6 ms·

>They had full control and could have legalized it That's not how the Senate works. A 50-50 "majority" is not full control. In any case, it's pretty silly to

>They had full control and could have legalized it That's not how the Senate works. A 50-50 "majority" is not full control. In any case, it's pretty silly to blame the party that's on your side for not being able to overcome the bad-faith obstructionism of the opposing party. It's not about political "footballs", it's about having finite time and public attention to be able to get things done. If every single fight has to be dragged into the public to shame the other side into taking a few minutes off from looting and pillaging, then you have to prioritize and pick the optimal time for each battle.

gamegoblin 4y ago
Yes, the current fillibuster rules require a 60-40 supermajority to get anything done, but the fillubuster rule itself can be changed with a simple majority of 50%+1. But the incentive structure is not there to actually change this rule -- both parties benefit from it.
- wyldfire 4y ago
  > both parties benefit from it. Is that really the case? It is a bias towards the status quo. Regardless, IMO the constituents represented by those parties don't benefit from it.
  - rewgs 4y ago
    > both parties benefit from it. > It is a bias towards the status quo. These are the same thing.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    There are “kingmaker” senators in both parties that cross the aisle occasionally, that this rule benefits (and also generally their specific constituents, since their outsize influence gets them more than they might otherwise get in negotiations.) Given that these kingmakers are what causes things to go over 50-50 they want to preserve their power.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    > It is a bias towards the status quo. Not a fan of the status quo, but with two largely insane parties fighting for power, I'm thankful for moderating forces.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    I've decided to actually base my vote on the status quo now. I want divided government because of how radicalized both parties have become. If something is very important, it will get votes from both parties. The current status quo is better than what either party wants
  - doktorhladnjak 4y ago
    If a majority of senators did not benefit from having the filibuster, they would repeal it. The minority party is for it because it blocks the majority party. Moderates are for it because it protects them from having to go on the record by voting on controversial issues.
- Me1000 4y ago
  That’s also not how the Senate works. Senators are beholden to their respective constituencies, not the party of which they’re a member. A conservative Democrat from West Virginia has more job security when he runs against his party sometimes. Blaming the party rather than individual Senators is not a helpful way of looking at the problem.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  As much as manchin likes to say, democrats do not benefit from the filibuster. Tons of Republican issues are single issue nonsense that the majority of the country would detest if passed, so republicans rely on the filibuster to just not do anything. Forcing republicans to actually pass laws would be good for democrats politically. The filibuster continues to exist because it gives people like manchin compete power, so the most moderate of each party will always try to keep it alive.
UnpossibleJim 4y ago
>>In any case, it's pretty silly to blame the party that's on your side<< Not to be a complete downer, but there is so much special interest money involved in our political system, neither the Democrats or the Republicans are on your side. They are both on the moneyed interest side. These political footballs are, for the most part, to string along voters on "hot button" issues to keep the public disinterested on the numerous things that these parties actually agree on, like expanded military spending, global expansionism, corporate tax reduction, lessening monopoly laws, reducing banking restrictions, reducing spending on interstate infrastructure, cutting education spending and restricting the ability for fair and equal elections through redistricting. All of these (and more I can't think of) are bipartisan efforts. Sorry... I shouldn't watch the news. It's a bummer =)
- GeneralMayhem 4y ago
  If you believe in cannabis legalization, which is what this thread is about, then one party is very obviously on your side on that issue, and one is very obviously not. But sure, let's go through the list, just for fun. > expanded military spending Democrats don't really vote for this, certainly not to the same degree, but sure, I wish there were more difference. > global expansionism Vague to the point of meaninglessness. > corporate tax reduction Definitely not the same. Democrats recently pushed for a minimum corporate tax (https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-corporate-tax-plan-threatens-higher-bills-for-manufacturers-11659173401 https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-corporate-tax-plan-th...). > lessening monopoly laws Also vague, but not generally true. Democrats will vote for actual antitrust legislation; they won't vote for the Republicans using "anti-trust" as a meaningless scare-word to bash businesses they don't like for unrelated reasons. > reducing banking restrictions Maybe in the 90s, but not recently. Who wrote the Dodd-Frank Act, and who repealed it? > reducing spending on interstate infrastructure Vague, but not generally true. There are a bunch of major transportation projects (e.g. California HSR, DC's Purple Line) that have been held up for ages because Democrats will vote to fund them and then Republicans will take it away, or because it's impossible to get Republican states/counties to pay their fair share. For telecomms, Democrats will tend to push more for equitable-access programs, whereas Republicans will frame corporate tax cuts as "infrastructure spending" as long as some infrastructure-related companies benefit. Go look at the numbers and priorities in the 2021 infrastructure bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_...), which passed on mostly party lines, and tell me the parties agree on cutting infrastructure spending. > cutting education spending Laughably false. Go look at the per-student education budget per state. (Federal DoE spending YoY is kind of weird because it's washed out by college loan financing; most direct spending on education is at the state level.) > restricting the ability for fair and equal elections through redistricting Seriously, you're going to sit there and argue, in the year 2022, that the parties are the same on election fairness? The fact that the Democrats don't aggressively gerrymander is why they don't currently hold the House - the New York legislature could have chopped up Long Island differently to stem the losses. More generally, Democrats consistently vote for protecting ballot access, against Republicans who nakedly want to make it more difficult to vote - and that's setting aside the whole armed-insurrection-to-overthrow-an-election thing, which, last I checked, 90% of the Republican party will still fall in line for.
coffeebeqn 4y ago
I believe the FDA could de schedule it?

gamegoblin 4y ago

Yes, the current fillibuster rules require a 60-40 supermajority to get anything done, but the fillubuster rule itself can be changed with a simple majority of 50%+1. But the incentive structure is not there to actually change this rule -- both parties benefit from it.

wyldfire 4y ago
> both parties benefit from it. Is that really the case? It is a bias towards the status quo. Regardless, IMO the constituents represented by those parties don't benefit from it.
- rewgs 4y ago
  > both parties benefit from it. > It is a bias towards the status quo. These are the same thing.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  There are “kingmaker” senators in both parties that cross the aisle occasionally, that this rule benefits (and also generally their specific constituents, since their outsize influence gets them more than they might otherwise get in negotiations.) Given that these kingmakers are what causes things to go over 50-50 they want to preserve their power.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  > It is a bias towards the status quo. Not a fan of the status quo, but with two largely insane parties fighting for power, I'm thankful for moderating forces.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  I've decided to actually base my vote on the status quo now. I want divided government because of how radicalized both parties have become. If something is very important, it will get votes from both parties. The current status quo is better than what either party wants
- doktorhladnjak 4y ago
  If a majority of senators did not benefit from having the filibuster, they would repeal it. The minority party is for it because it blocks the majority party. Moderates are for it because it protects them from having to go on the record by voting on controversial issues.
Me1000 4y ago
That’s also not how the Senate works. Senators are beholden to their respective constituencies, not the party of which they’re a member. A conservative Democrat from West Virginia has more job security when he runs against his party sometimes. Blaming the party rather than individual Senators is not a helpful way of looking at the problem.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
As much as manchin likes to say, democrats do not benefit from the filibuster. Tons of Republican issues are single issue nonsense that the majority of the country would detest if passed, so republicans rely on the filibuster to just not do anything. Forcing republicans to actually pass laws would be good for democrats politically. The filibuster continues to exist because it gives people like manchin compete power, so the most moderate of each party will always try to keep it alive.

UnpossibleJim 4y ago

>>In any case, it's pretty silly to blame the party that's on your side<< Not to be a complete downer, but there is so much special interest money involved in our political system, neither the Democrats or the Republicans are on your side. They are both on the moneyed interest side. These political footballs are, for the most part, to string along voters on "hot button" issues to keep the public disinterested on the numerous things that these parties actually agree on, like expanded military spending, global expansionism, corporate tax reduction, lessening monopoly laws, reducing banking restrictions, reducing spending on interstate infrastructure, cutting education spending and restricting the ability for fair and equal elections through redistricting. All of these (and more I can't think of) are bipartisan efforts. Sorry... I shouldn't watch the news. It's a bummer =)

GeneralMayhem 4y ago
If you believe in cannabis legalization, which is what this thread is about, then one party is very obviously on your side on that issue, and one is very obviously not. But sure, let's go through the list, just for fun. > expanded military spending Democrats don't really vote for this, certainly not to the same degree, but sure, I wish there were more difference. > global expansionism Vague to the point of meaninglessness. > corporate tax reduction Definitely not the same. Democrats recently pushed for a minimum corporate tax (https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-corporate-tax-plan-threatens-higher-bills-for-manufacturers-11659173401 https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-corporate-tax-plan-th...). > lessening monopoly laws Also vague, but not generally true. Democrats will vote for actual antitrust legislation; they won't vote for the Republicans using "anti-trust" as a meaningless scare-word to bash businesses they don't like for unrelated reasons. > reducing banking restrictions Maybe in the 90s, but not recently. Who wrote the Dodd-Frank Act, and who repealed it? > reducing spending on interstate infrastructure Vague, but not generally true. There are a bunch of major transportation projects (e.g. California HSR, DC's Purple Line) that have been held up for ages because Democrats will vote to fund them and then Republicans will take it away, or because it's impossible to get Republican states/counties to pay their fair share. For telecomms, Democrats will tend to push more for equitable-access programs, whereas Republicans will frame corporate tax cuts as "infrastructure spending" as long as some infrastructure-related companies benefit. Go look at the numbers and priorities in the 2021 infrastructure bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_...), which passed on mostly party lines, and tell me the parties agree on cutting infrastructure spending. > cutting education spending Laughably false. Go look at the per-student education budget per state. (Federal DoE spending YoY is kind of weird because it's washed out by college loan financing; most direct spending on education is at the state level.) > restricting the ability for fair and equal elections through redistricting Seriously, you're going to sit there and argue, in the year 2022, that the parties are the same on election fairness? The fact that the Democrats don't aggressively gerrymander is why they don't currently hold the House - the New York legislature could have chopped up Long Island differently to stem the losses. More generally, Democrats consistently vote for protecting ballot access, against Republicans who nakedly want to make it more difficult to vote - and that's setting aside the whole armed-insurrection-to-overthrow-an-election thing, which, last I checked, 90% of the Republican party will still fall in line for.

coffeebeqn 4y ago

I believe the FDA could de schedule it?