State of the Union 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Democrats had near 60% in both houses. With jellyspined RINOs still in like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and more, the Democrats could have broken just about any filibuster they wanted to, if they moved in lockstep. But they didn't. Once they gained control in 06, the Democrat party started turning on itself. There were just as many Democrats against just about any given issue as there were for it, even on signature Obama issues. Really, between 06 and 10, the republicans were pretty much a non-factor.
Added at: 13:14

I'll have you know voting Libertarian is a perfectly cromulent option.
So not being a right wing fanatic makes you jelly spined? Christ, you're as bad as the liberals who think Obama ran as a super lefty and were disappointed?
 
@Charlie - Honestly, you get some respect back from me for at least trying to vote and I take back my comment about you not being able to have an opinion.

You're still wrong though. ;)
 
I missed voting in 2004 by one week, but in retrospect, I'm glad I did, since I would have voted for Bush D:
Added at: 13:30
also it doesn't really matter, but I've never had a homosexual experience
 
It's cool, I've never really had a hetero one. I'm sure neither of us will feel like we missed much.

Oh yeah, POLITICS etc etc
 

GasBandit

Staff member
So not being a right wing fanatic makes you jelly spined? Christ, you're as bad as the liberals who think Obama ran as a super lefty and were disappointed?
It's pretty much taken for granted that on any high-controversy issue, the RINOs can be counted on to vote with the democrats. They did it over stimulus, they did it over the "public option," hell, the only reason they don't kick Snowe out of the republican party is because the R next to her name goes toward deciding which party gets to be committee chairs.
 
It's pretty much taken for granted that on any high-controversy issue, the RINOs can be counted on to vote with the democrats. They did it over stimulus, they did it over the "public option," hell, the only reason they don't kick Snowe out of the republican party is because the R next to her name goes toward deciding which party gets to be committee chairs.
And the Democrats had Lieberman and Ben Nelson. Whoop de doo. Still a load of nonsense.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Doesn't really matter. The whole thing literally left the White House without any power for 2 years. Not exactly a team player there.
My point was, between the 58 democrats and the 2 independents that caucused with them, they had 60 votes. That's the magic number to stop a filibuster. Then you figure in RINOs as a comfort buffer. The reason the democrats "didn't get anything done" (thank god they didn't get more done than they did) was not because of anything the republicans did.. it was all because of democrats who wouldn't stick together. I think that's kind of where you were going too, wasn't it?
 
Comfort buffer?



You have this magical idea that the Democrats always vote Democrat and the Republicans have a huge bunch who always break away from their party. That's a crock and just doesn't happen.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
You have this magical idea that the Democrats always vote Democrat and the Republicans have a huge bunch who always break away from their party. That's a crock and just doesn't happen.
Funny, I've heard of a good number of judicial appointments last decade who say otherwise.
 
Oof, I see my disconnect. Having multiple discussions with you threw me for a loop there.

Yes, in filibusters it has taken party line votes to get cloture and take to a vote. Which is funny since half the time if they make it past the filibuster they get voted in with a rather large majority.

Most of the time nominees (not necessarily judicial) are denied simply to prevent things from working. Which is sad.
 
I didn't vote for Pres in '08. I voted for everything else on the ballot though. We didn't have a third party option or I would have voted for someone else. I am sending a message to both stupid parties that I am not picking the lesser of two evils. I'll do it again this year if it's Obama vs Newt or Romney. I'm not lazy and not voting. I am choosing not to choose.
 
I didn't vote for Pres in '08. I voted for everything else on the ballot though. We didn't have a third party option or I would have voted for someone else. I am sending a message to both stupid parties that I am not picking the lesser of two evils. I'll do it again this year if it's Obama vs Newt or Romney. I'm not lazy and not voting. I am choosing not to choose.
No you're clearly being lazy and/or throwing your vote away. Despite the fact that you made a conscious decision and choice not to vote for either candidate you're apathy means that you can have no say or room to complain about anything that goes on in politics. Even if the Senate proposed a bill that forced anyone going by the online alias "drawn_inward" or similar variations to grab their ankles and take a pinapple up their ass.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I didn't vote for Pres in '08. I voted for everything else on the ballot though. We didn't have a third party option or I would have voted for someone else. I am sending a message to both stupid parties that I am not picking the lesser of two evils. I'll do it again this year if it's Obama vs Newt or Romney. I'm not lazy and not voting. I am choosing not to choose.
Bob Barr wasn't on your state's ballot?
 
That actually makes me wonder now - has any political race ever had "none of the above" win the most votes? (Right out of Brewster's Millions, I guess...)
 
That actually makes me wonder now - has any political race ever had "none of the above" win the most votes? (Right out of Brewster's Millions, I guess...)
I remember that a city position in my town had none of the above win but because it was not above 60% or some arbitrary percentage the man who had the most votes took the office. I remember alot of people were upset over it since most believed neither of the two candidates were fit for the office.
 
I remember that a city position in my town had none of the above win but because it was not above 60% or some arbitrary percentage the man who had the most votes took the office. I remember alot of people were upset over it since most believed neither of the two candidates were fit for the office.
Sounds like "We're going to invent a new rule because we have no idea what to do in this situation."
 
Heck, there's been times where a tiebreaker for some local elections were things like "flip a coin" or "play one hand of poker".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top