Pages: 1

 

2010-01-19 20:07:25
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5872

A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the "nuclear option."

With Republican Scott Brown seizing victory in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate, Democrats are under pressure to quickly pass health care reform before he arrives -- since Brown will break the party's 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.

Even before polls closed, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said "there are options to still pursue health care."

Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, outlined a combination of tactics to get what his party wants out of health care reform.

First, he said the House could simply approve the Senate bill, sending it straight to President Obama's desk.

Then, Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as "reconciliation," a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with just a 51-vote majority.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 … alth-care/
Weren't the Democrat having a fit about the Nuclear option back when Bush was President?
2010-01-19 20:13:41
13rin
Member
+977|6765

Macbeth wrote:

A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the "nuclear option."

With Republican Scott Brown seizing victory in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate, Democrats are under pressure to quickly pass health care reform before he arrives -- since Brown will break the party's 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.

Even before polls closed, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said "there are options to still pursue health care."

Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, outlined a combination of tactics to get what his party wants out of health care reform.

First, he said the House could simply approve the Senate bill, sending it straight to President Obama's desk.

Then, Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as "reconciliation," a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with just a 51-vote majority.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 … alth-care/
Weren't the Democrat having a fit about the Nuclear option back when Bush was President?
Doesn't surprise me.  When a dem loses it's simply time to change the rules.  Some of the most poor sports I've seen in my day.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-01-19 20:34:37
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|7046|San Antonio, Texas
Well, you could see that coming a mile away. I think that the house will end up just approving the Senate bill and kick it up to Obama.
2010-01-19 20:51:27
13rin
Member
+977|6765

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

Well, you could see that coming a mile away. I think that the house will end up just approving the Senate bill and kick it up to Obama.
Yepper.  The breaks got put on a step or two quicker than I thought.  And I used to dislike Ted Kennedy.  Thanks for dying asshole.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-01-19 21:54:29
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6280|Truthistan
I'd like to know how a simple majority as in 50% plus one, ever became "the nuclear option"

Seems to the senate should do most business by simple majority, the last thing the country needs is a further concentration of power in that legislative body so that these corrupt POS can have more power to broker side deals and back door options.
2010-01-19 22:01:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
One thing Australia has definitely gotten right is enforcing strict limits on how long legislators can speak on the floor.  Filibustering is generally not possible over there, and that's a good thing -- regardless of who's in power.
2010-01-19 22:03:32
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio

Turquoise wrote:

One thing Australia has definitely gotten right is enforcing strict limits on how long legislators can speak on the floor.
and gun laws
2010-01-19 22:04:18
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

One thing Australia has definitely gotten right is enforcing strict limits on how long legislators can speak on the floor.  Filibustering is generally not possible over there, and that's a good thing -- regardless of who's in power.
Strict is an understatement. I remember a hilarious episode early last year when they enforced the new 90-second rules in the senate. One after another a person started speaking and just as they were going you'd hear "your time has expired". It certainly keeps thing moving though, which is good thing.

Another thing that perplexes me in comparison is that a simple majority seems fairly useless. The ills of limited third-party/independent representation, I guess.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-19 22:05:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing Australia has definitely gotten right is enforcing strict limits on how long legislators can speak on the floor.
and gun laws
Well, that only works because Australia is basically a very large island.  Here, it wouldn't work.
2010-01-19 22:06:25
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing Australia has definitely gotten right is enforcing strict limits on how long legislators can speak on the floor.
and gun laws
I hope you don't make the common mistake of thinking guns are banned here.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-19 22:06:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Spark wrote:

Another thing that perplexes me in comparison is that a simple majority seems fairly useless. The ills of limited third-party/independent representation, I guess.
It would definitely be nice if we had more significant third party participation...  Instant runoff voting would be nice as well...
2010-01-19 22:07:12
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio

Spark wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing Australia has definitely gotten right is enforcing strict limits on how long legislators can speak on the floor.
and gun laws
I hope you don't make the common mistake of thinking guns are banned here.
thank you
2010-01-19 22:07:25
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

Spark wrote:

Another thing that perplexes me in comparison is that a simple majority seems fairly useless. The ills of limited third-party/independent representation, I guess.
It would definitely be nice if we had more significant third party participation...  Instant runoff voting would be nice as well...
Instant runoff voting...?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-19 22:08:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Spark wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Spark wrote:

Another thing that perplexes me in comparison is that a simple majority seems fairly useless. The ills of limited third-party/independent representation, I guess.
It would definitely be nice if we had more significant third party participation...  Instant runoff voting would be nice as well...
Instant runoff voting...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

It's basically a system where you can vote for multiple candidates -- which allows for more legitimacy among third party representation.
2010-01-19 22:10:55
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

Spark wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


It would definitely be nice if we had more significant third party participation...  Instant runoff voting would be nice as well...
Instant runoff voting...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

It's basically a system where you can vote for multiple candidates -- which allows for more legitimacy among third party representation.
Ah yes, that's how it works here. Except we call it preferences instead.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard