U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Slammin Shaman]

I don't believe you. The real world is just like Chess, and the President should be able to control every pawn at all times.

(I'm kidding.)

I'm glad you put that you're kidding, because I'm honestly pissed enough to have not caught the sarcasm lol. I know there are a lot of people that don't know how military field protocol works. Some war films aren't far off. In "We Were Soldiers" when Lt. Col. Moore calls in Broken Arrow, that is the call you make when you're about to lose.

[Lenonis]

So here is a question -- it's come up twice now in personal conversation.

If (and this is a huuuuuge if):
-Obama is re-elected
-Dems take control of the house
-Dems do not get a supermajority in the senate, but maintain their majority...

Do you think the Dems will get rid of the filibuster? If they did, they could churn out legislation like no-ones business. If they didn't, they risk losing the power the GOP has so enjoyed if they lose control of the Senate down the road.

I'm not sure how it will go to be honest...I don't think it's likely the dems will take the house, so it'll likely a moot point anyway.

[Rukentuts]

So here is a question -- it's come up twice now in personal conversation.

If (and this is a huuuuuge if):
-Obama is re-elected
-Dems take control of the house
-Dems do not get a supermajority in the senate, but maintain their majority...

Do you think the Dems will get rid of the filibuster? If they did, they could churn out legislation like no-ones business. If they didn't, they risk losing the power the GOP has so enjoyed if they lose control of the Senate down the road.

I'm not sure how it will go to be honest...I don't think it's likely the dems will take the house, so it'll likely a moot point anyway.

It seems very unlikely at this point that the Democrats will get the House, or even a super-majority in the Senate (although a majority seems very very likely).

[Nadev]

Do you think the Dems will get rid of the filibuster? If they did, they could churn out legislation like no-ones business. If they didn't, they risk losing the power the GOP has so enjoyed if they lose control of the Senate down the road.

I'm not sure how it will go to be honest...I don't think it's likely the dems will take the house, so it'll likely a moot point anyway.

No because if Romney wins, they'll be just as obstructionist and tiresome as the Senate GOP leadership is now.

McConnell is a fool, but Reid is a jerk.

[Dakia]

Do you think the Dems will get rid of the filibuster?

I don't think that they would. The short term gain would pale in comparison to the backlash they would receive for ramming things through without regard. IMO, it would pretty much guarantee a Republican resurgence. If they take it away, then end up in a minority position in the future, they would be kicking themselves.

[Vyxn]

He just likes to throw out accusations with no facts. If we defend Obama, it's because we're biased. It's better to ignore him because his "intilligent" remarks are mediocre at best.

Bob, Military 101. President doesn't over-see and make every decision for fights. In circumstances where a split-second decision has to be made on the field, it's the commanding officer in the area.

When we are at war you are correct but when we are not at war with that country only the president can authorize military force you need to get your facts straight
You can start with the War Power Act

[Lenonis]

It seems very unlikely at this point that the Democrats will get the House, or even a super-majority in the Senate (although a majority seems very very likely).

And here I thought I put in enough caveats to avoid people getting hung up on the unlikeliness of the scenario. :P

[Rukentuts]

And here I thought I put in enough caveats to avoid people getting hung up on the unlikeliness of the scenario. :P

Sorry, I frequent 538

[Lenonis]

No because if Romney wins, they'll be just as obstructionist and tiresome as the Senate GOP leadership is now.

It's obvious they wouldn't get rid of the filibuster as long as the GOP held one of the three parts of congress/president. It wouldn't make sense. They'll know who is going to be in power before the vote on the rules of the senate for the next session.

---------- Post added 2012-10-30 at 01:58 PM ----------

I don't think that they would. The short term gain would pale in comparison to the backlash they would receive for ramming things through without regard. IMO, it would pretty much guarantee a Republican resurgence. If they take it away, then end up in a minority position in the future, they would be kicking themselves.

Couple points to consider:
1) I totally get what you are saying...however the idea that passing legislation by a majority vote and having the president sign it is even remotely considered "ramming it through" is kinda what's wrong with the government these days.

2) If the legislation actually did positive things, I'm not sure a republican resurgence would gather enough steam to roll through congress. Of course the question is whether or not 2-4 years is enough time to have legislation take effect and do good things before the next vote.

3) There is always the danger that if they are in the minority position the GOP would remove the filibuster.

I tend to agree with you -- power today vs possible power in the future -- which is more important.

I just hate the filibuster. Needs to go regardless of who controls what.

---------- Post added 2012-10-30 at 01:59 PM ----------

Sorry, I frequent 538

I don't think I've seen an prediction anywhere that gives dems the house. So I'm right there with you -- but it's an interesting question to ponder nonetheless given how the filibuster has become rather abused.

[Dakia]

I tend to agree with you -- power today vs possible power in the future -- which is more important.

That is pretty much the reason I don't think it will go anywhere.

When you look at the people in power, they don't hate each other with quite the vehemence that the the general public and those outside of power do. If push came to shove, they will keep the status quo because it allows them to stay in power with the illusion of friction and partisanship.

[Vyxn]

When the attack in Benghazi happened Obama claimed he gave an order to do what ever is necessary to help with the safety of the ambassador and his staff ok that was an military order and it would have been written down
So either 3 things happened

1. He did give the order to help and the military ignored the order and gave an order to stand down with is disobeying a direct order from the president and is concedered treason. this is highly unlikely that the military brass would ignore a direct order from the president and do the opposite

2. Obama lied and actually gave the order to stand down which is more believable because that is the order that was given to the men in Benghazi who was asking to go and help because only the president has the power to authorize military force with a country we are not at war with so the disision to use or not use military force would have been brought to him to decide

3. Obama didn't do anything so the military didn't have the authority to do anything

Number one like i said is highly unlikely that the military brass would ignore a direct order to help their own and order the opposite
so that leaves us with two and three which makes Obama to be a liar

[Lenonis]

illusion of friction and partisanship.

Erm...I don't think it is quite as fake as you think. have you seen some of the debates on the floor of the house and senate?

[Dakia]

Erm...I don't think it is quite as fake as you think. have you seen some of the debates on the floor of the house and senate?

Oh, I'm not saying that they don't disagree with each other. That much is readily apparent. It just appears that, behind closed doors, they aren't as at each other's throats as they would like us to think.

[ptwonline]

When the attack in Benghazi happened Obama claimed he gave an order to do what ever is necessary to help with the safety of the ambassador and his staff ok that was an military order and it would have been written down
So either 3 things happened

1. He did give the order to help and the military ignored the order and gave an order to stand down with is disobeying a direct order from the president and is concedered treason. this is highly unlikely that the military brass would ignore a direct order from the president and do the opposite

2. Obama lied and actually gave the order to stand down which is more believable because that is the order that was given to the men in Benghazi who was asking to go and help because only the president has the power to authorize military force with a country we are not at war with so the disision to use or not use military force would have been brought to him to decide

3. Obama didn't do anything so the military didn't have the authority to do anything

Number one like i said is highly unlikely that the military brass would ignore a direct order to help their own and order the opposite
so that leaves us with two and three which makes Obama to be a liar

You conveniently left out a 4th option which seems very possible and is what they actually claimed happened: Obama gave them the authority to act but not a direct order to do so, leaving it up to their judgement based on the sketchy intel and the force available. They (the Generals and Sec of Defense) decided that it was too risky without more info and so did not intervene.

[Lenonis]

Oh, I'm not saying that they don't disagree with each other. That much is readily apparent. It just appears that, behind closed doors, they aren't as at each other's throats as they would like us to think.

I'm actually very interested to hear about what things are like behind closed doors -- or what private conversations between Obama and the GOP leadership is actually like. I think it would be fascinating.

[Dakia]

I'm actually very interested to hear about what things are like behind closed doors -- or what private conversations between Obama and the GOP leadership is actually like. I think it would be fascinating.

I would be very interested as well. IIRC, Obama and Boehner were actually working together quite well on a couple of items. They were pretty much at consensus when the party line got hold of it and tried to push partisan items. Neither man budged at that point and the talks went to shit.

[ptwonline]

I would be very interested as well. IIRC, Obama and Boehner were actually working together quite well on a couple of items. They were pretty much at consensus when the party line got hold of it and tried to push partisan items. Neither man budged at that point and the talks went to shit.

I dislike Boehner but I think he's actually willing to work to get things done. The problem is that he needs the support of the Tea Party caucus, and getting them to budge from their ideological strongholds is an arduous task.

The Senate is a bit different. McConnell knows that his (self?) assigned role is to act as the Republican rearguard to make sure that nothing gets done legislatively.

[Vyxn]

You conveniently left out a 4th option which seems very possible and is what they actually claimed happened: Obama gave them the authority to act but not a direct order to do so, leaving it up to their judgement based on the sketchy intel and the force available. They (the Generals and Sec of Defense) decided that it was too risky without more info and so did not intervene.

Shows you how much you know about the military they work off of direct orders they do not work off of "you do what you feel is correct" that is why the president holds the title commander and chief. If Obama didn't give a direct order one way or the other it show a big lack of leadership. any ways " do what ever is necessary to make sure the Ambassador and his staff is safe" sounds like a direct order to me

And how much more intel did the DoD need they had a drone giving them live intel they had cameras in the compound and they had real live intel from people on the ground they had more intel then what was needed how much more intel was required

[belfpala]

So... do you think Bush gave an order every time a trigger was pulled in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or do you think he delegated authority to Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs, who then delegated authority to admirals and generals, who then delegated authority to... on so on.

[stumpy]

So... do you think Bush gave an order every time a trigger was pulled in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or do you think he delegated authority to Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs, who then delegated authority to admirals and generals, who then delegated authority to... on so on.

I know I turn friendly AI off when I play Warcraft III, or my units will end up on the other side of the map if I turn my back for a few seconds. They don't move unless I say so!