I mean, who knows what the future holds, but complete GOP control of government is not likely in the immediate future. And it goes without saying they need to suffer for what they’ve done. This shit where one party plays by the rules and the other cheats constantly isn’t acceptable.
3 Likes
You can put the filibuster on as a firewall and push the things you really want through reconciliation. But what about the Byrd rule? The parliamentarian decides whether the bill in question qualifies and then provides that decision to the presiding officer of the Senate. There’s a long-standing Senate tradition of respecting that ruling, but here’s the thing: the presiding officer of the Senate is free to ignore the pariliamentarian and can rule whatever the fuck (s)he wants. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul both dangled the idea re: Obamacare. Bernie Sanders was absolutely serious about it and had already assured his VP would ignore the parliamentarian and pass Medicare For All with the tie-breaking vote. If you’re wondering how that play would be scored, it’s “fuck you” and then “fuck you again” to the GOP, like getting double jumped in checkers.
3 Likes
Terrible. Why not just get rid of the filibuster if you’re gonna do that? The idea of saying fuck you to the rules when you literally can rewrite the rules makes no sense and will put off moderates way more than just changing the rules to majority vote on all bills.
The end result of either is 51 votes to pass, but the message sent by each approach is different.
Nuking the Filibuster: Majority vote should be sufficient in a democratic system.
Sanders Approach: The Executive branch should decide the rules of the Senate.
Have you never fought a bully? You don’t beat them by playing nice. Tit for tat.
It’s not about nice versus not nice. It’s about simple and democratic versus convoluted and arbitrary. Either way, a GOP Senate minority would have no power to block the bills of the Dem majority.
Tit for tat is wrong too. If you’re going to get physical you go as far as you can asap.
Tit for tat is a successful strategy in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma.
GTO politics, folks.
2 Likes
Prisoners dilemma doesn’t have the Hit him back harder option tho’
Have you considered joining the NYPD?
Nope. I have however been targeted by multiple bullies during my childhood. If the right move is violence you go as far as you can so that you don’t have to do it again.
How many bullies did you maim in elementary school?
That is what I’m advocating.
iirc all the bullies died in enders game
I also learned self-defense via Ender’s Game, which is why I proactively lube myself up with soap before any potential altercation.
3 Likes
Nittery:
(1) I think an iterated dictator game captures the essence of politics better than prisoner’s dilemma since one side can play tyranny of the majority in any round they have been allocated that power by the electorate.
(2) GTO is an acronym/phrase that only poker players use and isn’t part of actual game theory nomenclature.
There is nothing convoluted or arbitrary about making decisions that abide by the formal laws and rules. That would more accurately describe norms which the GOP has increasingly abandoned to capture power and enrich themselves while the Dems play right along. Your heart is in the right place but it doesn’t work unless the other side plays in good faith also. Look at those experimental results from the dictator game: most people want to give something to the other party, presumably due to utility derived from fairness, cooperation, and prosocial behaviors. Sociopaths can exploit this trait maximally.
NRSC=National Republican Senatorial Committee
1 Like
