Skip to main content

View Diary: Four reasons to feel proud of, and excited by, the filibuster reform fight (274 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  BTw, I think it was the last para of the original (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax

    comment that created the conflict.  Until then, it was just an analysis of this particular battle, which analysis I generally agree with.  While there was some minor progress, the changes are far below both those needed and those we could have gotten by all accounts.  

    And any new changes can not occur until after the next election, i.e., after Thugs continue to abuse the filibuster to retake the Senate in a low turn out election created by D voters disillusioned by lack of progress.

    Sound familiar?

    The last paragraph, however,  makes it sound like the 'Ds are just playing all you for fools and always have been' screeds of trolls.  I do not believe it, nor should anyone here, at a pro-D party blog.  Besides, I've been in politics to various extents for decades, and its just not true.  Ds actually do push progress forward over time, tho often not enough or fast enough.

    •  I am a troll (10+ / 0-)

      For expecting Democrats to actually engage the battle with honesty?

      If I read your comment wrong I apologize but I'm still waiting for them to actually stand their ground instead of making threats and before they are called on it  folding the hand. Of course it's only been decades maybe I can hold out a little longer.

      There are no sacred cows.

      by LaEscapee on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:20:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not what I said, as was obvious from the first 2 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LaEscapee

        paras agreeing with most of your original comment.  

        My pt is you went beyond that to attacking the Ds in general as forever lying and selling out their supporters.  'Kubuki'?  And this 'fold their hands... for decades', if intended to cover all issues, is a Troll, with a capital T.  If you really believe that, then yes you are a troll since this a Democrat blog.

        If only intended to apply to filibuster reform, though, its is not trollish, but a defensible reading of history on this issue (though incorrect, after all it was Ds who reduced the cloture # from 67 to 60, though relatively long ago).

        But, whichever you are, however, is your choice, in your control and your doing.  No one makes anyone come here and post 'D's really want to kill you all, fools!' comments.

        •  Then let me reiterate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aunt Martha

          If the fact that I call bullshit on the people that use theater as their default method of negotiation and intentionally lie about it and defend the continued agreements they had in mind from the beginning. Yes I am a troll.

          I have watched this shit for decades and seen the drift the drift right and every time I see it I call bullshit. Whether it was the eighties, nineties or aughts the Democrats have conceded ground. Denying that fact means you weren't paying attention or didn't care. That is my point, every time an R cries foul why is it that D's never question or fight they give up the high ground?

          We own the issues, the majority supports our perspective yet those we send to represent that either aren't willing to or are unable to express that fact. Why is that? This is not a center right country beyond popular belief. The problem being popular belief is fomented by the weak we send to represent us.

          There are no sacred cows.

          by LaEscapee on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:31:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We didn't exactly 'own' the majorities in the 80s (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LaEscapee

            or the Congress in the 90s or either in the 1st part of the 00s.  Your mistaking merit for voter support (i.e., the folks who vote).  Yeah, you can conjure scenarios where u argue more voters would have gone D or shown up if only... but they are untestable.

            As I said, I agree on the filibuster surrender.

            But when D's have the majority (or 60 in the Senate ::sigh::) the cause is often not 'weakness', so much as it is just plain old corruption.  The system is corrupt in the plainest sense of the word, relying on legal bribery and 8 hours of fund raising a day.  A SCOTUS didn't do democracy - or liberals - any favors.  But that is not a Democratic failing.  "Money is the mother's milk of politics."  Without enough, you lose.  

            Sometimes I think the amazing thing is so many Ds can be so liberal when the system is so bought and paid for.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site