Abolish the filibuster!

[Neonmoon 38130]

Why is this even a fucking debate?

Whoever controls the house, senate, and Presidency should be able to pass whatever the fuck they want. If the public don’t like it, they can elect new people. That’s the whole point of elections, for the people to choose the direction based on the proposed policies of the competing parties. If your legislation or policies suck, you won’t get elected again. The filibuster was invented to curtail change, ie, power. So a bunch of politicians can sit around and do Jack shit, getting rich and acting like a fat turtle dick
 

[David Dennison 19441]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Why is this even a fucking debate?

Whoever controls the house, senate, and Presidency should be able to pass whatever the fuck they want. If the public don’t like it, they can elect new people. That’s the whole point of elections, for the people to choose the direction based on the proposed policies of the competing parties. If your legislation or policies suck, you won’t get elected again. The filibuster was invented to curtail change, ie, power. So a bunch of politicians can sit around and do Jack shit, getting rich and acting like a fat turtle dick
 

A parliament would be nice.

[staboner 5067]

shit yeah

[hpslugga 4096]

11 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Why is this even a fucking debate?

Because feelings and emotions.

If anyone could fathom that a 43-year old man-baby reading Green Eggs and Ham on the floor of the US Senate as a "legitimate intellectual tactic to stimulate crucial debate," they're living in a world that's even more Make Believe and Pretend than the shit that's vomited over here on that Daily Texan forum. 

Anyways, that's why the GOP wants to keep it. They're aware that they are wildly unpopular among the eligible (or should-be eligible) voting populations, so they need to have a mechanism in at least one chamber of Congress that literally legitimizes a stall tactic that recognizes the Chewbacca Defense as legitimate, especially when they don't have the WH and control neither chamber. It's also the same reason that they're very much in favor of gerrymandering. In fact, they no longer even attempt to hide that. Filibustering, gerrymandering, etc. Those are polysyllabic words, but apply their real world function to the world of 4th graders and what you have is "I'm taking my ball and going home, but first I'm going to whine and bitch to the principal until he changes the rules" after losing in dodgeball for the 142nd consecutive time.

Edited March 18, 2021 by hpslugga

[Hookah Horns 3089]

16 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Why is this even a fucking debate?

Whoever controls the house, senate, and Presidency should be able to pass whatever the fuck they want. If the public don’t like it, they can elect new people. That’s the whole point of elections, for the people to choose the direction based on the proposed policies of the competing parties. If your legislation or policies suck, you won’t get elected again. The filibuster was invented to curtail change, ie, power. So a bunch of politicians can sit around and do Jack shit, getting rich and acting like a fat turtle dick
 

It's been exploited to curtail change, but it actually was created by mistake. It's insanity that they won't just fix that mistake. 

[StassneyHorn 6755]

9/10 Americans will say the filibuster is when you keep talking to prevent a vote and not doing procedural bullshit to hamstring the process. That’s how they teach it in high school. Make all those people correct.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

9/10 Americans will say the filibuster is when you keep talking to prevent a vote and not doing procedural bullshit to hamstring the process. That’s how they teach it in high school. Make all those people correct.

I was one of those until a couple of weeks ago.

[Satchel 6982]

28 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

9/10 Americans will say the filibuster is when you keep talking to prevent a vote and not doing procedural bullshit to hamstring the process. That’s how they teach it in high school. Make all those people correct.

That’s how it works in Texas. Remember Wendy Davis?

[406W30th 1111]

Still blows my mind that some dumbass centrists think normal people will be outraged if we get rid of some procedural relic of the Jim Crow  era.

Shit, we're posting on a fucking politics board and a bunch of us (myself included) didn't even know the stupid ass rules of the filibuster until recently. I would bet that 99% of the general population couldn't explain what it is or how it works, and if you told them exactly what it did in practice they'd tell you it's fucking dumb. But no, we can't pass most meaningful legislation because it would be the end of this precious procedure. 

Won't somebody please think of the deliberative bodies???

[Biff Tannen 46063]

1 hour ago, 406W30th said:

I would bet that 99% of the general population couldn't explain what it is or how it works,

I will also bet you 99% of fox news viewers are howling in outrage over the thought of it being abolished.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

That’s how it works in Texas. Remember Wendy Davis?

Point of order! Point of order! Please step to the parliamentarian? 
 

I was streaming it from Chicago at the time as I had just moved, loved every second of it. She filibustered the session before over education funding and has called that the more important one during her time in Austin. Kirk Watson was a bit of an unsung hero in 2013 for calling a point of order on I believe Donna Campbells 3rd strike point of order and just putting on a confused face for the event if I remember right and then the people’s filibuster happened. Loved that moment not because it was great for women in Texas, but because it probably had Rick deLeon, the Senate sergeant at arms, pissed off. I would love to punch his stupid ass in the face.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

Point of order! Point of order! Please step to the parliamentarian? 
 

I was streaming it from Chicago at the time as I had just moved, loved every second of it. She filibustered the session before over education funding and has called that the more important one during her time in Austin. Kirk Watson was a bit of an unsung hero in 2013 for calling a point of order on I believe Donna Campbells 3rd strike point of order and just putting on a confused face for the event if I remember right and then the people’s filibuster happened. Loved that moment not because it was great for women in Texas, but because it probably had Rick deLeon, the Senate sergeant at arms, pissed off. I would love to punch his stupid ass in the face.

How old were you then?  Early 20s? 

[StassneyHorn 6755]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How old were you then?  Early 20s? 

Yea about 23. Knew two guys that stayed for the next session doing gap years to focus on LSAT prep that kept working with the Senate sergeant at arms office putting together bill books and doing committee work. “Glorified” senate messengers but you were on the ground floor to see weird shit and still show up to lobbyist parties before deLeon got pissy about it. Troy Fraser being an asshole mostly, Craig Estes making 20 year old female messengers uncomfortable, and Kevin Eltife being the consistently most drunk person on Fridays, if they decided to work Fridays 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

most painful slow walk of all time and Nancy knows how to slow walk. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

most painful slow walk of all time and Nancy knows how to slow walk. 

Seriously. They are playing connect the dots and no one gives a shit. 

We don’t need to abolish the filibuster if we an have bipartisan legislation —- Maybe we should have a talking filibuster —-# we can’t let the filibuster stop HR1 —- (insert next talking point)

[Biff Tannen 46063]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

most painful slow walk of all time and Nancy knows how to slow walk. 

 

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Seriously. They are playing connect the dots and no one gives a shit. 

We don’t need to abolish the filibuster if we an have bipartisan legislation —- Maybe we should have a talking filibuster —-# we can’t let the filibuster stop HR1 —- (insert next talking point)

Let’s say this is all true. What is the point?  If it ends up in the same place, why not just rip off the bandaid?  Not like the Rs give a shit. They will bitch and moan regardless. 

[Horn Dog 10156]

17 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

9/10 Americans will say the filibuster is when you keep talking to prevent a vote and not doing procedural bullshit to hamstring the process. That’s how they teach it in high school. Make all those people correct.

Agree.  The dems need to be smart about their marketing for once and instead of “Eliminate the Filibuster” their slogan needs to be “Restore the Traditional Filibuster”.   

The Fox News crowd may actually short-circuit.  Fox has been telling them the Filibuster is good and "tradition" and "restoring" is definitely good.  But now the dems want to restore something that is traditional and good?  What do we do??

Edited March 19, 2021 by Horn Dog

[Biff Tannen 46063]

8 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

 The dems need to be smart about their marketing for once

Wearelaughing.gif

[DonkeyCigars 143]

16 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

9/10 Americans will say the filibuster is when you keep talking to prevent a vote and not doing procedural bullshit to hamstring the process. That’s how they teach it in high school. Make all those people correct.

Agree. And 9/10 Texans who remember it from that moley lady whose tennis shoes were famously enshrined after doing it for some reason to block something or another I don’t recall.

[Bojack 2087]

11 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Agree. And 9/10 Texans who remember it from that moley lady whose tennis shoes were famously enshrined after doing it for some reason to block something or another I don’t recall.

It was Wendy Davis.  She was attempting to block an anti-abortion bill. 

The proposals called for abortions to be banned after 20 weeks, clinics to upgrade their facilities to be classed as surgical centers and doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. They would have forced 37 of the state's 42 clinics to close, according to opponents, making it very difficult for women in rural areas to obtain an abortion. 

Oh, and you fucking suck.  I'm sure you're being totally honest about not remembering anything about it except she was "moley" and the running shoes.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, Bojack said:

It was Wendy Davis.  She was attempting to block an anti-abortion bill. 

The proposals called for abortions to be banned after 20 weeks, clinics to upgrade their facilities to be classed as surgical centers and doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. They would have forced 37 of the state's 42 clinics to close, according to opponents, making it very difficult for women in rural areas to obtain an abortion. 

Oh, and you fucking suck.  I'm sure you're being totally honest about not remembering anything about it except she was "moley" and the running shoes.

That’s all I could recall and couldn’t be bothered to google it, and while the event and the details weren’t worth remembering, the point is that the shoes/spectacle of the filibuster were on display...and that is the point of the last page of posts— most people probably think a filibuster is a talking filibuster. Talking filibusters are cool and fun and interesting vestiges of early Democracy and evokes thoughts of Ben Franklin and Aristotle at the Acropolis. 

Whether you are wearing tennis shoes and a Maxi dress or reading Dr Seuss over and over, talking filibusters are rad and cool and should be the implementation. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Bojack 2087]

23 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

That’s all I could recall and couldn’t be bothered to google it, and while the event and the details weren’t worth remembering, the point is that the shoes/spectacle of the filibuster were on display...and that is the point of the last page of posts— most people probably think a filibuster is a talking filibuster. Talking filibusters are cool and fun and interesting vestiges of early Democracy and evokes thoughts of Ben Franklin and Aristotle at the Acropolis. 

Whether you are wearing tennis shoes and a Maxi dress or reading Dr Seuss over and over, talking filibusters are rad and cool and should be the implementation. 

I understand you now.  Sorry about my earlier comment.  I see now that you said she was "moley" because you think the talking filibuster is rad and cool and you were just trying to evoke images of early Democracy like Aristotle and Ben Franklin.  I take back my suggestion that you're a lying sack of shit.  

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

17 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

9/10 Americans will say the filibuster is when you keep talking to prevent a vote and not doing procedural bullshit to hamstring the process. That’s how they teach it in high school. Make all those people correct.

I would bet 9/10 Americans think the filibuster is a menu item at Dairy Queen.

[Bateshorn 9989]

17 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

9/10 Americans will say the filibuster is when you keep talking to prevent a vote and not doing procedural bullshit to hamstring the process. That’s how they teach it in high school. Make all those people correct.

There are legitimate reasons why the silent filibuster is a thing:  basically if you are going to have a filibuster, removing the talking component allows the Senate to do other things once you’ve established you don’t have 60 votes to move forward.  you can’t advance nominations when Senator Steve Racist (R-AL) is reading the phone book.

 

Also talking filibusters are not cool or rad or a founding fathers thing.  They are a product of Aaron Burr stupidly removing a procedural vote on moving the previous question, thus allowing the Senate to take up new business by majority rule. They actually virtually never occurred in the pre civil war era.

It’s a total historical accident, the Senate is supposed to work by majority rule.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Bateshorn

[DonkeyCigars 143]

20 minutes ago, Bojack said:

I understand you now.  Sorry about my earlier comment.  I see now that you said she was "moley" because you think the talking filibuster is rad and cool and you were just trying to evoke images of early Democracy like Aristotle and Ben Franklin.  I take back my suggestion that you're a lying sack of shit.  

THANK you. See, as a people, if we communicate and build relationships with one another, we grow.

[Ojo Rojo 2040]

This is the best, most concise information I have seen on the history of the senate filibuster, how the rules and the use of it have changed over the years and what, if anything, should be done to change it and what the effects of those changes would be:

https://whyy.org/episodes/should-the-democrats-kill-the-filibuster/?fbclid=IwAR2-7OXGp-hgL76NIUpc4CYpVGIAt41lsNCdNBk0ototsBcQMyVnRy4hRFw

[wildcat09 29561]

5 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

There are legitimate reasons why the silent filibuster is a thing:  basically if you are going to have a filibuster, removing the talking component allows the Senate to do other things once you’ve established you don’t have 60 votes to move forward.  you can’t advance nominations when Senator Steve Racist (R-AL) is reading the phone book.

 

Also talking filibusters are not cool or rad or a founding fathers thing.  They are a product of Aaron Burr stupidly removing a procedural vote on moving the previous question, thus allowing the Senate to take up new business by majority rule. They actually virtually never occurred in the pre civil war era.

It’s a total historical accident, the Senate is supposed to work by majority rule.

Yeah, it'd be nice if we could stop pretending that John C. Calhoun being a giant piece of shit was a laudable example of how anything in America should actually work.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[hpslugga 4096]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, it'd be nice if we could stop pretending that John C. Calhoun being a giant piece of shit was a laudable example of how anything in America should actually work.

My family has had Calhoun on its shitlist since he was around [/descendant of Henry Clay] 

Edited March 19, 2021 by hpslugga

[Satchel 6982]

8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

There are legitimate reasons why the silent filibuster is a thing:  basically if you are going to have a filibuster, removing the talking component allows the Senate to do other things once you’ve established you don’t have 60 votes to move forward.  you can’t advance nominations when Senator Steve Racist (R-AL) is reading the phone book.

 

Also talking filibusters are not cool or rad or a founding fathers thing.  They are a product of Aaron Burr stupidly removing a procedural vote on moving the previous question, thus allowing the Senate to take up new business by majority rule. They actually virtually never occurred in the pre civil war era.

It’s a total historical accident, the Senate is supposed to work by majority rule.

This is true.

[tchookem 3966]

My family has had Calhoun on its shitlist since he was around [/descendant of Henry Clay] 

Imagine the level of shitheel you've achieved for Andrew Jackson to think you're a shitheel.

When asked if he had any regrets about the last eight years, this was his response: “[That] I didn’t shoot Henry Clay and I didn’t hang John C. Calhoun.” 

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Maybe if our lawmakers spent less time tweeting and more time abolishing / reforming the filibuster they could get something done.

[Bateshorn 9989]

2 hours ago, tchookem said:

Imagine the level of shitheel you've achieved for Andrew Jackson to think you're a shitheel.

When asked if he had any regrets about the last eight years, this was his response: “[That] I didn’t shoot Henry Clay and I didn’t hang John C. Calhoun.” 

this is known terrible person and genocidaire Andrew Jackson diming out John C. Calhoun.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Bateshorn

[Bateshorn 9989]

56 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Maybe if our lawmakers spent less time tweeting and more time abolishing / reforming the filibuster they could get something done.

What the fuck is she supposed to do? Grab a halberd, take the senate floor by force and change the rules like Conan the Barbarian? 

“lulz 1 of 100 doesn’t just change the rules singlehandedly like Thanos. Democrats are such cucks”

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

What the fuck is she supposed to do? Grab a halberd, take the senate floor by force and change the rules like Conan the Barbarian? 

“lulz 1 of 100 doesn’t just change the rules singlehandedly like Thanos. Democrats are such cucks”

Maybe she could draw up a bill or something.  You know, do her fucking job instead of tweet tweet tweet.

I voted for her in the primary, but it’s obvious now why she lost.  Lots of great ideas,  but fuck all from a get shit moving point.

[Bateshorn 9989]

38 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Maybe she could draw up a bill or something.  You know, do her fucking job instead of tweet tweet tweet.

I voted for her in the primary, but it’s obvious now why she lost.  Lots of great ideas,  but fuck all from a get shit moving point.

no bill to change the senate. it’s an internal thing.  only schumer can offer a rules change, and without 60 votes, it would fail. 

barring that, they are left with the nuclear option, which is effectively the 50+Harris dems just over ruling the gop on every motion based on a ruling of the chair .  think of a horrible Robert’s rules of order slugfest.

this is Warren trying to do something about it: she’s trying to arouse pressure online for senators to nuke the filibuster.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Bateshorn

[elfenix 34661]

29 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

only schumer can offer a rules change, and without 60 votes, it would fail. 

what if i told you it only needed 50+1?

[Neonmoon 38130]

Yes, you only need 50 + 1 votes to change procedural rule. Then with 50+1 votes, you could pass HR1, Infrastructure, Immigration. ANYTHING. 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Yes, you only need 50 + 1 votes to change procedural rule. Then with 50+1 votes, you could pass HR1, Infrastructure, Immigration. ANYTHING. 

And I don’t think the question was ever answered as to why the Dems can’t change the rules until 2022 or any date of their choosing and then have it revert back to how it is now. 

[elfenix 34661]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

And I don’t think the question was ever answered as to why the Dems can’t change the rules until 2022 or any date of their choosing and then have it revert back to how it is now. 

reverting won't stick. 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

reverting won't stick. 

If they keep the majority, why not?

[washparkhorn 9967]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If they keep the majority, why not?

can the Democrats hold it?

[elfenix 34661]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If they keep the majority, why not?

then why would you revert the filibuster?

[David Dennison 19441]

14 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

There are legitimate reasons why the silent filibuster is a thing:  basically if you are going to have a filibuster, removing the talking component allows the Senate to do other things once you’ve established you don’t have 60 votes to move forward.  you can’t advance nominations when Senator Steve Racist (R-AL) is reading the phone book.

 

Also talking filibusters are not cool or rad or a founding fathers thing.  They are a product of Aaron Burr stupidly removing a procedural vote on moving the previous question, thus allowing the Senate to take up new business by majority rule. They actually virtually never occurred in the pre civil war era.

It’s a total historical accident, the Senate is supposed to work by majority rule.

Disregard the rule.

Problem solved.

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Yes, you only need 50 + 1 votes to change procedural rule. Then with 50+1 votes, you could pass HR1, Infrastructure, Immigration. ANYTHING. 

Again.

WHY.  NOT.  DONE????

[Bateshorn 9989]

10 hours ago, elfenix said:

what if i told you it only needed 50+1?

What if I told you the democrats don’t currently have 50 votes to do it?

Ive been onboard with ending the filibuster for years.  but blaming liz warren for its continued existence is stupid.  it’s not her fault. Publically it’s Manchin, Sinema, and Tester’s fault.  privately,  i think there’s another 3-5 democrats who aren’t convinced either.

If you move to the nuclear option, it does create a bunch of headaches associated with other procedural things that are rarely enforced in the senate. they can be overcome, but they will make everything messy.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Bateshorn

[David Dennison 19441]

11 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

What if I told you the democrats don’t currently have 50 votes to do it?

Ive been onboard with ending the filibuster for years.  but blaming liz warren for its continued existence is stupid.  it’s not her fault. Publically it’s Manchin, Sinema, and Tester’s fault.  privately,  i think there’s another 3-5 democrats who aren’t convinced either.

If you move to the nuclear option, it does create a bunch of headaches associated with other procedural things that are rarely enforced in the senate. they can be overcome, but they will make everything messy.

Or just blow off the rule completely and bring bills to the floor for a vote.

[Bateshorn 9989]

the first rule of majority rule is if you have the votes you vote. if you don’t, you talk. 

[David Dennison 19441]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

the first rule of majority rule is if you have the votes you vote. if you don’t, you talk. 

Flush the Democrats who oppose voting rights out. Make them cast a vote. They shouldn't get to hide behind extra-constitutional procedural rules.