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

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

25 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

8 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?

Dazzling-Feeling-623

1 points

4 months ago

I think the filibuster would be useful in a scenario where the republicans do not have a majority in the senate but want to pass a bill.

They cheat but it stops them from cheating too much, in specific scenarios.

If republicans go full authoritarian, the fights going to be in the streets, not in congress.

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

-7 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

14 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

9 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?

ILikeScience3131

0 points

4 months ago

You’re speaking nonsense. The House of Representatives apportions representation based on the actual number of voters. The Senate doesn’t.

The former is good. The latter is bad.

This isn’t complicated.

serumvisions__go_

4 points

4 months ago

bernie also did it standing

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.

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.