Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Biden/Harris Potential Legislative/Policy Agenda Discussions


goskins10
 Share

Recommended Posts

Give D.C. a couple of congressmen and to balance it out, give some red area a couple of seats. Then allow, DC residents to vote for MD senators, since DC was taken from MD.

Now, if they don't want to that, then exempt DC from federal taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Tell you what, Joe.  Let us know when you have 

 

1)  A proposal for voting rights legislation.  

2)  And the name of a single Republican who's willing to commit to voting for it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hardly shocking that with a 50-50 Senate, there are swing votes.  

 

Nor is it a tragedy when said swing votes attempt to lobby for more moderate legislation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McConnell Threatens ‘Nuclear Winter’ If Dems Eliminate Filibuster

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said during an interview that aired Tuesday that the Senate would turn into “a sort of nuclear winter” if Democrats succeeded in eliminating the filibuster.


“If they turn the Senate into a simple majority body, the Senate is lost,” McConnell said during a conservative podcast interview with “Ruthless.”

 

“It may not be the panacea that they anticipate it would be, it could turn the Senate into sort of a nuclear winter, where the aftermath of the so-called nuclear option is not a sustainable place,” McConnell added.

 

The comments come after McConnell issued a dire threat as a growing number of Senate Democrats in recent weeks signaled interest in filibuster reform. 

 

“Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin, even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like,” McConnell said last week.

 

Senate aides told Axios that McConnell would be very strategic in taking advantage of other Senate rules to frustrate Democrats and stall progress in the chamber, among them, unnecessary quorum calls, pausing business to ensure all 100 senators are on the floor, lengthy debates about motions, and introducing long amendments to stretch out proceedings.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

So he's threatening to throw a tantrum and stoop to the level of Marjorie Taylor Greene.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it here where I read the Russ Feingold article on compromise and McCain-Feingold?  He basically said that to compromise both parties have to see the problem and agree a bit on the solution.  The problem is right now the GOP sees the "problem" as increasing the voting franchise and making it easier for poor and minorities to vote (thus giving them political power).  Who is going to be the McCain on voting rights on the GOP side?  Murkowski?  Susan "I support Mitch" Collins?  There's no one with the Bipartisan weight that Manchin has.  Will they be willing to overlook the partisanship in the Senate?  I am doubtful... 

 

GOP has rallied around McConnell...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear Brian Tyler Cohen throw out an idea I really liked. I don’t know that it was his, more an idea floating around the more progressive circles (which outside of a few odd things like listening to BTC’s podcasts, I’m not really a part of)

 

filibuster should require 41 to sit in chambers throughout it. Sort of a reversal of who is responsible here. 
 

if one person objects why is it the responsibility of the majority to find 60 people to overrule the 1?

 

why shouldn’t it be the 1’s responsibility to find 40 others willing to object with him/her? As it currently stand the gop can have one person “take the heat” of filibustering. The rest of the GOP can enjoy the legislation not passing but hide behind the fact they didn’t vote against it and didn’t filibuster it themselves. 
 

This way the people who are against what a simple majority want would be required to make that known by their actions. And as such can then be held accountable for it (if their constituents choose to do so)

 

ive thought about it it a bit since I heard it on his last podcast. I’m sure I’m missing some component that maybe makes it less of an awesome idea. But currently, with only a little thought, I kind of really like it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m confused. Why are we supposed to talk about the pandemic? He’s been talking about it from day one. Vaccines are rolling out great now. He’s ahead of his proclaimed schedule. The numbers are going down n

 

seems like the right time to discuss other crisis that have festered because the previous admin didn’t do anything about them either. 
 

im so done with the “right wing” party. It’s hard to watch anything they do anymore and not see it as nothing but stupidity 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...