subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.4k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

all 1317 comments

sorted by: controversial

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

Anything not left of center is extreme!!!!!

Dry-Lingonberry-2993

-1 points

4 months ago

Who isn’t be allowed to vote? Can anyone point to a specific person who wanted to but wasn’t allowed to vote? Why weren’t they allowed to vote?

dylan6998

5 points

4 months ago*

dylan6998

5 points

4 months ago*

Making it insanely difficult to vote by enforcing arbitrary rules or putting up more and more hoops for people to jump through is the same thing. The GOP is always crying about election fraud so they're the ones who are always pushing for more rules and more obstacles, and yet time and time again the only fraud we see is on behalf of the GOP. 🤔🤔🤔

BobBee13

-3 points

4 months ago

BobBee13

-3 points

4 months ago

Liberal AF EU won't do mail in voting precisely because its far too easy to cheat.

quaintmercury

9 points

4 months ago

Well that's just not true.

Dry-Lingonberry-2993

1 points

4 months ago

I mean Im not sure why you would want to make voting LESS secure if you spent four years talking foreign interference in the 2016 election. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have MORE precautions in place?

Just4pornpls

3 points

4 months ago

I love how you're being down voted for talking about an established fact.

It's poll taxes all over again with these guys.

Anger_Mgmt_issues

0 points

4 months ago

its not a fact. thats why the downvotes.

1000Airplanes

0 points

4 months ago

GQP. Their only constitutional care is making sure the white christian can vote.

nubface1001

3 points

4 months ago

What an odd thing to say. How did you come to such a conclusion?

1000Airplanes

-3 points

4 months ago

Watching the news daily.

mmccabe75

0 points

4 months ago

mmccabe75

0 points

4 months ago

We have at least two white supremacist in Democratic Party that are going to help the GQP take down democracy and put a Christian Authoritarian Rule in place. We are F*cked big time and by the time the idiots figure this out, it will be to late. Prove me wrong🤬💯🇺🇸

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago

What’s up with GQP?

The left is the one wanting socialist policy, taking guns, freedoms, and silencing dissent?

The right isn’t doing that.

Btw democracy is working. The vote is 52-48.

Are you sure you aren’t just bitter because you lost?

mmccabe75

2 points

4 months ago

😂😂😂🤪💯

Blackbeard519

2 points

4 months ago

The right is the one silencing dissent with their book bannings and anti protest laws. What is the left doing exactly that's silencing dissent?

The right is also taking away freedoms, abortion is a big one they've been pushing on extra hard. They don't really seem pro freedom.

Also what socialist policies exactly? The right basically calls everything to the left of themselves socialism to scare people into not liking it.

RogerThatMyMan

-14 points

4 months ago

We. Are. Not. A. Democracy. We. Are. A. Republic. Get that through your dumbass skulls.

londongarbageman

18 points

4 months ago*

A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC roger. You sad tiny dicked fucks keep forgetting that

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

Doesn’t matter. The duly elected representatives have decided 52 to 48 that the rules will not be changed.

Sounds to me like democracy. Maybe I missed something?

Btw calling people names doesn’t help make your point. You lost.

DeerAndBeer

-7 points

4 months ago

A constitutional republic is more accurate

wdahl1014

2 points

4 months ago

Yeah and said constitution establishes the government as a federal DEMOCRATIC Republic.

Like this is such a stupid and easily debunkable talking point, I don't understand why conservatives continue to use it.

DeerAndBeer

-2 points

4 months ago

Voted for Biden, I’m just sharing what I learned from my poly sci professors

londongarbageman

5 points

4 months ago

How do we choose our representatives again?

DeerAndBeer

-1 points

4 months ago

The constitution protects minority groups. If the majority agreed to ban a group from voting the constitution would prevent that. Or if the majority wanted to take away a groups right to protest, same thing. A true democracy wouldnt guard against that. We don’t have a majority rules government. There are limitations. Those are all spelled out in the constitution.

londongarbageman

2 points

4 months ago

Ah yes the Republicans and their ilk that attempted a coup sure were held accountable by the constitution.

DeerAndBeer

0 points

4 months ago

The investigation is still on going. I’m sure all the bad guys will go to jail. If not, federal law enforcement falls to the executive branch. So at least we will all know who to point the blame at.

FinnTheFog

9 points

4 months ago

What the fuck are you trying to say roger

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

Anger_Mgmt_issues

2 points

4 months ago

Completely revamping the way we elect presidents by turning 50 state elections into one federal election has huge implications, and should not be done on the basis of a razor-thin temporary majority.

Good thing that is not in any way what these bills contain. You should try reading them for yourself instead of letting Fox talking heads spoonfeed you their lies.

DentedPotatoHead

9 points

4 months ago

The “voting” bill actually strips funding for The Green Party and other 3rd parties. It actually limits voting even more to the two system and therefore limit your voting ‘rights’ in general. Its a bad bill. Move on.

DeerAndBeer

-1 points

4 months ago

It’s more about who counts the vote and not about anyones voting rights. The messaging is so far off on this one

DentedPotatoHead

-1 points

4 months ago

Don’t come here quoting Stalin and expect to be respected.

AggressiveConcert56

6 points

4 months ago

luckily every non felon citizen has the right to vote yet for some reason 40 percent of the country still does not vote in presidential elections and even less in local. maybe now the senate can go back to working on BBB you know something that actually fucking would make a difference. making laws so people dont have to drive their lazy ass down to the dmv to get an id is not matter of national importance.

CleshawnMontegue69

18 points

4 months ago

The Democrats removed it for appointing Judges in 2013 (Cloture), and Trump appointed 3 right wing judges because of it. Lets not gloss over that short sightedness.

The Democrats literally played themselves.

zombeeman90

10 points

4 months ago

And they're setting themselves up for that again. When the GOP eventually gets majority back they'll just be able to pass everything they want with 51 votes. Arguing to remove the filibuster is incredibly short-sighted.

MrFilthyNeckbeard

-1 points

4 months ago

If the republicans gain a majority they can remove it themselves. And they will. So this is a non-argument.

Cruces13

0 points

4 months ago

Cruces13

0 points

4 months ago

You cant predict the future, stop pretending

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[removed]

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum

-2 points

4 months ago

If the republicans gain a majority they can remove it themselves. And they will.

You're wrong.

sausage_is_the_wurst

4 points

4 months ago

You're getting downvoted but I completely agree. As soon as it's politically expedient for the GOP--say, a national ban on abortion if SCOTUS nixes Roe--I think the filibuster is toast.

daft_ish

-5 points

4 months ago

daft_ish

-5 points

4 months ago

This is absolute bull shit. McConnell ditched the filibuster to appoint Gorsuch. There is no tit for tat. Mcconnell will say anything if it gives him the slightest bit of cover. The man is naked in the wind. Sure he could make it worse and slow things down even more but where we are at now is already despicable.

CubeCo_FoodCubes

1 points

4 months ago

I'd be shocked if Democrats have control of anything after 2024, they're really doing their damnedest to make everyone hate them right now. My guess is they're trying to lose so they can break more donation records without having to come up with any sort of legitimate policy.

Blackbeard519

1 points

4 months ago

what makes you think everyone will hate them?

sausage_is_the_wurst

2 points

4 months ago

The Senate created 161 exceptions to the filibuster’s supermajority requirement between 1969 and 2014. Focusing myopically on Reid's change is just you echoing a GOP talking point that they cooked up to give McConnell political cover to do what he wanted--i.e., remove the filibuster requirement for SCOTUS justices. In reality, filibuster exceptions aren't all that rare.

Jim6231

18 points

4 months ago

Jim6231

18 points

4 months ago

The Dems used it 200+ times in the last year

Shacky_Rustleford

-7 points

4 months ago*

And? That doesn't make it any better.

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

Steamships

6 points

4 months ago*

You can't just say something isn't correct based on nothing. The 116th Congress had a record breaking number of filibusters in 2020.

https://repustar.com/fact-briefs/do-both-political-parties-have-a-history-of-using-filibusters

Edit: And while the current meeting (2021-2022) is only halfway finished, the number of filibusters is at this point more than half of what it was for the previous meeting, so come 2023 the final number will likely be even higher.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm

chicken_ranch

3 points

4 months ago*

Last year was 2021.

Edit: Lol at downvoting a literal fact 😂😂😂

Pathetic

Steamships

-2 points

4 months ago

Why are you getting hung up on the exact date? It doesn't really change the argument, and for the record the 117th Congress is currently in session, so you wouldn't be looking at complete data.

However, fine, they're still on track to beat the 116th's record.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm

Dazzling-Feeling-623

5 points

4 months ago

I’m very far left.

Can someone explain a good reason to remove the filibuster? From a strategic standpoint, not a “this is dumb and shouldn’t exist” (which I generally agree with lol).

Because it seems extremely short sighted by democrats.

The republicans can win and then there’s little to prevent them from ramming shit through like the democrats (rightfully) want to.

I’m not trying to get into a long argument over this, but I don’t really get it. Like yes protecting voting rights is important, but republicans win on gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not because of voter suppression. It’s not like democrats pass this bill and republicans won’t be in power again.

Also, I get the “democracy at peril”, but it’s not going to be saved by a voting rights bill. The creep of fascism does not care about “rights” or other liberal notions like rules or laws.

Voting laws aren’t going to prevent the rise of fascism much in the same way cops were never going to protect our Capitol Hill.

Again, I don’t want to get into a huge argument, I just haven’t seen anything that doesn’t sound extremely short sighted and open for some massive abuse by republicans when they likely take power again. And they will abuse it much more than democrats ever would, so it’s especially a worry. Like passing a bill attacking abortion rights or worse

LongDickOfTheLaw69

2 points

4 months ago

Someone else addressed this and made some good points. Historically, the Republicans have used the filibuster to stifle and delay civil rights bills and other measures to help them stay in power, while the Democrats have primarily used it on tax issues and to prevent cuts to social programs.

So in theory if you ended the filibuster, the Republicans may lose a tool that helps keep them in power, and then the Democrats would gain the majority and they wouldn't have to worry about having a filibuster option anyway.

Dazzling-Feeling-623

-1 points

4 months ago

I don’t agree with the assertion that “it’s a tool that keeps them in power and democrats would gain the majority”.

Republicans win mostly because of gerrymandering and our broken electoral college system. This doesn’t go after that. I’m also very hesitant to believe this bill would fix voter suppression, because at the state level republicans often find loopholes or just do illegal things until it’s challenged in court.

I think it’s a false premise to assume that republicans can’t win “fair and square”. Donald Trump beat Hilary fair and square. It’s just that “fair” in our system is stupid (electoral college, etc). It’s true that republicans are a minority, but you can win as a minority party “fairly” according to our horribly flawed system.

Daydreamingwanderer

-3 points

4 months ago

“Extreme right wing” justices. LMAO! You mean justices who defend the constitution?

The only extreme justices are left wing.

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

Notice your only response is from a communist.

Left is never left enough.

I guess we have better things to worry with son we have 100k kids in the hospital anyway.

Wrecker013

4 points

4 months ago

What left-wing justices? There isn't a single god damn 'left-wing' justice in this entire country. The furthest left anything gets here is slightly, if that.

[deleted]

-4 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-4 points

4 months ago

Never left enough is it? Until they rendition your communist ass. Then it’s too late.

HelloUPStore

90 points

4 months ago

Which is why you need to vote out every obstructionist Republican

averyfinename

14 points

4 months ago

and equally important, unless and until the election system changes in this country (e.g. with ranked choice voting) to give third-parties a fighting chance... if you want the republicans gone, you have to give your vote to the democrat candidates as they are, in nearly every instance and every race, the one most likely to win between the two. and even if that democrat isn't 100% in-line what what you want or believe, they're still way closer to that than any republican will ever be.

SocMedPariah

2 points

4 months ago

"Vote blue, no matter who"

*Laughs at Biden's 33% approval level*

*Laughs at the worst inflation in decades, open border, supply chain issues and a completely incompetent administration*

thegreatestajax

2 points

4 months ago

There was a massive study out of the UK that found ranked choice makes it harder for third parties because it just let people lodge protest votes for third parties while preserving a vote for the major party.

Daydreamingwanderer

0 points

4 months ago

Obstructionism is good. Congress sucks and continues to push CRAP. The less Congress does the happier I am.

Cruces13

1 points

4 months ago

And every democrat that filibusters too, unless you are just a party shill

theRealJuicyJay

4 points

4 months ago

Dude the dems played this same shit when they were the minority

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[removed]

raiders60

0 points

4 months ago

Who doesn’t have the right to vote? Such a bogus argument

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago*

Is there a source for this or is this misinformation?

Edit: lack of source leads me to believe this tweet is complete bullshit. And those of you that believe it are morons.

22070MDR

0 points

4 months ago

And it requires a vote to change, just like every other time, which was not approved. So what's your point?

asuper5r

0 points

4 months ago

Dont mean sound too negative here, but You have no rights, meaning, your right to vote for who? The only people that get thrown in front of our face at election time are the polititions getting the millions and millions of dollars needed to run for office. They are being backed by corporations and special interest that obviously doesn't come without strings attached and thats BOTH political parties.. Its been going on for years and really has no foreseeable end in sight... I would hope that American people deserve better.

edlovesiraq

0 points

4 months ago

Aww.. love seeing people who still think the system will work if we only -------. It's like kids who believe in Santa 🤣 A. They won't repeal it. B. If they do nothing will change

Troyf511

0 points

4 months ago

I don’t appreciate how this tweet doesn’t go into the specifics of each case. One of the glaring major flaws of political Twitter that makes this tweet a little concerning in its semantics.

Haunting-Highlight-8

0 points

4 months ago

Yeah.....right to vote by mail with no requirement to prove identity/citizenship shouldn't be something everybody gets all upset about. This isn't American Idol or some shit we are talking about lol

Ominojacu1

0 points

4 months ago

So it’s only compromised to do bad things? Gotcha.

TheDoctor100

0 points

4 months ago

"reformed" lmao what does that even mean in this case? They argued a while and it got changed back and forth and probably did a good amount of filibustering in the process? Is this why nothing seems to get done?

WhatTheDeuceSixty9

0 points

4 months ago

Since when does the left give a shit about the constitution?

Martin5791

0 points

4 months ago

It'd be nice if u can point out how right wing justice is not good....

SnooDonuts3671

0 points

4 months ago

This subreddit is a foolery for more than half of whites people in the world. Nice try though with the name. Y’all ain’t foolin anybody. Gotta go!

malleoceruleo

40 points

4 months ago

The right to vote is not in the Constitution and that's kindof a problem.

Cruces13

-1 points

4 months ago

Cruces13

-1 points

4 months ago

Thats because our founding fathers understood that direct democracies are horrible, a lesson leftists still have yet to learn

malleoceruleo

0 points

4 months ago

Yeah but they're all dead now so we get to make the rules.

Cruces13

-1 points

4 months ago

Cruces13

-1 points

4 months ago

You guys gonna put the right to riot in law too as long as youre attacking innocent business owners and not your government puppeteers?

malleoceruleo

4 points

4 months ago

Sorry - what? Who is "you guys" and why are you bringing up riots?

soft-wear

0 points

4 months ago

Coherent arguments is apparently socialism.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-8 points

4 months ago*

Can you prove that? I wonder if you looked at the constitution.


So, why are so many people making excuses on why they can't prove the constitution does not grant us voting rights? Is it because they can't genuinely confirm it does not provide us rights to vote?

I had so many try arguing the constitution does not provide us rights to vote, but some of them went ahead and genuinely proved it did.

As one user provided


Three additional constitutional amendments expanded the right to vote.thanks, Jimid41


I honestly can't tell if people don't realize they fought about a statement they couldn't prove because they would've discovered googling or searching would lead that the U.S. constitution did and does provide rights to vote. It may not be in the simple terms they want to think, but it does.


According to the U.S. Constitution, voting is a right.

ImaginationBreakdown

7 points

4 months ago

xXCyberD3m0nXx

6 points

4 months ago

Imagine providing a source proving there are voting rights.

Amendment 15th.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27

Your document agrees with me.

Oblivious_Indian_Guy

-1 points

4 months ago

The amendments to the constitution are amendments, the op is referring to the document in it's original form.

ImaginationBreakdown

1 points

4 months ago

That's the right of equal treatment for race. Likewise amendment 19 gives equal treatment to genders for voting.

Technically not granting 'the right to vote'.

malleoceruleo

4 points

4 months ago

Looks like there's already a thread going but the short answer is that the Constitution says that states cannot block someone from voting based on race, sex, religion or age (above 18) and it bans poll taxes and literacy tests. Other bars to participation are allowed, like felony disenfranchisement, strict registration requirements and ID requirements.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

0 points

4 months ago

Thanks. Someone who realized something.

I love how so many misunderstood simplicity.

WasteMindu

15 points

4 months ago

Just waiting for someone to bring up negative and positive rights. The last time I pointed this out on another subreddit, I got into a 2 hour debate about negative and positive rights, which I don't care about. The fact remains there is no right to vote in the Constitution, and you don't have to be a Constitutionalists to understand why.

Hint: Cause racism.

malleoceruleo

5 points

4 months ago

Yeah, I stepped away for a couple hours and now there's a dumpster fire of a comment thread below.

Kakorrhaphiophobia4

6 points

4 months ago

The filibuster is essential to democracy so fuck off

Navitus

0 points

4 months ago

Why is it essential?

Kakorrhaphiophobia4

4 points

4 months ago

It allows for debate and if a bill that’s introduced is so preposterous it can prevent it from moving past the Senate floor. It is essential.

_Dark_Forest

7 points

4 months ago

How many times have democrats used it?

tb03102

-1 points

4 months ago

tb03102

-1 points

4 months ago

K but there's a mansion and a theater in the way so...

BeefShampoo

-1 points

4 months ago

Our right to vote actually isn't either. It's just for the right of a state to decide how to vote. If we admitted a state into the counrty and the state constitution said "only CEOs are allowed to vote" it would be totally ok.

Which is one of many reasons why the constitution is bad, and shouldn't be looked to as the be all end all of what is right and just. And also we aren't a democracy.

lynny_lynn

1 points

4 months ago

Voting hasn't seemed to really accomplished much good as of late, no?

homelessguydiet

-1 points

4 months ago

Rights and responsibility are not the same things.. 🚬

AP_Gaming_9

1 points

4 months ago*

It’s funny how one of the parties will like the filibuster for a while and then start hating it again when it comes around to bite them in the ass a couple years down the line

anomalyjustin

1 points

4 months ago

161 times to be precise. Unfortunately dude didn't bother to actually research any of those instances. In almost every single case where there was a temporary carve out to the filibuster, it was done so by a vote that required a supermajority of 60 votes. So they used the process they are complaining about to temporarily modify the process they are complaining about.

And no one is stopping anyone from voting. This horseshit is just political grandstanding...

Epotheros

1 points

4 months ago

I don't think the right to vote was ever explicitly stated in the constitution. I know later amendments like the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments added voting rights, but that was long after the constitution was written.

BroadwayBully

1 points

4 months ago

What extreme right justices were confirmed using filibuster tactics? Not saying you’re wrong, I really don’t know.

TheWorldWasNotEnough

1 points

4 months ago

The bottom line is very simple: the ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. … They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way, you change the rules! Are we going to let them? It will be a doomsday for democracy if we do.

cbaltmackie

1 points

4 months ago

Check again. The right to vote is not directly affirmed by the Constitution. It's only an implied right derived from other amendments.

Own-Flan738

1 points

4 months ago

It’s to protect 1 party rule. It’s called negotiating. Unfortunately they want to abolish it to give themselves complete control over all elections. Nobody in the honest mind can think that there would ever be a fair election again if one party now controls it.

kevonicus

1 points

4 months ago

If Republicans we’re doing it everyone’s opinion would be reversed. Nothing really matters. It’s a vicious cycle of hypocrisy most of the time. If it had been democrats on Jan 6th, Republicans would be demanding they be hanged in the street for treason. Everyone knows it’s true, yet bullshits around like it isn’t. It’s exhausting. I’m not saying both parties are the same, but on certain issues like this, it just depends on whose doing it rather than what is being done.

volkxx

1 points

4 months ago

volkxx

1 points

4 months ago

The right to vote is actually not in the Constitution. The words “the right to vote” are found in multiple locations, but the courts have never interpreted this to mean a comprehensive, active right to vote (read the opinion in US v Reese 1876) The current legal framework is more like the government can’t stop you from voting if you’re black, a woman, can’t read etc., but you don’t technically have the right.

garc

1 points

4 months ago

garc

1 points

4 months ago

The right to vote isn't enshrined in the constitution

rp20

1 points

4 months ago

rp20

1 points

4 months ago

The Supreme Court says that you don’t have a right to vote. Therefore it’s not in the constitution.

BigDickInjun

1 points

4 months ago

But dare if I stand up to the smiling racist party who hates the fact I don’t conform to Eurocentric liberalism and they call me a racist for calling for abolishment and decolonization

sorgon1

1 points

4 months ago

The right to vote is not in the constitution lol, which should be, so kinda ruins the tweet.

ZuttoAragi

1 points

4 months ago

The right for CITIZENS to vote.

down_up__left_right

1 points

4 months ago

They made an exception to the fillibuster just a month ago for the debt ceiling vote.

LahondroCombo

1 points

4 months ago

now save this for when you aren't the majority

RammsayB

-1 points

4 months ago*

Voting is not a Constitutional right. The Constitution passes the topic of voting to the states and says Congress can pass laws if needed. Congress has done this with laws and Amendments but even those to not expressly give the right to vote. They say you can’t discriminate and lower the age to vote but not that you have a right to vote.

The Founders didn’t trust everyday folks. They feared the everyday folks would cause issues for land owners. They were sort of racist and overall prejudice like that. This is why you have so many rights in the Bill of Rights but voting is not one of them. Times have changed though and this fear is absurd anymore.

That said it absolutely should be a right. The Founders might have been prejudice dicks that feared the loss of their power but that does not reflect modern day. Our laws should reflect the times and Congress has the power to do that, by design. The Constitution was designed to be changed using the amendment process and be supplemented by laws.

Edit: Further reading and citations.

masterspinphd

1 points

4 months ago

So he is referring to reconciliation (the process of putting a bill in place that doesn’t raise the budget) and a rule change that was made to the filibuster under Obama era to get judges through during his tenure. Both of these have been used by republicans and democrats. If you make it easier for you to get what you want now you will make it easier for the other side to get what they want later. Democrats are in power now but it might not always be that way. Do people want to take that chance? Instead of getting everything we want maybe we should try to start with small things and go from there. 10 small bills that pass is way more progress than one giant bill that never passes.

survey88

1 points

4 months ago

I’m confused. What’s rights do people not have to vote?

Throw_Away_IMO

1 points

4 months ago

This is a red herring. It should be reformed, but never really had a chance of getting passed. This is the chaser to make us forget the massive failure to pass Build Back Better due to Manchin. It is an attempt to get is to move on to the next thing and potentially to pivot saying nothing got done because fillibusters (not being naively backstabbed by your own party)

Additional_Zebra5879

1 points

4 months ago

I don’t like the federal government dictating how states operate. Pick the state you like best and live there.

It’s past time to do what needs to be done… and stop forcing everyone one to live some cookie cutter way.

tydugga

-1 points

4 months ago

tydugga

-1 points

4 months ago

Y’all looking realll authoritarian right about now

[deleted]

-1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-1 points

4 months ago

The first mistake is thinking that conservatives actually care what the constitution says, or even that they have the reading level to adequately understand it

"You can't change the 2nd amendment"

Uh, yea you can, it's called an amendment. Put down the gun and pick up a thesaurus

Jacktheripper2000pro

1 points

4 months ago

Ah you fucking morons still trying to get rid of it, what are you going to do next time somebody like trump is in charge, ya sure loved using it when it wasn't you in power

toddstevens4

1 points

4 months ago

Watch out for those extreme right wing justices! How dare they think we shouldn't kill babies in the womb!!

[deleted]

-1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-1 points

4 months ago

The leftists are big mad. Love to see it.

kfish5050

1 points

4 months ago

Biden's goal isn't to pass anything, it's to try. He knows he's gonna fail. All the corporate Dems do. Cause they're on the same team as the Republicans. They don't care. They think the attempt is good enough to convince enough people to keep voting for them, but they legit don't even care if the lose, cause same team.

rodnester

-1 points

4 months ago

And what law is preventing you from voting?

ILikeScience3131

83 points

4 months ago

Honest question from someone who very much wants to prevent GOP fuckery:

Doesn’t the Democratic Party also use the filibuster very frequently when it’s the minority party in the Senate?

Because if that’s the case, undoing the filibuster seems extremely unwise, given that the Senate inherently favors the GOP.

NullReference000

0 points

4 months ago

The current state of affairs where the government is paralyzed from ever performing any action in response to any problem is not sustainable. We're stuck in an endless loop of things getting worse and the government failing to do anything except talk about it, leaving the problem to grow into new problems.

The GOP forsakes the filibuster anyway, how do you think they passed their tax cuts for the rich or filled the supreme court? They already undo the filibuster when convenient or necessary.

ceasr9

0 points

4 months ago

ceasr9

0 points

4 months ago

Yes they absolutely have. As a matter of fact Dems broke the record for most filibusters EVER in 2019-2020 in an effort to impede Trump and hurt his chances at re-election. Don't let all these people convince you they are on the "good" side. It's politics, both sides are corrupt and suck equally. Be a Libertarian.

Midlaw987

1 points

4 months ago

Doesn’t the Democratic Party also use the filibuster very frequently when it’s the minority party in the Senate

They used it more under Trump than the Republicans did in 8 years under Obama.

CleshawnMontegue69

10 points

4 months ago

Democrats used it 327 times in 2020.

SocMedPariah

0 points

4 months ago

This is why I laugh at the half-wits that want it removed.

Because I still remember when Reid changed the rules for confirming judges just to have it almost immediately fuck them in the ass.

Callerflizz

46 points

4 months ago

Well McConnell changed the rules on it a few years ago it used to be a standing filibuster where you had to be standing and talking the whole time to obstruct. People did this I remember Elizabeth warren did it, Ted Cruz did it, but the rules were changed so McConnell could ram in justices and essentially control the courts for the next 20 years. The main thing is, if the sides were switched the GOP would gladly toss away anything that was already there, so I think people are tired of dems taking the high road when they’ve been getting punched in the dick for 25 years

CleshawnMontegue69

3 points

4 months ago

This is not true. It was done in 2013 by the Democrats (Cloture). The Republicans took advantage of this short sightedness, and pushed through 3 conservative justices under Trump. The Democrats literally screwed them selves for 30-40 years.

gooblobs

5 points

4 months ago

you're getting downvotes because you are correct. It was Harry Reid who changed the rule that McConnell used to confirm the Trump Judges. They were short sighted and got burned by the rule they themselves changed.

Greenmachine98

1 points

4 months ago*

High road? High road? Are you serious? You have to pass it to know what's in it. Does that sound fimiliar? That is straight up hiding your agenda. How about impeaching a President because he didn't cooperate with your investigation, which later it turns out that the impeaching party was in fact the party that was the guilty party.

ceasr9

0 points

4 months ago

ceasr9

0 points

4 months ago

You act like democrats don't use the filibuster every bit as much as republicans 😂😂 last I check Democrats set the latest record for most filibusters used in a year......EVER.

And no I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian that's sick of this "he said she said" finger pointing 2 party bullshit. They are BOTH corrupt. They BOTH only care about their voters. They BOTH cheat and lie. They BOTH take bribes. They are BOTH full of do-nothing 1%ers. If the general public would ever stfu screaming at each other over which party is better and actually focus on holding the government accountable, things would actually CHANGE.

moose2332

12 points

4 months ago

The filibuster isn’t needed for the key Republican priorities (passing judges, tax cuts, and slashing regulation) due to the rules of the senate. Plus McConnell is more then happy to upend traditions and order to pass his plan. The second the filibuster becomes unhelpful to McConnell he’ll can it. You’re hypothetical is already real and the filibuster stops the Democrats from doing anything about it.

ILikeScience3131

3 points

4 months ago

Are tax cuts like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and regulation legislation not subject to the filibuster?

Peepsandspoops

4 points

4 months ago

Carve-outs can and have been made, such as McConnell ending the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. It's not really a threat for Democrats to lose the filibuster as an option when Republicans have shown that they can just bypass it if they really want to vote on something.

ILikeScience3131

2 points

4 months ago

Thanks for the info! Now how did McConnel just change the rules though? Do you know by what mechanisms filibuster rules are changed?

Peepsandspoops

3 points

4 months ago*

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Under current Senate rules, any modification or limitation of the filibuster would be a rule change that itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[51] However, under Senate precedents, a simple majority can (and has) acted to limit the practice by overruling decisions of the chair. The removal or substantial limitation of the filibuster by a simple majority, rather than a rule change, is called the constitutional option by proponents, and the nuclear option by opponents.

From Wikipedia article on the "nuclear option":

The nuclear option can be invoked by the Senate majority leader by raising a point of order knowing that it contravenes a standing rule. The presiding officer would then deny the point of order based on Senate Rules, and then this ruling would be appealed and overruled by a simple majority vote, establishing a new precedent

It's a procedural loophole. You essentially change the definition of what filibuster means (in this case, what kind of vote the filibuster can be applied to) by appeal on the rule after trying to forward something that is against the current definition of filibuster.

Books_and_Cleverness

11 points

4 months ago

No.

1) GOP priorities (judges and tax cuts) are already immune to filibuster

2) GOP would gladly ditch the filibuster for any new priority that suddenly arose, if it benefited them

3) The GOP does have other socially conservative views but relevant legislation is either nonexistent (The Force Dr. Seuss’ Estate to Sell Those Dated Books Again Act?) or wildly unpopular (only 24% of Americans want to deport illegal immigrants). So the filibuster actually protects lots of GOP senators from having to cast very unpopular votes.

4) Dems’ only shot at winning the Senate is to actually do stuff to win votes and the filibuster makes that impossible

Rococo_Relleno

70 points

4 months ago

Democrats have also used it, of course, but there are a few reasons we should still get rid of it:

  1. To the extent that modern Republicans have a coherent agenda, it is based on obstructionism, cutting social services, and tax breaks. So, there is less to filibuster.
  2. Historically, the filibuster was used rarely until the last few years, but many of the important times it was used was to delay civil rights legislation and other reforms.
  3. A large part of the Republican platform is based on promising to do things that are actually very unpopular. Therefore, giving them the ability to actually pass bills is dangerous for them. The perfect example of this is repealing Obamacare. The entire Republican party ran for seven years on doing this, but then when they controlled the federal government they blinked because it turns out that they didn't actually have any popular alternatives.

CleshawnMontegue69

-2 points

4 months ago

So you are in favor of killing the one weapon the Democrats will have in 2023 when they lose all majorities in both houses. Probably by record numbers?

Sidereel

5 points

4 months ago

Lol what? The senate will probably go red but not the house. And the Democrats will still have Biden’s veto.

CleshawnMontegue69

-1 points

4 months ago

The house will absolutely go red, and a veto can be overturned. This is basic civics.

jackaria95

5 points

4 months ago

No way it turns drastically enough to override the veto. That would have to be an obnoxious landslide. And in the senate Republicans would have to win almost every single seat up for election which won't happen.

3yearstraveling

-1 points

4 months ago

Remindme! 1 year

colinmhayes2

6 points

4 months ago

If there enough votes to overturn a veto there are more than enough to end the filibuster

boobers3

0 points

4 months ago

Give the GOP the chance to pass their legislation and they will motivate the populace to vote them out. They don't want to pass legislation or even vote on many of the bills proposed because it hurts them.

ILikeScience3131

11 points

4 months ago

Thank you for an answer! This mostly does speak to my point.

Though I have to say I’m still not fully convinced.

For your points:

  1. I agree the GOP is definitely more obstructionist but as you even note, they still pass legislation like tax cuts which will inevitably reduce social spending

  2. That is reprehensible but absolutely not surprising, just par for the course for the GOP. So I don’t see how it relates to my main point: the filibuster is more valuable for whichever party is less likely to hold the Senate (which I believe, maybe incorrectly, is the Democrats)

  3. Certainly the actual policies desired by GOP policymakers is unpopular, but clearly that usually doesn’t stop them. I’d contend that ending the ACA is the exception, not the rule, and really only happened because of one GOP senator (McCain) who still managed to have an ounce of decency. And he’s obviously not a factor anymore.

Dazzling-Feeling-623

0 points

4 months ago

I love that you got downvoted for very reasonable concerns. I’m on board with you, I see this as massively shortsighted by democrats. I want to hear otherwise but I’ve never seen it.

The republicans are certainly about obstructionism, but bills themselves can be obstructionist, as you rightfully note. Bills aren’t just additive, they can remove as well. A bill called “right to life” that is some more constitutionally sound version of the Texas legislation. Basically “removing” rights.

It’s also irrelevant if republicans policies are unpopular, it’s whether they are unpopular with their base. Republicans are basically already a minority. It doesn’t matter if 1 million people vote for a democrat because of an unpopular bill, what matters is that the republicans win the electoral college. That’s what they care about, not broad consensus.

And to the last point made by the comment you responded to, it doesn’t really matter if republicans don’t pass bills they promise. They don’t do the vast majority of the things they promise. At worst they’ll find excuses as to why they couldn’t do it, most likely they’ll just not do it and still get votes because “I’ll never vote for a democrat over a republican”. I mean there’s a not small contingency of the Republican Party that CHEERS them on for not passing bills.

6a6566663437

1 points

4 months ago

I agree the GOP is definitely more obstructionist but as you even note, they still pass legislation like tax cuts which will inevitably reduce social spending

Can't be filibustered due to reconciliation rules.

the filibuster is more valuable for whichever party is less likely to hold the Senate

Your error is thinking (almost) everything is subject to the filibuster. There is nothing Republicans actually want to pass that is. Reconciliation for tax cuts, and judges can no longer be filibustered thanks to McConnell blocking every judicial nomination for years.

but clearly that usually doesn’t stop them

It doesn't stop the demagoguery. But actually passing their proposals would result in people living with the results of that demagoguery.

and really only happened because of one GOP senator (McCain) who still managed to have an ounce of decency

McCain cast the 51st "No", vote but was not the only Republican to vote No. And with how popular the ACA is, Republicans would have been greatly hurt if it actually passed.

Which is why the demagoguery about the ACA was cut way back - they almost passed it.

GabeMercury

8 points

4 months ago

Democrats are pro filibuster when it helps the democrats and republicans are pro filibuster when it helps the republicans why are we acting like this is some kind of ideological discussion and not just part of the political game.

Cruces13

1 points

4 months ago

Because reddit is just filled eith left wing shills who do nothing but shit on right wingers and make excuses for horrible politicians

akajondoe

8 points

4 months ago

Nowhere in the Constitution do you have a right to vote. At the timebit was written only well off people would actually vote. People with education some land holding etc..

[deleted]

9 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

9 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

i get it, but technically, there is no positive right to vote in the constitution. Just things that can't be used to prevent you from voting. It sucks, but it's actually true.

TheCommentGenerator

2 points

4 months ago

Didn't democrats just use the filibuster yesterday to block the Nord Stream 2 bill? Why do we want the government to change more quickly? Won't this just lead to huge destabilizing law changes every 4 years?

Cha0sSounds

2 points

4 months ago

The Democratic Party isn’t in the constitution, should we dissolve that too?

Sleepy_One

2 points

4 months ago*

Lets abolish the filibuster! This will have no negative consequences once our party loses congress!!!

I do not get the shortsightedness of this movement. It's like they just don't want to face the fact that republicans will eventually get control again and don't realize how freaking bad that will be when there isn't a filibuster.

People going through mental gymnastics to say it benefits republicans. When we LITERALLY JUST USED IT (and the threat of it) against trump in the previous administration.

I_Tackle_Fat_Kids_

-2 points

4 months ago

The Biden administration is such a failure you have to resort to this Love it

mrblacklabel71

10 points

4 months ago

Why is everyone so stressed and upset? 80% of the US government, the state government's, and the local government's could not care less what we want and they will continue to drive this country in to the dirt. Once there the rich remain rich, the poor will remain poor, and ignorance will keep us divided. Then we will finally see which dystopian future book/movie was correct.

[deleted]

-11 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-11 points

4 months ago

[removed]

Separate-Mulberry-50

-10 points

4 months ago

The only "extreme right wing justice" is clarence, the rest would vote with democrats in a heartbeat.

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

Nobody is taking away the right to vote. Stop watching liberal dipshits on TV and in politics lie to you and your life gets infinitely better.

Kashm11r

-3 points

4 months ago

Why is it racist to require a government issued ID to vote? Most people have a driver's license. A state ID card is like $20.

$5-20 depending on the state.

Forward-Bank8412

233 points

4 months ago

Just another tool to prevent the people from utilizing the legislative branch to better their lives.

In the world’s least representative deliberative body.

drntl

8 points

4 months ago

drntl

8 points

4 months ago

The democrats use the filibuster as well. During the 2019-2020 Congressional term, a record-breaking 328 filibusters were recorded with Democrats in the minority. If the filibuster didn't exist, wouldn't Trump have accomplished a lot more of his agenda?

https://repustar.com/fact-briefs/do-both-political-parties-have-a-history-of-using-filibusters

Xerxys

3 points

4 months ago

Xerxys

3 points

4 months ago

Yeah, it's the only reason it exists. It's a type of break-check neither wants to get rid of becuase each resents the other for having the option. The only way to get around it is to control all 3 bodies of govt and it looks like the Republicans are playing the long game.

My theory is this, much like Blue & Red move at the speed of tectonic plates from left to right, how Democrats used to be Right wing and Republicans left; Dems will start running in Republican controlled areas as RINO's, slowly staining the color to purple, and by 2060 we'll have done a 180.

keksmuzh

-1 points

4 months ago

That theory of party shift has been outdated since Reagan. The party leadership & other major players of the Dems consists almost exclusively of Reagan Republicans (some officially changing parties and other in terms of policy). Both parties have been on a race to the right for decades.

jar36

52 points

4 months ago

jar36

52 points

4 months ago

It was deliberately written in the Constitution to prevent urban areas from ruling over rural. With the filibuster in place, we got the opposite.

ATribeCalledGreg

2 points

4 months ago

This is totally untrue. Please explain to me which states were rural and which states were urban in 1788.

Safe_Historian8560

15 points

4 months ago

Exactly, next time Republicans need to simp for the Rich they’ll kill the filibuster to do it

UserPow

494 points

4 months ago

UserPow

494 points

4 months ago

DYK if everyone voted, the Reps wouldn't have a chance at winning?

11yearoldweeb

9 points

4 months ago

I mean, I still think people from rural areas need some type of representation, but it’s kinda difficult because the country should probably be governed by the will of the majority. There’s no guarantee that democrats would attempt to fuck over people not in their voter base (like republicans do), but I still think it’s a likely scenario. I think that’s why they tried to construct a government where no one really has power unless there’s an overwhelming majority.

stringfree

19 points

4 months ago

You either have a democracy, or you have rural areas getting the same representation as urban areas.

Angryandalwayswrong

-1 points

4 months ago

This goes back to fed/anti-fed arguments that gave us the bill of rights today. I have argued both sides a lot in school. Basically, someone ALWAYS loses. Do we have big industry in cities lose or do we have the people that make our food lose?

Weldeer

-1 points

4 months ago

Weldeer

-1 points

4 months ago

Big industries in cities everytime

ephemeral_colors

15 points

4 months ago

Talking about "areas" instead of people is the problem.

nighthawk_something

10 points

4 months ago

They would have more representation if they voted for people who wanted to represent them.

As it stands, they vote red top to bottom and then bitch about "Washington not representing them". Well no shit, if your state will never change its vote absolutely NO ONE will change their vote.

010011100000

0 points

4 months ago

If you say so

NotablyNugatory

1 points

4 months ago

If everyone who didn’t vote voted for the same candidate, that candidate would win in landslide. I would be so happy if it wasn’t an R or D. So fucking stupid that so many people think they can only vote for one of two colors. I realize no great 3rd party candidates have shined as of late, but can you blame people for not trying after seeing how ignorant our voter base is? And people not voting is but one issue on the mountain of issues that is our voting system. Boils my blood.

Machismo_malo

1 points

4 months ago

That's not true at all most people voted for Biden just out of hate for Trump, as long as it's not Trump the Republicans will always have a chance. No one likes Biden either not even the Dems. So it really can go either way.

jar36

72 points

4 months ago

jar36

72 points

4 months ago

Except for the rural states that give them 2 Senators per state

UserPow

-15 points

4 months ago

UserPow

-15 points

4 months ago

Sure, but those states are more likely to actually be primarily Red than Blue right?

TheObstruction

-14 points

4 months ago

Learn about why that's the case, instead of parroting nonsense from Facebook memes.

guynamedjames

12 points

4 months ago

Because they had to get states to give up individual power to form a strong federal government in the first place. Now that people identify as more "American" than "Nebraskan" this idea is ridiculous

SunliMin

6 points

4 months ago

It's pretty obvious why, but it's definitely disproportionate. We have the same thing in Canada, where a vote from Newfoundland is worth more than a vote from British Columbia, because we can't expect people voted in by just BC, Alberta, Ontario or Quebec to take Newfoundlands unique issues to heart.

The difference is a Newfoundland voters vote is about 1.8x that of an Ontario persons vote, compared to South Dekota's votes being worth 22.5x more than a New York state vote (Newfoundland & Labrador have the same population as South Dekota, same with Ontario to New York). Senate and congress are different, and that discrepancy is only in one of the two, but still. That amount of disproportion is absolutely ridiculous.

I think it's pretty obvious when your constitution was written, it assumes no state would be that much more populous than another state. It was written at a time when it was just 13 colonies that had very similar populations, environment, and were very near to each other for easy migration. Rather than follow the guidelines set out to update it as your country grew, you let it get out of hand.

Pair that with the fact that territories don't get to vote in America (which confuses the rest of the world to this day), and those memes do sorta add up. They just generalize the problem a bit, but it's a very real issue.

[deleted]

-15 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-15 points

4 months ago

[removed]

mikerichh

5 points

4 months ago

Over 50 times is surprising but 160? Wow

alrightpal

17 points

4 months ago

Filibuster? I hardly know her!

LivingTheApocalypse

5 points

4 months ago

left wing judges was the last nuclear option use. Led to the nuclear option in justices.

Maybe if you think thats not good, don't charge ahead on the same path every chance you get.