Talk:United States Senate

Muchos Redlinks
Good work, but does RW really need individual entries for all of those Senators? Probably best to delink them, other than a few significant ones.  w easeLOId ~ 07:54, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * But how can one make unnecessary work without red-linking so much? Imagine how many new red-links will be generated when someone creates some of those senator links? Now that will be fun. --Irrational Atheist 08:13, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * Lol. I feel pointy.  Maybe I will create a new article and redlink every single word.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 09:20, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * Why not? I'm peeking through the wanted pages for things that seem like fun. Why not give people something to spill their inanities out on? I almost red-linked haggis and kilts on the Scotland page, after all. But thought better of it. --Irrational Atheist 09:24, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * I agree with Weaseloid, and have another issue - who is going to give a shit and keep this updated? We don't need the red links; we don't need a list of the members of the Senate on any given day here, really.  ħ uman  21:38, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Move
Shouldn't this be United States Senate rather than just senate? While most people would probably default to thinking of the U.S. Senate, the ancient Roman Senate would be a close second. 09:21, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * The link on the wanted page simply said Senate. I'm not partial to the actual name. Perhaps move, but make Senate for the meanwhile be a redirect? --Irrational Atheist 09:23, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * Okey doke. 09:28, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * Also its a good idea to check where the red links are used and see if you write the correct article. Sometimes it makes sense to just remove the red link - we don't need a zillion random articles on things that are off-mission just because someone red-linked them somewhere...  ħ uman  21:41, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Blago Joke
There's already a Blago joke with Obama's name below. Do we need two of these on the same page? Ideas? --Irrational Atheist 18:04, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * There's a lot on this page we don't need, and blagovitch jokes are one of them. They will be very unfunny in a few months when no one remembers his name...  ħ uman  21:39, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Innaccuracy
Who decided that the newly-elected Senators are in office already? They get sworn in sometime next year. Until then, they aren't in the Senate.  ħ uman  21:40, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think the senate and house are technically considered "upper" and "lower" bodies. Kan I haz source (should I just go to WP)?  ħ uman  21:45, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I just got mean and slapped up a "mission" template on this... can someone justify it, however thinly, in terms of the 3 missiony things?  ħ uman  21:48, 19 December 2008 (EST)


 * Can I request that if we keep this article, we at least dump the names. I know that Salazar isn't a Senator anymore, which makes me wonder who else is on the list incorrectly, adn more importantly who will own teh list so we don't look "sad" and "pathetic" to not even know who's in the Senate.  ;-)-- 16:12, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
 * oh, human, here you go.
 * 1 - Isn't up to date, isn't likely to stay up to date.
 * 2 - Does not really effect the "reality vs., lunatics" we focus on here, nor humor. It's a list.  a very Wikipedia type list, and not very goat or very useful.
 * 3 - We are not as big, or as good as WP, and too many of these technical articles will get in the way of really punchy, snarky, challenging stuff that makes this place worth while.
 * 4 - Does anyone really care who their senators are? I can't even remember the name to my own new senator.
 * 5 - If I'm coming to RW, and read something about bad science being proposed by some dumb senator, woudln't a link to WP or the Senate be more useful to me?-- 16:15, 12 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Seconded. --  Nx / talk 16:25, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Thirded — agree on all points with Godot.  18:32, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
 * $\pi$ded. - User   23:12, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

I removed the list, but left the "mission" template on it.  ħ uman  22:45, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Anyone want to resolve the "mission" issue? It's sat there on the special page staring at us. I couldn't care less, it's politics so I suppose is on mission. 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mission
Is this an ancient in-joke I'm missing out on or can people who care about or are interested in US poltiics please sort this mission thing out? The template has been taken off many times because of the lack of activity talking about it - each of these has been quite quickly reverted but no one is interested in saying what's wrong with the article to make if off-mission. There are articles on virtually every US state that are so far "off mission" they should be vapourised without discussion. Yet as this directly concerns describing US politics, it's obviously more on mission than most - from what I can tell from the talk page, the mission template was there regarding the complete list of senators, which has since been removed. So, I think it is on mission and the template should be removed. Any other takers? 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the BON who took the tag off today was me at work - maybe I should have explained myself. This seems as on-mission as felidae, beer and Oxford. yeah, "other crap exists", but still, keep. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take this as keep. If someone wants to revert, they can bring it up here. 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oddness of the Senate
The Senate, as a more "lordly" chamber than the House, has some very odd rules it runs under. For instance, any group of 41 Senators (making up 2/5 + 1) can stop movement on any bill whatsoever in a filibuster.

Pretty much out of date.

This does not require actually filibustering (by holding the floor and reading laundry lists and such), but merely refusing to allow a vote to proceed. While in the past this was usually used to prevent horrors like killing each state's right to oppress a large part of its citizenry, the current Republican party has basically made it a regular procedural stumbling block (with the backing of conservative Democrats.

Even more weirdly, a single Senator can put an informal "hold" on anything. There is no real rule allowing this, but it is often done on almost anything from confirming nominations to legislation. This can even be done anonymously.

These rules together mean that the "world's greatest deliberative body" can't do squat.


 * I find this edit to be lacking in understanding of how the "light filibuster" came into being - wherein any Senator can present an intention to filibuster, and thereby kill a bill. The edit above completely misses the point. IMO.  07:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge
With congress. Тy Please do not click on this 12:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah. TyBother me 03:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We might as well. Two houses form Congress, why not one page? TheLateGatsby (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)