Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

Printable View

08-12-2021, 02:13 PM
Methais

Quote:

Originally Posted by drauz

By a weird suicide like thing I think?

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UntriedEve...ce-max-1mb.gif

No he died from space covid.

https://y.yarn.co/7375a238-bbcb-4b53...691aa_text.gif
08-12-2021, 03:42 PM
Seran

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaps

You just made my point for me. Neither you, nor I, should want our representatives with the power of a "simple majority" - because of all the reasons you just stated.

Requiring at least 60% of them to agree on something blunts, doesn't fully stop, but blunts the affects/influences you describe.

I don't care if you're red, blue, in-between, or off the rails.. a "simple majority" is bad for ALL of us.

Actually you missed my point which was the total opposite. Requiring a simple majority /period/ means legislation can advance and legislation can also remove prior changes that become irrelevant or do not work. We're a country of innovation and progress, why should any change or experiments that make it as far as being drafted into legislation fail to see the light of day because of sitting filibusters.
08-12-2021, 04:24 PM
Gelston

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seran

Way to move the goalposts there. My response still stands, a minority of SENATORS should not be able to derail an entire agenda. Filibuster rules are nonsensical, are not supported in any way by the Constitution and hold back legitimate progress.

Whether it's Republicans or Democrats in control in a non-filibuster world, their passage of unpalatable legislation is controllable by elections and the next Congress is free to overturn said legislation.

I'm not moving goalposts. We were ALWAYS talking about entire states. Or do you feel that an entire state should be cut off from funding when 1 Senator agrees and 1 disagrees?
08-12-2021, 04:58 PM
Seran

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gelston

I'm not moving goalposts. We were ALWAYS talking about entire states. Or do you feel that an entire state should be cut off from funding when 1 Senator agrees and 1 disagrees?

Maybe you ought to say 26 States, rather than 26 Senators, rather than assume folks read your mind and should know better than responding to you in a plaintext reading, rather than your mystical between the lines interpretation
08-12-2021, 05:00 PM
Gelston

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seran

Maybe you ought to say 26 States, rather than 26 Senators, rather than assume folks read your mind and should know better than responding to you in a plaintext reading, rather than your mystical between the lines interpretation

No, I'd like you to address this. Should an entire state receive no funding if the Senators split their votes? Hmmm?

What about Reps? Should an entire state lose their funding if one of them disagrees too?

Give me your ideology.
08-12-2021, 05:08 PM
Shaps

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seran

Actually you missed my point which was the total opposite. Requiring a simple majority /period/ means legislation can advance and legislation can also remove prior changes that become irrelevant or do not work. We're a country of innovation and progress, why should any change or experiments that make it as far as being drafted into legislation fail to see the light of day because of sitting filibusters.

So you must not agree in a representative government. Passing legislation just to pass it is asinine.

Forcing our representatives to compromise and halt legislation until they do, is better for ALL of us. You keep thinking you want it, and it's coming.. and you'll be bitching all the way home once it reaches your doorstep.

Just realize people with ideas like yours, are what cause such events to occur.
08-12-2021, 05:31 PM
Tgo01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gelston

No, I'd like you to address this. Should an entire state receive no funding if the Senators split their votes? Hmmm?

What about Reps? Should an entire state lose their funding if one of them disagrees too?

Give me your ideology.

Clearly the amount of money a state receives should be determined by what percentage of the state's representatives vote for said legislation, but the states should still 100% fund these programs. Except Democrat states of course, they get 100% funding no matter what.
08-12-2021, 05:45 PM
Gelston

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Clearly the amount of money a state receives should be determined by what percentage of the state's representatives vote for said legislation, but the states should still 100% fund these programs. Except Democrat states of course, they get 100% funding no matter what.

Which is retarded.

Congress was built the way it was with compromise in mind. What works in one state, won't necessarily work in another... Now more than ever.
08-12-2021, 05:56 PM
Shaps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAn6RID58Hk

All you need to know about those in media (well some)...

Climate change!! Reeeeee! - Drives a Raptor.
Covid!! Reeeeeee! - No mask what so ever - Put yours on though.
Lockdowns to stop the spread!! Reeeeee! - No worries, go boating.

I personally don't care what he was doing, it's the hypocrisy.

Be smart, live your lives, respect others... don't fall for the bullshit sanctimony of the jackasses telling you what you're supposed to be doing - because they're doing whatever they want.
08-12-2021, 06:13 PM
Seran

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gelston

No, I'd like you to address this. Should an entire state receive no funding if the Senators split their votes? Hmmm?

What about Reps? Should an entire state lose their funding if one of them disagrees too?

Give me your ideology.

Reduced funding, or funding by district in terms of House representatives. Senators are elected by statewide ballot, so if legislation is opposed and passes anyway there should be repercussions in terms of funding bills. Shaps talks about forcing compromise, what better way than by requiring parties to meet in the middle or be left out in the dark.