Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 27, 2021

Rep. David N. Cicilline: On Nov. 3, 2020, Americans went to the polls in record numbers and voted to give Democrats control of the House, Senate, and the White House based on the promise that we would finally deliver on the most pressing issues facing our country, including voting and civil rights, health care, climate change, immigration and gun safety.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It won't happen until the Dems grow a pair, which won't happen.

#1 | Posted by Yodagirl at 2021-10-27 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What part of 51-49 is a majority don't these idiots understand?

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-10-27 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Careful what you wish for. You may get it. (Can anyone here imagine Donald Trump in the White House without the Dems having the filibuster?)

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-10-27 03:47 PM | Reply

#3 | Posted by moder8

We seen it. Never seen so many unqualified judges get appointed nor so quickly. Even on the SCOTUS.

#4 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-10-27 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Everyone knows this. It's 2 Dino's holding this up. You know their names.

#5 | Posted by a_monson at 2021-10-27 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's going to be funny how fast republicans end the fillibuster the first time they need to.

The fillibuster is costing dems their last shot to save the country, then repubs will just destroy it as soon as it's in the way of their fascist takeover of the country.

Dems are pathetic. You can't win a game when the other side is proudly cheating and you're insisting on playing by the rules.

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-27 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Careful what you wish for. You may get it. (Can anyone here imagine Donald Trump in the White House without the Dems having the filibuster?)

#3 | Posted by moder8

As if repubs wont nuke the fillibuster in that situation.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-27 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"7. During
Bush the GOP talked about nuking it for judicial nominees. 14 Senators scuttled it. Dems ended up doing just that in '14 and sat back horrified in 2016 when they had no means of stopping the Devos nomination.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-27 05:46 PM | Reply

Win elections and you don't have to worry about this.

#9 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-27 05:48 PM | Reply

California has counties with more people than entire States and these states get not one but two Representatives who on a whim can hold the entire Senate hostage.

It really does seem to be time to get rid of it.

#10 | Posted by Tor at 2021-10-27 05:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Win elections and you don't have to worry about this.

#9 | Posted by BellRinger

Signed,

The party that is writing new rules to allow them to ignore elections.

How come democrats don't have to do that?

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-27 06:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Word. They could do it anytime, but they are paid not to. By Evil.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-10-27 07:14 PM | Reply

"California has counties with more people than entire States and these states get not one but two Representatives who on a whim can hold the entire Senate hostage.
#10 | POSTED BY TOR"

The Senate allocation of 2 reps per state and the filibuster are two of the greatest mechanisms to protect minority rights in the US. You have just been conditioned to only see minority status in terms of skin color, sexual orientation, and gender which is why you are now twisting the protection of minority rights as a means of oppression.

That said, go ahead and end the filibuster. In 2022+, the Dems will be crying over that decision and the smarter members of your party already know this.

#13 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-10-27 08:28 PM | Reply

The Senate allocation of 2 reps per state and the filibuster are two of the greatest mechanisms to protect minority rights in the US. You have just been conditioned to only see minority status in terms of skin color, sexual orientation, and gender which is why you are now twisting the protection of minority rights as a means of oppression.

That said, go ahead and end the filibuster. In 2022+, the Dems will be crying over that decision and the smarter members of your party already know this.

#13 | Posted by Skeptical

I always hear morons make this argument. Which basically translates to: "well if we didn't have an unfair advantage then we wouldn't be able to get our way!"

You have been conditioned to be fine with anti democratic policies simply because you can't win without them.

Why should the minority be able control the country? Why should one party have to win by double digit percentages just to have equal power with the loser party?

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-27 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Senate allocation of 2 reps per state and the filibuster are two of the greatest mechanisms to protect minority rights in the US."

You misspelled project. Especially when the minority of the national votes can still secure the majority of the Congressional ones.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-27 08:33 PM | Reply

"The Senate allocation of 2 reps per state and the filibuster are two of the greatest mechanisms to protect minority rights in the US."

Give me some examples of when these contrivances have protected minority rights.
And surely, you must have examples of when they've been used to diminish minority rights.
Thanks in advance.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-27 08:34 PM | Reply

"Why should one party have to win by double digit percentages just to have equal power with the loser party?"

Don't leave out Wisconsin.

Democrats could get 75% of the statewide vote, and still not control the legislature. Did you get that? They could win BY FIFTY POINTS and still not get control.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-27 08:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I think this issue would largely be addressed if we go back to having the Senate filibuster like it is in Texas, where you have to actually stand there, keep talking, no breaks.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-27 08:39 PM | Reply

"I think this issue would largely be addressed if we go back to having the Senate filibuster like it is in Texas,"

We'd certainly have better movies made about it.

As it is, one side says, "Nah"...and that's it.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-27 08:41 PM | Reply

"Give me some examples of when these contrivances have protected minority rights.
#16 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Thank you for proving my point that you are incapable of seeing minority status outside of the lenses of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

#20 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-10-27 09:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Thank you for proving my point that you are incapable of seeing minority status outside of the lenses of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

#20 | Posted by Skeptical

That's because those are things people can't change.

Being a republican ------- isn't a genetic condition that can't be abandoned.

"-------- are a minority too! We demand protection from non --------!"

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-27 09:29 PM | Reply

How great must the difference in populations in states be before republicans will admit it's immoral to allow them to have the same power in the senate?

#22 | Posted by Tor at 2021-10-27 09:30 PM | Reply

Proving your point...

Oligarchs a minority, and since they're a minority, I should be demanding the government protect them.

There's only a few Elon Musks and Jeff Bezoses and Warren and Buffetts in the world, we must do everything we can to protect the Capitalist's native habitat and not interfere with its development!

The thing is, it's already like that.
That we know those names are the proof of how protected they are.

This is what's so brilliant about Trump. He's promising them something they already have, so there's nothing to deliver. But they still think there is. So there's always another scapegoat and another distraction.

And now, with the Internet, you can reach them all the time.

And that's why there were multiple people running a Twitter account and posting as Donald Trump, including Donald Trump, and he's far from the only one, and that's how we got into the mess we're in now.

People who get booted and come back with a new username have protected minority rights, do you think that's a good lens to try and see minority status?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-27 09:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That's because those are things people can't change.
#21 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Seems that flies in the face of the gender arguments but so be it. What about religion? That is something you can change - it is just a core belief system that is protected. Do you believe in protecting religious minorities?

#24 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-10-27 10:54 PM | Reply

Do you believe in protecting religious minorities?

#24 | Posted by Skeptical

Do you? Or just christians?

Or can I just say anything I dont want to do is "because of my religion?"

"My Diety says speed limits are evil and drunk driving is required to get into the afterlife". Should those religious views be protected?

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-28 12:58 AM | Reply

#25. How ignorant of the 1st Amendment are you?

#26 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 01:04 AM | Reply

#25. How ignorant of the 1st Amendment are you?

#26 | Posted by BellRinger

Not ignorant enough to think it doesn't have limits.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-28 01:08 AM | Reply

#22 That's what the House is for.

#28 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-10-28 01:47 PM | Reply

#22 That's what the House is for.

#28 | Posted by kwrx25

So the house is for democracy. And the senate is for what? Giving unfair power to people who live in places with hardly any people in them? Why do they deserve that? Why should I have thousands times more political power if I'm born in Wyoming than if I'm born in california? Give a logical reason. Not "because then we couldnt get our way"

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-28 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When the constitution was ratified the states placed a strong value on their independence. Creating a second legislative body where all of the states had equal representation was absolutely critical to the states signing on.

Having a bicameral congress was designed for legislation to be slow, deliberate and with compromise so that the majority doesn't try and trample the rights of the minority.

I will tell you this - the GOP is very likely to take both houses in '22. If they keep them in '24 and win the WH you will have a newfound love for things like the filibuster and having a bill have the hurdle of passing in 2 legislative chambers before going to the president's desk.

#30 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 02:18 PM | Reply

When the constitution was ratified the states placed a strong value on their independence. Creating a second legislative body where all of the states had equal representation was absolutely critical to the states signing on.

Having a bicameral congress was designed for legislation to be slow, deliberate and with compromise so that the majority doesn't try and trample the rights of the minority.

I will tell you this - the GOP is very likely to take both houses in '22. If they keep them in '24 and win the WH you will have a newfound love for things like the filibuster and having a bill have the hurdle of passing in 2 legislative chambers before going to the president's desk.

#30 | Posted by BellRinger

"When the constitution was ratified" women couldnt vote and blacks were property.

The constitution was designed to be something that changes with the times. And our forefathers never envisioned that one party would turn into a fascist cult determined to end democracy and replace it with fascism, so they gave us no remedy to deal with that.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-28 02:42 PM | Reply

The constitution was designed to be something that changes with the times....through the Amendment process.

And our forefathers never envisioned that one party would turn into a fascist cult determined to end democracy and replace it with fascism, so they gave us no remedy to deal with that.

Uh huh. Riiiiiight.

#32 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 02:49 PM | Reply

#32 What remedies did the Founding Fathers give us to deal with political leadership determined to end democracy?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-28 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How does political leadership in this country end democracy?

Oh, that's right. Lefties define Democracy as their people winning. If people they oppose happen to win that means democracy has ended.

#34 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 03:00 PM | Reply

Stop The Steal!

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-28 03:02 PM | Reply

Actually, dumbfuq, "lefties" define winners as those who get the most votes. Unlike you FASCIST turds that can't take a beating.

#36 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-10-28 03:27 PM | Reply

Actually, dumbfuq, "lefties" define winners as those who get the most votes.

They do?

Then why has democracy failed when Republicans get the most votes?

#37 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 03:38 PM | Reply

Then why has democracy failed when Republicans get the most votes?

Unintentional irony flag.

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2021-10-28 04:04 PM | Reply

How does political leadership in this country end democracy?

Oh, that's right. Lefties define Democracy as their people winning. If people they oppose happen to win that means democracy has ended.

#34 | Posted by BellRinger

If you watched the real news, you'd know that republicans are removing election officials who won't aren't in trump's fascist cult, and writing laws to allow them to ignore the voters if they want to and send republican electors no matter who the voters vote for.

How is that NOT ending democracy?

That's RUSSIAN democracy. You get to vote, but your vote doesn't matter. Is that why your cult loves russia so much, or is it all the money that putin invests in the GOP?

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-28 04:52 PM | Reply

The founders could never have envisioned such horrifying population inequality levels between states.

Perhaps we need a set ratio of senators to residents of a state that if exceeded results in the state being divided along county lines with all the same laws and the state constitution as the previous state.

The only catch would be that if the population ever dropped back bellow the ratio the new state would rejoin the old one.

#40 | Posted by Tor at 2021-10-28 05:05 PM | Reply

#29 because why would Wyoming want to be in the Union if as stated above a county in California could dictate to them?

#41 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-10-28 08:07 PM | Reply

#29 because why would Wyoming want to be in the Union if as stated above a county in California could dictate to them?

#41 | Posted by kwrx25

Why should california want to be in the union if wyoming can dictate to them?

If it's not fair for california to dictate to wyoming, why is it fair for wyoming to dictate to california?

At least the argument can be made that california has more people and contributes far more to the national economy. There are ZERO excuses for wyoming to be dictating anything to anyone.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-28 09:17 PM | Reply

Something I've wondered, if the direct election of senators might have been a bad idea. The senators were intended to represent the states, not the general population. If the senators were appointed by the states and subject to recall by the state legislators things might be different. I don't particularly feel represented by DiFi, her husband is, though. Just wondering.

#43 | Posted by Charliecharles at 2021-10-28 09:19 PM | Reply

#42

The state of Wyoming has no more power in the Senate than California.

#44 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 10:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

" The state of Wyoming has no more power in the Senate than California."

How does that math work out per voter?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-28 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#43. That subject has been debated

#46 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 10:14 PM | Reply

#45 we both know the answer to that.

#47 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 10:15 PM | Reply

No objection to DC and Puerto Rico becoming states, then.

#48 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-10-28 10:15 PM | Reply

Object to DC becoming a state?

Absolutely. I'm more ambivalent about Puerto Rico.

#49 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-28 10:29 PM | Reply

"The state of Wyoming has no more power in the Senate than California."

foreign f*** that they have the same voting power in the senate is the problem.

#50 | Posted by Tor at 2021-10-29 12:06 AM | Reply

that they have the same voting power in the senate is the problem.
#50 | POSTED BY TOR AT 2021-10-29 12:06 AM

They are both states and thus have equal power in the Senate. In the House representation is based upon population. California has far more reps in the House than Wyoming.

#51 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-29 12:09 AM | Reply

#48 - DC cannot become a state without a Constitutional amendment. That takes 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states' legislature's approval. In other words, it ain't going to happen.

#52 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-29 12:22 AM | Reply

They are both states and thus have equal power in the Senate. In the House representation is based upon population. California has far more reps in the House than Wyoming.

#51 | Posted by BellRinger

What would happen to your party if there weren't a branch of government that gave you a massive advantage for no reason?

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-29 02:44 AM | Reply

"In the House representation is based upon population."

No it's not, it's based on gerrymandering. Republicans have considerably more seats than percentage of national votes.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-29 02:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No it's not, it's based on gerrymandering.

It's actually based on voluntary self-segregation. In Philadelphia I seem to recall in certain districts Obama capturing 101% of the vote. Yeah, that's not a typo.

Gerrymandering has been around since this country was founded. Democrats have used it to great effect. Much more recently the GOP has been able to return serve, and then some.

#55 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-29 03:03 AM | Reply

" In Philadelphia I seem to recall in certain districts Obama capturing 101% of the vote. Yeah, that's not a typo. "

Because of same day registration, or something "nefarious" that never made it to a courtroom?

Link please

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-29 03:10 AM | Reply

It's actually based on voluntary self-segregation.

...by white people constantly moving away from everybody who isn't white.

#57 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2021-10-29 03:14 AM | Reply

It's actually based on voluntary self-segregation.
----
...by white people constantly moving away from everybody who isn't white.

#57 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2021-10-29 03:14 AM

It's nowhere near that simplistic. Even if that was even remotely accurate (it really isn't) it's not government - forced segregation. Not even close.

#58 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-29 03:16 AM | Reply

Politifact reported on it. Certain divisions within districts went 100% Obama. I don't cite that as fraudulent. That wasn't my point. In certain portions of this country reliable Dem voters are incredibly concentrated in certain districts. Nothing nefarious about that - it's self segregation.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-29 03:23 AM | Reply

#58 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Apparently, you don't know anything about "redlining" or "block-busting" or other types of discrimination against non-whites (and particularly against blacks). People became "segregated" by lack of opportunity, not to mention the decimation of tax revenues in the inner cities. All the money left, and the people who were left behind had little opportunity with housing and job discrimination rampant. It all derives from discriminatory administration of veterans' rights (by the government) after WWII.

#60 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2021-10-29 03:53 AM | Reply

" it's self segregation"

Maybe where you hang it is. But here, in the US of A? Surely you jest.

#61 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-10-29 06:47 AM | Reply

"It's actually based on voluntary self-segregation."

LOL. People whose districts get Gerrymandered "volunteered" to self-segregate.

This is the same mindset that says it's not rape if you don't fight back. Quite the opposite, not fighting back means voluntary consent.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-29 09:04 AM | Reply

"It's actually based on voluntary self-segregation."

Explain why CRT is needed without saying CRT is needed.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-29 11:47 AM | Reply

" Politifact reported on it. Certain divisions within districts went 100% Obama."

Don't look now, but according to Actual Math, 100% does not equal 101%.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-29 11:49 AM | Reply

In Philadelphia I seem to recall in certain districts Obama capturing 101% of the vote. Yeah, that's not a typo.

Gerrymandering has been around since this country was founded. Democrats have used it to great effect. Much more recently the GOP has been able to return serve, and then some.

#55 | Posted by BellRinger

Yeah because you get your news from liars so you remember things that never happened.

Do you think politicians should work to please the voters, or just redraw lines to only represent those who will vote for them no matter what?

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-29 12:23 PM | Reply

I was always under the impression our government was setup to avoid mob rule.

Who says a majority should always win?

Funny how people's opinions shift with the prevailing winds.

#66 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-10-29 01:16 PM | Reply

"I was always under the impression our government was setup to avoid mob rule."

Kunta Kinte had a different impression.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-29 01:16 PM | Reply

"Who says a majority should always win?"

The principles of democracy say that.
If the majority doesn't win an election, then it's not a democracy.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-29 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who says a majority should always win?

Funny how people's opinions shift with the prevailing winds.

#66 | Posted by BillJohnson

Your cult's rules are - we should win no matter what. If we get more votes, then democracy is fine. If we don't, then democracy is ignored.

#69 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-29 02:26 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort