Politics And Current Events

Postby **MalkinIsMyHomeboy** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:26 pm

while I do think the filibuster should be reformed, I think it's a small piece of the overall issue with modern day government. the reason the filibuster is used so militantly today is because the two teams, including their voting bases, hate each other and think it's a sin to attempt to reach across the aisle. "Compromise" is a dirty word as the two teams become more and more radical

the two party system has killed American politics

Postby **LITT** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:32 pm

#TermLimits

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:38 pm

Just do single-payer healthcare, then let republicans have the legislative and executive branch indefinitely so they can hold hearings on cancel culture in perpetuity.

Postby **Morkle** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:43 pm

If you can have a majority enough or enough votes to disable the filibuster, and then re-enable it, it doesn't seem like the filibuster really should even exist.

Postby **Shyster** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:44 pm

The filibuster, while not in the Constitution, is absolutely in the spirit of the Constitution's interwoven checks and balances, which in many cases are designed to slow down legislation. "Nothing happens" is a feature, not a bug. The whole point of the Senate itself was to act as a brake on the House, and the filibuster does a wonderful job at that. By requiring a 2/3 vote to end debate, it ensures that legislation has popular support. This suppresses the "tyranny of the majority" and helps keep the fedgov from lurching back on forth with major policy swings and the enactment / repeal of major legislation each time overall control of the executive and legislative branches changes hands.

Democrats should be thanking Sinema and Manchin for saving the party from the stupidity of the rest of the Dems in the Senate.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:47 pm

Legislating and doing stuff is also in the spirit of the constitution

Postby **eddy** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:49 pm

What's it say when legislation does have popular support, but still can't get passed?

Postby **Morkle** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:50 pm

This would all be well and good if they didn't just close the filibuster to ram through an SC Justice. If it's meant to be a checks and balance, it shouldn't ever be able to be removed.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:53 pm

What's it say when legislation does have popular support, but still can't get passed?

They'd say that's good. If a law is popular then it is probably bad.

Postby **Shyster** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:05 pm

A "popular" bill should probably have support from more than the members of only one party. The "voting rights" bill does not.

Postby **MR25** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:07 pm

Well when one party makes it their duty to make voting as hard as possible for people who won't vote for them, of course it wouldn't be "popular" by that metric.

Postby **NTP66** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:08 pm

Well when one party makes it their duty to make voting as hard as possible for people who won't vote for them, of course it wouldn't be "popular" by that metric.

Bingo.

Postby **MalkinIsMyHomeboy** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:14 pm

"Nothing happens" is a feature, not a bug.

eh. “Nothing happens” inherently benefits conservativism. There’s a bias there

Postby **CBear3** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:22 pm

"Nothing happens" is a feature, not a bug.
eh. “Nothing happens” inherently benefits conservativism. There’s a bias there

Are you prepared to argue there's a roll for the federal government with a guy who ranks Lincoln among the worst Presidents in history?
Articles of Confederation FTW!

Postby **count2infinity** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:37 pm

The senate, by design, is the house of the minority of the country. Wasn't the purpose of it so that large states and small states would get equal power in one of the houses of congress so that the large states (read: majority) couldn't just bulldoze small states (minority)? Why is it necessary to have that AND a way for the minority party just halt any and all legislature on whatever grounds they want? Were the republicans in charge right this moment and they had a bill they wanted to get passed (Sinema and Manchin are already on record that they'd vote in favor of the bill itself), the filibuster would have been gone before the legislature was even finished being drafted. Dems are spineless cowards.

Postby **Shyster** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:49 pm

Are you prepared to argue there's a roll for the federal government with a guy who ranks Lincoln among the worst Presidents in history?
Articles of Confederation FTW!

Not quite as bad as FDR, but probably second worst, yes. Although in terms of overall impact on American government, Lincoln probably wasn't as bad as Alexander Hamilton (the only thing tragic about Hamilton's death was that Burr didn't shoot that dodint years earlier).

Postby **Shyster** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:01 pm

The senate, by design, is the house of the minority of the country. Wasn't the purpose of it so that large states and small states would get equal power in one of the houses of congress so that the large states (read: majority) couldn't just bulldoze small states (minority)? Why is it necessary to have that AND a way for the minority party just halt any and all legislature on whatever grounds they want?

Because whether a particular piece of legislation is supported or opposed is not something that strictly falls on whether one lives in a large state or small state. Plenty of people in California, Texas, Florida, etc. would oppose the Democrat's "voting rights" bill, and plenty of people in Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, etc. would support it.

Are you folks who support eliminating the filibuster also in favor of the idea that when the Republicans eventually get a fedgov trifecta, they repeal every one of these laws that you now support and then ram every law they want right down your throats? Because that's what would happen.

Postby **nocera** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:03 pm

Doesn't that already happen?

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:10 pm

The senate, by design, is the house of the minority of the country. Wasn't the purpose of it so that large states and small states would get equal power in one of the houses of congress so that the large states (read: majority) couldn't just bulldoze small states (minority)? Why is it necessary to have that AND a way for the minority party just halt any and all legislature on whatever grounds they want?
Because whether a particular piece of legislation is supported or opposed is not something that strictly falls on whether one lives in a large state or small state. Plenty of people in California, Texas, Florida, etc. would oppose the Democrat's "voting rights" bill, and plenty of people in Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, etc. would support it.

Are you folks who support eliminating the filibuster also in favor of the idea that when the Republicans eventually get a fedgov trifecta, they repeal every one of these laws that you now support and then ram every law they want right down your throats? Because that's what would happen.

Lucky for them, their agenda doesn't include passing laws.

Postby **eddy** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:10 pm

Yeah, let's not act like this is something new. In the end this comes down to the two party system simply not working. I'm not for the voting rights deal because it's a left or right thing, I'm for it because it's what is appropriate.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:13 pm

What did the filibuster stop Trump from trying to do?

Postby **CBear3** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:21 pm

Are you prepared to argue there's a roll for the federal government with a guy who ranks Lincoln among the worst Presidents in history?
Articles of Confederation FTW!
Not quite as bad as FDR, but probably second worst, yes. Although in terms of overall impact on American government, Lincoln probably wasn't as bad as Alexander Hamilton (the only thing tragic about Hamilton's death was that Burr didn't shoot that dodint years earlier).

You never disappoint

Postby **faftorial** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:34 pm

What did the filibuster stop Trump from trying to do?

When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... rotect-it/

Postby **Shyster** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:47 pm

Are you prepared to argue there's a roll for the federal government with a guy who ranks Lincoln among the worst Presidents in history?
Articles of Confederation FTW!
Not quite as bad as FDR, but probably second worst, yes. Although in terms of overall impact on American government, Lincoln probably wasn't as bad as Alexander Hamilton (the only thing tragic about Hamilton's death was that Burr didn't shoot that dodint years earlier).
You never disappoint

Postby **tifosi77** » Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:07 pm

These two pieces of **** continuing their trend of holding the rest of the country hostage, along with the GOP:

I think it's disingenuous to say that they're 'siding with Repubs'. They are siding with moderates...or rather going against an extreme left initiative.

This is all a bit silly. The left is attempting to silence the minority voice and steal power from the states to consolidate it under a federal banner that they currently control. It doesn't get much more authoritarian/totalitarian than that. Gain power, change the rules, control future elections, never give up power. The fact that you like the party doing it doesn't change the motive.

Imagine, for half a second, if Trump was still in office and the party controls were flipped. I'd guess that everyone in here that is so pissed at Manchin and Sinema would be praising Romney/Cheney as heroes for standing up for 'what is right'. The effort to federalize elections would be and authoritarian power grab perpetuated by a wannabe dictator.

So why isn't it those things just because the Dems are doing it?

This legislation being presented federally as a direct response to state-level actions designed to remove electoral authority from non-political officials and vest it to partisan actors. Georgia in particular is effectively undoing the entire point of popular elections.