And Sanders to Endorse Clinton in 5...4....3....2....1....

[Jimmy Higgins]

No Cost Public Tuition

Clinton is adding three features to her plan for higher education policy, called the "New College Compact." They include eliminating tuition at in-state public universities for families making under $125,000 by 2021 and restoring year-round Pell Grant funding so students can take summer classes to finish school quicker.

Yeah, that should take care of that. I still think Clinton and Sanders have been dancing together for a bit and needed to work carefully to create public unity. This should sew it up. $15 /hr minimum wage, Glass-Stegall, and No-Cost Public Tuition. These are most of Sanders major planks.

Sanders for Clinton and any right-wing delusions and Sander supporters would flock to Trump are crushed. Sanders may have run the most effective campaign in American history. Sure, the $15 / hr will drop in Congress, some bullshit bipartisan toothless Glass-Stegall may be passed, and the No-Cost Public Tuition will be hard to get by... but it is in the platform... which is remarkable for a candidate who didn't have a shot at winning the candidacy.

 

[RavenSky]

No Cost Public Tuition

Clinton is adding three features to her plan for higher education policy, called the "New College Compact." They include eliminating tuition at in-state public universities for families making under $125,000 by 2021 and restoring year-round Pell Grant funding so students can take summer classes to finish school quicker.

Yeah, that should take care of that. I still think Clinton and Sanders have been dancing together for a bit and needed to work carefully to create public unity. This should sew it up. $15 /hr minimum wage, Glass-Stegall, and No-Cost Public Tuition. These are most of Sanders major planks.

Sanders for Clinton and any right-wing delusions and Sander supporters would flock to Trump are crushed. Sanders may have run the most effective campaign in American history. Sure, the $15 / hr will drop in Congress, some bullshit bipartisan toothless Glass-Stegall may be passed, and the No-Cost Public Tuition will be hard to get by... but it is in the platform... which is remarkable for a candidate who didn't have a shot at winning the candidacy.

IF Sanders does more than just endorse HRC, instead uses his popularity and grassroots organization to get voters to the polls - more to vote for congressional seats and local/state elections - then we will have a much better shot at getting those things passed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No Cost Public Tuition



Yeah, that should take care of that. I still think Clinton and Sanders have been dancing together for a bit and needed to work carefully to create public unity. This should sew it up. $15 /hr minimum wage, Glass-Stegall, and No-Cost Public Tuition. These are most of Sanders major planks.

Sanders for Clinton and any right-wing delusions and Sander supporters would flock to Trump are crushed. Sanders may have run the most effective campaign in American history. Sure, the $15 / hr will drop in Congress, some bullshit bipartisan toothless Glass-Stegall may be passed, and the No-Cost Public Tuition will be hard to get by... but it is in the platform... which is remarkable for a candidate who didn't have a shot at winning the candidacy.

IF Sanders does more than just endorse HRC, instead uses his popularity and grassroots organization to get voters to the polls - more to vote for congressional seats and local/state elections - then we will have a much better shot at getting those things passed.

We have to win the House and a super-majority in the Senate. Both seem like very tall orders.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why is it that you need a super-majority? Don't filibusters generally only last a couple of days until the guy gets sleepy like with that dude who wanted the gun control amendment which then got voted down once he needed to pee?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Naw, procedurally, you can block anything as long as the pro vote doesn't reach 60 votes. *sigh*

Of course, the rules could be changed to modify the requirement for a super-majority.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Naw, procedurally, you can block anything as long as the pro vote doesn't reach 60 votes. *sigh*

Of course, the rules could be changed to modify the requirement for a super-majority.

But isn't that procedure called a filibuster and all that's required is the Speaker saying that you actually have to filibuster in order to filibuster as opposed to merely stating an intent to filibuster? It's less of a rule change than it is a rule enforcement.

 

[RavenSky]

Naw, procedurally, you can block anything as long as the pro vote doesn't reach 60 votes. *sigh*

Of course, the rules could be changed to modify the requirement for a super-majority.

But isn't that procedure called a filibuster and all that's required is the Speaker saying that you actually have to filibuster in order to filibuster as opposed to merely stating an intent to filibuster? It's less of a rule change than it is a rule enforcement.

 a [US] Senate rule requires an absolute supermajority of three fifths to move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members. In current practice, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents passing almost any measure that has less than three-fifths agreement in the Senate, 60 of the 100 senators if every seat is filled.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Naw, procedurally, you can block anything as long as the pro vote doesn't reach 60 votes. *sigh*

Of course, the rules could be changed to modify the requirement for a super-majority.

But isn't that procedure called a filibuster and all that's required is the Speaker saying that you actually have to filibuster in order to filibuster as opposed to merely stating an intent to filibuster? It's less of a rule change than it is a rule enforcement.

There is a filibuster in the sense that James Stewart goes on and on and on in a speech to prevent a vote on cloture.

And then there is just giving the majority the middle finger and voting against cloture, and blocking the ability to bring the bill to a final vote. IE, you have to vote on a bill twice, where the first vote is to allow the bill to come to a vote. This type of obstruction was almost never done prior to the 21st century as far as I'm aware.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But isn't that procedure called a filibuster and all that's required is the Speaker saying that you actually have to filibuster in order to filibuster as opposed to merely stating an intent to filibuster? It's less of a rule change than it is a rule enforcement.

 a [US] Senate rule requires an absolute supermajority of three fifths to move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members. In current practice, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents passing almost any measure that has less than three-fifths agreement in the Senate, 60 of the 100 senators if every seat is filled.

Right, so everyone gets a chance to speak and then when they're done the debate is over. Say that 49 Republicans each read a phone book for 24 hours straight and then the bill passes after a month and a half. At least something gets done after a month and a half, which is an improvement from how the Senate seems to operate now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

 a [US] Senate rule requires an absolute supermajority of three fifths to move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members. In current practice, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents passing almost any measure that has less than three-fifths agreement in the Senate, 60 of the 100 senators if every seat is filled.

Right, so everyone gets a chance to speak and then when they're done the debate is over. Say that 49 Republicans each read a phone book for 24 hours straight and then the bill passes after a month and a half. At least something gets done after a month and a half, which is an improvement from how the Senate seems to operate now.

You aren't paying attention. You need to vote to close discussion on a bill and to move the bill forward for a Final vote for passage. This is called cloture. In the good ole days, it wasn't a tool of obstruction. Now it is used to require the majority have 60 votes just to move legislation to a final passage vote.

 

[jonatha]

Naw, procedurally, you can block anything as long as the pro vote doesn't reach 60 votes. *sigh*

Of course, the rules could be changed to modify the requirement for a super-majority.

But isn't that procedure called a filibuster and all that's required is the Speaker saying that you actually have to filibuster in order to filibuster as opposed to merely stating an intent to filibuster? It's less of a rule change than it is a rule enforcement.

Filibusters are peculiar to the Senate, so it's the Majority Leader who says that.

[/pedant]

 

[RavenSky]

Right, so everyone gets a chance to speak and then when they're done the debate is over. Say that 49 Republicans each read a phone book for 24 hours straight and then the bill passes after a month and a half. At least something gets done after a month and a half, which is an improvement from how the Senate seems to operate now.

You aren't paying attention. You need to vote to close discussion on a bill and to move the bill forward for a Final vote for passage. This is called cloture. In the good ole days, it wasn't a tool of obstruction. Now it is used to require the majority have 60 votes just to move legislation to a final passage vote.

I think his point was to let the Senators read the phone book while wearing adult diapers for as long as they want a few times until they get tired of holding the Senate hostage in place of conducting normal business.

Sort of like allowing a 2-year-old "cry it out"

I do think the filibuster rule should be changed to require the Senator to stay on the topic of whatever bill s/he is trying to block. The point of the exercise was that Senators are supposed to be allowed to have as long as they want to debate/discuss each bill before it is voted on. This nonsense of reading fairy tales and phone books has a long history*, but that doesn't make it right.

*

During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

 

[MarkW]

IF Sanders does more than just endorse HRC, instead uses his popularity and grassroots organization to get voters to the polls - more to vote for congressional seats and local/state elections - then we will have a much better shot at getting those things passed.

We have to win the House and a super-majority in the Senate. Both seem like very tall orders.

The House is definitely going to be a tall order; the estimates I've seen suggest that the Democrats will need to get to 54-55% of the vote nationwide to overcome the structural factors (gerrymandering and otherwise) that favor a Republican majority in the House.

In the Senate, what's really needed is enough Democrats for there to be a majority to revise the Senate rules and limit the filibuster (if not abolish it). That will probably need more than a bare majority as there are at least a handful of the current Senate Democrats (Joe Manchin of West Virginia is one who comes to mind) who are not sympathetic to filibuster reform. But it is probably achievable if Democrats have a good year. Getting the vote out in every state with a competitive Senate race will be crucial.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Or maybe a few thoughtful Republicans will realize what's happened after Trump gets destroyed and vote for things that cause the country to work a little better.

Sorry, reading about Senators reading fairy tales inspired the above comment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or maybe a few thoughtful Republicans will realize what's happened after Trump gets destroyed and vote for things that cause the country to work a little better.

Sorry, reading about Senators reading fairy tales inspired the above comment.

Any possible defectors left or was Spector the last moderate Republican?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But isn't that procedure called a filibuster and all that's required is the Speaker saying that you actually have to filibuster in order to filibuster as opposed to merely stating an intent to filibuster? It's less of a rule change than it is a rule enforcement.

Filibusters are peculiar to the Senate, so it's the Majority Leader who says that.

[/pedant]

A filibuster is talking to prevent a cloture vote. What the Republicans started doing was simply voting no in the cloture vote.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

God, your country is stupid.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

God, your country is stupid.

At least we don't have hundreds of thousands dying every year due to medical service shortfalls.

 

[Treedbear]

No Cost Public Tuition



Yeah, that should take care of that. I still think Clinton and Sanders have been dancing together for a bit and needed to work carefully to create public unity. This should sew it up. $15 /hr minimum wage, Glass-Stegall, and No-Cost Public Tuition. These are most of Sanders major planks.

Sanders for Clinton and any right-wing delusions and Sander supporters would flock to Trump are crushed. Sanders may have run the most effective campaign in American history. Sure, the $15 / hr will drop in Congress, some bullshit bipartisan toothless Glass-Stegall may be passed, and the No-Cost Public Tuition will be hard to get by... but it is in the platform... which is remarkable for a candidate who didn't have a shot at winning the candidacy.

IF Sanders does more than just endorse HRC, instead uses his popularity and grassroots organization to get voters to the polls - more to vote for congressional seats and local/state elections - then we will have a much better shot at getting those things passed.

I saw an interview last night with Bernie Sanders on the Charlie Rose show. He wants stronger wording for the $15 minimum wage. He held off any endorsement, but its pretty much assured as he was vehement about stopping Trump from being elected. He worries that the country might not survive a Trump Presidency. And I agree after seeing some of Trump at his latest rally. He was waving his arms around like a maniac, saying that Gingrich would have a place in his government, when he's suddenly distracted by a mosquito that apparently landed on the podium. He starts ranting about how he hates mosquitoes and doesn't want them around him. I swear it seems like he's on cocaine. John Beluchi ain't got nothing on him.

Also Sanders isn't too excited about Tim Kaine for VP, mainly because he isn't very exciting. He would be "very pleased" if Elizabeth Warren is chosen. I think that's what Hillary needs to do if she wants her mandate.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, I think that Warren is the only reasonable choice at this point. Clinton has more than enough experience on her own so she doesn't need to worry about shoring up concerns on that front and she's going to win all the swing states so she doesn't need a governor or senator from one of them to edge up her numbers. What she lacks is an inspired and motivated following of people who are excited to go out and vote for her and Warren brings that far more than any other candidate by a long shot. Also, Warren gets under Trump's skin and gets him to say a lot of stupid stuff in response to her. I doubt that Trump would ever be aware of anything that Tim Kaine says.