Reply With Quote
Of course, after all the screaming and howling it will probably go down the drain just like the BBB when Manchin and Sinema tell them to off...
The congressional democratic hysteria over this is hilarious...If they really do away with the filibuster in order to pass the federal takeover of elections it is gonna come back to bite them on the ass in spades.
Of course, after all the screaming and howling it will probably go down the drain just like the BBB when Manchin and Sinema tell them to off...
From the White House release of the script for Biden to read off the teleprompter today:
When he takes the podium to deliver a voting rights speech in Atlanta, Ga. on Tuesday, President Biden is expected to make the case that the Senate must abandon its longstanding commitment to the filibuster or risk losing democracy.
Biden is expected to advocate a special voting rights “carve out” to the filibuster, a move that Republicans argue will effectively kill the rule as each party devises specific exceptions for its top legislative priorities when it comes to power.
“The next few days, when these bills come to a vote, will mark a turning point in this nation. Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadow, justice over injustice? I know where I stand,” Biden will say, according to an excerpt of his statement published by the White House. “I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend your right to vote and our democracy against all enemies foreign and domestic. And so the question is where will the ins ution of United States Senate stand?”
And then he will probably read "message ends"
Filibuster should be gone regardless.
Why do you want the make it harder for people to vote?
...otherwise they cheat.
it has never been hard to vote. Just get off your ass and do it. Everyone has early voting, mail in ballots and voting the day of.
Get rid if the filibuster and welcome yoyo legislation where every time power shifts the "new" gets rid of everything the "old" did and then switches back every time it changes again. Total instability. Not to mention it totally defeats the purpose of the original cons ution. it is still the United STATES and the Senate balances power between the federal government and the states and prevents mob rule of the 51%.
.
Why do you want to make it harder than it was in 2020?
Give an actual valid reason.
Where is the filibuster in the Cons ution?Get rid if the filibuster and welcome yoyo legislation where every time power shifts the "new" gets rid of everything the "old" did and then switches back every time it changes again. Total instability. Not to mention it totally defeats the purpose of the original cons ution. it is still the United STATES and the Senate balances power between the federal government and the states and prevents mob rule of the 51%.
Show me the article and I'll agree with all that.
It's easy in my ZIP code. Maybe these peons should make better life choices and not be shiftless and lazy.
Yeah giving black people the right to vote without being in long lines definitely defeats the purpose of the original cons ution that kept them in bondage.
We had straight majority rule in Congress -- by design -- at the time of the founding through most of the 20th century. The founders considered a supermajority rule for the Senate and rejected it. It's nowhere to be found in the Cons ution.
As for the filibuster, what started out as an expedience for debate has been turned into a stumbling block that allows a Senate minority to obstruct whatever it doesn't like. And no, it's not a sacred, untouchable tradition, the Senate has changed it a hundred or so times, including once last year to ram Amy Coney Barrett down our throats. The version of it we have now is only about 50 years old.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-11-2022 at 02:11 PM.
Yep. Could have voted early or asked for a mail in ballot.
If the founders meant for the US Senate to be a minority rule ins ution, why did they give the VP the ability to break ties?
"Federal takeover of elections" strongly echoes resistance to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Do you think that was an intolerable usurpation as well?
We had straight majority rule in Congress -- by design -- at the time of the founding through most of the 20th century. The founders considered a supermajority rule for the Senate and rejected it. It's nowhere to be found in the Cons ution.
As for the filibuster, what started out as an experience for debate has been turned into a stumbling block that allows a Senate minority to obstruct whatever it doesn't like. And no, it's not a sacred, untouchable tradition, the Senate has changed it a hundred or so times, including once last year to ram Amy Coney Barrett down our throats. The version of it we have now is only about 50 years old.
LOL.
Like I said, what goes around the filibuster comes around when power shifts You can thank Harry Reid for that when Democrats used to nuclear option first to push through judicial nominees in 2013.
[QUOTE=Winehole23;10666054]We had straight majority rule in Congress -- by design -- at the time of the founding through most of the 20th century. The founders considered a supermajority rule for the Senate and rejected it. It's nowhere to be found in the Cons ution.
As for the filibuster, what started out as an experience for debate has been turned into a stumbling block that allows a Senate minority to obstruct whatever it doesn't like. And no, it's not a sacred, untouchable tradition, the Senate has changed it a hundred or so times, including once last year to ram Amy Coney Barrett down our throats. The version of it we have now is only about 50 years old.
LOL.
Like I said, what goes around the filibuster comes around when power shifts. You can thank Harry Reid for that when Democrats used to nuclear option first to push through judicial nominees in 2013.
Mitch McConnell has been fiddling and diddling with the filibuster for years, why does changing it now suddenly bother you? Just admit there's no principle behind it -- maintaining raw power for Republicans is all that matters to you, then and now.
Hence the LOL
60 votes is a reasonable threshold. Craft your legislation to get some bipartisan support. And yes, I support keeping the filibuster even if Republicans take the house and senate in 2022.
Piffle, that's totally unreasonable. Literally no other country in the world does democracy that way, and honestly, neither did we until the mid 1990s.
stupid post. Most other democracies have multiple parties and depend on moderating individual positions to obtain a coalition of parties/interests. Same with 60 votes.
In a perfect world the US would have a left nut party, a center/moderate party, and a right nut party.
Why do you want to make it harder to vote those ways?
And where's that filibuster clause in the Cons ution?
A bit of historical context might help to dispel the airy abstractions that arise around this topic.
So they make 60% coalitions?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
