Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General National Commission to Investigate the January 6

Biden has done his share of EO's. Obama really began the EO kick his last six years as that was the only way he could get things accomplished. The problem with that is a new president from the other party can repeal, revoke any and all EO's his little pea picking heart so desires. With legislation, it at least you have to get congress to agree. Trump in his last two years used EO's, but even when the GOP controlled both chambers, the only legislation he got passed was his tax cuts.

If the filibuster goes, then all it will take is the president and both chambers being controlled by the same party, then all legislation can be easily undone from any prior administration, congress. I think one should take a look at the ACA and how the filibuster saved it in Trump's first year. His repeal attempt was denied.

I would wager everyone has forgotten that.

As for money, I usually do not donate to political candidates. First I don't trust them, second, they always seem to be cash flushed from the moneyed elites. Although I did donate some to Richard Ray when he was my congressman, to Sam Nunn when he was our senator.

As for independents, they switch back and forth. That's why I prefer swing voters to independents. Right now, independents are with the Democrats only because of their dislike of Trump. In short, Biden not being Trump has been enough for now to keep the swing voters happy. No million tweets per day, no name calling, no temper tantrums, no schoolyard bullying, I'll be dang, we have a president who knows how to act presidential. How refreshing.

As for Biden's policies that he's under water with swing voters, independents give Biden 41/45 job approval/disapproval on jobs and the economy, probably because inflation is beginning to bite, taxes and government spending, 36/51 approve/disapprove, immigration 34/51 approve disapprove. But Biden is above water and doing good on all other issues. Swing voters give Biden an overall job approval of 50/44 approval/disapproval. Just slightly below his national average of 53/41. Pretty darn good in today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship.

The only question left is how long Biden not being Trump will keep swing voters on his side and happy?

By golly you're right! Democrats HAVE used the filibuster to block popular Republican legislation! I knew that, given time you could come up with an example!

Republicans NEED the filibuster. Democrats don't. Very simply because there is NO popular Republican legislation that needs to be blocked. The party is bereft of any actual policies beyond power and greed. They only exist to prevent government from doing anything besides funneling money into the pockets of the wealthy. They don't write legislation...certainly not popular legislation...they seek only to remove laws, regulation, and popular legislation put in place by Democrats.

Democrats at least PRETEND to care about the hundreds of millions of workers who depend on them to survive. They at least WRITE legislation aimed at helping the 90% working their asses off to keep the rest atop their mounds of gold.

I'm betting it could be a pretty long time.

Under normal circumstances about 8 years. Then some other shiny bauble will mesmerize the masses into picking the prettiest and most talented, most charming and handsome whomever to be the next whatever.

All things being equal, Biden is well on his way to a second term.

I'm curious as to why you left massive lying and chronic blatant dishonesty off of the list of Trump's annoying personality traits.

ahhh .... welll .... I don't think that is accurate

Look at the stats
William J. Clinton (D) Total 364 46
I 200 50
II 164 41
George W. Bush (R) Total 291 36
I 173 43
II 118 30
Barack Obama (D) Total 276 35
I 147 37
II 129 32
Donald J. Trump (R) Total 220 55

from The American Presidency Project

And remember EO's only apply to the Executive Branch and typically are used in modifying regulations, not introducing new law.

There are some things that continue to confuse. one is the filibuster thing. As far as I can tell the party in charge of the senate can stop it, once or as long as they are in power, or turn it on - same way. The Republicans are threatening to keep it on if they take power and that scares the the other side. I just don't get it. The constitution doesn't even bother to mention it as they figured that the party with the votes gets to do the legislative thing and, as far as I can tell the filibuster thing seems to be that turning it on, or off, is a big deal even though any side in party can either do it or not. Then there is the little fact that filibuster used to be when one senator decided to speak about whatever forever or as long as they could which meant nothing else could happen and the senator speaking got to "filibuster". I guess what I am trying to say (with too many words) is "who gives a sh*t?" Nothing changes and, if you have even a one point majority then, I think, screw it, get rid of it and have a good time! I am equally sure that the Republicans will have no trouble doing the same thing when their turn comes. I just don't get the sacredness of the filibuster and BOTH sides have used and not used it!

The other option, for the Dems, is to tell Biden he is going to have to rule with mandates. That too is the way that both sides have used, forever. When one side does it they are bad and ruling by mandate and the other side uses that as their main whine.

These things simply make no sense to me. Its the way it is, nothing has changed, both sides do it and get attacked for doing it but its done, with regularity by everybody! WTF!!!

I guess I should mention, as I am no authority on this stuff, that I could be dead wrong. If so point it out and I will, immediately, post a long, wordy, apology whilst dropping tears on my keyboard and being VERY sorry!

Okay, let's see if I can make this quick and dirty. Although not explicitly mandated, the Constitution and its framers clearly envisioned that simple majority voting would be used to conduct normal business. The Constitution spelled out what would take a super majority such as impeachment. expelling a members, overriding presidential vetoes, proposing constitutional amendments etc.

In 1806, the filibuster became possible through an accident.by removing the rule that allowed to end debate by a simple majority since it had been used only once since 1789. After the removal of that senate rule, there was mechanism to end debate on any issue. The filibuster became a possibility which was first used in 1837.

It wasn't until 1917 that the senate passed the cloture rule as a means to end debate that up until that time was impossible. It took 2/3rds of the senate to invoke cloture and end debate on any proposed legislation.

1970 saw the 2/3rds rule lowed to 3/5ths.

It has been a long standing policy that once the rules of the senate are agreed on by both parties prior to the beginning of a session, they can't be changed during the session or until the beginning of the next session. Reid violated this with his rule change involving the nuclear option during the middle of the session.

Thus setting a precedence that the majority party can change the rules of the senate any time they darn well please. That you referred to. But until Reid, changing rules in mid session had never been done. At least not that I can find or ever heard of.

The cloture rule was a way to end debate on any issue or legislation. Without the cloture rule, debate could continue until Hades froze over or into the next century or two. What is being proposed by the Democrats is an adjustment to the cloture rule, the only way to end debate from it present 3/5ths down to a simple majority.

Without Reid, ending the filibuster, bringing debate to an end by simple majority would have to be agreed on by both parties at the beginning of the session. But Reid broke that with his nuclear option or changing the rules after they'd been agreed to by one and all senators. So there is a precedence now for breaking or changing the rules everyone agreed to in mid session which it seems that is exactly what the Democrats want to do now.

So why have any rules if the majority party can change them anytime they want or like?

Let me clarify a bit. The super majority, the 60 votes for cloture is to end debate. It's isn't to pass legislation which still only requires a simple majority. There really hasn't been a means to end debate which the filibuster is, continuing debate and thus avoiding a vote on the legislation until 1917.

To pass legislation in the senate has always and still does need only a simple majority. It was in 1837 that senators found that continuing the debate without end is a method of avoiding voting on legislation or confirmation or anything else for that matter.

Reid's use of the nuclear option is just a means of ending debate. Going on to vote on the confirmation of presidential appointees which has also required only a simple majority. The nuclear option was just a means of ending debate on nominees.

Actual debate used to be required to continue the debate.

Republicans don't use it to continue the debate...they use it to block legislation.

They use it to go against the will of the people. They use it to maintain power when they are out of power.

Much like the Electoral College the, filibuster benefits primarily Republicans. If it ever gets in the way, you can be sure they will mow it down in their path to absolute power and absolute greed.

Democrats are naïve to imagine there is any hope of good faith negotiations with the minority party or its leaders.

One of the big differences between Dems and Reeps is that when the Reeps have power they use it. The Dems spend most of their effort on worrying about what the Reeps will do when they get power again, instead of using the power when they have it.

As you already pointed out, Reeps are for dismantling government for the benefit of the wealthy, while Dems are generally more for equality.

Not that the Dems are 100% pure or infallible, mind you.