BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:17:14 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Author Topic: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT  (Read 14169 times)
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: December 09, 2010, 08:01:10 PM »

It's simply crazy that a policy with this broad base of support [~70%, more than basically every other "controversial" issue combined], has trouble being passed by itself, let alone attached to an important defense authorization bill.   Seems like every remotely moderate Senator should be behind not filibustering funding our military, even if it means allowing our troops to be as gay as Israel's, Australia's or the UK's.



Come on Lunar... there are even Democrats who want to offer amendments to the bill.

Yeah, we'ere not in space though, we live in the real world.  You're one of one hundred, you shouldn't filibuster every bill of importance you're presented with just because you don't get absolute control over the process.  The repeal has to be passed before the next session to have a chance, and the repeal is a matter of national security and moral righteousness.

The question is: does the ability to insert amendments outweigh not passing the repeal?  It does not, even ignoring the whole funding the military thing.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: December 09, 2010, 08:30:19 PM »

wtf Harry Reid.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: December 09, 2010, 09:32:48 PM »

It's simply crazy that a policy with this broad base of support [~70%, more than basically every other "controversial" issue combined], has trouble being passed by itself, let alone attached to an important defense authorization bill.   Seems like every remotely moderate Senator should be behind not filibustering funding our military, even if it means allowing our troops to be as gay as Israel's, Australia's or the UK's.



Come on Lunar... there are even Democrats who want to offer amendments to the bill.

Yeah, we'ere not in space though, we live in the real world.  You're one of one hundred, you shouldn't filibuster every bill of importance you're presented with just because you don't get absolute control over the process.  The repeal has to be passed before the next session to have a chance, and the repeal is a matter of national security and moral righteousness.

The question is: does the ability to insert amendments outweigh not passing the repeal?  It does not, even ignoring the whole funding the military thing.

So, why not pass the repeal as it's own separate bill, where Republicans have NO EXCUSE not to support it?  And, fwiw, I think it will pass next session.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: December 09, 2010, 10:08:06 PM »

It's simply crazy that a policy with this broad base of support [~70%, more than basically every other "controversial" issue combined], has trouble being passed by itself, let alone attached to an important defense authorization bill.   Seems like every remotely moderate Senator should be behind not filibustering funding our military, even if it means allowing our troops to be as gay as Israel's, Australia's or the UK's.



Come on Lunar... there are even Democrats who want to offer amendments to the bill.

Yeah, we'ere not in space though, we live in the real world.  You're one of one hundred, you shouldn't filibuster every bill of importance you're presented with just because you don't get absolute control over the process.  The repeal has to be passed before the next session to have a chance, and the repeal is a matter of national security and moral righteousness.

The question is: does the ability to insert amendments outweigh not passing the repeal?  It does not, even ignoring the whole funding the military thing.

So, why not pass the repeal as it's own separate bill, where Republicans have NO EXCUSE not to support it?  And, fwiw, I think it will pass next session.

I disagree fairly strongly with the second point (which strongly impacts my POV on the subject, as time is of the essence), and on the former, I'm not in control!  Ultimately, decisions need to be made on the merits of bills without process being the constant source of blame, because process is just an excuse.  "I'd agree to repeal slavery, but I expected twenty hours of amendments and you've only given me four!" -- suck it up and make a decision when pressed!

I don't control process, I can only say how I feel rational and moral lawmakers should vote on a particular bill of importance. 
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: December 09, 2010, 10:14:14 PM »

But the DADT repeal isn't even the majority of this bill.  The bill is HUGE... amendments should be able to be offered, and doing this in December is just dumb on Reid's part.

Maybe I have too much faith in the GOP, but I think there are enough Snowes, Browns, and Collins in the Senate that they'll outweigh the McCains who truly just want to keep stalling forever and never repeal DADT.

But lumping DADT in with a bill that's close to 1000 pages was not the way to repeal it.  And to simplify this bill down to "The repeal of DADT" is dishonest and it means that you're ignoring the other 800-some pages of the bill when you describe it.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,443


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: December 09, 2010, 10:14:49 PM »

It's simply crazy that a policy with this broad base of support [~70%, more than basically every other "controversial" issue combined], has trouble being passed by itself, let alone attached to an important defense authorization bill.   Seems like every remotely moderate Senator should be behind not filibustering funding our military, even if it means allowing our troops to be as gay as Israel's, Australia's or the UK's.



Come on Lunar... there are even Democrats who want to offer amendments to the bill.

Actually both sides would have had a chance to offer Amendments.  The Dems 5, and the GOP 10.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: December 09, 2010, 10:16:56 PM »

But the DADT repeal isn't even the majority of this bill.  The bill is HUGE... amendments should be able to be offered, and doing this in December is just dumb on Reid's part.... a bill that's close to 1000 pages was not the way to repeal it.  And to simplify this bill down to "The repeal of DADT" is dishonest and it means that you're ignoring the other 800-some pages of the bill when you describe it.

So why aren't you talking about the other parts of the bill?  What are the parts of it that you are unsatisfied with or feel should be debated further?  Surely you don't just want to talk about the size of what needs to be discussed further?
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,443


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: December 09, 2010, 10:17:30 PM »

But the DADT repeal isn't even the majority of this bill.  The bill is HUGE... amendments should be able to be offered, and doing this in December is just dumb on Reid's part.

Maybe I have too much faith in the GOP, but I think there are enough Snowes, Browns, and Collins in the Senate that they'll outweigh the McCains who truly just want to keep stalling forever and never repeal DADT.

But lumping DADT in with a bill that's close to 1000 pages was not the way to repeal it.  And to simplify this bill down to "The repeal of DADT" is dishonest and it means that you're ignoring the other 800-some pages of the bill when you describe it.

Both sides did have an opportunity to offer Amendments.  And the reason why this is being done in December is because the GOP did the exact same thing in September.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: December 09, 2010, 10:26:02 PM »

But the DADT repeal isn't even the majority of this bill.  The bill is HUGE... amendments should be able to be offered, and doing this in December is just dumb on Reid's part.... a bill that's close to 1000 pages was not the way to repeal it.  And to simplify this bill down to "The repeal of DADT" is dishonest and it means that you're ignoring the other 800-some pages of the bill when you describe it.

So why aren't you talking about the other parts of the bill?  What are the parts of it that you are unsatisfied with or feel should be debated further?  Surely you don't just want to talk about the size of what needs to be discussed further?

Because I don't know all of the other parts in the bill (I've read some, and skimmed some, but not the whole thing).

I've never said I'm unsatisfied with it... I'm simply saying that I think the GOP has legitimate desires if they want to offer some amendments.

And I'm emphasizing that there's a lot more to this bill than DADT, ranging from funding for building ships to a "plan on sustainment of liquid rocket propulsion systems industrial base" (whatever that means).

The main bill should be one bill.  And the more controversial (although it's stupid that it's controversial) DADT repeal should've been separate.  And it doesn't help that this bill includes a repeal of allowing military medical facilities to be used to perform abortions.  Obviously that was going to be a controversial part of the bill, and no hard-core pro-life Senator will vote for this bill, even if he wants DADT to be repealed knowing that Right to Life would be scoring the bill.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: December 09, 2010, 10:43:34 PM »

Here's the thing... you guys are acting like DADT is the only thing in this bill.  It's 849 pages long... if Reid really wants this to pass, he would allow for the Republicans to have some amendments to it.  It's only fair.

Reid wasn't blocking the GOP from adding amendments to the bill.  The issue was over the time allotted for the bill.  The GOP was demanding a ton of time to add amendments and no agreement was made about exactly how much time would be allotted.   Collins did vote for repeal.

One thing to note is it seems the DADT will get a stand alone vote, its something Collins and Lieberman are working on and Reid has said he will support bringing it to the floor and while no timetable is set when a vote will be held, it will be prior to the lame duck session ending.  
Why does the GOP even bother making these lame excuses? It about amendments or budgeting or that I can't do votes on Tuesdays on months with an r in them. It's perfectly obvious where they stand.

In that case, why did Scott Brown vote against invoking cloture, when he has previously said he will support the repeal of DADT?

Because he's a cynical asshat.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: December 09, 2010, 10:51:18 PM »

Here's the thing... you guys are acting like DADT is the only thing in this bill.  It's 849 pages long... if Reid really wants this to pass, he would allow for the Republicans to have some amendments to it.  It's only fair.

Reid wasn't blocking the GOP from adding amendments to the bill.  The issue was over the time allotted for the bill.  The GOP was demanding a ton of time to add amendments and no agreement was made about exactly how much time would be allotted.   Collins did vote for repeal.

One thing to note is it seems the DADT will get a stand alone vote, its something Collins and Lieberman are working on and Reid has said he will support bringing it to the floor and while no timetable is set when a vote will be held, it will be prior to the lame duck session ending.  
Why does the GOP even bother making these lame excuses? It about amendments or budgeting or that I can't do votes on Tuesdays on months with an r in them. It's perfectly obvious where they stand.

In that case, why did Scott Brown vote against invoking cloture, when he has previously said he will support the repeal of DADT?

Because he's a cynical asshat.

Or, he wants to repeal DADT but also wants to have the ability to offer more than 10 amendments to this bill.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: December 09, 2010, 11:51:05 PM »


Those pigs are in my neighborhood this week, protesting at the high school I went to for freshman year and then the high school at which I spent the rest of my time. Can't wait for the counter protests.

Apparently there are "demon possessed brats" at your Alma Mater, Phil.

Yeah, the website apparently says that they are brats that haven't been brought up using the proper Bible.

At the same time that I say I can't wait for the counter protests, I go back to my belief that the best thing to do is to simply ignore these people. They thrive off of the attention.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: December 10, 2010, 01:13:08 AM »

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: December 10, 2010, 01:28:03 AM »

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: December 10, 2010, 01:34:26 AM »

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.


We're talking about the US military. Co-ed units do not exist, should mixed hetero/homosexual units exist? I have no problem with the military separating behaviors, like men/women.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: December 10, 2010, 01:42:18 AM »

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.


We're talking about the US military. Co-ed units do not exist, should mixed hetero/homosexual units exist? I have no problem with the military separating behaviors, like men/women.

Mixed orientation units exist in most NATO and Israel militaries, and there aren't any issues.  I see no reason why the U.S. military should be any different.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: December 10, 2010, 01:43:25 AM »

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.


We're talking about the US military. Co-ed units do not exist, should mixed hetero/homosexual units exist? I have no problem with the military separating behaviors, like men/women.

Mixed orientation units exist in most NATO and Israel militaries, and there aren't any issues.  I see no reason why the U.S. military should be any different.


So they have co-ed units in NATO and Israel?
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: December 10, 2010, 01:45:39 AM »

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.


We're talking about the US military. Co-ed units do not exist, should mixed hetero/homosexual units exist? I have no problem with the military separating behaviors, like men/women.

Mixed orientation units exist in most NATO and Israel militaries, and there aren't any issues.  I see no reason why the U.S. military should be any different.


So they have co-ed units in NATO and Israel?

Huh
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: December 10, 2010, 02:17:23 AM »

Many members of this forum on both sides of the issue place much greater importance on gay issues than the general public.  In reality, the repeal of DADT ranks very low on most Americans' list of priorities.  Blocking repeal simply doesn't have the negative political effects that many Atlasians think it does.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: December 10, 2010, 02:20:29 AM »

Many members of this forum on both sides of the issue place much greater importance on gay issues than the general public.  In reality, the repeal of DADT ranks very low on most Americans' list of priorities.  Blocking repeal simply doesn't have the negative political effects that many Atlasians think it does.

Not when the issue is the economy.  Then again, in 2012, the focus may have shifted off the economy.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: December 10, 2010, 02:22:46 AM »

Many members of this forum on both sides of the issue place much greater importance on gay issues than the general public.  In reality, the repeal of DADT ranks very low on most Americans' list of priorities.  Blocking repeal simply doesn't have the negative political effects that many Atlasians think it does.

The amount of time it would take if people really wanted to repeal it would be a matter of days or hours. It's not like repealing DADT takes 6 months of constant work and focus. It's only been this difficult because people refuse to cooperate and make excuses.

I seriously doubt minority rights will ever be very high on "most Americans' list of priorities." It doesn't mean that ignoring such a thing is the right thing to do, especially with such large public support for DADT's repeal.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: December 10, 2010, 02:27:51 AM »

Many members of this forum on both sides of the issue place much greater importance on gay issues than the general public.  In reality, the repeal of DADT ranks very low on most Americans' list of priorities.  Blocking repeal simply doesn't have the negative political effects that many Atlasians think it does.

The amount of time it would take if people really wanted to repeal it would be a matter of days or hours. It's not like repealing DADT takes 6 months of constant work and focus. It's only been this difficult because people refuse to cooperate and make excuses.

I seriously doubt minority rights will ever be very high on "most Americans' list of priorities." It doesn't mean that ignoring such a thing is the right thing to do, especially with such large public support for DADT's repeal.

To my knowledge, a simple repeal of DADT hasn't been introduced in the recent past.  I'm talking a one-issue bill that deals just with 10 U.S.C. § 654.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: December 10, 2010, 02:40:40 AM »

Many members of this forum on both sides of the issue place much greater importance on gay issues than the general public.  In reality, the repeal of DADT ranks very low on most Americans' list of priorities.  Blocking repeal simply doesn't have the negative political effects that many Atlasians think it does.

The amount of time it would take if people really wanted to repeal it would be a matter of days or hours. It's not like repealing DADT takes 6 months of constant work and focus. It's only been this difficult because people refuse to cooperate and make excuses.

I seriously doubt minority rights will ever be very high on "most Americans' list of priorities." It doesn't mean that ignoring such a thing is the right thing to do, especially with such large public support for DADT's repeal.

To my knowledge, a simple repeal of DADT hasn't been introduced in the recent past.  I'm talking a one-issue bill that deals just with 10 U.S.C. § 654.

I suspect Democrats are too scared to introduce it as it's own thing (at least up to this point) for the fear that it will go down even on it's own, basically sealing the deal for it to not pass for the significant future, or that Republicans will complain that there are more pressing matters to deal with, and Democrats get blamed for wasting time.

Even if it was a standalone piece of legislation, as optimistic as I respect you for being, you must know Republicans would still make some sort of excuse to oppose it's repeal. I don't imagine how it would do significantly better as a standalone bill in regard to the Republican vote than it is now.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: December 10, 2010, 02:47:06 AM »

Some would--there's no doubt about that.

My prediction is at least 65-35 passage, if not 70-30 as a stand-alone bill.

Even if you're right, and it can't be passed as its own, this bill certainly isn't the bill to do it in--not with the Burris Amendment in there removing the ban on abortions at military medical facilities.  That's already one strike against it for some Republicans, and when you add DADT to it, it makes this bill certain to fail by the hard-core conservatives who would oppose a DADT repeal.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,302


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: December 10, 2010, 03:02:43 AM »

Republicans will not allow any bills to come to the Senate floor in the lame duck session until the Senate passes a tax bill and continuing resolution to fund the government.

That I disagree with.  It's not like we need more debate to fix the tax bill... the GOP and Dem heads just need to sit down and hammer out an agreement.  Unless they plan on being on the floor debating the bill, let's move on to other issues.  That's the entire reason there's a dual track for legislation.

I gotta say... I disagree with the GOP on this one.  Although, their other reasons (amendments and time) I see as valid.

House Democrats voted to oppose the tax bill today.   (Or since "hostage taking" seems to be the over-the-top political rhetoric of the day, should we call that holding tax cuts for the poor hostage to engage in class warfare?)  It is not a done deal.  No done deal.  No votes on anything else - that's the Republican position.  The side benefit of that is that some liberal agenda items that won't see the light of day in a divided Congress won't get passed if there is no time.  The clock is ticking.

It's a win-win for Republicans.  Not so much for Democrats, who have been used to getting their own way for the past 2 years.

It must be kept in mind that getting rid of DADT will be beneficial to the Republicans in the future. Republicans sure wouldn't be wanting to take this vote a few months before the 2012 election, and Harry Reid can make sure of it that they do.

You have a point about the DREAM act. But that wasn't going to pass the Senate anyways, since I doubt more than 53-55 Dem Senators support it. What other Dem agenda is being blocked?

The tax cuts for the wealthy could cut either way in 2012, depending on how the economy is and how large the deficit is. If the economy is doing well in 2012, but the deficit is still large, Obama can make the case that the rich need to pay more in taxes. Most Americans agree with that already, don't see why that wouldn't be the case 2 years from now especially with better economic conditions. But if the deficit commission's recommendations are implemented, this issue is moot.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 12 queries.