Banality and deficit boogeymen kill economic bills.

[SirNitram]

...Was it simply not realized that this was possible before?

Because this is a fairly new development, this seeming impossibility of passing anything in the Senate without the unanimous consent. Did previous generations of Senators simply not know or care that they could do this? Were they never motivated enough to try, even when faced with bills that they strongly opposed?

Why is such a God weapon not something we've seen over and over throughout the history of the nation?

Because usually the Senate is a sedate 'Gentlemen's Club' or at least pretends to be. And this was always there. All that bullcrap about governing least is embodied by the Senate.

[Simon_Jester]

But... for two hundred years? I'd expect someone to have pulled this before.

Well, so much the worse for my mental model of how legislatures behave.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I see where Jester's going with this, and he's frustrated and angry.

And he has right to be. He is suggesting - nay, demanding, that his elected officials don't back down. That if the GOP wants to play Full-Court Jungleball by abusing the rules until they look like contortionist pretzels, then so should the GOP.


And I agree with him. The democrats should fucking well knuckle down, start drinking red bull or whatever their doctor concedes probably won't kill them, staff the senate 24/7 with enough people to get something done if the GOP's concentration lapses for even a split second.


But they're not going to. They're too weak-spined to do it, to actually make the GOP get up there and filibuster, to make them keep their members up at all hours of the day and night.

It's fucking infurating.

[Simon_Jester]

I see where Jester's going with this, and he's frustrated and angry.

...You have misread my intentions.

I'm frustrated, yes, and somewhat angry. But what really shocks me is the idea that there's a procedural gimmick that (for all practical purposes) allows a tiny clique (say, one to five senators) to stop all action in the Senate at will. AND that in spite of this rule being there all the time, no one ever tried this before 2008.

That's just weird, very alien to my idea of how social systems work. I'd expect that if this had always been possible, someone would have done it before. Of course, if it had happened before during a long-ago period of dysfunctional government, someone might actually have gotten round to changing it before the system collapsed...

[ShadowDragon8685]

...You have misread my intentions.

My apologies: projection. I wish they'd start fighting dirty in return.

I'm frustrated, yes, and somewhat angry. But what really shocks me is the idea that there's a procedural gimmick that (for all practical purposes) allows a tiny clique (say, one to five senators) to stop all action in the Senate at will. AND that in spite of this rule being there all the time, no one ever tried this before 2008.

That's just weird, very alien to my idea of how social systems work. I'd expect that if this had always been possible, someone would have done it before. Of course, if it had happened before during a long-ago period of dysfunctional government, someone might actually have gotten round to changing it before the system collapsed...

It is retarded. The notion that it would be used is utterly absurd... which is probably why nobody got 'round to changing it before this nonsense happened.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't feel qualified to judge whether fighting dirty would work or not. Intuitively I feel that it's something they should at least try on general principles, but I'm not going to jump up and down and shout obscenities without knowing more about the political realities.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm frustrated, yes, and somewhat angry. But what really shocks me is the idea that there's a procedural gimmick that (for all practical purposes) allows a tiny clique (say, one to five senators) to stop all action in the Senate at will. AND that in spite of this rule being there all the time, no one ever tried this before 2008.

That's just weird, very alien to my idea of how social systems work. I'd expect that if this had always been possible, someone would have done it before. Of course, if it had happened before during a long-ago period of dysfunctional government, someone might actually have gotten round to changing it before the system collapsed...

I take it you come from a country in which your upper legislative house does not have those sorts of powers invested in it as we've got in the American senate?

[ShadowDragon8685]

I don't feel qualified to judge whether fighting dirty would work or not. Intuitively I feel that it's something they should at least try on general principles, but I'm not going to jump up and down and shout obscenities without knowing more about the political realities.

The problem with seizing and holding the moral high ground is that said moral high ground often lies on the artillery range. It's kind of like a charge of cavalry against tanks; even if, in some ridiculously implausible Warhammerian 40Kian scenario, they're armed with explosives on poles that won't rip their arms off and can penetrate a tank's armor... You're still sending fucking cavalrymen against tanks! Likewise, taking the ethical high ground in the arena of politics against a group with approximately the same sense and grasp of ethics as Al Capone is suicidal, and results in the mess that we have right here.

It's important to set good examples, to be upstanding and all, but sometimes that alone won't win the war. Sometimes you have to shiv a guy through the kidney in a dark alley and let him bleed out while you move on to get the job done. The Republithugs seem to only have shivvers, which is bad when the other guys are all standing tall atop a high hill that has alleyway access and stubbornly refuse to look behind them, even when they come down with a sudden case of inexplicable excruciating agony in and about the kidney region.

[Qwerty 42]

I see where Jester's going with this, and he's frustrated and angry.

...You have misread my intentions.

I'm frustrated, yes, and somewhat angry. But what really shocks me is the idea that there's a procedural gimmick that (for all practical purposes) allows a tiny clique (say, one to five senators) to stop all action in the Senate at will. AND that in spite of this rule being there all the time, no one ever tried this before 2008.

That's just weird, very alien to my idea of how social systems work. I'd expect that if this had always been possible, someone would have done it before. Of course, if it had happened before during a long-ago period of dysfunctional government, someone might actually have gotten round to changing it before the system collapsed...

From what I understand, and I admit this is only a cursory Wikipedia understanding, that the filibuster wasn't always a part of the rules. In 1806 the Senate struck a procedure called "move to the previous question," which was a simple-majority move to essentially end debate, under the mistaken belief that it was redundant. It wasn't until relatively recently that someone actually noticed that a filibuster was possible.

No one ever actually intended for the filibuster to become part of the Senate rules. The Senate accidentally created this loophole without intending to create the possibility of the filibuster. Since no one actually said at the time of the amendment that "hey, this could potentially allow for a single person to bring the Senate to its knees," it took until someone actually did notice for the filibuster to enter the public consciousness.

As to why it took so long to notice, I have no idea.

e: and it actually happened sooner than I thought, the first filibuster was in 1837. As to the recent swell in filibusters, I know not.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm frustrated, yes, and somewhat angry. But what really shocks me is the idea that there's a procedural gimmick that (for all practical purposes) allows a tiny clique (say, one to five senators) to stop all action in the Senate at will. AND that in spite of this rule being there all the time, no one ever tried this before 2008.

That's just weird, very alien to my idea of how social systems work. I'd expect that if this had always been possible, someone would have done it before. Of course, if it had happened before during a long-ago period of dysfunctional government, someone might actually have gotten round to changing it before the system collapsed...

I take it you come from a country in which your upper legislative house does not have those sorts of powers invested in it as we've got in the American senate?

...I live in the US. Thought you knew, sorry.

What surprises me is that something like this would be an option in the rules, something that anyone could do, for so long, without anyone actually doing it.

I don't feel qualified to judge whether fighting dirty would work or not. Intuitively I feel that it's something they should at least try on general principles, but I'm not going to jump up and down and shout obscenities without knowing more about the political realities.

The problem with seizing and holding the moral high ground is that said moral high ground often lies on the artillery range. It's kind of like a charge of cavalry against tanks; even if, in some ridiculously implausible Warhammerian 40Kian scenario, they're armed with explosives on poles that won't rip their arms off and can penetrate a tank's armor... You're still sending fucking cavalrymen against tanks! Likewise, taking the ethical high ground in the arena of politics against a group with approximately the same sense and grasp of ethics as Al Capone is suicidal, and results in the mess that we have right here.

It's important to set good examples, to be upstanding and all, but sometimes that alone won't win the war. Sometimes you have to shiv a guy through the kidney in a dark alley and let him bleed out while you move on to get the job done. The Republithugs seem to only have shivvers, which is bad when the other guys are all standing tall atop a high hill that has alleyway access and stubbornly refuse to look behind them, even when they come down with a sudden case of inexplicable excruciating agony in and about the kidney region.

I'm not sure I understand how what you've said is at all relevant to what I've said.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm frustrated, yes, and somewhat angry. But what really shocks me is the idea that there's a procedural gimmick that (for all practical purposes) allows a tiny clique (say, one to five senators) to stop all action in the Senate at will. AND that in spite of this rule being there all the time, no one ever tried this before 2008.

That's just weird, very alien to my idea of how social systems work. I'd expect that if this had always been possible, someone would have done it before. Of course, if it had happened before during a long-ago period of dysfunctional government, someone might actually have gotten round to changing it before the system collapsed...

I take it you come from a country in which your upper legislative house does not have those sorts of powers invested in it as we've got in the American senate?

...I live in the US. Thought you knew, sorry.

What surprises me is that something like this would be an option in the rules, something that anyone could do, for so long, without anyone actually doing it.

Probably because, except perhaps for the years running up to the Civil War, the senators observed basic rules of decorum, courtesy, and proper parliamentarianism and behaved like gentlemen, so it had not been seen as necessary.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I'm not sure I understand how what you've said is at all relevant to what I've said.

My point was that in the current environment, not playing dirty is suicidal.