Skip to main content

View Diary: Filibuster Reform- This needs to Matter or What Else Does? (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

    If legislation didn't require a supermajority in all instances, yes, the results would have been different.  Over and over and over again.  Throughout the entire congressional session.  On a regular, daily basis.  Without a shred of doubt.  A Republican strategy of obstructionism, stripped of its main weapon of abusive obstruction, would not be so successful.  What is so hard to understand about that?

    How did you get "falling on your sword isn't helpful" from that?

    Harry Reid had a chance to change this, with wide support, and singlehandedly blew it.

    •  the requirement has given some Dems cover (0+ / 0-)

      we don't vote in lockstep.

      what's so hard to understand about that.

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Fri May 03, 2013 at 12:25:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you saying that it's a good thing that filibuster reform wasn't even attempted, because there are Democrats who can thus avoid doing their job?

        Why don't you take a few minutes, figure out what you're going to say, and put together a coherent reply.

        •  no i am saying the results matter (0+ / 0-)

          and that even if you got a vote.

          it wouldn't guarantee progressive legislation. especially since Dems don't vote in lockstep.

          why don't you take some time to understand our government.

          -You want to change the system, run for office.

          by Deep Texan on Fri May 03, 2013 at 12:43:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Once again, (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't say anything about guaranteeing progressive legislation.  Stop putting words in my mouth, I have my own, thank you.

            What I said was that Reid's failure to do anything at all about filibuster reform rendered the Senate incapable of any legislative activity, and that any hope of getting anything done at all hinged on taking away the GOP's central method of obstruction.  I did not say that if he had done it, then all progressive dreams would have been answered.

            Never mind.  You aren't actually reading any of this.  Go ahead, enjoy the rest of your day.  I don't like non-interactive "conversation."

            •  so what's the point then? (0+ / 0-)

              what's the point of filibuster reform?  what's the point expecting Obama to lead on legislation...

              is it to get something passed?

              is it to get something progressive passed....

              because if that's the point, you still have to contend with the issues i listed.

              -You want to change the system, run for office.

              by Deep Texan on Fri May 03, 2013 at 12:52:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Like I said, (0+ / 0-)

                I don't do non-interactive conversation.  You've been talking to yourself for six replies now.  You're doing just fine without me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site