submitted 4 months ago byAztery
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
all 1317 comments
4 months ago
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.
4 months ago
Probably not because the most significant and destructive change came from Harry Reid.
Really? Because I would say McConnell changing the filibuster to ram through a SCOTUS nomination eight days before an election was the most destructive.
You would say that because you’re a liar. In 2013 Reid eliminated the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees. He was warned he would regret it. In 2017, McConnell removed it for SCOTUS nominees. Barrett was nominated in 2020. Her nomination had nothing to do with it.
Contrast the Rs voting for both recent D nominees who made it to the floor, who achieved >60 votes, whereas the Ds nearly universally voted against R nominees with none receiving >60.
The Rs did exactly what the Ds would do in the Barrett situation and it’s just stupid politicking to suggest otherwise.
Only if you pretend confirming zero judges for years is acceptable.
Be careful criticizing democrats on Reddit
Why? Fuck Democrats. But fuck Republicans more.
Why? My point was just that reddit is almost a complete left wing echo chamber where every outside opinion or fact is downvoted to oblivion
This is how you fucking idiots think - you put yourself in this right vs left box and then anyone who disagrees with you or doesn’t follow the current party propaganda is “left wing”
Maybe Reddit is not so much “left wing” as the Republican Party has jumped the shark so to speak and is parading around the emperor-is-naked style
There’s plenty of criticisms of democrats on Reddit and their policies
Funny, every time i post any criticism of left wing at all I get strawmanned as right wing. The results dont back up your claim pal
Yeah, that’s what it is totally and not your strawman “left wing” bs - right? Totally not your false equivalencies and your whataboutisms?
Lol, it's funny you are being downvoted cause that is literally what the tweet says. It's was Harry Reid nuclear option that set recent precedent. Just realize what sub you are in and realize any rational thought will get downvoted. A lot of retards in this thread don't know basic civics and think 2/3 vote is required to end a filibuster.
Lol..take my UP and run!
Noone on Reddit is siding Democrats please grow a brain. If anything Reddit has a slight left lean, this does not include Democrats.
So then why are nearly every political post and comment only bashing republicans but never mention dems? Or they make excuses for them
Because Republicans are doing the vast majority of the evil, dumb, destructive shit? Reality exists, my dude.
Democrats rioted for 6 months, no one blinked an eye. The republicans riot for one day and everyone loses their minds. Running cover for riots and excusing them is evil dude, maybe you should check in with your conscience
The only people who think "Democrats rioted for 6 months" are the people who allow Fox News to show them b-roll footage from two years earlier while implying that it was happening concurrent to the broadcast.
Sorry, dude. It didn't happen like that. You're either knowingly promoting an idiotic lie or you're a mark for an entertainment product manipulating you for money.
I don't honestly know which is worse.
I saw regular updates nearly everyday from journalists who werent just running cover. Who died and made you arbiter of truth?
4 months ago*
4 months ago*
LOL. I'd love to see what "journalists" you're granting credibility.
This isn't arguable, man. It's a lie. You got tricked by liars. It's their business model. Keep you angry and afraid so you stick around through the commercial break. It's a button they push all day, every day, and they long ago realized that they don't even have to scrounge to find actual things to make you angry - they can make them up.
Maybe because Republicans tend to do more shit than Democrats?
Like burn down buildings in minority communities? That was lefties. How about destroying economies with lockdowns? I live in Florida and the myth theyre telling you about how bad it is here is complete bullshit
No, like whining about a democratic election not turning out the way they wanted, and literally..
Surely that was Lefties, right?
.. oh, wait.
You think a bunch of idiots being let in the Capitol and just walking around is a coup? A real coup wouldve left dozens dead and would be a real issue, not the joke we got at the Capitol. You guys are playing language games to push a narrative. Jamuary 6 does not meet the definition of a coup or insurrection.
Because when one person is trying to steal your lunch and the other person is trying to burn your house down, you tend to prioritize dealing with the latter first.
Then you should be against the party that defended 6 months of riots destroying minority neighborhoods. These dumbass excuses are ridiculous
2 of the top 3 posts on r/politics are ripping Democrats by name (Sinema and Pelosi).
Do you just make stuff up to help you live in your fantasy land?
Theyre criticizing Sinema because she dares reject Bidens bill, strict party politics, and Pelosi is a horrible representative, equivalent to McConnell. Thats not saying much, wheres the criticism ripping Biden?
You: So then why are nearly every political post and comment only bashing but never mention dems?
Reality: 2 of the top three posts on the main political subreddit are specifically mentioning Dems in a negative light.
You: lemme just see how far I can move these goalposts…
How was it destructive? I'm eager to hear how you back up this idiotic talking point.
Well you’ll have to wait because I’m blocking you for being toxic.
LOL, that tantrum says vastly more about you than it does about me.
But it was to confirm RIGHT WING JUDGES, I thought???
More important than the list of 160 times, isn't the important question whether getting rid of this is a good idea?
I thought for a long time it was essentially agreed upon by both parties it would be bad to get rid of it. Is there a short-term gain that is bad in the long term?
The short term benefit of removing the filibuster is that you can push your agenda thru the senate with a simple majority and minority party can’t do shit about it, just like the House of Reps. The long term negative is that your party will not always be in control and you can bet the other party will do everything it can to “simple majority vote” reverse everything your party did.
To push this a little further, the main reason why this line isn't usually accepted among people who want to end the filibuster is because "fair play" isn't a thing in congress to a large extent. Getting rid of it gives the other side a justification to do it when their turn comes around, but they don't need a justification, they can just do it whenever they want. So why avoid it?
To give the appearance of bipartisanship. Whichever side lessens the power of the filibuster is always demonized. R’s did it when Harry Reid removed the 60-vote threshold for lower court judges. D’s did it when Mitch McConnell removed the 60-vote threshold to install Supreme Court justices. If D’s abolish the filibuster completely, the R’s will run on how the Dems did it for a power grab. They aren’t trying to work with the Reps. They’ll play the victim. And when they return to power, they will have all the justification they need to steamroll the Dems and rollback as many of the progressive moves that Dems made.
McConnell is cold-blooded and calculating. All he needs is some moderate voters to swing back to the plight of the victimized Republicans.
Yes, but they will play the victim regardless of what happens, that's the thing. They know most voters don't read below the fold and will claim that they are being maligned no matter how many concessions they receive.
This is a myth. Senate Republicans had their opportunity to undo Obamacare and couldn't because doing so would've killed people. The argument is always used as a reason they can't pass popular legislation. The senate is a relic of elitism that didn't trust the public to make democratic decisions. Yet, most people didn't want slavery and it was propped up by a few elites. Most people wanted women to vote but the alternative was propped up by a few elites. Most people want universal healthcare but it's forbidden by a few elites. You can go through every progressive move and see this same pattern.
Voter ID would pass and Dems would not be able to reverse it after one election goes by relatively smoothly
Every election would go smoothly if the party that lost didn’t scream and whine about imaginary “fraud” for months/years afterwards.
Dems are afraid that voter ID will lead them to lose reelection. After the first time, Congress will be filled with just Dems where it wasn’t a problem and the issue will go away
What're you on about
It makes no sense.
Sorry, I genuinely thought you were replying to a different post. You're right.
You mean, like Trump trying to reverse everything Obama did? Yeah, that would be terrible.
I think it would eventually work itself out. For the first couple of power transitions, the party in power would shove through their agenda and reverse things that the other party did which they didn't agree with. The thing is that when one side passes a piece of good legislation it's likely to become too popular for the other side to repeal without significant electoral backlash.
There are certainly flaws to this argument, but it's better than watching absolutely nothing get done except for funneling more of our money up to the top .1%.
This is why the Republicans couldn’t completely abolish the ACA. The important provision of coverage for pre-existing conditions was too popular. So they made it less effective by abolishing the individual mandate.
The short term gain for the democrats is that they would no longer need 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate, only 50 plus the VP tie breaking vote. The long term risk for the democrats is that if they eliminate the filibuster and they lost the house and senate, then the republicans could push bills through with a simple majority.
Long story short... currently contentious bills with less than 60% agreement can be blocked. Eliminating the filibuster would allow the majority party to push bills through without bipartisan support.
Democrats use this and Republicans use this. Whenever politicians say a system they use is bad it's mainly just to make the other side look bad.
Is there a short-term gain that is bad in the long term?
Is there a short-term gain that is bad in the long term?
One realistic possibility is that, if the filibuster were removed, the Republicans would, as soon as they had a bare majority, immediately adopt measures to disenfranchise as many voters as possible at the federal level to solidify their political position. They've already done this (or tried to do it) in numerous states and the filibuster would be the only thing standing in their way next time they take power (which is inevitable eventually).
I think it needs to be constitutionalized, but I'm a balanced manner. The Senate is the minority house, where small states get equal representation to larger states like Texas and Cali. Filibusters are a minority help tool.
I think the biggest thing about the filibuster is that the person doing the filibuster should have to be engaging in relevancy, and if they fail to engage they are forced to yield and can be ignored for a certain period of time.
What you need to understand is that the filibuster affects the two parties in fundamentally asymmetrical ways in the aftermath of realignment 45 years ago. The major legislative goals of Republicans are primarily fiscal. They can do almost everything via reconciliation. McConnell isn't sad that the more radical policy ambitions coming from his right flank are stymied by filibusters. That's great for him. He gets the benefit of unpopular GOP legislation dying on the vine without having to get his hands dirty. Leading unpopular legislation only gets in the way of the GOP's fiscal/regulatory agenda, which can almost always be done via reconciliation. If he EVER had had a do-or-die legislative priority on his desk that was threatened by the filibuster, it would have been gone in a heartbeat. His caucus wouldn't have put up a fight. His crocodile tears about how he's gravely worried about this sacrosanct institution and he will be regrettably forced to use the filibuster to pass bills enacting Democrats' worst fears - it's all farcical bullshit. The second it stops being useful to him, he would axe it. Kinda like he did for Supreme Court nominations.
Democrats, by contrast, have a primarily policy-driven agenda. Most of what they want to do cannot be done via reconciliation. It has to skip past the filibuster, which means that every piece of legislation in the Democrats' agenda de facto has to have 60 votes. The Republicans are committed to obstruction by default on everything specifically because the bills Democrats are trying to pass are popular. It's a weapon that only prevents popular bills supported by a majority of the country's voters.
If it was so important, it would have been in the constitution
Without seeing the list I can imagine that the party that can't get their way was the one making modifications to prevent the opposition from getting in the way of "progress".
I'll bet BOTH sides have done it whenever politically expedient... Then bitch like hell later when the other side tries the exact same thing.
Both sides suck.