Today's Republicans are the problem. In 1935, 16 Republican Senators voted for Social Security

[ProSense]

Vote Tallies 1935 Social Security Act

[rurallib]

1. even better there was only 25 republicans

[jaxx]

2. K&R

The repubs today are the vigilante committee out to kill a presidency. The good of the country isn't in their agenda. These are the lowest of the low.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Then bipartisanship is a delusion

And telling us that Republicans are honest brokers with great ideas that we must have at our table is simply not corrct. Not that I ever bought that line of bull.
I hope to never again be told that Tom Coburn is a friend and partner to this Party, you know?

[ProSense]

4. No, bipartisanship is

an aspiration, always will be. The fact that today's Republicans are determined to be obstructionists doesn't mean that bipartisanship is delusional.

It means that Democrats need to strive for it, especially since they need at least two votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and spotlight their attempts to obstruct to voters. Reducing the number of Republicans would also help.

[Oregone]

6. Aspiring to bipartisanship enables lunatics

If only striving for this magically creates sound policy backed by progressive ideology...but it doesn't. The entire notion isn't concerned with policy; its about watering down policy enough that its palatable to the most people; some of those people being right-wing idiots

[ProSense]

7. Is that why the progressive critics of the Wall Street refom bill believe the Collins amendment is

one of the more significant aspects of the bill?

Hyperbole is not reality.

[KeyWester]

9. "It means that Democrats need to strive for it"

I agree, they have to, the new rules say we need 60 votes.

Look for some votes or sit on the side lines. Obama is NOT a king, he needs to go through congress.

Some just don't get that simple concept.

[Oregone]

10. "the new rules say we need 60 votes"

:rofl:

[ProSense]

13. It's not a new rule,

ask Russ Feingold.

It's being abused by Republicans.

[Oregone]

15. Yes, and unchallenged by Democrats

If its being abused, the only rational response is making Republicans read out of phonebooks and piss in their diapers all night.

[ProSense]

17. No, it's not unchallenged. Harkin and others are pushing to change it

Feingold doesn't want to, and it needs 67 votes to change.

So the claim that it's "unchallenged by Democrats" is inaccurate.

[Oregone]

18. Until they have the votes, challenge them by making them piss their diapers

Ive never seen a rational argument about making Republicans actually follow through on conducting a filibuster

[ProSense]

20. .

Oh brother.

[Oregone]

21. What is the rational argument against making Republicans actually carry it out on the floor?

[Oregone]

25. ProSense...don't hide. You can address this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8716779

[ProSense]

26. Hide? Address what?

The fact that you can ask s question that has no basis in reality? The filibuster exists. Throwing up claims about a filibuster based on an outdated notion doesn't make it a valid point. It requires 60 votes to overcome it. Reality isn't a movie.

And why are you linking to a thread in which you ask the same question you just asked? :sarcasm:

:rofl:

[Oregone]

27. Im linking to it so you can address it, since you didn't here

Yes. Filibusters exist. Currently, the Democrats make it very easy to conduct one and not very politically damaging to do so. Naturally, this encourages more filibusters.

[Oregone]

5. Today, they would never of had to

The bill would be so watered down and weak, to meet their approval, some privatized piece of shit pension system would of hit the floor instead of Social Security.

[KeyWester]

8. "Today's Republicans are the problem "

You wouldn't know it reading this forum.

rec

[Oregone]

11. Exactly. A thread like THIS would never be posted in THIS forum!

Good gawd, man!

[SunsetDreams]

12. I could be wrong, but

I seriously doubt the poster was talking about this thread, but the forum in general

[ProSense]

14. Makes you wonder

who would oppose a thread labeling Republicans a problem?

[Oregone]

16. Of course they are a problem. THE problem?

Don't we all wish there was just a single problem to deal with today in American politics?

[ProSense]

19. And what does that have to do with the

question about why someone would oppose this thread?

[Oregone]

22. Well, you said they are THE problem.

Maybe people think the problems are more complicated than that.

I didn't rec or unrec the thread...I dont give a fuck about that. Don't ask me. Im just trying to help you out with answers here

Everyone is free to think what they want

[ProSense]

23. "Don't ask me. "

I didn't.

[great white snark]

24. By comparison, makes today's accomplishments pretty damn impressive.

Obama just gets things done.

[Ter]

28. Wow, everyone was a Democrat back then

Democrats outnumber Republicans 319-102 in the House, and 69-25 in the Senate. Think anything like that will ever happen again?

[treestar]

29. The pressure on them was greater then, too

Bad as we think it is now, it is nothing like it was then.