Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Debating with the enemy (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/)
-   -   Going nuclear in the Senate (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/55345-going-nuclear-in-the-senate.html)

BaltimoreSkins 11-22-2013 01:04 PM

Going nuclear in the Senate
 
What are peoples thoughts? I find it a touch ironic from Obama's and McConnell's part and I know it isn't a complete relaxation of the filibuster, but I have mixed emotions about this one.

Chico23231 11-22-2013 01:08 PM

Re: Going nuclear in the Senate
 
GOP deserves this because it has been their stratagdy to delay Obama's appointments for no reason other than politics. These posts need to be filled, so eff the GOP. They asked for it.

Daseal 11-22-2013 02:58 PM

Re: Going nuclear in the Senate
 
I like the changes from a completely non-partisan position. I hate the idea of a fillibuster, and especially the frequency in which they have started to happen. According to the CNN article I read: "According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who spearheaded Thursday's nuclear option rule change, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations in Senate history, with about half of them occurring during the Obama administration."

That's way too many fillibusters. I would like to see these rules expand to actual legislation, not just political/judicial nominations. Unfortunately, we need rules to force Congress to do their jobs and to make actual decisions on laws. Currently all they do is political posturing and are more concerned with hurting the other party than the good of the American people.

over the mountain 11-24-2013 03:32 PM

Re: Going nuclear in the Senate
 
agree with what has already been said here. i dont like the idea but it seems the repubs really have been the party of no to a historical degree.

not only have they used more than of all total filibusters on president obama the average wait time for a nominated person to fill a vacant position is 2.5 years when the avg is something like 6 mos.

what i dont like is i read one democrat said the repubs would have changed the rule anyway if and when they had control of the senate and presidency.

how about president obama on foreign policy though!

averted a long drawn out occupation in Syria when a strike seemed imminent (which would have greatly escalated tensions all around)

averted all out war with Iran through diplomacy.

Amazing, if we had a repub president we would be replacing afghanistan with syria and iraq and with iran.

just amazing we averted another decade of huge military expenses and US lives.

amazing!

That Guy 11-25-2013 06:51 PM

Re: Going nuclear in the Senate
 
you're silly if you think we'd ever have a boots on the ground war with iran. they have over 70million people. we'd have to re-institute the draft.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.05688 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25