have given one man under the constitution the right to veto. No way the republicans will have a veto proof majority any time soon in both houses. So, filibuster will be that much more important in 2024 since there is a great chance that the Republican will control both congress and the White House. Then I suspect most people here will love the filibuster. Imagine all the social issues that may be nationalized. Suspect most people here will also suddenly love state rights.

By the way, if you are posting from work and your work has cybersecurity checks on website visits and uploads, it may be that your post was flagged to IT. Just one possibility.

---

Let's be honest about legislative agenda. Other than tax cuts and perhaps corporate welfare, the GOP has little in the way of legislative policy goals. So the filibuster is mainly a GOP priority, not a Dem one.

---

I think that's wishful thinking. Nationalizing abortion ban, defining legal marriage, voting rights, etc. could be on the table. But the democrats are not looking around the corner.

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Weird, for some reason my browser doesn't want to let me post this.

---

FYI, this tends to happen if there are too many threaded replies in the chain. Delete a bunch of the quote text boxes and it will be easier to post.

---

Yeah, I tried to reply and spent about 5 minutes deleting all the text from at least 20 nested text boxes and it still wouldn't post from my iPad. I suspect I might have better luck on my PC. Deleting the empty text boxes probably would have helped but I have problems highlighting and deleting sections of text on my iPad. That's probably a me and my big fingers issue, not the iPad's though.

George Jetson's birthday is July 31, 2022

— UberFacts (@UberFacts) December 28, 2021

AI asked to generate images of 'the last selfies ever taken' produces nightmarish results


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11062011/AI-asked-generate-images-selfies-taken-produces-nightmarish-results.html

scary!

We have a water problem in California and it's not looking like we have any good solutions.

Interesting LA Times article about drama on the state water board.

Quote:

---

"I think California needs an agriculture policy," Gomberg said. "The de facto policy is cheap food, as cheap as possible. Don't do anything that would in any way impinge on the ability of people growing any kind of agricultural product to grow as much as they want, where they want, with however much water they want."

As groundwater levels decline in many farming areas, wells that people depend on in nearby communities are at risk. According to state records, more than 4,500 household wells have been reported dry in California since 2015, including 699 wells so far this year, many in the Central Valley.

Gomberg said that California's overlapping water systems including the water rights system, longstanding water allocations, groundwater regulations and rules on well-drilling permits have allowed for a level of agricultural output that chronically overdrafts water supplies.

"There are the zillions of acres of almonds and grapes. It's not sustainable," Gomberg said. "Everyone knows it's not sustainable, just like everyone knows the amount of withdrawals from the shrinking Colorado River system are not sustainable. But it's almost like it's a game of chicken right now. Everyone's waiting for someone else to blink."

---

okaydo said:

---

He faces life in prison....

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/nyregion/deliveryman-shooting-queens-arrest.html

---

Alleged 'Duck Sauce Killer' Glenn Hirsch commits suicide: law-enforcement sources https://t.co/lgvgk76T9L pic.twitter.com/y81zteCVtC

— New York Post (@nypost) August 5, 2022

Police arrested an Ohio man who is accused of sending more than three dozen letters laced with poop to Republican politicians, including Rep. Jim Jordan

https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-arrested-ohio-man-accused-164148351.html

Nowhere is safe': California highway shootings double in two years, data reveals


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/08/california-highway-shootings-freeway?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Greg Norman, Lefty and the House of Saud can SUCK IT!

Breaking News: The judge ruled the three LIV golfers who filed a temporary restraining order to play in the PGA Fed Ex Cup, CANNOT play in the game as she denied the TRO. She said irreparable harm was not established. #abc7now

— Dustin Dorsey (@DustinABC7) August 9, 2022

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/mike-silver-discusses-new-sf-chronicle-gig-49ers-qb-situation/ar-AA10u1r5

https://apnews.com/article/europe-denmark-copenhagen-5dfe5825078672dec8ea627fac195f65

TY for posting this. Karen's vocals are killer, plus she played the drums! Incredible, especially for back then. You brought back some great memories.
She passed way too young, anorexia I think? Damn.
Between her, Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, And a few of my new favorites, Janiva Magness, Elizabeth Cook, Beth Hart, there are others can't recall.
TY

What do you think -- is she hotter than her sister?

The countdown begins… @RyannMcEnany pic.twitter.com/75WQ79B8Bc

— The Right Stuff (@daterightstuff) August 10, 2022

bearister said:

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

TY for posting this. Karen's vocals are killer, plus she played the drums! Incredible, especially for back then. You brought back some great memories.
She passed way too young, anorexia I think? Damn.
Between her, Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, And a few of my new favorites, Janiva Magness, Elizabeth Cook, Beth Hart, there are others can't recall.
TY

---

I was a Led Zeppelin/Who/Stones type of guy, but I always had the deepest respect for Karen's vocals. Her singing voice was lovely and caused the chills. She nailed it.

In other news:



"Well, that's a new one. Pirates second baseman Rodolfo Castro's phone flew out of his pocket while sliding into third base on Tuesday." Axios

---

Every professional athlete's worst nightmare! For his sake, I hope it was armored up in a sturdy case.

bearister said:

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

TY for posting this. Karen's vocals are killer, plus she played the drums! Incredible, especially for back then. You brought back some great memories.
She passed way too young, anorexia I think? Damn.
Between her, Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, And a few of my new favorites, Janiva Magness, Elizabeth Cook, Beth Hart, there are others can't recall.
TY

---

I was a Led Zeppelin/Who/Stones type of guy, but I always had the deepest respect for Karen's vocals. Her singing voice was lovely and caused the chills. She nailed it.

In other news:



"Well, that's a new one. Pirates second baseman Rodolfo Castro's phone flew out of his pocket while sliding into third base on Tuesday." Axios

---

And it's illegal in MLB.

I love @reddit. pic.twitter.com/YcshJbdXt9

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) August 12, 2022

Salman Rushdie was taken off a ventilator and able to talk Saturday, a day after he was stabbed as he prepared to give a lecture in upstate New York https://t.co/Dlts39wB6y

— Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) August 14, 2022

bearister said:

---

I was a Led Zeppelin/Who/Stones type of guy,

---

Then why did you say music died mid 70's???