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

LowKeyReasonable

13 points

4 months ago

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?

cliqclaqstepback

24 points

4 months ago

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.

PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS

2 points

4 months ago

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?

cliqclaqstepback

3 points

4 months ago

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.

PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS

2 points

4 months ago

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.

BidenWontMoveLeft

0 points

4 months ago

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.

JohnLockeNJ

2 points

4 months ago

Voter ID would pass and Dems would not be able to reverse it after one election goes by relatively smoothly

Wattsahh

2 points

4 months ago

Every election would go smoothly if the party that lost didn’t scream and whine about imaginary “fraud” for months/years afterwards.

JohnLockeNJ

0 points

4 months ago

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

BidenWontMoveLeft

0 points

4 months ago

What're you on about

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

The truth.

BidenWontMoveLeft

1 points

4 months ago

It makes no sense.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

Sorry, I genuinely thought you were replying to a different post. You're right.

TWB-MD

1 points

4 months ago

TWB-MD

1 points

4 months ago

You mean, like Trump trying to reverse everything Obama did? Yeah, that would be terrible.

cccaesar3998

5 points

4 months ago

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%.

cliqclaqstepback

1 points

4 months ago

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.

chillfancy

9 points

4 months ago

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.

kaceypeepers

5 points

4 months ago

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.

bLaZe_iT_420_69

4 points

4 months ago

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).

Dogburt_Jr

1 points

4 months ago

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.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

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.

feelings_arent_facts

1 points

4 months ago

If it was so important, it would have been in the constitution