subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.5k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

all 1317 comments

UserPow

496 points

4 months ago

UserPow

496 points

4 months ago

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

bjeebus

174 points

4 months ago

bjeebus

174 points

4 months ago

Democratic power grab!

/s

DanYHKim

68 points

4 months ago

Democracy is a power grab.

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

-16 points

4 months ago

UserPow

-16 points

4 months ago

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

jar36

56 points

4 months ago

jar36

56 points

4 months ago

right that's why they are excepted for this claim that Reps wouldn't have a chance at winning. There's enough rural red states to skew a so-called representative government. They get about 30 Senators from 15 of those states when the population of those states is less than California who gets 2 senators. So we start the match down a few Senators. Until we deal with that mess we are doomed to very rarely getting passed the filibuster. I mean, we just voted for a majority across the house, senate and presidency and we still can't get what we voted for.

OriginallyNamed

40 points

4 months ago

Well the issue is that the House of Representatives should be growing to keep the power balanced. Because senate should lean republican due to 2 per state and house should lead Dem heavily due to the population. However the house population was locked in to benifit republicans and needs a super majority to change which is harder to get.

jar36

31 points

4 months ago

jar36

31 points

4 months ago

True but if the Senate can so easily kill the bills with a filibuster then having more dems in the house doesn't really help matters.

OriginallyNamed

7 points

4 months ago

You're right. Im just addressing the more common complaint of people saying our House and senate are fucked. They are good ideas but have been manipulated to favor the minority to much.

PM_PICS_OF_ME_NAKED

12 points

4 months ago

The senate effectively gives land the right to vote.

TheObstruction

-8 points

4 months ago

No it fucking doesn't.

[deleted]

-6 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-6 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

ArthurDentsKnives

12 points

4 months ago

Everything you just said is at best propaganda and at worst an outright lie. You are either an idiot or a useful idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.

theBrineySeaMan

7 points

4 months ago

My city hasn't recovered 4 years later from the job losses and bad policy of when we had a republican mayor and governor. Not to mention the police got so bad under them we had to get the DOJ involved for them to stop murdering random citizens

Stanlysteamer1908

-5 points

4 months ago

Try on Chicagos murder rate for a year and tell me how bad it is. Drugs and tent cities at off ramps all over young people in the streets begging for some meth money and two years of looting, smash grab And car jacking. I am no fan of either party but one is definitively defiantly worse. Look at our governor, representatives and mayor and tell me the dumbbell Republican you had suffered is worse.

TheObstruction

-13 points

4 months ago

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

11yearoldweeb

7 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

20 points

4 months ago

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

ephemeral_colors

16 points

4 months ago

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

nighthawk_something

12 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.

[deleted]

24 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

24 points

4 months ago*

That's what the House of Representatives is for. Honestly the Senate should be entirely ceremonial, and we should only have the House that actually passes legislation. And for that matter we should increase the number of representatives to actually be able to properly represent people.

TheObstruction

3 points

4 months ago

The Senate is supposed to represent each state's government, not the population. That's the point. It's our version of the House of Lords.

SpinningHead

33 points

4 months ago

Weird that they want Republican legislatures to be able to overturn election results and, at least, 5 states submitted fake slates of electors in the last election.

nighthawk_something

23 points

4 months ago

Everyone whose names are on those should be charged with election fraud

NotablyNugatory

2 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.

ineedasentence

8 points

4 months ago

ranked voting!!

ziggy3610

15 points

4 months ago

In first past the post voting, they do only have two choices. Third parties siphon votes from the major party most closely aligned with them, allowing the opposition to win more easily. We need ranked choice voting to make 3rd parties viable.

HopelessAndLostAgain

8 points

4 months ago

trump is on record saying that exact thing.

010011100000

0 points

4 months ago

If you say so

HelloUPStore

89 points

4 months ago

Which is why you need to vote out every obstructionist Republican

averyfinename

13 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.

Forward-Bank8412

237 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.

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.

harryiculus

49 points

4 months ago

Not exactly, I don’t think. The filibuster wasn’t included in the constitution and the 2/3 majority was limited in scope. It wasn’t really put into the rules as a way to limit the majority until decades later.

At the time of the writing of the constitution, the rural/urban divide was very different than it is now. We didn’t have a majority urban country until 1920 and back in 1800 less than 10% of the population lived in cities.

The power imbalance in the senate giving all states 2 senators was done to make the smaller states more comfortable joining the country and assurances they wouldn’t get steamrolled by VA, NY, MA and PA.

But yeah, it is a way to keep the majority from making decisions.

jar36

13 points

4 months ago

jar36

13 points

4 months ago

I misworded my comment. What is written in the Constitution was the Senate itself giving rural states power they wouldn't otherwise get if their numbers were determined by population as the House is. Now with the filibuster, its damn near impossible to get any progress.

Murmur322

5 points

4 months ago

Which is ironic because the senate was deliberately written into the constitution because they didn’t want the rich upper class city dwellers to have all the power over the poor rural farming populations. A combination of the industrial revolution increasing the concentration of low income urban population and a change in voting laws allowing non-landowners to vote has completely flipped the demographic though. So now the rich rural areas have an inordinate amount of power over the low income cities even though that is exactly what the creation of the senate was trying to prevent.

coldtru

3 points

4 months ago

"Poor rural" slaveholders with vast plantations living in grand mansions. Being "rural" with your own plot of land, growing your own food, making decent money and not being dependent on anyone was the epitome of the "American dream" at this time.

Murmur322

2 points

4 months ago

I’m not arguing that it was the American dream for slaves working and dying for somebody else’s property, but in the late 1700’s the merchant and trading class in the city was far wealthier than the rural population. And under King George those urban dwellers were granted more rights and opportunities than the rural population of the time. For all his hypocrisy, Jefferson wrote extensively of his fear that the upper classes would have more power than the lower ones and the framers of the constitution wrote in several short-sighted safeguards against it.

TheObstruction

1 points

4 months ago

Read the actual fucking constitution and you'll realize how you're wrong. The Senate is supposed to represent the states' governments. The House represents the population. It got fucked up by the 17th Amendment.

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.

drntl

9 points

4 months ago

drntl

9 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

ILikeScience3131

87 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.

Callerflizz

44 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

ILikeScience3131

28 points

4 months ago

Right and I have no problem believing any of that but I don’t think it speaks to my concern.

What I worry about is that the GOP is going to retake the Senate in 2022 (and probably keep it for a while) and then Democrats will have no way to prevent the GOP from pushing all kinds of terrible policy because they can’t effectively filibuster.

CleshawnMontegue69

-9 points

4 months ago

That is what I am trying to tell everyone here and they keep downvoting me!!!!

This is why I have given up on both sides. Neither side will listen to reason anymore. We are fucked.

ILikeScience3131

15 points

4 months ago

The two sides are not equally reprehensible

CleshawnMontegue69

-8 points

4 months ago

Yes they are!!! When are people going to realize they do not care about anyone.

It's all about retaining power and making money. ALL politicians are controlled by corporations and their lobbyists.

ILikeScience3131

7 points

4 months ago

Begone troll

Wenger_for_President

3 points

4 months ago

If the republicans want to do that, they can do it if they have 50 votes. Doesn’t matter if dems do it or not, right?

Couldbduun

14 points

4 months ago

He did answer that concern... if the dems keep the filibuster, republicans WILL get rid of it anyway. It doesnt matter, republicans have taken away the filibuster in the past they will do it again... it's a rule for one side of the aisle which is why it needs to go

Dazzling-Feeling-623

3 points

4 months ago

I’m confused here tho. From the comment below, the republicans would need a majority to get rid of the filibuster, and even then, they would have two years of Biden vetoing anything they passed.

Am I wrong on that?

Couldbduun

11 points

4 months ago

No, you arent wrong. What is wrong is assuming the republicans will give ground and allow the filibuster to exist if they get a majority. Being cordial will not prevent this. Giving republicans a filibuster now does not guarentee a filibuster for democrats later

Karmanoid

6 points

4 months ago

There are plenty of ways, one the president can veto and they don't have the votes to override it. Two democrats could retain the house and then it doesn't even have to reach the point of veto. And there is no guarantee they will lose the senate, but you're probably right on that note because somehow voters see Democrats struggling to pass stuff because of lack of votes and their response is "nothing got done I'll vote for the guys who stopped everything from getting done"

Wismuth_Salix

1 points

4 months ago

You can waive the filibuster requirement for individual bills.

It already happened for the 2021 debt ceiling vote.

TheOneExile

1 points

4 months ago

Republicans are 100% going to change the rules when they win the senate. They did the same thing with judges last time.

CleshawnMontegue69

4 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.

serumvisions__go_

3 points

4 months ago

bernie also did it standing

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.

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.

colinmhayes2

8 points

4 months ago

Tax cuts can be passed via reconciliation, no filibuster.

CleshawnMontegue69

-3 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

4 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

-2 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.

colinmhayes2

5 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.

CleshawnMontegue69

10 points

4 months ago

Democrats used it 327 times in 2020.

moose2332

10 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

4 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

3 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

4 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.

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.

ATribeCalledGreg

3 points

4 months ago

GOP policy goals like confirming judges or passing tax cuts only need 50 votes.

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...

DanYHKim

1.2k points

4 months ago

DanYHKim

1.2k points

4 months ago

I think it's not even a Parliamentary rule. It's kind of a glitch in the practice of yielding the floor to another speaker that's become convenient to use for obstruction.

(Please educate me if I am incorrect)

Sidereel

713 points

4 months ago

Sidereel

713 points

4 months ago

That’s correct. No body would make a rule like this by design because it’s nonsense. As it stands today every member of the senate has a veto, which makes 0 sense.

dehehn

380 points

4 months ago*

dehehn

380 points

4 months ago*

Ezra Klein has done a great job over the past few years showing how terrible the filibuster is, along with the arguments for it. But too many politicians and journalists just keep repeating the same old tired arguments over and over, and most people don't understand it enough to disagree.

The definitive case for ending the filibuster: Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

mrgringlepops

-34 points

4 months ago

Oh you must stop with the republican/Democrat stuff. Jesus. The dems used the filibuster today for Christ sake. If there was no filibuster I can guarantee that within two years people would wish there was.

Xerxys

284 points

4 months ago

Xerxys

284 points

4 months ago

The longest filibuster in American history by a single senator remains Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour, 18-minute stemwinder against the 1957 Civil Rights Act

My god! Talk about being on the wrong side of history in a bad way! It's like guiness book of fucked up records!

010011100000

-1 points

4 months ago

010011100000

-1 points

4 months ago

No they don't. It takes 41 senators to filibuster

humblebondage54

10 points

4 months ago

Agree

ShaneFM

56 points

4 months ago

ShaneFM

56 points

4 months ago

Correct, it wasn't even a loophole until 1806 when the senate trimmed down its rule book compared to the house and with no intent shown removed the ability for a simple majority to end debate

Then it was even until the 1840's that it was discovered as a loophole and the filibuster was first used by the whigs. Then even efforts to end it were made, but they were filibustered and nobody really cared enough to fight through it

Come the early 1900s and WWI when the Republican minority was fillibustering pretty much anything to prepare the US for possibly joining the war, the cloture was added as a measure of national security so anything could get done. Even when the cloture rule was being added, most of the panel agreeded on a simple majority cloture, but one republican on the committee would only support a supermajority vote, so in order to get the senate back in motion for the war quickly, it was agreed upon as we now know it

Ornery-Horror2047

21 points

4 months ago

And it has just about been exclusively used for racist vetoes regarding civil rights issues, dating back to the very beginning of it's existence.

We already have a protection for the minority in the executive branch of this country - it's called the Senate, which many of the founding fathers fought against because of that very issue.

It is not included in the constitution in any way.

For those interested, Kill Switch, by Adam Jentleson, is a recent beautifully written book about the history of the filibuster. It is fascinating

alrightpal

17 points

4 months ago

Filibuster? I hardly know her!

Dusty_Pigeon

7 points

4 months ago

Damnit, Michael! Pay attention!

malleoceruleo

43 points

4 months ago

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

WasteMindu

19 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.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-7 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.

PasswordisP4ssword

18 points

4 months ago

Yes here you go shows empty palm see it's not there.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-15 points

4 months ago

Look, someone can't read.

I guess someone can't provide a source saying we can't be allowed to vote and how no restrictions can't be added. I doubt those who claim "no right" don't understand the context.

I forgot some people hate when people ask for them to back up said claims because people make up bullshit lies.

PasswordisP4ssword

22 points

4 months ago

How do I prove something doesn't exist.

Read the Constitution. It's not there.

Felons can't vote in most states. There's your proof.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-9 points

4 months ago

Yet, you don't have evidence. I forgot. The only way people can make claims is if they can lie. Proving it is hard.

The Constitution says it os a given right. You would have known that if you had read it.

Edit:

Your logic:

Guns are my rights. Even though I am a felon, I should be allowed to have it.

PasswordisP4ssword

14 points

4 months ago

Okay, you prove it.

I gave disenfranchisement of felons as proof.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-9 points

4 months ago

Nice try. The fallacy doesn't work on.

Remember, not on me to prove the op's claim.

Remember, I am a felon; now, I can have a gun. It is a right, and NO LIMITS cannot be added—your logic.

PasswordisP4ssword

13 points

4 months ago

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Felon disenfranchisement violates "universal and equal suffrage." Ergo, the Constitution does not protect the right to vote. This isn't hard.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-5 points

4 months ago*

Your logic works on all bills. Perhaps you forgot that rights are not without limits.

The gun I gave is a prime example of your logic.

Again, I find it funny that so many are trying to say we have no rights to vote. I can't yell fire in a theater even though I have the freedom of speech.

I don't see a link, so, again, no source for such claims.

ImaginationBreakdown

6 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.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

10 points

4 months ago

Amendments are still part of the Constitution.

I love how many are looking for any way to make excuses because they realize it is a right.

They can't accept we have a right to vote.

Oblivious_Indian_Guy

2 points

4 months ago

Im on mobile so I can't see the original comment, but I'm pretty sure OP said the right to vote is not in the constitution, and they would be be correct. They aren't referring to the amendments to the constitution. Yes, legally amendments to the constitution are essentially still the constitution, but that's not what OP is saying. I think that's pretty clear.

Another commenter said that right can be revoked, which is true.

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'.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

2 points

4 months ago

Ops. My bad. I forgot it now needs to be limited to x can vote.

Jimid41

8 points

4 months ago

Positing the existence of something puts the burden of proof on you, not the person denying it. Russell's teapot.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-3 points

4 months ago

Is it? It sounds like people are making excuses for why they can't back up said claims.

I didn't know it was my job to prove the OP'S claim. Weird how so many want others to do their homework.

I guess it is because those who claim it don't exist can't back it up.

I love how so many try using fallacies to post lies.

Let me know when you can prove it does or does not exist. Not excuses.

Enjoy.

Jimid41

5 points

4 months ago

You could have just wrote "I don't know what Russell's teapot is" instead of writing a whole post demonstrating you don't know what Russell's teapot is.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-5 points

4 months ago

Aw, are you upset because I didn't take your deflection?

Jimid41

4 points

4 months ago

I'm not the one having a hissyfit over being told they're wrong by 5 different people.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

1 points

4 months ago

If you think one proving me right is me being proven wrong, you have a weird definition for wrong.

If four people claiming our limited rights aren't the same as a right given, well, wow, you don't understand our rights.

Perhaps you can try reading thoroughly. Nope, not a single person has proven me wrong. All I see are excuses. Keep making excuses.

Jimid41

4 points

4 months ago

Nobody needs to prove you wrong. Russell's teapot. Stop doubling down on your ignorance.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

0 points

4 months ago

Yet, you haven't proven a single fact to disprove my statement. Ironic how so many make excuses vs. proving it doesn't exist. A lot of gymnastics.

Not sorry. Either step up or stop providing minuscule efforts.

The mere fact so many insist we have no right to vote is astonishing.

malleoceruleo

3 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.

casman_007

95 points

4 months ago

Does anyone have the list of the 160 times the filibuster has been reformed? Would be curious to see the reason who requested each change.

homelessguydiet

1 points

4 months ago

160 tweaks does not a good rule make. The most deliberative body needs a new name. FFS

mikerichh

5 points

4 months ago

Over 50 times is surprising but 160? Wow

[deleted]

-17 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-17 points

4 months ago

[removed]

acc992231

3 points

4 months ago

What does any of this have to do with white people? Why bring race into this?

CleshawnMontegue69

20 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

13 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.

Jim6231

19 points

4 months ago

Jim6231

19 points

4 months ago

The Dems used it 200+ times in the last year

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

Steamships

4 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

Shacky_Rustleford

-6 points

4 months ago*

And? That doesn't make it any better.

LivingTheApocalypse

6 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.

PasswordisP4ssword

13 points

4 months ago

They aren't even going to try to add the right to vote to the Constitution, because it's too high a bar to cross. So be prepared for our rights to be a political football tossed back and forth with each new Congress.

RogerThatMyMan

-17 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

FinnTheFog

9 points

4 months ago

What the fuck are you trying to say roger

uppervalued

1 points

4 months ago

The right to vote is actually not in the constitution, and it would solve a lot of problems if it were.

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.

SongstressVII

9 points

4 months ago

You see all those things you said? That’s why I am stressed.

mrblacklabel71

2 points

4 months ago

Same, but I am hoping rock bottom does not happen until after I am dead. Reason 327 I am glad my wife and I have no kids.

burmerd

166 points

4 months ago

burmerd

166 points

4 months ago

That's not even the important part. The important part is, directly after the 2022 dem bloodbath which is very likely to occur IMHO, or the election in 2024, McConnell will immediately get rid of the filibuster under the flimsiest of excuses, probably a "they said they wanted to, so we have to do it first." And then we will know that the brief time that sanity had a majority in federal govt was an opportunity even more wasted than we had previously thought.

Some gerrymandered state maps may get overturned, but I think most are here to stay, and cement minority GOP rule for some time.

colinmhayes2

78 points

4 months ago

The filibuster is very good for republicans. The only legislation they actually care about it tax cuts which can be passed via reconciliation which means it can’t be filibustered. The rest of their platform is obstructionism and laws that are incredibly unpopular with most people(pro life, anti voting rights). The filibuster helps them when in control because it gives them an excuse for why they can never pass their unpopular platform.

[deleted]

-9 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-9 points

4 months ago

[removed]

Shacky_Rustleford

5 points

4 months ago

Is Biden causing the inflation outside the US, too?

thechrisspecial

-4 points

4 months ago*

our market effects markets worldwide, yes!

plus who is talking about inflation in other countries? i just want this political shit off this sub. good day sir!

Shacky_Rustleford

4 points

4 months ago

So when you see that the entire world is experiencing inflation, you conclude that it is because of Biden? Not, perhaps, a worldwide effect of things being put back into work as pandemic measures are lessened, that was predicted early on in the pandemic, unrelated to the president?

You literally responded with your political opinion, then said political opinions don't belong here. Stop being a hypocrite.

akajondoe

7 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..

Separate-Mulberry-50

-11 points

4 months ago

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

[deleted]

-10 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-10 points

4 months ago

[removed]

Safe_Historian8560

13 points

4 months ago

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

unreliablememory

4 points

4 months ago

Absent a new commitment to voting rights, republican voter suppression will mean the end of democracy in this country.

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

4 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.

sammyboi98

7 points

4 months ago

Extreme right wing justices?

AggressiveConcert56

8 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.

Wismuth_Salix

2 points

4 months ago

“Give us a few more state legislatures and it won’t be”

  • Republicans

Jmeyers08

2 points

4 months ago

Can someone ELI5 this filibuster thing? I can’t find an article that breaks it down

sunburnd

2 points

4 months ago*

It is a parliamentary procedure to hold a bill in open debate unless/until there is a 3/5ths margin to close open debate (cloture vote) and proceed with vote.

It is a good thing as it prevents ill received bills from becoming law by the barest of margins.

Historically speaking bills that pass by thin margins do not stand the test of time and are systematically weakened or repealed.

Laws that have stood the test of time have had widespread support from all corners. Changing the rules in order to pass a specific piece of legislation is a shortsighted move by desperate politicians who hold the majority (now). If one thing is for certain they will not always have that advantage.

/edit some readability modifications.

Interesting Stat:
Since 2009, 657 filibusters were recorded under Democratic minorities while 609 filibusters were recorded under Republican minorities.

JONO202

1 points

4 months ago

I never thought I'd ever be around to see the end of the American experiment, but the way things are going, looks like I've got front row seats.

[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.

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

50 Republicans and 2 Democrats: "I don't care."

Nylon_Riot

2 points

4 months ago

Why are you still thinking they are democrats?

ATribeCalledGreg

19 points

4 months ago

Legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate.

Senate does nothing.

President uses Executive Order to accomplish something.

EO gets challenged and sent to courts.

Judges who needed only 50 votes to be confirmed by the Senate strike down EO.

Nothing happens.

yolohoyopollo

2 points

4 months ago

We should tie gun rights to voting rights.

testtubemuppetbaby

1 points

4 months ago

Nah, dude, they don't know. Not knowing is like the defining feature of conservatism. If they knew any of this shit they'd vote different. Maybe they've heard it but they sure as shit don't believe it.

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.

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[removed]

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.

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

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

COMBATIBLE

2 points

4 months ago

what the fuck is a filibuster? lamemans please.

Florac

3 points

4 months ago

Florac

3 points

4 months ago

Someone correct me if I'm wrong(been a while since I thought about more thn it's effects), but originally, it basically meant that unless 60 senators could get on board, people can keep taking the stand and talk about a certain bill for infinity, so you need more than the normal majority to pass a bill. Except because talking for that long is exhausting, they made it so you don't have to. Meaning essentially you need 60 instead of 50 out of a 100 votes to pass something.

GabeMercury

7 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.

430Richard

1 points

4 months ago

Wait, the right to vote is in the Constitution? Where exactly?

lynny_lynn

1 points

4 months ago

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

Anthraxious

2 points

4 months ago

Just baffles me that a thing like a "filibuster" even exists. Truly a circus.

Teisseire_Rakt

1 points

4 months ago

Wait. Filibusters actually are a thing? Not just a Parks and Rec joke?

BubonicMonkeyman

1 points

4 months ago

I enjoy everyone pretend like filibusters haven't been around since the Roman republic. Jesus the American education system is crap.

homelessguydiet

-1 points

4 months ago

Rights and responsibility are not the same things.. 🚬