The General US Politics Thread

That's the reason I suspect they're not fighting so hard for it, and I begrudgingly accept it, but in response they should attempt to make it a priority for the next reconciliation package, and also attempt to bundle in as much additional relief as possible to make up for what they couldn't get in this time.

Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 26th 2021 at 2:54:17 PM

The VP has overridden the parliamentarian in the past, so there is a way. They're just choosing not to because they "value the Senate's rules", which is immoral and shortsighted.

The more we give up the worse our odds in the midterm will be. People aren't going to accept "sorry the Parliemntarian told us not to".

Well it's less that, and more that Sinema and Manchin will fight it even if they tried. And the exorbitant time commitment necessary to persuade them and avoid heading the debate off into one that the Republicans will quickly destroy it with is likely not worth the cost of passing it now and making the wage increase a priority for their very next round of reconciliation.

Delaying the aid people so desperately need for what may ultimately be a Pyrrhic Victory with how much longer it takes to get it out, when it's possible rolling it over into the next round of reconciliatio may be just what they need to have their cake and eat it too at a slightly later date, may actually be the less moral choice here.

Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 26th 2021 at 3:05:06 PM

I can't help but think Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right! is potentially more short-sighted, if also more moral. If you're going to break the rules, do it for a good reason and be ready for the consequences.

Well, valuing the Senate rules are the exact opposite - it's just that with the GOP, it doubles as Doomed Moral Victor.

Edited by ironballs16 on Feb 26th 2021 at 3:03:35 PM

Yeah as others have said they can overrule the senate parliamentary, but it would be pointless because Sinema and Manchin said they'd stand behind her ruling. Maybe they could convince them, but that might take awhile.

So it can't be overcome, but that just proves my point about the midterms.

Because of Manchin and Sinema's stupidity, selfishness, and corruption the chances of doing well in the midterms are slipping further. If we cannot help people we're not going to do well, and that's not even getting into Climate Change.

Truly this majority is being well used -_-

Not without getting Manchin to agree to either some kind of filibuster reform or to playing silly buggers.

Well there maybe is, but they’ll have to wait for Biden’s cabinet to all be in place before they can do it.

See closure is only actually needed if someone is talking, if nobody is seeking to speak then the debate ends, and each person is only allowed to speak twice a senate day on each thing (a senate day is different from a calendar day). If Democrats make a senate day last for say a month (yes that’s possible) and make each Republican speak until exhaustion twice (actually due to the ability to propose amendments possible six times) they can end debate without closure but by having there be nobody left to speak.

But that requires the senate to do nothing else and remain inside a single formal day for however like it takes to work through up to as many as 300 talking filibusters.

Democrats needs to stop bowing down to filibuster threats, they need to make Republicans filibuster until either the bad press does them in or they physically collapse.

Edit: Actually it might be more than 300 talking filibusters, as Republicans might be able to filibuster amendments proposed by another Republican as part of their filibuster.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 26th 2021 at 8:17:56 PM

Manchin isn't the only hurdle there.

Edit:

Biden insists the 15 dollar minimum wage is not off the table.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-minimum-wage-stimulus-covid-b1808079.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 26th 2021 at 12:19:35 PM

Remind me again why is Manchin a hurdle here? not just with this but in general. If this something to do with being a blue dog representing a red state?

Excellent, I'm glad to see them pushing for it. This is not a fight we can afford to lose, it's good that they're trying their best.

As I understand it, it's a mixture of Manchin not being excessively fond of a $15 minimum wage and being fanatically devoted to the Senate's rules. Thus the parliamentarian ruling that it can't be included in Reconciliation is a harsh strike to it.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 26th 2021 at 12:29:46 PM

Filibuster within a filibuster: inception.

I see, but his name has came up far too of then in the context of being basiclay The Millstone to the Democrats that it has me thinking there has to be more to it than that.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Feb 26th 2021 at 12:37:18 PM

Well, there's his whole opposition to abolishing the filibuster, but discussing that will probably derail the whole thread.

I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about this situation specifically.

The reason people have cursed Manchin is that he is opposed to abolishing the filibuster. The filibuster is the Senate rule that any Senator can declare that they oppose a specific bill and it requires 60 votes to overcome them (it used to be that you had to actually stand and speak for hours but that was changed), this means in practice that to pass anything you need 60 votes. Which is tricky because we're not getting 60 senators anytime soon and 10 Republicans aren't going to defect.

This means that with the exception of Reconciliation (something that we can only do twice) nothing can pass. This is horrific because it means 1) nothing can be done to fight Climate Change, 2) nothing can be done legislatively to fight Republican election rigging, and 3) we'll have barely anything to show for our majority thus increasing the chances that it will be lost come the midterms.

So yeah, that's why Manchin is cursed. Hopefully, my explanation made sense and answers your question

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 26th 2021 at 12:41:27 PM

Manchin is a Blue Dog, so as right as the Democrats will currently allow. Thus he is the ideological swing vote, along with Sinema.

So I’ve done deeper filibuster reading.

You can brute force your way out of a filibuster, but it’s brutal.

First you need a senate majority, so that means all 50 democrats and Harris in the room, at all times, as a motion to table (kill) the bill could be offered at any time, if such a motion passes the entire bill is thrown out and you need to restart.

Then you have to engage in temporal manipulation. The senate has to stay inside the same legislative day for the entire process, that can go across plenty of calendar days, but it means that the senate can’t do anything new because it’s stuck inside the same single day.

Then you have to invoke the two-speech rule, senators only get two speeches a day on a subject under the senate rules, you have to enforce that. So you’ll have to let the Republican do 100 speeches of as much length as they can manage not simply on the bill, but on every amendment under consideration.

That’s where it gets really brutal, there’s no limit on amendments other than the fact that it takes up a speech to offer one up, now after that speech you can move to shut down (table/kill) the amendment and move on, but that will require a vote, thus why you need your majority present at all times.

So that’s up to 100 filibuster speeches, each of which must end in a successful vote or risk spawning another 99 filibuster speeches, all done with the entire Democrat caucus and the Vice President there ready to vote and with not one of them declaring “fuck it” and voting to kill the bill.

The process could be slightly shortened with some abuse of the chair’s power, a senator can be made to stop talking if it’s ruled that they’ve violated senate debate decorum. But that risks backlash.

The filibuster isn’t a rule, it’s a lack of rules. The reason we don’t see talking filibusters anymore is because the senate majority doesn’t force the issue, not because they aren’t required in the event the majority tries to actually pass something.

The rules are that debate goes on until everyone is done talking, and you can talk for as long as you can stand (actually twice in a single day, with each talking session lasting as long as you can stand). If everybody stops talking (or has used up their speech limit) things proceed to a vote.

The congressional research office explains it all in their info on the senate website. It’s worth a read.[1]

Edited by Silasw on Feb 26th 2021 at 8:50:37 PM

Jesus.

That's totally a normal legislative procedure whose existence makes perfect sense :V

Fair enough.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 26th 2021 at 12:49:03 PM

The entire things existence is a bloody accident anyway. They scrapped the rule allowing senators to call for a vote on ending debate (with a majority being all that’s needed) because the VP through the rule was redundant.

Closure had to be added in to the senate rules so that there was some way to force an end to a debate.

The thing that really spiked the entire mess is the two-track system, where the senate multi-tasks, meaning that nobody gets bothered about a filibuster anymore. Because once the other side threatens to filibuster the majority just shrug their shoulders have move onto something else, while not officially giving up on the first thing.

Not sure where you’re getting that idea from.

The senate right now is looking to be unable to pass laws, buts that different from the entire administration being useless.

Also if Schumer is willing to have the caucus engage in an endurance struggle it might well be possible to pass some things.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 26th 2021 at 9:02:54 AM

On the issue of ignoring the Parliamentarian, assuming Harris did do it, overruling her would require 60 votes. So Manchin and Sinema could try, but they aren't getting ten Democrats to flip on their own VP, and I seriously doubt either would kill the entire bill out of spite.

Edited by TheRoguePenguin on Feb 26th 2021 at 1:02:12 AM

Whose only ideological commitment now seems to be ensuring that Democrats won't get elected again.

Are we absolutely sure WV can't do better than Manchin?

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Feb 26th 2021 at 4:04:40 AM

More like he only cares about keeping himself elected, and we have a party that constantly caters to his ilk rather than make their lives a living hell when they act out.

I think that may be what Democrats have to test, but they should probably run that test using the 2nd reconciliation they’re got this year.

Also Harris has to be willing to take the political risk of getting in a fight with the parliamentarian.

Manchin is the best of the best that the state has to offer electorally.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 26th 2021 at 9:05:46 AM