Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)

33. Using "shortsightedness" assumes Senate Dems haven't game planned

Reply to Skip Intro (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:06 PM

Nov 2013

What would happen in future. I agree with others the GOP would yank the filibuster rule the next time they get majority REGARDLESS of what Dems do right now.

A bird in the hand better than two in the bush is not shortsighted--it's pragmatic and wise.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are you for or against the senate rule change making it easier to confirm Presidential appointees? [View all] stevenleser Nov 2013 OP

All for it. HappyMe Nov 2013 #1

Mostly for it. ZombieHorde Nov 2013 #2

Didn't go far enough. Xipe Totec Nov 2013 #3

I'm for it in these circumstances. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #4

I'd wish they'd gone whole hog on the filibuster but this is a good start. n/t winter is coming Nov 2013 #5

For it. Always have been. William769 Nov 2013 #6

Mostly but now the GOP will have this if God forbid the get power. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #7

For. moondust Nov 2013 #8

For it, but it is a great example of what sucks about the Democratic Party "Leadership". Egalitarian Thug Nov 2013 #9

You've answered your own objections within your own post Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #17

Ask me in 3 years. nt LittleBlue Nov 2013 #10

Cabinet Level Officers zipplewrath Nov 2013 #11

As someone who has followed politics for 30+ years I have this to say LynneSin Nov 2013 #12

Just make the talking filibuster permanent. NuclearDem Nov 2013 #13

Just remember this when the GOP holds the White House OmahaBlueDog Nov 2013 #14

SCOTUS is not included in this rule change. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #18

But the precedent has been set OmahaBlueDog Nov 2013 #19

The reps will hold the WH and Senate again, Skip Intro Nov 2013 #22

Its already open warfare. JoePhilly Nov 2013 #23

Well don't celebrate just yet CreekDog Nov 2013 #24

I love his use of the word "us" Cali_Democrat Nov 2013 #27

LOL Cali_Democrat Nov 2013 #25

I agree. That could happen by 2050. It won't... Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #26

Well we can hope. Skip Intro Nov 2013 #28

Using "shortsightedness" assumes Senate Dems haven't game planned Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #33

Maybe. n/t Skip Intro Nov 2013 #41

Elections have consequences. nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #15

How not have this rule used against us is NEVER to allow a Republican majority Senate to begin with! ancianita Nov 2013 #16

I am kinda for it, but not really sure. Xyzse Nov 2013 #20

Not sure. Rex Nov 2013 #21

All of those yes votes better keep mum in a few years... Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #29

Hahaha. You again. You mad, bro? Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #34

What's to be mad about? Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #36

This creates true majority rule. What we think happens when we're in civics class Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #37

It was necessary. kentuck Nov 2013 #30

Back when Bill Frist threatened the Nuclear Option in 2003, I was against it. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #31

For it, (D)s don't really block appointments anyways Motown_Johnny Nov 2013 #32

For it, now Spirochete Nov 2013 #35

I'm for it because I know they wouldn't have waited this long to do it to us as soon as they got the Arcanetrance Nov 2013 #38

I'm against the change generally. Hosnon Nov 2013 #39

abusive use of filibuster can NOT be tolerated beachbum bob Nov 2013 #40