How is Pence still there. I'd throw his ass over
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
You said not that long ago that they won’t be able to get that much done due to the Democrat centrists in the Senate.
Can’t have it both ways now.
Irish in power. Irish rule!
You need 60 votes in the Senate to deal with the minority filibuster that McConnell used so expertly to hold up Obama's legislative agenda. Which is why workarounds like budget reconciliation become so important.
That's exactly what we were missing. Some dude in a cowboy hat singing amazing grace.
Pence is like the villain sidekick that betrays him towards the end of the film and kind of partly redeems himself.
Good speech, that.
Let's take over England! Just leave the football stadiums alone.
Good to see the anti-Biden knives are sharpened & out in full force.
Good grief, another stupid religious song sung by Garth Brooks.
Joe Manchin is a democrat in good standing. The filibuster is a senate rule that can be amended by the senate. The same senate which democrats control
He loves a sudden point at someone doesn’t he
It was incredibly unsettling in the debates when he would suddenly just turn to the camera and talk directly into it for a while.
Tbf he should never have gotten past the Primaries, was only until he hit Wisconsin and the like that he suddenly outperformed Bernie.
Should've been Mel Brooks.
Blah Blah, stop with your facts. If Biden doesn't do everything he promised its his fault.
New GAA stadiums you mean..
Still time to depart the stage to YMCA
Should've been Garth Crooks.
Amazing Grace is one of the most tuneless dreary songs in existence.
What time are the monster trucks?
Every bill can be a budget bill. Democrats choose not to because it isn't in their interest to wield power and enact the things they claim to want because fundamentally the democratic party exists to fundraise and provide jobs for the children of rich donors.
Sing along everyone! You are not at a concert with 50,000 hillbillies.
no i didnt
Amazing Grace, written by a slave ship captain, who recanted and campaigned for the trade's abolition. Probably chosen for the historical connotations too.
Good to see some dignity in that office again after the abomination that was the previous term. To say he's facing a monumental challenge would be an understatement. His term has to be a time of healing but with such a divided people that's going to take a lot longer than four years. I sincerely wish him the best of luck.
You sound like a white supremacist to me
Personally thought it was a fantastic speech.
He's got a monumental challenge ahead. Hope he can deliver at least some of it.
He's got a monumental challenge ahead. Hope he can deliver at least some of it.
You can only do one budget reconciliation bill a year. One.
She dropped some BARS!
God save the queen is awful too.
Nothing is worse than God Save the Queen.
Afraid it is not that easy: https://www.brookings.edu/policy202...uster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/
The most straightforward way to eliminate the filibuster would be to formally change the text of Senate Rule 22, the cloture rule that requires 60 votes to end debate on legislation. Here’s the catch: Ending debate on a resolution to change the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the members present and voting.
A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.
The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.
In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.
And Manchin has already said he doesn't want the filibuster to end, so unless you get a Romney or a Sasse onside, it is here to stay.
This bird rambling on is giving it a go
She's good
Is this supposed to be a poem? None of it is rhyming.
Interesting way to refer to a minor.
Amanda Gorman?