Sen. Sanders (I-VT) Slamming Tax Deal in Senate Live

[StarshipTitanic]

You can call what i am doing today whatever you want, you it call it a filibuster, you can call it a very long speech...

TPM link with a live stream.

TPM calls it a filibuster but he isn't actually holding up Senate business. It's continuing as of this posting and it's quite a listen. Civics trivia: When he addresses "Mr. President" he is referring to the President pro tempore of the Senate, not Obama.

[D.Turtle]

Wow - definitely worth a listen. He is currently reading letters from constituents - lots of great (horrible) stories in there.

[Xisiqomelir]

6 and a half hours, what a beast.

Direct CSPAN, if anyone wants an alt link: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx

[Mr Bean]

He's still going, nothing outlasts the Independent Senator from Vermont
This is what we were taught in school a filibuster should be. One Senator standing up and talking to stop Senate business. Of course one does not have to do that and has not had to do that for years now.

Nor is it a real filibuster but I hope to see Berny back up there on Monday.

[SirNitram]

Oh look, some theatrics.

This does nothing to improve or block the tax deal. But I guess people who watch C-SPAN get a kick out of it?

[Bakustra]

Oh look, some theatrics.

This does nothing to improve or block the tax deal. But I guess people who watch C-SPAN get a kick out of it?

Yes, people should just shut up and let their voices be quashed rather than speak their minds. Especially if they're legislators.

[SirNitram]

Oh look, some theatrics.

This does nothing to improve or block the tax deal. But I guess people who watch C-SPAN get a kick out of it?

Yes, people should just shut up and let their voices be quashed rather than speak their minds. Especially if they're legislators.

I'm sure that's clever in your sad excuse for a brain.

This long speech doesn't do anything. Spend the energy on collecting people for amendments. Or place a hold on the deal. But no, you think they should stand there and gab for no point.

[Bakustra]

Oh look, some theatrics.

This does nothing to improve or block the tax deal. But I guess people who watch C-SPAN get a kick out of it?

Yes, people should just shut up and let their voices be quashed rather than speak their minds. Especially if they're legislators.

I'm sure that's clever in your sad excuse for a brain.

This long speech doesn't do anything. Spend the energy on collecting people for amendments. Or place a hold on the deal. But no, you think they should stand there and gab for no point.

Really? It's shut down the Senate, in case you hadn't noticed. Perhaps your no-doubt incredible and immense brain merely osmoses knowledge of things, rather than observing. Nothing is happening, nobody is there. He may not be able to stop the cloture vote, but he's inconvenienced the Senate, much like a filibuster. A hold is ineffective against cloture, and the vote on Monday is for cloture, which your towering intellect must have forgotten momentarily.

[SirNitram]

Really? It's shut down the Senate, in case you hadn't noticed. Perhaps your no-doubt incredible and immense brain merely osmoses knowledge of things, rather than observing. Nothing is happening, nobody is there. He may not be able to stop the cloture vote, but he's inconvenienced the Senate, much like a filibuster. A hold is ineffective against cloture, and the vote on Monday is for cloture, which your towering intellect must have forgotten momentarily.

So what's your argument here? He shut down the Senate on a /friday/ with no votes coming up. There's literally no business today in the Senate, except 'recignizing Mr. Sanders'. If he was doing this on Monday, and shutting down the vote on the tax deal, this might be more than stupid C-SPAN tricks. The Senate isn't inconvenienced, there's nothing else on their calender for today.

[Bakustra]

Really? It's shut down the Senate, in case you hadn't noticed. Perhaps your no-doubt incredible and immense brain merely osmoses knowledge of things, rather than observing. Nothing is happening, nobody is there. He may not be able to stop the cloture vote, but he's inconvenienced the Senate, much like a filibuster. A hold is ineffective against cloture, and the vote on Monday is for cloture, which your towering intellect must have forgotten momentarily.

So what's your argument here? He shut down the Senate on a /friday/ with no votes coming up. There's literally no business today in the Senate, except 'recignizing Mr. Sanders'. If he was doing this on Monday, and shutting down the vote on the tax deal, this might be more than stupid C-SPAN tricks. The Senate isn't inconvenienced, there's nothing else on their calender for today.

I noticed that you ignored the point about the hold. Your staggering mind is slipping.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Perhaps he's hoping that if he harangues enough, if he lectures and orates and berates enough, a seed of shame might take root in some Republican's heart, grow over the weekend and have them cross the aisle.

Sadly, the Senate is not Whoville, and Republicans are not Grinches. For a heart to grow four sizes, it has to exist in the first place.

Still, listening to him speak it's clear he's done a monumental amount of research on the subject. I'm amazed he can hold out that long.

[SirNitram]

I see you're ignoring everything I knock down. But unlike you, I have rebuttals. He can simply place a hold on it, and declare a filibuster if it isn't honored.He could be nattering on, or just declare it and let it try and get by the massive dissent from both sides.

So, kiddo, where's your claims about me wanting people to shut up and be silent, or how he's 'inconvenicing the Senate'? Oh right. In ruins, because they were useless.

[Bakustra]

I see you're ignoring everything I knock down. But unlike you, I have rebuttals. He can simply place a hold on it, and declare a filibuster if it isn't honored.He could be nattering on, or just declare it and let it try and get by the massive dissent from both sides.

So, kiddo, where's your claims about me wanting people to shut up and be silent, or how he's 'inconvenicing the Senate'? Oh right. In ruins, because they were useless.

He can't place a hold and have it mean anything, you idiot. There is a motion for cloture scheduled for Monday. Cloture negates holds. Cloture negates filibusters.

See, you're saying "he should have spent his energy on backroom deals to amend the bill", because you have no clue and are, for some reason, angry that Senators might express opinions. Cloture cuts off all debate, all proposed amendments. This is him protesting, and you're saying that he shouldn't. That is desiring him to shut up, in point of fact. He's, at the very least, keeping a President pro Tempore around, cutting their weekend low. A puny inconvenience, but far greater than your delusions of adequacy.

Perhaps he's hoping that if he harangues enough, if he lectures and orates and berates enough, a seed of shame might take root in some Republican's heart, grow over the weekend and have them cross the aisle.

Sadly, the Senate is not Whoville, and Republicans are not Grinches. For a heart to grow four sizes, it has to exist in the first place.

Still, listening to him speak it's clear he's done a monumental amount of research on the subject. I'm amazed he can hold out that long.

Ha ha! It's funny because anywhere from a third to a half of the American populace are sociopaths!

[D.Turtle]

What he is doing is calling attention to what he's "jabbering" about.

Its on News websites, #1 on twitter, he'll be on cable news, etc.

It doesn't directly change what is happening, but by maybe getting more people to call their Representatives or Senators and tell them to work against the deal, it can indirectly change it.

[StarshipTitanic]

He could be nattering on, or just declare it and let it try and get by the massive dissent from both sides.

Yeah, then the headline is "Dem-leaning senator lets tax cuts expire" (or on Fox: "Socialist senator raises taxes on America") instead of "Senator slams tax cuts for rich for 9 hours." How does that help? Maybe now people will pay more attention to the fact that the GOP want tax cuts for the rich, not that Obama/the Democrats want to raise our taxes.

[Simon_Jester]

Guys, I will be honest: I cannot believe that he's drawing so much flak here for doing this. We live in a country where the political discourse is utterly one-sided: one side condemns its opponents to hellfire while the other side sits there and appeals to reason.

It may not get better even if people speak out against it. But it will damned sure not get better if people don't. If we pretend that progressives can beat the Republican Party by quietly wheeling and dealing and hoping they don't force us to compromise away too much.

For the past two years, most of us here have been slamming the Democratic leadership for a lack of courage, for a lack of willingness to openly confront lies, to point out delaying tactics by the opposition, to use their physical position of advantage to actually change the system.

This is what it would look like if they were that brave.

Perhaps he's hoping that if he harangues enough, if he lectures and orates and berates enough, a seed of shame might take root in some Republican's heart, grow over the weekend and have them cross the aisle.

Sadly, the Senate is not Whoville, and Republicans are not Grinches. For a heart to grow four sizes, it has to exist in the first place.

Still, listening to him speak it's clear he's done a monumental amount of research on the subject. I'm amazed he can hold out that long.

Ha ha! It's funny because anywhere from a third to a half of the American populace are sociopaths!

Goddammit now I have to speak up for SD again. Stop doing this to me, people!

He's talking about Republican senators, not all Republicans in the country. There are... what, 42 Republican senators? That's not a half, nor even a third, that's a one-seven-millionth.

[Bakustra]

Okay, Simon, I'll amend it for you:
Ha ha! It's funny because between a third and a half of the country votes for sociopaths!

This isn't drawing a huge amount of flak, but it's not drawing much attention either- even Fox only had some weaksauce where the only slur they could muster was "socialist", which Senator Sanders self-identifies as. But maybe it will draw some more later on. His speech was amazing. He had an immense amount of material prepared, and he spoke for nine-and-a-half hours. Did anybody else hear him ask what the other Senators were smoking?

[SirNitram]

Calling attention to? To who, an empty chamber? Or didn't people notice this?

Yes, the politically informed are now aware what he's saying.. They were also aware of this stuff.

[Bakustra]

Calling attention to? To who, an empty chamber? Or didn't people notice this?

Yes, the politically informed are now aware what he's saying.. They were also aware of this stuff.

I'd like you to admit that you were wrong earlier, or at least acknowledge my last response to you. I suppose that Asimov was wrong, and sniping is the last refuge of the incompetent, not violence.

[SirNitram]

I see you're ignoring everything I knock down. But unlike you, I have rebuttals. He can simply place a hold on it, and declare a filibuster if it isn't honored.He could be nattering on, or just declare it and let it try and get by the massive dissent from both sides.

So, kiddo, where's your claims about me wanting people to shut up and be silent, or how he's 'inconvenicing the Senate'? Oh right. In ruins, because they were useless.

He can't place a hold and have it mean anything, you idiot. There is a motion for cloture scheduled for Monday. Cloture negates holds. Cloture negates filibusters.

If it passes. Did you look over the dissent on both sides, since I brought it up? A hold has as much emphasis as speaking to an empty chamber, except apparently you're a cheerleader for one. A hold is explicitly defined as an expression of your dissent, dumbass. Just like this stunt, except C-SPAN junkies aren't bouncing around for a hold.

See, you're saying "he should have spent his energy on backroom deals to amend the bill", because you have no clue and are, for some reason, angry that Senators might express opinions. Cloture cuts off all debate, all proposed amendments. This is him protesting, and you're saying that he shouldn't. That is desiring him to shut up, in point of fact. He's, at the very least, keeping a President pro Tempore around, cutting their weekend low. A puny inconvenience, but far greater than your delusions of adequacy.

I'm saying it's stupid, not that I'm angry or whatever other bullshit you're trying to make up. I find it useless theatrics and said so. You just got your panties in a bunch because I dared voice my opinion, the very thing you claim you're in favor of. I'm saying it's pointless, and you just try and make up ways to stuff words into my mouth so you can feel like a big man. Well, sadly, cheerleading a guy giving a speech to an empty Senate chamber doesn't make you anything but kinda sad.

[Bakustra]

The hold is pointless, since if cloture passes, then debate ends, and if it doesn't pass, then the hold is irrelevant, since there isn't enough support to pass the bill anyhow. So apparently pointless procedures are more beneficial in your incredible mind than public speeches. Good to know.

You seem to be uneasy with admitting that you said that he should shut up. Well, your cognitive dissonance doesn't matter, though it's healthier to acknowledge than to repress.

[SirNitram]

The hold is pointless, since if cloture passes, then debate ends, and if it doesn't pass, then the hold is irrelevant, since there isn't enough support to pass the bill anyhow. So apparently pointless procedures are more beneficial in your incredible mind than public speeches. Good to know.

You seem to be uneasy with admitting that you said that he should shut up. Well, your cognitive dissonance doesn't matter, though it's healthier to acknowledge than to repress.

The hold is as pointless as this. If cloture passes, this long speech has done nothing. So that point stands. 'I said he should shut up' according to your sad intellect. Show me the quote, please. Sure, I said he should have done other things, but as much as you try and conflate it, that's not 'Shut up you stupid idiot'.

[Bakustra]

The hold is pointless, since if cloture passes, then debate ends, and if it doesn't pass, then the hold is irrelevant, since there isn't enough support to pass the bill anyhow. So apparently pointless procedures are more beneficial in your incredible mind than public speeches. Good to know.

You seem to be uneasy with admitting that you said that he should shut up. Well, your cognitive dissonance doesn't matter, though it's healthier to acknowledge than to repress.

The hold is as pointless as this. If cloture passes, this long speech has done nothing. So that point stands. 'I said he should shut up' according to your sad intellect. Show me the quote, please. Sure, I said he should have done other things, but as much as you try and conflate it, that's not 'Shut up you stupid idiot'.

How quickly you change your views without ever admitting you were wrong. That's frankly odious.

You said that he should not make this speech. That is functionally identical to "he should shut up", but I suspect that you will take refuge in pedantry rather than ever admit you were wrong. Well, you were wrong. Just face it, move on, and stop taking your personal problems out on other people.

This speech at least was public. It was broadcast, it can become part of the news cycle, it can be pointed to and used for excerpts, it gives hope to liberals and progressives that they have a voice. What does a hold do? None of that.

[D.Turtle]

I would say that a good measure of how successful this speech-a-thon was will be to look at how much exposure he gets the next few days in the media. He has pretty much thrust himself into the forefront of liberal criticism of Obama's tax deal. He already got a lot of exposure today (he increased the amount of Twitter followers by 10.000 - doubling it, for example). Now it just remains to be seen if that exposure holds.

[SirNitram]

The hold is pointless, since if cloture passes, then debate ends, and if it doesn't pass, then the hold is irrelevant, since there isn't enough support to pass the bill anyhow. So apparently pointless procedures are more beneficial in your incredible mind than public speeches. Good to know.

You seem to be uneasy with admitting that you said that he should shut up. Well, your cognitive dissonance doesn't matter, though it's healthier to acknowledge than to repress.

The hold is as pointless as this. If cloture passes, this long speech has done nothing. So that point stands. 'I said he should shut up' according to your sad intellect. Show me the quote, please. Sure, I said he should have done other things, but as much as you try and conflate it, that's not 'Shut up you stupid idiot'.

How quickly you change your views without ever admitting you were wrong. That's frankly odious.

You said that he should not make this speech. That is functionally identical to "he should shut up", but I suspect that you will take refuge in pedantry rather than ever admit you were wrong. Well, you were wrong. Just face it, move on, and stop taking your personal problems out on other people.

This speech at least was public. It was broadcast, it can become part of the news cycle, it can be pointed to and used for excerpts, it gives hope to liberals and progressives that they have a voice. What does a hold do? None of that.

Waiting for the evidence I said what you insist I do. Until then, you're just a weasal trying to implicate me for what you'd like me to have said to make your pathetic attacks stick.