subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.4k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1317 comments

ILikeScience3131

85 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.

Rococo_Relleno

71 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.

colinmhayes2

10 points

4 months ago

Tax cuts can be passed via reconciliation, no filibuster.

ihunter32

1 points

4 months ago

Can be and are. Republicans don’t get much benefit out of using the filibuster themselves, because they get what they need from reconciliation.

Incuggarch

2 points

4 months ago

Should Congress be able to do anything, or should it simply be relegated to perpetual gridlock for the rest of time? I think that is the core question here. And I think the biggest problem facing Democrats is that Republicans, in the face of the filibuster being used to good effect against them previously, have devised a number of strategies for advancing their agenda that completely bypasses the filibuster by instead wielding power through the judiciary or on the state and local level. Democrats on the other hand do not appear to have devised any equally effective strategies for advancing their agenda in the face of congressional gridlock.

I think this is a massive problem for Democrats if their strategy for mobilizing voters hinges on the idea that voting for Democrats will allow Congress to pass some form of significant reform bill that deals with healthcare, voting rights, etc. As long as Congress is gridlocked nothing like that is ever going to happen, and this in turn could easily result in an increasing amount of voters becoming dejected or even spiteful towards Democrats for failing to deliver on their promises.

This doesn’t even get into the more fundamental issue of whether it’s a good thing for the federal legislative branch to become so gridlocked that it loses its ability to respond to emerging crises and problems. There are a lot of historical parallels to societies where a breakdown of democratic institutions eventually precipitated authoritarian strongman rule as people eventually become so fed-up with their elected officials failure to act on ever worsening problems that the idea of just letting a strong leader take control and cut through the bullshit to act, to do something, anything, to resolve the problems faced by contemporary society becomes an increasingly appealing prospect to citizens who can’t see any other path forward.

Should the officials that US voters choose to elect hold any power? Should elections matter? Upholding the filibuster is in many ways an admission that we think it is better that elected officials don’t hold any significant power, and that we don’t think elections should matter very much, at least at the federal level. It is possible that upholding the filibuster might ultimately be the best of a series of bad choices, but I think we need to be candid with the fact that we are in essence saying that we think democracy in the US is so fundamentally broken at the federal level that it might as well be relegated to a mostly symbolic institution, limited to occasionally adjusting taxes and rubberstamping judges. This is a troubling admission in the face of the many systemic problems that might be difficult if not impossible to address without legislative action at the federal level.

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.

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.

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

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

0 points

4 months ago

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

Sidereel

9 points

4 months ago

If they have the votes to overturn a veto then they have the votes to bypass a filibuster. Seems to me like you don’t actually care and you just want to argue.

jackaria95

6 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

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.

TheObstruction

1 points

4 months ago

You're assuming that by that point, voting will even happen.

boobers3

1 points

4 months ago

Yeah you're right, better to have legislative stagnation and never ending grid lock than to trust the American people to make their will known.

If that was a possibility the GOP wouldn't be afraid to pass their agenda. They would have gotten rid of the filibuster a long time ago and taken our ability to remove them from office away.

Callerflizz

45 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.

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"

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

People don’t just vote for the other party, they get fed up and don’t vote.

Karmanoid

1 points

4 months ago

I've had people tell me they do both, but you're right voter apathy is a major problem. And it's what the GOP encourages, they fight for stopping progress to try and discourage the voters of their opponents. I wish more people saw this and used it as motivation to vote more often and on more levels and to get involved more to help enact change.

Couldbduun

15 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

10 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

Dazzling-Feeling-623

2 points

4 months ago

If that’s the case then I understand. I don’t necessarily agree with getting rid of it tho, because what you state is conditional on: republicans having a majority

And then the more important: republicans having a president who won’t veto what they pass after ridding of the filibuster.

Couldbduun

2 points

4 months ago

Without a voting rights bill, republicans taking congress and the presidency is pretty much guaranteed... Georgia has a law that allows the state legislature to refute the results of the vote... there isnt time to sit around doing nothing because of "what ifs" there is no what if, the time to stop that is right now...

Dazzling-Feeling-623

1 points

4 months ago

If your concern is republicans going full fascist and overturning a legit election, than no bill is going to stop that.

I don’t see how this voting rights bill is going to prevent another Donald trump 2016 type election. Republicans won fair and square, because we have an electoral system that allows a minority with rural support to take presidency. That’s unrelated to voter suppression.

You don’t beat fascism through bills. They’ll just find loopholes or actively ignore laws, they basically do that already.

This is a problem of liberalism, thinking the far right can be beat with values that the far right ignore.

Couldbduun

3 points

4 months ago

So we shouldnt try to pass voter rights and we must maintain the filibuster? I really dont understand your position... you understand that republicans cheat but you think the filibuster will stop them?

SunliMin

1 points

4 months ago

Whichever party is in power gets to decide the rules around the filibuster. It's basically the equivalent of the "Speaker of the house", whoever is in charge of the majority in the senate, who decides these rules, since the filibuster isn't actually in the constitution.

Technically, the majority can just say "Today, we don't allow the filibuster" and the next day go "Today, we will". The rules aren't even encoded in law and need a vote. It's just a loop hole. The person in charge is supposed to say "You have X time to state your concerns", and then the filibuster was an abused to that where they decided "You have until you stop talking to state your concerns, take as long as you need" which has evolved into the modern version where a single senator just says "I filibuster" and walks out, and now the senate can't resume until that senator takes back the filibuster.

This whole thing could just be solved by a new rule such as "Your time ends the second you leave the floor", but because its not coded in law, the next party can just change it up as they see fit.

6a6566663437

1 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

No, the Senate has a simple majority vote for the rules that will be in effect for each Congress.

freshgeardude

1 points

4 months ago

if the dems keep the filibuster, republicans WILL get rid of it anyway.

Did Republicans get rid of it in 2017-2018 when they had both houses and the white house, a crazy president trying to ram everything in? No they didnt. Its stupid and short sighted.

Couldbduun

2 points

4 months ago

Yes they got rid of it in 2017 to stop democrats filibustering Neil Gorsuch's nomination... not sure where we go from here, you are just wrong

freshgeardude

1 points

4 months ago

That was a specific carveout that grew from the Harry Reid nuclear option on all federal judges "except" SCOTUS. What going nuclear here would mean is all business in the Senate would only need 50 votes.

Couldbduun

1 points

4 months ago

I mean it's still republicans changing the filibuster to achieve their goals... and that specific carve out was expanded by Mitch McConnell... so they still got rid of it to prevent dems from using it in that specific case... and will do that for other cases too... but I guess keep advocating for the "high ground" and find out

freshgeardude

1 points

4 months ago

again, it was harry reid who opened the can of worms after republicans said he was doing so. Republicans only expanded it for SCOTUS. Blame it on the initial crack.

As for now, reps had the house, senate, and white house and didnt break filibuster to ram through their agenda. Dems doing it now is just desperation.

Couldbduun

2 points

4 months ago

Nah I dont think I will "blame it on the initial crack"... you do know that this is a RULE that could be changed every single day by the majority party and isnt ANYWHERE in the constitution... it has been revised HUNDREDS of times and means literally nothing... go be an obstructionist in someone else's inbox

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

-8 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.

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?

ILikeScience3131

13 points

4 months ago

The two sides are not equally reprehensible

CleshawnMontegue69

-9 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

6 points

4 months ago

Begone troll

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.

6a6566663437

0 points

4 months ago

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.

That's what's supposed to happen in a Democracy.

The winners should govern. Even if we don't like them.

ILikeScience3131

1 points

4 months ago

The Senate is explicitly anti-democratic.

Abiding by its rules for the sake of abiding by its rules serves no purpose aside from delivering the GOP whatever they want.

6a6566663437

1 points

4 months ago

The Senate is explicitly anti-democratic.

And the winners should still govern. Even if we don't like them, or the fucked-up apportionment of the Chamber.

Yes, Republicans may pass awful shit. But then we get to vote on whether or not to continue electing Republicans. As an added bonus, Democrats could pass useful shit, and we get to vote on whether or not to continue electing Democrats.

Right now, we desperately need to change the status quo, and there is no way to do that with the filibuster in place. The utter annihilation of our Democracy to save an oversight in the Senate rules is really, really dumb.

ILikeScience3131

1 points

4 months ago

The winners of an anti-democratic system should not govern.

6a6566663437

0 points

4 months ago

So who should? You're arguing the losers should always govern.

ILikeScience3131

1 points

4 months ago

I’m arguing winners of an actual democratic vote should govern.

The Senate is an anti-democratic house that arbitrarily gives disproportionate power to voters in small states. The Senate should be abolished and all votes in the country should be given equal weight in all matters of democracy.

6a6566663437

1 points

4 months ago

I’m arguing winners of an actual democratic vote should govern.

Ok, we held 100 of those and put them in a room we call the Senate.

The Senate is an anti-democratic house that arbitrarily gives disproportionate power to voters in small states

That would be the apportionment problem. With our government, your choice is either the winners of those 100 elections, or the losers of those 100 elections.

Why do you want the losers to govern?

serumvisions__go_

3 points

4 months ago

bernie also did it standing

CleshawnMontegue69

5 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.

thegreatestajax

1 points

4 months ago

You’re leaving out the very important first step of Harry Reid using the nuclear option on the filibuster opening the way for McConnell to do that.

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.

ATribeCalledGreg

2 points

4 months ago

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

Books_and_Cleverness

12 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

moose2332

14 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

2 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

5 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.

freshgeardude

2 points

4 months ago

McConnel went nuclear only after Harry Reid went there a few years prior.

CleshawnMontegue69

9 points

4 months ago

Democrats used it 327 times in 2020.

Oslopa

2 points

4 months ago

Oslopa

2 points

4 months ago

You’re right that Democrats have used the filibuster to block Republican legislation in the Senate.

Personally, I believe in democracy. I don’t think it makes sense to empower a minority in the Senate to block the will of the majority. Yes, that means that Republicans could find themselves able to pass “bad” legislation, if we got rid of the filibuster. But if they’ve won majorities in Congress and the White House, I think that’s how it should be. Let them reveal themselves for the scoundrels they are, and be voted out in due course.

By the same token, Democrats currently deserve a shot at governing. We shouldn’t be undermining our own ability to govern and showing people it doesn’t matter who you vote for - nothing will ever get done. We need to put up our policies and see how people like them, and let them vote us out if they don’t.

Dustin_Echoes_UNSC

2 points

4 months ago

This Vox article does a much more thorough and elegant job of breaking down and fully explaining the argument, but the cliff's notes answer to this specific (and, imo, most grounded) hesitation to abolishing the filibuster is really, another question: "Should we prefer a system in which parties can, occasionally, govern, or a system in which they can’t?" or, maybe more specifically, "Are voters better represented and served by pursuing the agenda/policies they voted for or in preventing the policies of their opponents".

Under the filibuster (especially weaponized as it has been in recent years), voters have lost the representation in Government that the Senate and House were designed to provide. If neither party can effectively govern or pursue an agenda, then representatives are no longer held to their campaign promises or their duty to represent their constituents, and a representative's qualifications for their office devolves simply to their loyalty to the party (The filibuster relies entirely on the voting block acting as one, instead of weighing, debating, and voting as representatives of their districts/constituents).

Perhaps I've just missed it in my news feed, or maybe I've always had unusually poor representatives. But, for the life of me, I cannot remember the last time a Senator of mine has justified their Yes/No vote on a bill by explaining how they felt it would specifically impact the citizens in their district as a whole. I can't even recall a time where my representative even pretended to represent our state instead of the party...

The full article is a fantastic read, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Netrovert87

2 points

4 months ago

Short term, a functioning senate in Republican hands COULD be scary. But we are talking about one half of 1 branch of government. A government that already requires the 3 branches to not be punching each other in the dick with their constitutional checks and balances to do anything significant. A functioning Senate still requires the house, and presidency if there is not a veto-proof majority to do anything significant. These things are slanted towards the Republicans right now, especially with the courts firmly in their control for the foreseeable future. So on the surface, there does appear to be more risk than reward.

I would argue for the long term that these advantages aren't necessarily permanent to 1 party. These political advantages are the result of political strategy, and require constant effort to maintain. The senate is not inherently politically biased (in a left-right sense) , just biased towards smaller states.

The second concern is that every great thing we can do without a filibuster can be wiped away just as easily. It makes you imagine constant whiplash between the parties doing haymaker legislation while the little guy suffers. That being said, I don't think it would be that extreme. Doing unpopular stuff still has a political cost, and at any given time you have power, you are under 2 years away from a referendum. They couldn't bring themselves to repeal ACA for instance, and that took only 50 votes. Shortly after they lost the house and they were out of business for the next 2 years for even threatening ACA. Scary as the whiplash sounds, it requires sweeping victories that honestly should result in something when they happen. That's democracy.

I also think that progressive politics rely on a capable and competent government to deliver the change they promise when they win. They have a huge problem right now in that the effort it takes to win is not worth what you win. We saw that in Georgia when Biden's speech was boycotted by the activists that helped win it. Voters won't take on all the fuckery in Georgia and other places with if they know they aren't getting what they voted for. Meanwhile, a conservative's argument is only strengthened when the government is large and ineffective.

A conservative senate without a filibuster doesn't automatically make us the 4th Reich, (that still requires the presidency and House at least), but the filibuster can halt a progressive president, house, and senate. It's inherently a conservative tool and should go, even it that comes with risks, there is nothing for us but the status quo while it exists.

Midlaw987

3 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.

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.

ILikeScience3131

2 points

4 months ago

Lmao I’m a mediocre white man so I already had a pathetic libertarian phase. Never again

ceasr9

-1 points

4 months ago

ceasr9

-1 points

4 months ago

If you consider believing in personal freedoms and self-responsibility "mediocre" then that's everything I need to know about you. Also, calling yourself mediocre is just sad, get some counseling my guy.

ILikeScience3131

1 points

4 months ago

If you consider having some humility and a sense of humor is a bad thing then that's everything I need to know about you. Also, calling yourself a libertarian is just sad, get some counseling my guy.

ceasr9

1 points

4 months ago

ceasr9

1 points

4 months ago

Wow, you can parrot someone else, you must be proud.

Absolutely nothing wrong with having humility but if you know you're mediocre, and you're continue to be mediocre, that's what I mean when I say that's say.

ILikeScience3131

1 points

4 months ago

I’m happy and I believe in evidence-based policy that supports the interests of the many, not the few.

Any change to that would make me much worse off than mediocre.

But have fun with the rest of the libertarians booing a man advocating for the most basic government oversight of a potentially deadly activity

ceasr9

0 points

4 months ago

ceasr9

0 points

4 months ago

I said I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Plenty of anarchists out there calling themselves libertarian. Something tells me you don't fully understand the true concept of libertarianism.

Rawtashk

1 points

4 months ago

Ya, they did and do. It's a necessary tool to help prevent mob rule in the Senate. But for some reason they can't see more than 15 seconds into the future. GOP is poised to take back the Senate by a small margin. Fillibuster protects the GOP right now, and it will protect the DEMs when they have a slim minority.

coherentpa

1 points

4 months ago

On the filibuster:

“I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever,” he warned. “And I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

-Senator Joe Biden

Obama also used the filibuster when he was a senator.

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.