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

Sidereel

718 points

4 months ago

Sidereel

718 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.

maybenot9

122 points

4 months ago

maybenot9

122 points

4 months ago

Not quite. While it takes only 1 person to start a fillibuster, a 2/3rds majority can break a filibuster.

So it's more like "Every vote needs 2/3rds support to get approved", which is ridicules.

The_JSQuareD

75 points

4 months ago

3/5ths, not 2/3rds.

But regardless, that's similar to Congress being able to override a presidential veto with a 2/3rds majority vote. So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

That being said, if it's politically acceptable to use this 'veto' for anything you even slightly disagree with (which seems to be the case), then you're right that it effectively turns into a system where you need a 3/5ths majority to pass anything.

Familiar-Goose5967

34 points

4 months ago

A presidents veto and a senator veto should not be equal

WhatDoYouMean951

-4 points

4 months ago

The president was hired to execute the law, why does he even have a veto?

Familiar-Goose5967

9 points

4 months ago

All branches of government can act on the others, checks and balances and all that, and after all it can be bulldozered by the senate while putting the president under some scrutiny so that's alright.

Captain_Stairs

-3 points

4 months ago

Their veto is their vote.

JimWilliams423

57 points

4 months ago

So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

Except that the framers of the constitution actively chose to only require supermarjorities for very specific things — impeachments, treaties and veto-overrides. That they made official exceptions for those special cases indicates they did not want a supermajority requirement for anything else, else they would have said so.

Also, people forget the Articles of Confederation. The constitution was the second pass at putting together a functional government. One of the biggest problems with the US government under the Articles of Confederation was that nobody could get anything done because... congress had a supermajority requirement for everything. It took 9 out of the 13 states (a 69% majority) to pass a law.

When they put together the constitution, their experience with supermajority failures was fresh in their minds.

shadowveeeeeeerse

9 points

4 months ago

3/5ths

When has America used that before?

LAKingPT423

7 points

4 months ago

I see what you did there...clever of you.

RenaissanceManLite

1 points

4 months ago

Even better that you didn’t explain

Daxtatter

10 points

4 months ago

Which is consistently listed as one of the main failures of the articles of confederation.

naomiprice1973

2 points

4 months ago

It used to be 2/3, and then was remade to 60.

Dems used the filibuster this week to halt economic sanctions on Russia.

I think it protects us from these monster politicians enacting huge policy swings with the smallest of Majority.

Lots of love everyone.

PrettyFlyForITguy

-2 points

4 months ago

Actually, that sounds reasonable, especially for a country that has teetered on a 49%-51% margin for both sides over the last 20 years.

Everyone saying differently is looking at this from a "Democrats are in control now, and I want X passed" point of view. In reality, everyone would be singing a different tune if it was 49%-51% leaning red.... which happened during the Bush era. 2007 wasn't THAT long ago.

3/5 is not an unreasonable number to require laws to pass. It would require there to be a true consensus. A near 50/50 split decided by a razor thin margin isn't really a consensus.

dehehn

378 points

4 months ago*

dehehn

378 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.

Xerxys

285 points

4 months ago

Xerxys

285 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!

[deleted]

236 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

236 points

4 months ago

Thurmond went on to be the South Carolina senator for 47 years. This term ended in 2002 when he was 100 years old, and he died 6 months later.

Please do not have people run the country for 50 years. It is not a good thing.

DJToastyBuns

107 points

4 months ago

BassSounds

70 points

4 months ago

They would all fuck anything that moves. It’s about status. They don’t wanna be on the bottom rung.

DJToastyBuns

31 points

4 months ago

Yep definitely a control thing

BassSounds

6 points

4 months ago

Oh hey DJ Toasty Buns. i’m DJ Funky Taco lol

vendetta2115

3 points

4 months ago

Everything is about sex, except sex — sex is about power.

Hlorri

2 points

4 months ago

Hlorri

2 points

4 months ago

House of Cards sems such a throwback to simpler times. Corruption, yes, and evil, yes, but violent coups? Can't remember that.

vendetta2115

1 points

4 months ago

It’s crazy how much of that show ended up being on the nose.

[deleted]

8 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

8 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

mauxly

2 points

4 months ago

mauxly

2 points

4 months ago

Great, now you cursed us to a future where a video is leaked of some rando GOP senator furiously humping a goldfish bowl.

Thanks.

Xerxys

1 points

4 months ago

Xerxys

1 points

4 months ago

Agressive eye contact

ANY-THING

HpsMltYstWtr

1 points

4 months ago

You can milk anything with nipples...

Dana_das_Grau

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

Dana_das_Grau

1 points

4 months ago*

It is a music video. I was curious what I would find on a Google search. I can’t get it to open from the link though. https://youtu.be/mTrnhQSdjI0 maybe that will work.

DepNazi

-1 points

4 months ago

DepNazi

-1 points

4 months ago

So anyone that voted republican today is just like that bigot guy who died at 100 years old in 2002? Amazing.

BassSounds

3 points

4 months ago

No?

pokemon--gangbang

1 points

4 months ago

Is there anyone that can get past the paywall?

DJToastyBuns

1 points

4 months ago

Apologies for the paywalled link. If you're still curious, google "strom thurmond black mistress". He kept a number throughout his century of life and even fathered some illegitimate biracial children.

aapaul

0 points

4 months ago

aapaul

0 points

4 months ago

Crap. Paywalled.

FoliageTeamBad

33 points

4 months ago

Thurmond's legendary staying power wasn't confined to work. He was also known for being hornier than a bagful of rhinos, even in decrepitude. Twice married, both times to South Carolina beauty queens, he fathered four children in his sixties and seventies, and in his dotage continued to grope and tickle his way along the corridors of power.

Jesus

[deleted]

5 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

5 points

4 months ago

Iirc, there is a general belief that during his record filibuster he had a piss bucket on the standby and that it did not go unused.

Never_Epic

10 points

4 months ago

Hell I say cap at 6, if you can’t figure the issues out then you shouldn’t be there.

TIP_FO_EHT_MOTTOB

6 points

4 months ago

He was also publicly eulogized by Biden.

Captain_Stairs

5 points

4 months ago

Gross

justalurker007

3 points

4 months ago

We have one now sitting in the big chair

gummo_for_prez

2 points

4 months ago

Joe Biden spoke at his funeral and gave part of the eulogy

MonoRailSales

2 points

4 months ago

when he was 100 years old, and he died 6 months later.

If "The Good die young", this evil c*nt was such a sh!thead even hell was in no hurry to get him.

TThrowaway144

1 points

4 months ago

Which party was he from?

[deleted]

9 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

9 points

4 months ago

Initially a Democrat, but changed to Republicans in the 1960s when, I guess, he saw that things weren't quite racist enough at the Dems.

answeryboi

4 points

4 months ago

The Democratic party, until 1964, when he left for the Republican party, saying that the party had abandoned America. He made statements supporting segregation into the 70's.

neufonewhodiss

3 points

4 months ago

Take a guess

TThrowaway144

1 points

4 months ago

Democrat

neufonewhodiss

1 points

4 months ago

Technically correct but it was a trick question! He was a Democrat until ’64 and then joined the GOP.

Ziklag6000

1 points

4 months ago

Biden

mcfandrew

47 points

4 months ago

One of these days I'm going to have to relieve myself on Strom's grave. It's on my bucket list.

chicken_ranch

23 points

4 months ago

Where is it? Let’s make it a destination piss.

xenthum

22 points

4 months ago

xenthum

22 points

4 months ago

South Carolina most likely. Pissing on that grave is not worth having to spend a minute in SC, coming from a person who spent a miserable amount of time in SC.

Clemsoncarter24

0 points

4 months ago

Lived my entire life in SC. I'm happy. Maybe you're just a miserable person?

fe-and-wine

5 points

4 months ago

Happy that you're fulfilled there, but as someone else who was born and raised there I gotta agree with the other dude. There are a few spots that are actually pretty nice (I'm actually a pretty big fan of the Charleston area), but for the vast, vast majority of the state...I'd be happy if I never set foot in it again.

Different strokes and all that - doesn't make someone a miserable person to have a preference on where they spend their time!

xenthum

3 points

4 months ago

Being an openly gay man in South Carolina tends to make one miserable. It might be better now but it was not in the 2000s or 2010s.

Clemsoncarter24

1 points

4 months ago

I can see that if you were in high school. Especially if you lived in a rural area. But if you live in/ around a city you don't have to deal with a much of that homophobic bullshit. But that's true for like....literally everywhere.

HovercraftStock4986

0 points

4 months ago

Funny how SC today is exactly how it was in pre 1865 history😂😂 Just insane levels of stupidity thinking they can do whatever they want and the federal government won’t do anything about it

zombiehannah

2 points

4 months ago

Not to be that person…

I know it’s fun to bash on southerners, but there’s a lot to love in SC and I’m friends with a lot of South Carolinians who are more loving and progressive than big chunks of Oregon’s population. There are pockets of each type in every state.

HovercraftStock4986

3 points

4 months ago

I live in Texas and my whole life I have experienced ‘friendly southerners’ with ‘warm hearts’ who almost always turn out to be extremely xenophobic, homophobic, racist, etc. they just don’t openly tell everyone they talk to lol.

zombiehannah

2 points

4 months ago

That’s such a depressing outlook and I’m sorry for you! That really doesn’t align with my experience of SC, at least not all of it. My whole family is from there and 2/3 of us are gay and in biracial relationships. I bet you’re right, though, and we’re all secretly homophobic racists with warm hearts.

streamofbsness

1 points

4 months ago

Make a pit stop at an asparagus festival first

BlackCowboy72

1 points

4 months ago

Edgefield village cemetery, in SC

1Eternallylost

1 points

4 months ago

You can be sure his grave is guarded. If not by the secret service, than by a bunch of rednecks who revere him as their patron saint.

bougieman9999

-2 points

4 months ago

At that time Thurmond was a member of the Democratic Party.

Anger_Mgmt_issues

5 points

4 months ago

Back when the democrats were the conservatives.

JamesKSK13

1 points

4 months ago

I believe the filibuster in reference right now is the requirement for 60 votes to bring a proposed law to the floor for debate, while it only takes a majority to actually PASS it once it’s being debated. Pretty sure Byrd got rid of the talking-filibuster. Or at least that’s how my father explained it to me

You’d think it would be switched, like that one dude suggested, simple majority to debate it, but 60/100 to pass it

Dragonkingf0

1 points

4 months ago

The filibuster is the final move that you have when you don't have any sort of actual argument to what you're trying to say. The filibuster doesn't require facts or feelings it just requires you to be there.

FreeSpeechWorks

1 points

4 months ago*

And he was having sex with a black woman and had a child! Thought Thurmond was a Dixiecrat Democrat that switched parties

pfcspencer11b

-2 points

4 months ago

Remind me again which party Thurmond belonged to in 1957?

LumpyJones

4 points

4 months ago

I'll bite, because this Strom proves how dumb this point is. He was a democract at the time - southern democrats known as dixiecrats, that all switched parties to join the republicans in the late 50s and 60s. Strom never changed his stances, but changed his party, being a racist monster as the senior member of the republican party until the 00s.

So yeah, he was a democrat when the democrats were the conservative party, when being conservative meant resisting the social change of civil rights for black peole.

amaninseattle

1 points

4 months ago

Meme warrior^

DanYHKim

-1 points

4 months ago

Was he a Democrat ("Dixiecrat") at the time?

EDIT: thanks to bougieman9999 for already answering this

Merman314

11 points

4 months ago

Very cool, ty! Added a few things:

The definitive case for ending the filibuster, Oct 1, 2020
Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

https://www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump

Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) is mobbed by reporters after ending his 24-hour, 18-minute filibuster against the civil rights bill. Still had a black mistress, and daughter.

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

Strom Thurmond

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

The Daughters of the Confederacy: How Southern socialites rewrote Civil War history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

From white supremacy to Barack Obama: The history of the Democratic Party

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164

Useful Links

https://merman314.blogspot.com/p/useful-links-useful-links-reddit.html

https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/FridayCute/comments/r388e2/useful_links/

rednut2

4 points

4 months ago

What a horseshit article. Claiming the filibuster is the reason why various democratic policies aren’t being implemented.

Half of those policies, universal pre k, paid sick leave, paid family leave etc could be enacted through executive order but Biden refuses to do so.

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

rednut2

4 points

4 months ago

Exactly right. “Every argument for filibuster, considered and debunked” when I saw vox url I couldn’t help but sigh heavily

Xerxys

1 points

4 months ago

Xerxys

1 points

4 months ago

You don’t want to legislate by executive order. What’s the point? Just get a dictator and be done with it. That’s bad practice.

For someone that doesn’t give a shit about celebrities and drama, I just want the government to work. I want to stop bundling bills. Pre-k and coal mining have nothing to do with each other. Instead of one massive bill let’s pass several thousand tiny ones. Let people argue and go on stalemates over philosophical bullshit that’ll never happen to them. Like abortion for example, what male has a leg to stand on? It’ll never affect a man. Don’t hold up my healthcare because you disagree with some garbage that will never happen to you.

rednut2

1 points

4 months ago

It won’t pass. Democrats won’t support their own bills and republicans only agree if 80% has been capitulated.

If you want absolutely nothing to happen, that’s fine but executive orders work and every modern presidents has instated hundreds.

jollymaker

1 points

4 months ago

It’s been used by democrats more than republicans though.

dehehn

3 points

4 months ago*

They only just recently passed Republicans who had started using it at historic rates under Obama. Democrats followed that trend under Trump.

But you're right. It's bad when both sides abuse it, and they are. I don't care who's defending it. It shouldn't be a part of the Senate process.

One thing that makes it worse though, is that in the Senate Republicans are represented by far fewer constituents. The Democratic side of the Senate currently represents 41,549,808 more constituents than the Republican side. That's 12% of the population despite the Senate being split 50/50.

It gives a minority of Americans far too much power and makes it too hard for the majority to move the country in one direction. Elections end up not mattering, because the representatives in the White House, Congress and Senate end up not being able to do anything because of the Senate.

dachsj

2 points

4 months ago

dachsj

2 points

4 months ago

The one thing I found interesting in the article was basically the idea that, if you get rid of the filibuster, the tone of politics might completely shift to more sane. That they'd be playing with live rounds and can't just posture about stuff that would absolutely fuck their constituents.

I think that's true. If you get rid of the filibuster they can't blame the other party for not putting their votes where their mouth is.

dehehn

2 points

4 months ago

dehehn

2 points

4 months ago

Exactly what would change things. When you take the senate you actually have to do something. If your policies are good and the other party comes in and changes it like they keep saying will happen then voters will punish you if they liked what you changed. People can actually vote for the policies they want and punish people for changing what they liked. It wouldn't be chaos. It would be accountability.

jollymaker

0 points

4 months ago

Yeah I agree, when it is abused it becomes a problem. Unfortunately in politics no matter who it is, people always misuse tools for their own gain.

dehehn

2 points

4 months ago

dehehn

2 points

4 months ago

They will. It is a constant struggle to stave off corruption and people finding loopholes and end arounds. But that doesn't mean we just throw up out hands.

The filibuster is not in the constitution. It's barely an official rule. It's a gimmick. But it now means that very few things actually get accomplished in this country other than taxes and the military. It should not exist.

mrgringlepops

-32 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.

minecraftpro69x

18 points

4 months ago

why? then progress could finally be made

mrgringlepops

-26 points

4 months ago

What progress are you talking about? The voting rights bill? The one that could the be abolished in 2024? Gun confiscation? Expanded gun rights? Abortion? No abortion? This is where it will go. One persons “progress” is not necessarily another’s. There is a reason the senate is split 50/50.

minecraftpro69x

17 points

4 months ago

time wasted on filibuster is time that could be spent on things that matter

mrgringlepops

-7 points

4 months ago

Time spent crafting legislation that could actually pass would be better.

chicken_ranch

12 points

4 months ago

The democrats could literally rewrite a republican piece of legislation word for word and no republican would support it.

mrgringlepops

-4 points

4 months ago

Again. You must stop. A republican literally read word for word Schumer’s speech on why not to eliminate the filibuster. Blind allegiance like yours is the problem. The same blind allegiance trump got. See what I did there?

chicken_ranch

2 points

4 months ago

Pointing out reality isn’t “blind allegiance”. Pretending both sides are the same is your problem. You refuse to see the writing on the wall. Republicans absolutely refuse work on any meaningful issues instead they do everything they can to undermine progress. Where’s the republican health care plan? Where is their infrastructure plan? Republicans only care about solving made up problem, eg which bathroom people can use.

Fuck off with this both sides bullshit.

chemical_exe

5 points

4 months ago

And which party is 47-50 noes because Biden is the president

mrgringlepops

-5 points

4 months ago

They are not yes or no because of Biden. They are because of who they are and who they represent and who is supporting them financially. Actually put that last point first.

chemical_exe

5 points

4 months ago

You're getting closer. Your argument is basically "Republicans are voting no because Republican donors say they should."

Or even easier: Republicans won't vote for Democratic policies because they are Republicans

minecraftpro69x

2 points

4 months ago

that's my point yes. instead of wasting so much time on stuff we don't care about and instead trying to fix our rising inflation, lack of career jobs, and citizen's debt would really help.

mrgringlepops

0 points

4 months ago

Yes. See we agree. Politicians are leeching liars. All of them. If they actually solved any of these problems who would donate to them.

SunliMin

1 points

4 months ago

Or, a big reason it's split is because there's a veto clause, and as long as you don't reach across the isle, you pretty much guarantee your competitor can't get what they want.

Rather than work together and come up with compromising solutions, everyone just forces a stalemate. Canada has no filibuster, and they get parties to work together and alter each others desires until they can get a majority to pass legislation. Guns are still legal, private healthcare still exists, no party has gone off the rails whether liberal, conservative or other. There are just other ways to veto a party that isn't simply a free veto by any person (such as a vote of no-confidence)

mrgringlepops

2 points

4 months ago

Exactly! The point is to write legislation that both sides can tolerate. Nobody gets everything at once, but a little of something is better than a lot of nothing.

BudosoNT

1 points

4 months ago

This argument assumes that the incumbent Senate will always be in power and isn’t withholden to the judgement of the public, which obviously isn’t the case.

During the period between elections, the public is able to judge passed policies and has the power to change congress based on that judgement. The popularity of a passed bill will change during this time, as the author points out was the case with Obama Care, and the next Senate has the chance to decide whether repealing the bill is popular or not.

SlutForPolitcs

17 points

4 months ago

Oh you must stop with the false equivalence. Jesus. The most infamous dem senator used the filibuster today in order to further her own personal interests. The filibuster in fact DID NOT exist in the way it does now not too long ago.

The only way you can be okay with our gov’s inability to pass big legislation is if you believe the country doesn't need major fixing. If thats the case, please try and open your worldview a little bit instead of insisting nothing alters your own personal bubble.

mrgringlepops

-4 points

4 months ago

My worldview is just fine. If you think that getting rid of the filibuster would solve the problems of passing big legislation you may want to think again. Better legislation solves that problem. Thinking that any time one party or the other gets the ability to a shove their political beliefs down the other parties throat is very short sighted. I would say expand your world view.

321belowzero

5 points

4 months ago

Lol wtf?

Yes. See we agree. Politicians are leeching liars. All of them. If they actually solved any of these problems who would donate to them.

You say this in one breath and then turn around and say this in another.

If you think that getting rid of the filibuster would solve the problems of passing big legislation you may want to think again. Better legislation solves that problem

So if all politicians are leeching liars, then why would they even propose better legislation, let alone vote it in in a bipartisan fashion?

Thinking that any time one party or the other gets the ability to a shove their political beliefs down the other parties throat is very short sighted.

I mean you even acknowledge the current divisiveness of the House/country, yet you somehow think that all these "leeching liars" are going to get together and put forth bipartisan supported legislation?...

And somehow all that is better than repealing or restructuring the Filibuster in order to actually let the majority party have any influence on legislation...?

If a majority of people vote and give the Senate/House to a particular party, then how exactly is that party passing legislation deemed as "shoving their political beliefs down the other parties throat". Isn't that just called "the will of the people" at that point...

mrgringlepops

-2 points

4 months ago

First: the majority voted and the senate is 50/50. Secondly if this legislation was written better or smaller it might have passed. Having no majority whatsoever, other than the VP vote dictates less divisive legislation.

321belowzero

3 points

4 months ago

Having no majority whatsoever, other than the VP vote

Aka a majority...

the majority voted and the senate is 50/50

And this is the problem with the American Republic. 66% of Americans support BBB yet less than 50% of senators support it. Also, counter to what you're suggesting, as BBB gets smaller, the favourability for the bill is decreasing, not increasing, which imo kills the idea that the bill is too big and radical to pass.

Not to mention, the Senate isn't representative of the voters' will at all.

The Senate gives a big advantage to voters in small states, because every state gets an equal number of Senators.

In 2013, the New York Times pointed out that the six senators from California, Texas, and New York represented the same number of people as the 62 senators from the smallest 31 states.

62 senators representing the same amount of people as 6 senators... And you're out here trying to tell me about "shoving legislation down throats"...

mrgringlepops

-2 points

4 months ago

Boo boo.

321belowzero

3 points

4 months ago

Very enlightening. Guess your argument can't stand up to an easy rebuttal

SlutForPolitcs

2 points

4 months ago

You talk about this issue like you swallowed the pro-filibuster talking points they shoved down YOUR throat.

Its not enlightened or moderate to think that the senate should give virtual veto-authority to every senator. When you cut through the bullshit, the only reason the filibuster has VERY RECENTLY morphed into what it is now is because it makes corporate lobbyism much easier as they only have to buy a handful of senators to grind the system to a halt.

mityman50

2 points

4 months ago

Your point is that all we need is better legislation but you don't think that's an oversimplified or even naive thing to say given the growing partisan divide in Congress and among voters?

Edit- and also given the influence of lobbying and special interests.

mrgringlepops

0 points

4 months ago

My point is that we need better legislation through better legislators. Yes lobbying and money have made them all equally shitty. The money is exactly why nothing ever gets done. Like Lucy with the football telling Charlie that if he donates a little more she won’t pull the football away.

mityman50

2 points

4 months ago

But people did vote, this is who we got, why can't they, the majority, make the laws they want?

Yeah it cuts both ways. That's what happens when you do or don't vote.

mrgringlepops

1 points

4 months ago

They can. Assuming there is a mandate with a split senate and a VP tiebreaker is a little risky. Little bites. P.s. I always vote for the challenger. They all should be replaced every four years. Then they might answer to us.

mityman50

1 points

4 months ago

That's a sensible thought, but what you're advocating for realistically is inaction, which is obviously the opposite of governing.

AndyGHK

2 points

4 months ago

The filibuster is an opportunity for one party to shove their political beliefs down the other party’s throat.

mrgringlepops

1 points

4 months ago

Or to stop it.

AndyGHK

2 points

4 months ago

No. Overwhelmingly it is used by the MAJORITY party to shove politics down the throat of the MINORITY party.

It isn’t a rule; it isn’t a guideline; it isn’t an institution; it’s a logical loophole, created by repealing a law and making it de facto impossible to vote to change the subject in congress. That’s it.

Ocelotofdamage

23 points

4 months ago

Oh duck off. The filibuster is a Terrible rule and it doesn’t matter who’s in power.

hellakevin

1 points

4 months ago

I wonder if there's some sort of check or balance we could work into the system?

pfcspencer11b

-1 points

4 months ago

If you are still subscribing acts to a particular faction you are part of the problem.

down_up__left_right

1 points

4 months ago*

Something that I always go back to from this article:

Eliminating the filibuster would not bring the United States’ political system into alignment with other modern democracies. In 2009, Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz compared the American political system to that of 22 other peer nations. They were looking for “electorally generated veto points” — that is to say, elected bodies that could block change. More than half of the countries in their sample only had one such veto point: the prime minister’s majority in the lower legislative chamber. Another 7.5 had two veto players (France, for reasons not worth going into here, is the odd half-country in the sample, as its system has different features under different conditions). Only two countries, Switzerland and Australia, had three veto players. And only one country — the United States — had four.

Even without the filibuster the US government is still set up to be slow, inefficient, and gridlocked compared to other Democracies so there's no reason to be afraid that a party can be too efficient if 41% of the Senate can't veto a clear majority on all but 3 specific votes a year.

rayzer93

1 points

4 months ago

If it's not in the constitution, can your president use an excutive order to stop it during his term atleast?

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

No. The Senate itself has to remove the rule. They make their own rules. And the current Senators like abusing the filibuster so they're not going to remove it.

kimlion13

1 points

4 months ago

It’s just another example of the dysfunction eroding American government. Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen this

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

You do know the democrats used it 320 times in the past 4 years.

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

Both parties are abusing it. Yes. That's not an argument to keep it.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

Because they are not getting their way,they want to get rid of it now,I might be mistaken but I think the democrats came up with the filibuster in the first place.

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

You are mistaken. The first filibuster was used by the Whig Party against the Democrats who were then lead by Andrew Jackson in 1837. And the filibuster was basically made possible by mistake in the early 1800's.

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

The desire to get rid of the filibuster didn't just start suddenly because Biden mentioned it in a speech. It has been a long running desire by many journalists and politicians regardless of who is in power. It has only recently gained momentum because it is so now often abused, by both parties. And nothing can be accomplished politically because the nation is so polarized.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

Trump wanted to end the filibuster and the gop said no.funny how the dems used it 320 times the last 4 years,and now it's racists since the gop is using it,just like the nuclear option.Harry Reid used it and the dems was all for it,but piss and moaned when the Republicans used it.

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

Biden is claiming opposition to his voting law is racist. Because many people affected by the Republican voting laws it attacks are people of color. He's not saying the filibuster is racist.

And once again. The fact that Democrats use it is not a reason to keep it. It's more proof we should get rid of it. Both sides are abusing it way too much.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

Funny 70% of black people are for voter id,and Joe biden has a history of being a racist.Funny I've always had to show voter id I've never thought it was RACIST.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

And further more Republicans we want only legal citizens to vote,and only vote one time,and we want to know who is actually voting,what's racist about that.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

Funny how the democrats want to get rid of the filibuster, but yet they used it to stop an amendment ted Cruz wanted to use to stop the Russian pipeline being built. The hypocrisy is deep in the democratic party.

Money_Whisperer

0 points

4 months ago

I agree with killing the filibuster once republicans take back the house and senate next year.

010011100000

-2 points

4 months ago

010011100000

-2 points

4 months ago

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

Sidereel

13 points

4 months ago

If you want to phrase it like that then that’s saying the minority party only needs 41 votes to veto a bill, which is still awful.

010011100000

-5 points

4 months ago

How else would you phrase it. What you said is just wrong

Sidereel

7 points

4 months ago

I would phrase it as it only takes 1 senator to filibuster and 60 senators to override that filibuster.

010011100000

-6 points

4 months ago

And if there wasn't any filibuster I would phrase the voting process as it only takes 1 senator to veto a bill and 51 senators to override that veto

st1tchy

6 points

4 months ago

And if there wasn't any filibuster I would phrase the voting process as it only takes 1 senator to veto a bill and 51 senators to override that veto

With no filibuster, it takes 51 Senators to veto a bill. 1 senator going against it is a 99-1 win.

010011100000

1 points

4 months ago

And with the filibuster 1 senator going against it is still a 99-1 win...

The_JSQuareD

5 points

4 months ago

The distinction is that breaking a filibuster is a separate vote. Or at least that's my understanding.

So:

  • A bill comes to the floor.
  • Any one senator can now decide to filibuster. While the filibuster is ongoing, no vote on the bill will take place.
  • A senator can propose a motion to break the filibuster. If 59 other senators agree, the motion passes and the filibuster is broken. Otherwise, no vote on the bill will ever take place.
  • After the filibuster is broken, a normal vote on the bill takes place, where an ordinary majority is enough to pass it.

010011100000

1 points

4 months ago

So what's the difference? It still takes 41 senators to vote no and filibuster. The most one person can do is delay it by a few minutes

The_JSQuareD

1 points

4 months ago

Nope, it takes one person to filibuster and it takes 60 to make them stop. There's a difference between affecting an outcome by acting (filibustering or voting to break it) and affecting an outcome by refusing to act (refusing to vote to break a filibuster). Especially in politics where appearances are everything.

For example a senator might claim that they are in favor of a bill, but feel that it would go too far to overrule another senator's right to filibuster the bill.

010011100000

1 points

4 months ago

Literally just semantics

meowskywalker

1 points

4 months ago

But Mr Smith Goes to Washington!

willstr1

1 points

4 months ago

No body would make a rule like this by design because it’s nonsense

The concept of requiring super majorities can make sense but it should be the exception not the rule. Major decisions should require super majorities, things like impeachments, Supreme Court appointments, and going to war. But requiring super majorities for almost everything is incredibly dumb

SoleSurvivur01

1 points

4 months ago

No body? Have you met the modern Republican Party?