Abolish the filibuster!

[Js1 86964]

4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Why is this thread even a thing?  If Warren is against the filibuster and McConnell is for it then fucking kill it yesterday. There is nothing to discuss. 

Because we only have 50 Senators and need all of their votes.

Manchin is still iffy - he's bemoaned how the Senate has been slowly eroding itself with all these very partisan things, like Reid and McConnell partially going nuclear on parts of the filibuster.   

If you need to look at who would be part of the "Keep the 'Buster" Caucus, its:

Manchin
Tester
Coons
Sinema
King

[Gourmand 7778]

I see it as a parallel to the EC. "Undecided" swing state voters just love the attention they get from the media every four years and the states themselves love how it makes them special. We're the shot-callers!  From an institutional standpoint, the biggest hurdle in nuking the filibuster is the sway it has over centrists and Senate romantics. The filibuster taps into their superiority complex as the most important deliberative, legislative body and they aren't going to give that up easily. Just like 2005 or the first two years of Obama's term, I am confident the Dems will do nothing about it because too many of the centrists see it as an important and necessary function of the Senate that confers elite status on their club. I hope I am wrong. 

 

 

[wildcat09 29562]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Because we only have 50 Senators and need all of their votes.

Manchin is still iffy - he's bemoaned how the Senate has been slowly eroding itself with all these very partisan things, like Reid and McConnell partially going nuclear on parts of the filibuster.   

If you need to look at who would be part of the "Keep the 'Buster" Caucus, its:

Manchin
Tester
Coons
Sinema
King

Ignoring stupid vestigial fondness for the idea of the Senate as a more collegial body, I think a key factor in any continued opposition to abolishing the filibuster is that none of these people want to be the one vote holding up monumental legislation. A 60 vote requirement takes a lot of attention and heat off of them. They don't actually want a lot of attention for shit like holding up a stimulus bill.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't agree with the status quo filibuster rules but Dems need to be clear that eliminating the filibuster can come back at them in the future. The state demographics are currently setup well for GOP majorities in the Senate. Obviously not guaranteed but a strong likelihood.

Now if you remove the filibuster and then admit Puerto Rico and the residential area of DC as states, that lowers the chance of a GOP stranglehold on the Senate.

The GOP doesn't want to actually pass anything.  They still don't even have a health care plan.  Hell, the only thing the GOP Senate even tried to pass over the last few years, was a failed repeal of Obamacare and an actual tax cut for the wealthy.   We know what legislation they would pass with 51 Senators, and it's nothing.  The dems are the only party right now that actually wants to pass legislation to govern, as opposed to just obstructing shit and lining their own pockets.

[jimmyjazz 46986]

47 minutes ago, Js1 said:

If you need to look at who would be part of the "Keep the 'Buster" Caucus, its:

Manchin
Tester
Coons
Sinema
King

I'm not sure I'd want to be in that role, given the current political climate.  I bet they fall in line.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19408]

Now we get to take away all the guns and burn down the suburbs. Can’t wait.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Abortion clinics on every corner.  Christmas is officially destroyed forever. Full communism bitches. 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Now we get to take away all the guns and burn down the suburbs. Can’t wait.

Starting with Mitch’s house. 
 

Seriously though, it’s about damn time the Dems stuck to their guns. Maybe they learned something the past four years?  Lol no. Couldn’t get through that with a straight face. 

[Satchel 6982]

The filibuster is on life support and the intransigence of the Republicans will help pull the plug.

[Neonmoon 38130]

What’s the moderate Democrat reasoning for keeping the filibuster? Other than to give Republicans power and prevent meaningful legislation from being passed?

[Biff Tannen 46063]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

What’s the moderate Democrat reasoning for keeping the filibuster? Other than to give Republicans power and prevent meaningful legislation from being passed?

Fear that the Rs will use it later.

[wildcat09 29562]

21 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

What’s the moderate Democrat reasoning for keeping the filibuster? Other than to give Republicans power and prevent meaningful legislation from being passed?

I think some want to preserve it because they expect that they'll be in the minority at some point in the future (likely) and that Mitch wouldn't immediately abolish it to pass legislation he wanted to pass (absurd). Others simply don't want to be the 50th or 51st vote to pass something. They're under a lot less pressure from both sides when their votes don't matter than they'll be when their votes do matter.

[Js1 86964]

Manchin’s thing is the further weakening and politicization of the Senate as the world’s great deliberative body. 

[kevwun 16308]

He may see it as deliberative, but in reality it's just ineffective.  It can't even pass gas under the current rules.

[Js1 86964]

[DDD Dad 14575]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Fear that the Rs will use it later.

Well it's already been neutered to suit the purposes of judicial appointments so it might as well get removed altogether.

[Js1 86964]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Well it's already been neutered to suit the purposes of judicial appointments so it might as well get removed altogether.

You don't want to sit around and listen to Mitch bemoan nuking the filibuster for fleeting political moments without any sense of irony when he did it to ensure Trump could get 3 SCOTUS justices?  

[Bateshorn 9989]

As I’ve stated many times before:  if you do it, you have to bring DC and PR In as states, to offset the rural bias of the Senate. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

11 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

As I’ve stated many times before:  if you do it, you have to bring DC and PR In as states, to offset the rural bias of the Senate. 

Okay. Where do I sign? They've been treated like outcasts for too long.  Let them have a say.

[wildcat09 29562]

14 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

As I’ve stated many times before:  if you do it, you have to bring DC and PR In as states, to offset the rural bias of the Senate. 

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

As I’ve stated many times before:  if you do it, you have to bring DC and PR In as states, to offset the rural bias of the Senate. 

Do it. Do it. 

But we all know the Democrats don't have the stones to do shit. They're rather whine while getting buttfucked by Mitch than accomplish something. 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Do it. Do it. 

But we all know the Democrats don't have the stones to do shit. They're rather whine while getting buttfucked by Mitch than accomplish something. 

They don't even really whine about it.  They just kinda stand there with a not-so-bright look on their face and look around going, "wha?  well...that just happened...I guess."

[DonkeyCigars 143]

I guess if we are going by simple majority, then Puerto Rico in it's agency, wants to be a state {Statehood won the vote 52.52%–47.48%)

But slim margins like that seem problematic (e.g. Brexit, our R vs D issues here, etc.).

I guess what I'm saying is I would much prefer Puerto Rico be more enthusiastic and show they overwhelmingly actually want to be a state rather than use them as a cudgel and political chess piece because of our imperialistic privilege.

In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, politically I'd rather see PR spun off as an independent sovereignty when/if they are ready to be a healthy going concern, so that might color some of my distaste for "using" them, as well. 

[Js1 86964]

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Do it. Do it. 

But we all know the Democrats don't have the stones to do shit. They're rather whine while getting buttfucked by Mitch than accomplish something. 

If fuck Joe Manchin says DC should be a state, it's getting done. 

[StassneyHorn 6755]

Dems should make North and South Dakota into one state as a fuck you, and then add PR and DC anyway.

[Bateshorn 9989]

7 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I guess if we are going by simple majority, then Puerto Rico in it's agency, wants to be a state {Statehood won the vote 52.52%–47.48%)

But slim margins like that seem problematic (e.g. Brexit, our R vs D issues here, etc.).

I guess what I'm saying is I would much prefer Puerto Rico be more enthusiastic and show they overwhelmingly actually want to be a state rather than use them as a cudgel and political chess piece because of our imperialistic privilege.

In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, politically I'd rather see PR spun off as an independent sovereignty when/if they are ready to be a healthy going concern, so that might color some of my distaste for "using" them, as well. 

Either bring them in or cut them loose,  but the status quo can not continue. 

[G650 14426]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

As I’ve stated many times before:  if you do it, you have to bring DC and PR In as states, to offset the rural bias of the Senate. 

The problem is they aren't enough to do it.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Either bring them in or cut them loose,  but the status quo can not continue. 

Then there should be a strategic path for one of these two options. There should be communication and work to understand what PR really wants for herself, and then some help to get her to the end state (state or independence). Using PR as a chip to trade or tip the scale out of balance (whether you are D or R) might be good politics, but is it morally and ethically okay in 2021?

Further, I don't quite understand Washington D.C. state advocacy. If Washington D.C. has a problem with it's constitutionally outlined and defined existence as a federal district whereas the constitution explicitly and specifically mandated the capital of the country not be in a state, then why jump straight to statehood and not look at rolling it into an existing state like Virginia or Maryland?

Washington D.C. would be the 3rd smallest state by population and is only the 20th largest city in America; seems like it's natural place would be a city and tax base for a larger state and that any championing for it to be it's own state is super thinly veiled and political. 

Or is that what we are going for? Cashing in political chips while we can because politics is dirty a game of thrones to be won by being cutthroat and smart?

[Js1 86964]

8 minutes ago, G650 said:

The problem is they aren't enough to do it.

It's not and probably never will be, because all DC does is offset what is likely Tester and Manchin getting their asses handed to them in 2024.

 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

9 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Or is that what we are going for? Cashing in political chips while we can because politics is dirty a game of thrones to be won by being cutthroat and smart?

Seems that the Rs have decided yes.

[Bateshorn 9989]

8 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Then there should be a strategic path for one of these two options. There should be communication and work to understand what PR really wants for herself, and then some help to get her to the end state (state or independence). Using PR as a chip to trade or tip the scale out of balance (whether you are D or R) might be good politics, but is it morally and ethically okay in 2021?

Further, I don't quite understand Washington D.C. state advocacy. If Washington D.C. has a problem with it's constitutionally outlined and defined existence as a federal district whereas the constitution explicitly and specifically mandated the capital of the country not be in a state, then why jump straight to statehood and not look at rolling it into an existing state like Virginia or Maryland?

Washington D.C. would be the 3rd smallest state by population and is only the 20th largest city in America; seems like it's natural place would be a city and tax base for a larger state and that any championing for it to be it's own state is super thinly veiled and political. 

Or is that what we are going for? Cashing in political chips while we can because politics is dirty a game of thrones to be won by being cutthroat and smart?

I was specifically referring to PR in my last post.  It’s colonial status is both cruel and unacceptable. Statehood or independence.

The argument for DC statehood over retrocession into Maryland is purely political:  if the GOP knew it could guarantee 2 more senators, they would have brought DC in 5 minutes after Trump’s was sworn in.

But philosophical, DC should go to MD or become a state.  800000 Americans are currently disenfranchised. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Bateshorn

[G650 14426]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Then there should be a strategic path for one of these two options. There should be communication and work to understand what PR really wants for herself, and then some help to get her to the end state (state or independence). Using PR as a chip to trade or tip the scale out of balance (whether you are D or R) might be good politics, but is it morally and ethically okay in 2021?

Further, I don't quite understand Washington D.C. state advocacy. If Washington D.C. has a problem with it's constitutionally outlined and defined existence as a federal district whereas the constitution explicitly and specifically mandated the capital of the country not be in a state, then why jump straight to statehood and not look at rolling it into an existing state like Virginia or Maryland?

Washington D.C. would be the 3rd smallest state by population and is only the 20th largest city in America; seems like it's natural place would be a city and tax base for a larger state and that any championing for it to be it's own state is super thinly veiled and political. 

Or is that what we are going for? Cashing in political chips while we can because politics is dirty a game of thrones to be won by being cutthroat and smart?

The biggest reason is DC is it's own independent culture and system. It would either be a state or stay as is. It has more gravitas and importance than a state like say Rhode Island, so if that can be a state, DC certainly can. Giving it back to Virginia and Maryland is a non starter as one state actually ceded the territory.

[Bateshorn 9989]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

The biggest reason is DC is it's own independent culture and system. It would either be a state or stay as is. It has more gravitas and importance than a state like say Rhode Island, so if that can be a state, DC certainly can. Giving it back to Virginia and Maryland is a non starter as one state actually ceded the territory.

This is the other thing:  DC is culturally distinct from Maryland.  I know y’all think they are similar, but they aren’t.  No more than Rhode Island and CT are the same. 

[G650 14426]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

This is the other thing:  DC is culturally distinct from Maryland.  I know y’all think they are similar, but they aren’t.  No more than Rhode Island and CT are the same. 

Precisely.

[Js1 86964]

15 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Or is that what we are going for? Cashing in political chips while we can because politics is dirty a game of thrones to be won by being cutthroat and smart?

Yes, because when Dems don't, they get steamrolled. 

[wildcat09 29562]

16 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Or is that what we are going for? Cashing in political chips while we can because politics is dirty a game of thrones to be won by being cutthroat and smart?

Yes. That's how it's worked for the entire history of this country (and every other country).

[henrygandorf 29223]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I think some want to preserve it because they expect that they'll be in the minority at some point in the future (likely) and that Mitch wouldn't immediately abolish it to pass legislation he wanted to pass (absurd). Others simply don't want to be the 50th or 51st vote to pass something. They're under a lot less pressure from both sides when their votes don't matter than they'll be when their votes do matter.

i think this is accurate, but it still makes me laugh.

"i want to be a senator because it's the highest honor in the land and i want to make a difference!"

"oh, the vote is currently 50-49 and waiting on me?  well i didn't say i wanted to make that much of a difference..."

[Bateshorn 9989]

The political discourse from 1820-1860 was dominated by a fight over admitting states to secure political advantage.  Ultimately, a major root of the civil war was the southerners fear Lincoln would admit a series of states, unbalancing the equilibrium and creating enough Senate votes to abolish slavery, which was designed to thwart those designs by the Southern Founders by giving unequal representation to the relatively unpopulated southern states.
 

Missouri and Kansas fought a full blown war over this. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Bateshorn

[hayden_horn 11402]

i find it curiously anarchistic of mcconnell to immediately wield the filibuster to protect it. i also find it completely amazing that democrats let mcconnell get away with a comment about going "scorched earth" if the filibuster is eliminated. uh, you just spent the last 6 years going scorched earth, you troglodyte. democrats should tell mcconnell that he is the author of the scorched earth senate, and he's about to reap the fucking whirlwind. fuck manchin and sinema for acqueiscing to the demands of a legislative terrorist. he never, not fucking once, negotiated with democrats about anything over the past 6 years.  cowards, the lot of them.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

53 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The political discourse from 1820-1860 was dominated by a fight over admitting states to secure political advantage.  Ultimately, a major root of the civil war was the southerners fear Lincoln would admit a series of states, unbalancing the equilibrium and creating enough Senate votes to abolish slavery, which was designed to thwart those designs by the Southern Founders by giving unequal representation to the relatively unpopulated southern states.
 

Missouri and Kansas fought a full blown war over this. 

This is a great point. At I think I need to change the way I think about whichever party is in power cobbling on beneficial assets to make their side win, because I think I've been thinking about it wrong.

I've been thinking about the politicization by adding things that favor you as a never ending arms race; e.g. Dems add 2 justices to the supreme court and then when R's get power in 2-4 years, they will add 3 more, and then Dems will add 7 more, etc. ad infinitum or Dems add a state, then R should break up a state to add more votes, etc.

The real way to think about it might be in a finite way, akin to when as kids on the sandlot choosing sides. You remember? The method is for one team captain to grab the bat at the bottom, then the other captain takes hold above the first's hand and they progress hand over hand along the bat until the top is reached - the one left holding the bat having the 'upper hand' and getting first choice of player for their team.

Eventually one side will have gained the upper-hand because the politicization they can leverage is finite. There is no such thing as a political mutually assured destruction concept which I've been erroneously thinking there was.

In that case, The Dems should politicize all they can and go scorched earth. I see Js1 and wildcats perspective and I would think like them too, if I were a Democrat. Eventually there will be no more cards to deal, only the hand you have dealt to play.

Edited January 26, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[henrygandorf 29223]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

It's not and probably never will be, because all DC does is offset what is likely Tester and Manchin getting their asses handed to them in 2024.

2024?  we talkin about 2024?

[Satchel 6982]

6 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

What’s the moderate Democrat reasoning for keeping the filibuster? Other than to give Republicans power and prevent meaningful legislation from being passed?

Sinema wants to keep her funding from big banks and Manchin wants to keep the oil and coal interests happy.

[fakebusiness 129]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I guess if we are going by simple majority, then Puerto Rico in it's agency, wants to be a state {Statehood won the vote 52.52%–47.48%)

But slim margins like that seem problematic (e.g. Brexit, our R vs D issues here, etc.).

I guess what I'm saying is I would much prefer Puerto Rico be more enthusiastic and show they overwhelmingly actually want to be a state rather than use them as a cudgel and political chess piece because of our imperialistic privilege.

In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, politically I'd rather see PR spun off as an independent sovereignty when/if they are ready to be a healthy going concern, so that might color some of my distaste for "using" them, as well. 

They're 100% being used for votes. Nothing more, nothing less. Its kind of fucked up if you think about it & probably racist.

[WBT 20887]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

This is the other thing:  DC is culturally distinct from Maryland.  I know y’all think they are similar, but they aren’t.  No more than Rhode Island and CT are the same. 

Enlighten me as to how DC and Baltimore or RI and CT are more different than say Lufkin and El Paso or San Diego and Bakersfield.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, WBT said:

Enlighten me as to how DC and Baltimore or RI and CT are more different than say Lufkin and El Paso or San Diego and Bakersfield.

I thought the same thing at first (or really any hugely different cultural distinctions that live in every state and for the entire country at large, which is why I think it's untenable to remain United in the long term), BUT, the difference is the cake is already baked for California, Texas, etc. and D.C. being assimilated into a state is forward/future looking makes a difference.

[elfenix 34661]

3 hours ago, G650 said:

The biggest reason is DC is it's own independent culture and system. It would either be a state or stay as is. It has more gravitas and importance than a state like say Rhode Island, so if that can be a state, DC certainly can. Giving it back to Virginia and Maryland is a non starter as one state actually ceded the territory.

note: retrocession already happened for alexandria, DC. 

[G650 14426]

20 minutes ago, elfenix said:

note: retrocession already happened for alexandria, DC. 

Yeah, and thats one of the reasons DC has so much more in common with NoVa than with MD. Along with the fact MD sucks.

[Satchel 6982]

Abolishing the filibuster is the only way the American people will see real honest debates over policy. Continuing with this vestige of Jim Crow will over serve to perpetuate meaningless procedural votes.