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

They aren't worth a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut.

But, any port in a storm, ya know?

To topic...
I wonder what the runup to the Benghazi investigation was? Did Democrats naively vote to let that kangaroo court take place?

Did it make a difference that the attackers just happened to be supporters of the dying regime?

What if a lawmaker had been killed? Instead of just a cop? Would it have been worth investigating then?

Can we have a House investigation? Or are Democrats happy to just move on and sweep the whole ugly thing under the rug in the name of bi-partisanship?

So many questions...yet no investigation.

I remain confused. Why, for instance, is it such a big deal to get rid of the filibuster? If you are the majority then you can just get rid of it and carry on. It seems that easy! its true regardless of party - if they are a majority then they can do what they damn well please and that's exactly the way it is! The only thing it seems to be good for is shutting up the opposing party. Both parties have done this. The party not in power gets to whine how unfair it is and the other forges ahead. The only difference between the two parties is that the Republicans use it and the Dems, in their infinite wisdom, thinks is an incredibly evil thing and only done under extreme situations. I don't even know what 'extreme' means! The Republicans, for instance, started a couple of years ago simply not passing ANY legislation! This isn't really surprising given they no longer have any beliefs or planks. its not that they have some and they are ignoring them, they simply don't have any!

On the other hand the Dems seem to have all kinds of legislation to pass but don't want to upset anybody so their legislation dies on a regular basis. This makes approximately the same amount of sense as the Republican no legislation thing. It also means that we now have two political parties who, for reasons unknown, can't pass any legislation!

Since the Dems currently have a one member majority in congress they are in charge, according to the constitution (which the Republicans seem to be determined to ignore). So, the Dems are a party with many messages, many of which tend to offend those in the center and even the majority of the Dems sometimes. They also have many pieces of legislation. Even that gets interesting. The Dems have one piece, which is to fix voting in America. Its ONLY. It is 800 pages long! I doubt if ANYBODY has actually read the entire thing. I tried and gave up on the second page! If I were a member of the senate, in either party, I would vote against it just for that reason alone! Here is what th NYT thinks about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/voting-rights-law.html
The Dems have other pieces, some of which have even more than 800 pages, some with less (but not much).
The Dems have simply lost their mind I fear. In the case of their "for the people" thing they have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at it. I suspect that they couldn't even get their own people to all vote for it.

800 PAGES!

Curiosity got this cat. I knew a filibuster was was like a mercenary or someone engaging in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country. The military context of filibuster. So I was wondering how filibuster became associated with the U.S. Senate as a way to prolong debate, avoiding a vote on legislation. Here's what I found.

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. The term filibuster, from a Dutch word meaning "pirate," became popular in the United States during the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Filibuster.htm

And here for JGW.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm

So it seems unlimited debate was allowed in the senate from 1789 until 1917 when the cloture rule was established as a means to end debate and move to a vote.Actually the filibuster is nothing more than a right for unlimited debate.

Interesting also in the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created.

I didn't know that.

If the purpose of the filibuster is to make sure the minority's concerns are heard, it would be totally reasonable to limit the debate to two or three days. Or to establish timed vote requirements for cloture, like 55 votes on the second day, and 51 votes on the third day. Extending the debate beyond that has never resulted in more minority views being expressed. Instead most talking filibusters consisted of reading from cookbooks, the telephone book, and such. Manchin's concerns are BS.

Minds are usually made up prior to any debate taking place. Usually along party lines and not on the merits of the proposed legislation. Especially in today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra high partisanship. No one listens to the other side anyway.

My only concern about doing away with the filibuster for legislation is that legislation will become like executive orders. Any new president can repeal, revoke, change any EO of any previous president. Without the filibuster, legislation could become just like EO's. A new president comes into power with his party in control of congress, he can repeal any and all legislation his little pea picking heart so desires.

You could see the Democrats pass their infrastructure bill, their voting rights bill, you name it. Then come 2024 if the Republicans come into power, all those could easily be repealed replaced by whatever the GOP wanted. The filibuster does or did have a steadying influence. No lurches left and then right. The survival of the ACA can be attributed to the filibuster. Without it, the ACA would be long gone.

Normally, in a previous political era I'd be adamant against ending the filibuster. But in today's modern political era, why not. Perhaps this would be what is needed to get some common sense back into the two parties. Let the Dems pass whatever they want, then when the GOP comes back into power, let them repeal whatever they want and pass what they want. Then when the Dems return, it would be their turn.

We've seen what the nuclear led to, Barrett, Kavanaugh. Without the nuclear option to end all debate, filibuster, it would have taken 60 votes and neither one of them would have been confirmed. These things have a habit of coming back around and biting one in the butt.

The sad thing is if a couple of senators from your party were going to vote against a bill your party wanted, chances were in the past you could find 4 or 5 senators from, the other party to climb aboard. But not in today's modern political era. Every thing is pretty much straight party line. 20 years ago, straight party line votes were very rare if at all. Not today.

One thing to remember, Manchin represents the state of West Virginia, the most conservative state in the nation. You can't expect him to act like he represents New York or California. He may be a democrat, but he represent the folks of West Virginia. He has to take their wants and wishes into consideration.

If West Virginia was the most conservative state in the nation they would never have elected a Democrat in the first place. I'm going to assume that Democrats elected him, and I'm going to assume they generally approve of the Democratic platform.

If indeed Manchin is opposed to the Democratic platform then he needs to change parties. As things stand he is no ally to Democrats and appears to be playing McConnell's game and Not Schumer's or Biden's, or the people who elected him to represent them.



Manchin isn't doing what the people want him to do...he's doing what his corporate sponsors want him to do.

Gridlock serves their needs and no one else's.

It is. Up and until the early 2000's West Virginia was one of the most democratic states in the nation. Manchin was a very popular governor from 2005-10. That carried over to his run for the senate. West Virginia had a very long history as reliable democratic until recently. Presidential wise, West Virginia has gone Republican six straight times. Trump won WV 68.6% to 29.7% for Biden, in 2016 WV went to Trump 68.5% to 28.4% over Clinton.

Kind of like Georgia until 2002, WV continued to elect very conservative Democrats to statewide and local offices. Georgia elected its first ever Republican Governor in 2002 along with its first ever Republican state legislature. WV was the same. We sent Democrats Richard Russell, Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, Max Cleland as senators to Washington while WV was sending Manchin, Rockefeller, Goodwin and Byrd. What they all had in common was they were conservative democrats, a dead bird democratic party wise these days except Manchin.

According to PVI, West Virginia is plus 35.5 Republican over the national average. Okay, maybe not the reddest state, but close.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-red-or-blue-is-your-state-your-congressional-district/

Once Manchin is gone, you can bet a Republican will replace him. He barely won his last election 49-46. All three of WV congressmen are Republicans who swamp their Democratic opponents, 69-31, 63-36 and 71-29 in 2020. You have the last two presidential election results. In 2020 Republican senate candidate Capito defeated her democratic opponent 70-27.

I'd say it safe to say that Manchin will be the last Democrat to come out of West Virginia for a long time to come. You're talking about a state that elects Republicans these days by an average of around 70-30.

"Let the Dems pass whatever they want, then when the GOP comes back into power, let them repeal whatever they want and pass what they want. Then when the Dems return, it would be their turn."

I think this is, exactly how its designed. The senate can do exactly that! The constitution was quite clear about what a majority is and it can be a majority of 1 or more to do the job. The party in power (majority) gets to do what they damned well want. So, to stop the Dems the GOP gets to call filibuster. My main objection to that is that it used to be that you didn't just get to claim it you DID IT! I have seen one guy stand up and just do it until he couldn't any longer. I have always thought that it was a one man sort of thing. Apparently that's not the case but I'm not sure. Anyway, apparently this is how its always been but, now, nobody has to stand up and do it as they have made it a 'rule'. I am also not really sure just how rules come to pass and who sets them. The whole system seem pretty complex.

The difference between legislation and Executive Orders is that one comes from the president and doesn't have the bump that legislation, signed by the president, has. They can also be backed out by another president and legislation is the law of the land and Executive Orders don't (I assume). The first thing is the rule that changed the filibuster from what it was (standing up and making the point as long as you could) to just claiming its all happened and has stopped it all. My other problem is the 'debate' thing. I am not sure that there are actual debates where two sides stand up and 'debate'. We used to have a governor who later because a senator. He said he wanted to join the place where the great debates took place. After one term he quit - said there were no debates and was disappointed. As far as I can tell there are still no debates. As far as I can tell no Democratic Senator has stood up and even bothered to explain their 800 page legislation! Same with the GOP folk! I am not really sure what the Senate actually does but it sure as hell is not debate as I know it. Its also, I suspect, not what the founders had designed. Rules have changed. Now, for instance, one side can stand up, lie their heads off and nobody even calls them out and shuts them down!

Debate - my ass! Somehow, as far as I can tell, we now have legislative bodies that run their mouths about whatever but I don't think its debate - in either house. What really happens, now, is that one side isn't so interested in doing what we think they should but, instead, spend all their time 'winning' and my problem with that is that winning is about power to beat up the other side and little else.

Basically, again as far as I can tell, we depend on our legislative bodies to decide, AS A GROUP, how we are to be governed, safe and free. Does anybody here believe that's really the case? Hell, does anybody here believe that anybody has actually even read all 800 pages of "For The People" legislation? I sincerely doubt it.

West Virginia is in for a rocky future. Coal is dead.

If they think republican policy is going to rescue them from joblessness, opiate addiction, black lung, and poverty, then as the old saying goes...

they got another think comin'.

I ain't saying they're gonna flip blue anytime soon but it could be that in the next decade republican voters might begin to ask something of their representatives besides owning the libs.