For those who might not be aware, the Founding Fathers actually complained bitterly about the rise of political parties in the early years of the republic. The notion of political organization was completely antithetical to the notion of an elite, strictly merit-based electoral system. Political parties were far too chaotic, democratic, populist, and plebeian for the Founding Fathers' tastes. They never actually banned political parties or took measures to prevent them from forming, but they were very critical of political parties.
Of course, there's a lot of things about our modern system that would horrify the Founding Fathers, and not all of those things are bad.
Indeed, what they hated most was the tribalism that emerges from such a system, and the tendency to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing the other side, which is literally what we see everywhere even here.
I think the founders envisioned an America that had small Government, was nationalistic (or Patriotic) then State lines, and generally the division was the people and the Government.
I don't know, I kinda like the sarcasm (but that's my kind of humor). Nothing like the ol' @jjstraka34 vs. @vanatos point/counterpoint to get this thread moving like a freight train!
It was fun, lots of the same topics though, has the whole 'Gun debate' happened while i was away again?
Of course. We had the Vegas and Texas mass shootings to discuss after all. JJ was a little tired of the debate by the time the Texas shootings happened though. I don't usually debate much about gun rights since I don't necessarily oppose some kind of gun regulations (unlike my dad who would love to see every citizen REQUIRED to pack heat). I believe @WarChiefZeke took up the banner for conservatives admirably however.
Let me jump the internet debate shark to the Hitler example.
Let's say someone claimed "you're only posting anti-Hitler information, whatabout the good things he's doing for the economy?"
Objective reality is that by and large Hitler was bad for Germany.
If there has been an anti trump slant its because there is plenty of things he's doing or trying to do that deserve attention and criticism.
Just like with Hitler you don't automatically get kudos just because he's been getting a lot of negative press. That makes no sense.
If he were to do something that was not selling out the American people to corporations or pushing regressive policy and there might be something to talk about that is not negative.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1 -Godwins law
Someone should archive this entire thread as a case study into common internet discussion phenomena.
Of course. We had the Vegas and Texas mass shootings to discuss after all. JJ was a little tired of the debate by the time the Texas shootings happened though. I don't usually debate much about gun rights since I don't necessarily oppose some kind of gun regulations (unlike my dad who would love to see every citizen REQUIRED to pack heat). I believe @WarChiefZeke took up the banner for conservatives admirably however.
Those pesky conservatives, every time you think they're down, they always come roaring back.
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
My opinion of you has not been changed one bit by anything that others have said.
Your ongoing reaction to it, however, is starting to move the needle.
This comment seems a bit harsh. I don't blame @jjstraka34 for being a bit taken aback. @vanatos came back into the thread like a nuclear bomb. I for one enjoyed when the two of them used to spar many months ago. They're both refreshingly passionate about their beliefs (which alas I am not). Feedback like this may make JJ reluctant to post.
Australia, the UK, Canada, and many other countries would like to have a word with you.
Australia only has two working political parties, all others are fringe.
I lived in australia for most of my life, so you'd be wrong.
2+ party system's don't work well in a democratic process, which is self-evident, because its hard to get a majority when you split the votes too much, in fact thats a common strategy to remain in power and games the system.
At best you'd have to change it so we operate on a plurality system, not democratic.
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
My opinion of you has not been changed one bit by anything that others have said.
Your ongoing reaction to it, however, is starting to move the needle.
This comment seems a bit harsh. I don't blame @jjstraka34 for being a bit taken aback. @vanatos came back into the thread like a nuclear bomb. I for one enjoyed when the two of them used to spar many months ago. They're both refreshingly passionate about their beliefs (which alas I am not). Feedback like this may make JJ reluctant to post.
Let me go over this one time for the record and put this to bed. I have no problem with anyone coming back to this thread. I never told anyone to leave in the first place. What I have a problem with is what I view as an attempt to disarm the moderator and then proceed to blame me for whatever is or isn't wrong with the thread, as if I have our conservative, Canadian, or European posters locked in a closet knitting me sweaters 18 hours a day. This went on for two pages before a single issue was discussed, and I (personally) view it as intentional, but whatever.
This is PRECISELY the reason I never wanted @semiticgod to even give the appearance of defending me, despite it being his job to do so. Because it does nothing but feed into this endless right-wing martyrdom complex and leads to exactly what we saw today.
As for my tone, I defend myself with bitterly acidic sarcasm. That's just the way it is. But I've been told by someone I respect that I am the one coming across as the bad guy, which is frankly absurd, but perception is reality, so this will have to be the end of the subject.
Let me jump the internet debate shark to the Hitler example.
Let's say someone claimed "you're only posting anti-Hitler information, whatabout the good things he's doing for the economy?"
Objective reality is that by and large Hitler was bad for Germany.
If there has been an anti trump slant its because there is plenty of things he's doing or trying to do that deserve attention and criticism.
Just like with Hitler you don't automatically get kudos just because he's been getting a lot of negative press. That makes no sense.
If he were to do something that was not selling out the American people to corporations or pushing regressive policy and there might be something to talk about that is not negative.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1 -Godwins law
Someone should archive this entire thread as a case study into common internet discussion phenomena.
Of course. We had the Vegas and Texas mass shootings to discuss after all. JJ was a little tired of the debate by the time the Texas shootings happened though. I don't usually debate much about gun rights since I don't necessarily oppose some kind of gun regulations (unlike my dad who would love to see every citizen REQUIRED to pack heat). I believe @WarChiefZeke took up the banner for conservatives admirably however.
Those pesky conservatives, every time you think they're down, they always come roaring back.
So no comments on the notion that just because he's doing objectively awful things, we have to give him praise just because of neutrality? I'd say no, lets base it on merits and not give everyone a trophy.
What has he done that's good for the American people, keeping in mind most people don't invest in the stock market and over 50% of Americans make less than 40k per year. It seems to me all his policies are to loot the poor and middle class or repeal protections that Obama put in place for the environment, online safeguards and so forth.
THIS is why I vote for Democrats. This is the second state today to announce this, with many more to come. While Republicans have been jerking themselves off with tax cuts, they have let CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) sit in limo for months on end. Health care for poor kids. 9 million of them across the country. Just hanging there because of the Republican Party. The Democrats wouldn't have let this expire in a million years.
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
My opinion of you has not been changed one bit by anything that others have said.
Your ongoing reaction to it, however, is starting to move the needle.
This comment seems a bit harsh. I don't blame @jjstraka34 for being a bit taken aback. @vanatos came back into the thread like a nuclear bomb. I for one enjoyed when the two of them used to spar many months ago. They're both refreshingly passionate about their beliefs (which alas I am not). Feedback like this may make JJ reluctant to post.
Fair enough; I accept the rebuke for being harsh. I apologize, @jjstraka34.
I generally reserve criticism for people who I think will listen and possibly change. Whether or not my views align with @jjstraka34, from what I've seen in the thread I fully believe (s)he is capable of self-reflection and will hear me out, even if (s)he disagrees. It's the same reason why I also take the occasional run at you, @Balrog99.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to speculate why I may or may not be criticizing others.
The subject matter is really to be anti-trump, there is little honest intention of delving into any particular anti-trump post, just do lots of it to convince people Trump is a terrible person, in that its really just mirroring the mainstream left media strategy.
Actually, the best thing to do is give a reason what Trump is doing right, to counter the anti-trump.
When Moore was defeated, I commended his response on Twitter as being gracious in defeat. I also said in 24hrs he would say that it wasn't his candidate and he would have won if it was and hence why the graciousness. I was proven right.
You're statement about the 4% (even though it is only 3%) is another example, however, "was reached with help from the rebuilding after hurricanes." having 3 natural disasters to lean on should not be the norm.
With the optimize approach as well, you have to be extremely careful of bubbles forming. If expectations are not met, it will come crashing down, and it will crash hard.
But wait and see.
~~
Canada, usually employs a 3 party system which keeps things nice and centred when it comes to making laws. I'd be surprised if anyone party but the Liberals or Conservative Parties form a majority government keeping it still close to a two party, but having that third (and fourth and fifth if you want to count the green seats) keeps everything honest (on the federal level).
For those who might not be aware, the Founding Fathers actually complained bitterly about the rise of political parties in the early years of the republic. The notion of political organization was completely antithetical to the notion of an elite, strictly merit-based electoral system. Political parties were far too chaotic, democratic, populist, and plebeian for the Founding Fathers' tastes. They never actually banned political parties or took measures to prevent them from forming, but they were very critical of political parties.
Of course, there's a lot of things about our modern system that would horrify the Founding Fathers, and not all of those things are bad.
Indeed, what they hated most was the tribalism that emerges from such a system, and the tendency to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing the other side, which is literally what we see everywhere even here.
I think the founders envisioned an America that had small Government, was nationalistic (or Patriotic) then State lines, and generally the division was the people and the Government.
I don't know, I kinda like the sarcasm (but that's my kind of humor). Nothing like the ol' @jjstraka34 vs. @vanatos point/counterpoint to get this thread moving like a freight train!
It was fun, lots of the same topics though, has the whole 'Gun debate' happened while i was away again?
Of course. We had the Vegas and Texas mass shootings to discuss after all. JJ was a little tired of the debate by the time the Texas shootings happened though. I don't usually debate much about gun rights since I don't necessarily oppose some kind of gun regulations (unlike my dad who would love to see every citizen REQUIRED to pack heat). I believe @WarChiefZeke took up the banner for conservatives admirably however.
I have never understood this line of thinking (your dad's). By what mechanism would you be able to FORCE citizens to own firearms?? This seems positively off-the-wall bonkers.
Actually, the best thing to do is give a reason what Trump is doing right, to counter the anti-trump.
Oh there's plenty, but generally i don't flood threads with it because thats just partisan behavior. Ironic considering the complaints about some 'far right news' menace.
THIS is why I vote for Democrats. This is the second state today to announce this, with many more to come. While Republicans have been jerking themselves off with tax cuts, they have let CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) sit in limo for months on end. Health care for poor kids. 9 million of them across the country. Just hanging there because of the Republican Party. The Democrats wouldn't have let this expire in a million years.
All votes for expenditure in the senate also have democrat votes, a failure in passing things is always down to two parties.
Anything that fails in the senate fails because of two parties, not just one, thats how it literally works. It is not the case that the ofte-heard 'GOP is in control' means there are no democrat votes, in fact the Senate is almost split evenly between both parties.
So no comments on the notion that just because he's doing objectively awful things, we have to give him praise just because of neutrality? I'd say no, lets base it on merits and not give everyone a trophy.
What has he done that's good for the American people, keeping in mind most people don't invest in the stock market and over 50% of Americans make less than 40k per year. It seems to me all his policies are to loot the poor and middle class or repeal protections that Obama put in place for the environment, online safeguards and so forth.
Well i'm unsure how you qualify what is horrible and whom to praise or what, after all Hillary literally had a hand in the destruction of Libya as does Obama but i am aware that people voted for her.
Getting rid of the TPP, rolling back NAFTA, exiting the climate agreement (IE TPP 2.0), having some influence in the current economic boom are all good in my books.
Actually, the best thing to do is give a reason what Trump is doing right, to counter the anti-trump.
Oh there's plenty, but generally i don't flood threads with it because thats just partisan behavior. Ironic considering the complaints about some 'far right news' menace.
THIS is why I vote for Democrats. This is the second state today to announce this, with many more to come. While Republicans have been jerking themselves off with tax cuts, they have let CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) sit in limo for months on end. Health care for poor kids. 9 million of them across the country. Just hanging there because of the Republican Party. The Democrats wouldn't have let this expire in a million years.
All votes for expenditure in the senate also have democrat votes, a failure in passing things is always down to two parties.
No, it's not. The Republicans control every mechanism of Congress. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have total authority over the process, just like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did in 2009. They have the votes as a caucus to pass or deny passage to anything. Democrats are window-dressing until at least January of 2019. Republicans will not bring CHIP up for a straight vote. They are holding it hostage, likely to demand cuts in Medicare of Medicaid. The fact is, Democrats probably WILL make a deal with them sooner than later to get this back on the table, but it isn't up to them. Not even remotely. At a bare minimum, when you control the House, Senate, and the White House, the idea that the other party is to blame for anything is comical. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Conservatives wanted Democrats out of power. Well, here you go. With that comes having to take responsibility when CHIP expires and you refuse to bring it to a vote for over 3 months.
No, it's not. The Republicans control every mechanism of Congress. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have total authority over the process, just like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did in 2009. They have the votes as a caucus to pass or deny passage to anything. Democrats are window-dressing until at least January of 2019. Republicans will not bring CHIP up for a straight vote. They are holding it hostage, likely to demand cuts in Medicare of Medicaid. The fact is, Democrats probably WILL make a deal with them sooner than later to get this back on the table, but it isn't up to them. Not even remotely. At a bare minimum, when you control the House, Senate, and the White House, the idea that the other party is to blame for anything is comical. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Conservatives wanted Democrats out of power. Well, here you go. With that comes having to take responsibility when CHIP expires and you refuse to bring it to a vote for over 3 months.
Yes it is, the failure of passing bills or legislation in the Senate is a failure of both parties coming to an agreement, particularly if its almost a 50/50 split.
If it was something like a 70/30 split you might have a case.
Btw do note i am blaming both parties, while your excusing the one you support.
As much as you hate the Republican party, i do recall that at least some Republicans voted against the Obamacare repeal.
No, it's not. The Republicans control every mechanism of Congress. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have total authority over the process, just like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did in 2009. They have the votes as a caucus to pass or deny passage to anything. Democrats are window-dressing until at least January of 2019. Republicans will not bring CHIP up for a straight vote. They are holding it hostage, likely to demand cuts in Medicare of Medicaid. The fact is, Democrats probably WILL make a deal with them sooner than later to get this back on the table, but it isn't up to them. Not even remotely. At a bare minimum, when you control the House, Senate, and the White House, the idea that the other party is to blame for anything is comical. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Conservatives wanted Democrats out of power. Well, here you go. With that comes having to take responsibility when CHIP expires and you refuse to bring it to a vote for over 3 months.
Yes it is, the failure of passing bills or legislation in the Senate is a failure of both parties coming to an agreement, particularly if its almost a 50/50 split.
If it was something like a 70/30 split you might have a case.
Btw do note i am blaming both parties, while your excusing the one you support.
That isn't how American politics works. The party who controls the chamber decides what gets to come up for a vote and what doesn't, PARTICULARLY in the Senate, where the Majority Leader sets the entire legislative calendar. The idea that Democrats don't want to fund CHIP is absurd. And no one buys the argument that they don't, because Democrats BELIEVE in government. It's the main reason why they are criticized by the right. It's why it's also preposterous to blame Democrats for a potential government shutdown. By the right's OWN standards, Democrats are in favor of "big government" and conservatives (so they say) are in favor of limited government. Now, which of these two parties is holding up the CHIP vote?? The one that believes in government social programs, or that one that doesn't??
I wouldn't have sat here in 2009 and said "Republicans are holding up the Obamacare vote". Because they had no way to do so. They had nothing to do with it's passage. Just like Democrats have no responsibility for CHIP not being brought to a vote even though it expired months ago, and states have been in financial limbo in regards to it for that entire time. Now letters are going out to families.
That isn't how American politics works. The party who controls the chamber decides what gets to come up for a vote and what doesn't, PARTICULARLY in the Senate, where the Majority Leader sets the entire legislative calendar. The idea that Democrats don't want to fund CHIP is absurd. And no one buys the argument that they don't, because Democrats BELIEVE in government. It's the main reason why they are criticized by the right. It's why it's also preposterous to blame Democrats for a potential government shutdown. By the right's OWN standards, Democrats are in favor of "big government" and conservatives (so they say) are in favor of limited government. Now, which of these two parties is holding up the CHIP vote?? The one that believes in government social programs, or that one that doesn't??
It is, the process is negotiation whereby votes are negotiated for provisions and conditions.
The Republican bill had funding for CHIP, it just didn't pass enough votes overall because not enough people supported the conditions,on both sides.
So your basically just wrong in how you present the entire thing.
Fun fact, the funding for CHIP was exactly the same as what came before it, conditions were literally put in place to waiver all the changes some Republicans wanted so that the end result would be a virtual identical thing, and in fact due to these waiver conditions CHIP would have been Vastly expanded.
So different to how its presented by some left leaning site huh?
I was going to add the price of bread being risen (HA PUN!) since I was on minimum wage from about a $1 a loaf to over $3 today when I was talking about minimum wage being increased here, but left it out for I didn't have solid facts regarding it.
Now I know why it has risen A $25 dollar gift card will be nice to have. even if I don't like the immunity stance the company received.
Australian prices are crazy too, the housing shortage is probably going to create a ticking-time-bomb nationalistic explosion if we don't figure out how to expand into the desert.
I agree with @vanatos in this regard. If the party that isn't in charge (don't care which party) instead of digging in their heals and not giving one Goddamned vote for the other parties ideas, instead came up with a proposal that gave the other SOME of what they want while offering up ideas of their own to make it more acceptable for them and present it in such a way that everybody wins, what might happen? Might the American people actually believe that their Government cares more about them than just their own party's power? It'll never happen in the environment spawned by the all powerful media where there ALWAYS has to be a clear winner and a clear loser. It's total BS that a piece of legislation can't be worked on by both parties but that's what we're led to believe. The way things are now leads to gridlock and short term fixes. That's why I don't consider myself a Republican even though I lean their way...
You aren't allowed to bring that up. It destroys the narrative that the High Church of Both-Siderism has pushed on everyone. Personally, I like this scene from the West Wing, Season 3, I believe:
The only real problem I have with Democrats is that their very nature makes them weak in the face of how Republicans play the game. They don't stand up for themselves.
Another rule that isn't a rule. Why the Hell are we voting for any of these idiots?
I swear these people just make this shit up as they go along. Just like the filibuster BS that went up in smoke as soon as somebody had the balls to say no. The Dems could do the the same with this Hastert 'Rule' if they really wanted to. If CNN would rail about this 'rule' ad nauseum like they do about supposed Russian collusion maybe it would get shitcanned like it should have been as soon as the Dems controlled Congress again in 2008. Oh wait, they didn't get rid of it. Why?
The 'Hastert' rule has always existed as a phenomenon, anyone claiming it was invented is silly.
The idea is as a speaker of a party you present bills you know has the majority support of your own party, every party does this with few exceptions, and both parties have made it an exception sometimes.
Don't let reality get in the way of good propaganda.
The 'Hastert' rule has always existed as a phenomenon, anyone claiming it was invented is silly.
The idea is as a speaker of a party you present bills you know has the majority support of your own party, every party does this with few exceptions, and both parties have made it an exception sometimes.
Don't let reality get in the way of good propaganda.
Apparently that is not the case before the Hassert rule. Because they called it the Hassert Rule after he started to do that.
Well I can definitely understand why no one would want to talk about Denny Hastert for too long, since the Republican Speaker of the House for almost the ENTIRE Bush Administration was a serial child molester who was paying hush money the entire time he was in his seat. This man was 3rd in line to the Presidency, mind you. Tom Delay was actually running the ship in the House during those years, and I'll never be convinced he didn't know exactly what Hastert had in his closet and held it over his head like the Sword of Damocles.
Apparently that is not the case before the Hassert rule. Because they called it the Hassert Rule after he started to do that.
No, hastert coined it as one of the things he did as a Speaker, both parties have always done this as a matter of course time without end, which is purely logical because both party speakers would always present bills that they know have a majority support of their party and devalue those that don't, because the consequence is you bring up a bill that your own party would vote against.
Presenting such 'tactic' as purely one side is amusing, but thats partisan propaganda for you.
The term is like Godwins law, it is not an actual law or rule.
Comments
-Godwins law
Someone should archive this entire thread as a case study into common internet discussion phenomena. Those pesky conservatives, every time you think they're down, they always come roaring back.
Welcome back @vanatos truly... time to catch up.
This is PRECISELY the reason I never wanted @semiticgod to even give the appearance of defending me, despite it being his job to do so. Because it does nothing but feed into this endless right-wing martyrdom complex and leads to exactly what we saw today.
As for my tone, I defend myself with bitterly acidic sarcasm. That's just the way it is. But I've been told by someone I respect that I am the one coming across as the bad guy, which is frankly absurd, but perception is reality, so this will have to be the end of the subject.
What has he done that's good for the American people, keeping in mind most people don't invest in the stock market and over 50% of Americans make less than 40k per year. It seems to me all his policies are to loot the poor and middle class or repeal protections that Obama put in place for the environment, online safeguards and so forth.
THIS is why I vote for Democrats. This is the second state today to announce this, with many more to come. While Republicans have been jerking themselves off with tax cuts, they have let CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) sit in limo for months on end. Health care for poor kids. 9 million of them across the country. Just hanging there because of the Republican Party. The Democrats wouldn't have let this expire in a million years.
I generally reserve criticism for people who I think will listen and possibly change. Whether or not my views align with @jjstraka34, from what I've seen in the thread I fully believe (s)he is capable of self-reflection and will hear me out, even if (s)he disagrees. It's the same reason why I also take the occasional run at you, @Balrog99.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to speculate why I may or may not be criticizing others.
When Moore was defeated, I commended his response on Twitter as being gracious in defeat. I also said in 24hrs he would say that it wasn't his candidate and he would have won if it was and hence why the graciousness. I was proven right.
You're statement about the 4% (even though it is only 3%) is another example, however, "was reached with help from the rebuilding after hurricanes." having 3 natural disasters to lean on should not be the norm.
With the optimize approach as well, you have to be extremely careful of bubbles forming. If expectations are not met, it will come crashing down, and it will crash hard.
But wait and see.
~~
Canada, usually employs a 3 party system which keeps things nice and centred when it comes to making laws. I'd be surprised if anyone party but the Liberals or Conservative Parties form a majority government keeping it still close to a two party, but having that third (and fourth and fifth if you want to count the green seats) keeps everything honest (on the federal level).
Ironic considering the complaints about some 'far right news' menace. All votes for expenditure in the senate also have democrat votes, a failure in passing things is always down to two parties.
Anything that fails in the senate fails because of two parties, not just one, thats how it literally works.
It is not the case that the ofte-heard 'GOP is in control' means there are no democrat votes, in fact the Senate is almost split evenly between both parties.
Getting rid of the TPP, rolling back NAFTA, exiting the climate agreement (IE TPP 2.0), having some influence in the current economic boom are all good in my books.
If it was something like a 70/30 split you might have a case.
Btw do note i am blaming both parties, while your excusing the one you support.
As much as you hate the Republican party, i do recall that at least some Republicans voted against the Obamacare repeal.
I wouldn't have sat here in 2009 and said "Republicans are holding up the Obamacare vote". Because they had no way to do so. They had nothing to do with it's passage. Just like Democrats have no responsibility for CHIP not being brought to a vote even though it expired months ago, and states have been in financial limbo in regards to it for that entire time. Now letters are going out to families.
The Republican bill had funding for CHIP, it just didn't pass enough votes overall because not enough people supported the conditions,on both sides.
So your basically just wrong in how you present the entire thing.
Fun fact, the funding for CHIP was exactly the same as what came before it, conditions were literally put in place to waiver all the changes some Republicans wanted so that the end result would be a virtual identical thing, and in fact due to these waiver conditions CHIP would have been Vastly expanded.
So different to how its presented by some left leaning site huh?
I was going to add the price of bread being risen (HA PUN!) since I was on minimum wage from about a $1 a loaf to over $3 today when I was talking about minimum wage being increased here, but left it out for I didn't have solid facts regarding it.
Now I know why it has risen A $25 dollar gift card will be nice to have.
The only real problem I have with Democrats is that their very nature makes them weak in the face of how Republicans play the game. They don't stand up for themselves.
I swear these people just make this shit up as they go along. Just like the filibuster BS that went up in smoke as soon as somebody had the balls to say no. The Dems could do the the same with this Hastert 'Rule' if they really wanted to. If CNN would rail about this 'rule' ad nauseum like they do about supposed Russian collusion maybe it would get shitcanned like it should have been as soon as the Dems controlled Congress again in 2008. Oh wait, they didn't get rid of it. Why?
Though I invite you to take a look at the "Speakers' views and use of the policy" section before you engage the BSAB drive.
The idea is as a speaker of a party you present bills you know has the majority support of your own party, every party does this with few exceptions, and both parties have made it an exception sometimes.
Don't let reality get in the way of good propaganda.
Presenting such 'tactic' as purely one side is amusing, but thats partisan propaganda for you.
The term is like Godwins law, it is not an actual law or rule.