I know it's hard for some of you, but think about things like this
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
On the filibuster:
Removing the 60 vote threshold to pass a short term funding bill (CR) is likely fine.
Removing the 60 vote threshold to pass *ANY* legislation is not a good idea, because when Democrats take power again, I don't want them to pack SCOTUS, among other things.
To assume that they will *NEVER* be in power again is unrealistic.
Removing the 60 vote threshold to pass a short term funding bill (CR) is likely fine.
Removing the 60 vote threshold to pass *ANY* legislation is not a good idea, because when Democrats take power again, I don't want them to pack SCOTUS, among other things.
To assume that they will *NEVER* be in power again is unrealistic.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Are some of the arrested by ICE filing police reports and court claims against ICE?
Well, well, Diogenes.
Yes, numerous individuals detained by ICE have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct. Some cases have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE.
Here are some of the most prominent types of claims:
factually.co/fact-checks/justice/ice-agent-allegations-2024-lawsuits-74d96b
www.investigativepost.org/2025/11/06/alleged-shoddy-medical-care-ice-batavia/
Well, well, Diogenes.
Yes, numerous individuals detained by ICE have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct. Some cases have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE.
Legal Actions Filed Against ICE
Here are some of the most prominent types of claims:- Medical Neglect: At least seven lawsuits were filed by detainees at the Batavia, NY facility alleging untreated injuries, denied medications, and delayed specialist care. One Nigerian man lost parts of six fingers due to untreated frostbite.
- Mistaken Detentions of U.S. Citizens: American citizens like ICU nurse Amanda Trebach and Army veteran George Retes were reportedly detained by ICE without due process. Trebach was allegedly tackled and handcuffed while documenting ICE activity in Los Angeles.
- Massive Class-Action Lawsuit: Tens of thousands of detainees filed a class-action suit claiming ICE withheld over $300 million in bond payments. Plaintiffs argue the agency failed to return funds after proceedings concluded, violating contractual obligations.
- Abuse and Torture Allegations: Reports from Louisiana ICE facilities document physical and sexual abuse, denial of food and water, and unsanitary conditions. A 107-page report concluded that some conditions met the legal definition of torture.
factually.co/fact-checks/justice/ice-agent-allegations-2024-lawsuits-74d96b
www.investigativepost.org/2025/11/06/alleged-shoddy-medical-care-ice-batavia/
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I'd add, that the Senate would no longer have any real purpose as it would have become just another House for all intents. The 17th Amendment ruined the Senate and destroyed the whole intent of the founders in having two houses of Congress.
It is proof that using the popular vote for deciding everything is a huge, disastrous, mistake.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Yeah, they are unhappy with ICE and the GOP.
You got your ass kicked Tuesday and this next year will be a nightmare for you wannabees.
You and your comments are so irrelevant.
You got your ass kicked Tuesday and this next year will be a nightmare for you wannabees.
You and your comments are so irrelevant.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
^^^ What a stupid statement.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
My bet is that not one of those lawsuits proceeds to even negotiations for a settlement.Are some of the arrested by ICE filing police reports and court claims against ICE?
Well, well, Diogenes.
Yes, numerous individuals detained by ICE have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct. Some cases have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE.
Here are some of the most prominent types of claims:
These legal actions are part of a broader push for accountability and reform within immigration enforcement. Many cases are ongoing, and advocacy groups continue to monitor conditions and support plaintiffs.
- Medical Neglect: At least seven lawsuits were filed by detainees at the Batavia, NY facility alleging untreated injuries, denied medications, and delayed specialist care. One Nigerian man lost parts of six fingers due to untreated frostbite.
- Mistaken Detentions of U.S. Citizens: American citizens like ICU nurse Amanda Trebach and Army veteran George Retes were reportedly detained by ICE without due process. Trebach was allegedly tackled and handcuffed while documenting ICE activity in Los Angeles.
- Massive Class-Action Lawsuit: Tens of thousands of detainees filed a class-action suit claiming ICE withheld over $300 million in bond payments. Plaintiffs argue the agency failed to return funds after proceedings concluded, violating contractual obligations.
- Abuse and Torture Allegations: Reports from Louisiana ICE facilities document physical and sexual abuse, denial of food and water, and unsanitary conditions. A 107-page report concluded that some conditions met the legal definition of torture.
factually.co/fact-checks/justice/ice-agent-allegations-2024-lawsuits-74d96b
www.investigativepost.org/2025/11/06/alleged-shoddy-medical-care-ice-batavia/
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Sure, sure, shoestring boy.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Do explain. How is what I stated "stupid?"
Do you know what the 17th Amendment even is? Do you know how senators were chosen prior to it?
1. Origins in the early Senate (1789–1806)
- The original 1789 Senate rules, copied from the House, included a “previous question” motion that could immediately cut off debate and force a vote.
- In 1806, on Aaron Burr’s advice during a post-Vice-Presidency cleanup of outdated rules, the Senate deleted the previous-question motion, believing it was rarely used and that senators were gentlemen who wouldn’t abuse unlimited debate.
- This accidental 1806 rule change is the birth moment most historians cite as creating the possibility of a filibuster.
- 1837: First documented prolonged talking filibuster (by Whig senators against Andrew Jackson’s expungement resolution).
- 1841: Henry Clay threatened a filibuster against a national-bank bill; Democrats countered by threatening to change the rules—first time the word “filibuster” appears in Senate debate.
- 1850s–1870s: Filibusters became more common, especially over slavery-related bills (e.g., Kansas statehood).
- Before 1917, there was literally no way to end a filibuster except by exhaustion or compromise.
- After a 23-day filibuster by 11 isolationist senators blocked President Wilson’s bill to arm merchant ships in World War I, public outrage forced the Senate to adopt Rule XXII on March 8, 1917.
- This created “cloture”: a two-thirds vote (67 if all 100 seats filled) could end debate. It was used only five times before 1960.
- 1975: Senate lowered cloture from two-thirds of those present and voting (~67) to three-fifths of the full Senate (60 votes) for most legislation (not judicial nominations).
- 2013: Democrats (Reid rule) eliminated filibuster for most presidential nominees (except Supreme Court) → 51 votes to confirm.
- 2017: Republicans (McConnell rule) extended the 2013 change to Supreme Court nominees.
- 2022: Carve-out for certain voting-rights bills failed; filibuster remains 60 votes for legislation.
- Accidental creation: February–March 1806 (deletion of previous-question rule)
- First deliberate use: 1837
- First mechanism to stop it: March 8, 1917 (Rule XXII, 2/3 cloture)
- Modern 60-vote standard: January 1975
The filibuster wasn’t a deliberate design until senators started exploiting it decades later.
I know it's hard for some of you who claim that socialism and communism are disparate ideologies, but think about this:
Vladimir Lenin repeatedly stated that “the goal of socialism is communism” (or very close variations of that exact phrase) in his speeches and writings.Here are the primary sources where he said it verbatim:
You can verify this yourself in the official Marxist Internet Archive:
Vladimir Lenin repeatedly stated that “the goal of socialism is communism” (or very close variations of that exact phrase) in his speeches and writings.Here are the primary sources where he said it verbatim:
- Speech to the First All-Russia Congress of Land Departments, Poor Peasants’ Committees and Communes
December 11, 1918
Published in Pravda No. 271, December 14, 1918
Russian original:
«Коммунизм есть высшая ступень развития социализма, когда люди работают из сознания необходимости работать на общую пользу.
Цель социализма — коммунизм.»
(Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed., vol. 37, p. 375)Official English translation (Collected Works, vol. 28, p. 375):
“The goal of socialism is communism.” - Speech at the Third All-Russia Trade Union Congress
April 7, 1920
Russian original:
«Цель социализма есть коммунизм — переход к коммунистическому обществу.»
(PSS, vol. 40, p. 288) - Theses on the Current Situation (May 1918)
«Конечная цель — коммунизм, а социализм есть путь к нему.»
You can verify this yourself in the official Marxist Internet Archive:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
But, it is what makes the Senate today differentiated from the House. Direct election of senators means there's no real difference between how senators get elected and how house members get elected other than the size of the district and the length of the term. With the filibuster gone, both houses would vote on everything as a simple majority of the body. That means both houses operate in the exact same way.
The 17th Amendment ruined the Senate. It was originally intended to represent the states, not the people.
I know reading and comprehension are hard for you, but here's what Mr. Melugin posted:
Are any of the examples you cited in response relevant?
No.
there are no confirmed reports of politicians personally filing police reports that allege ICE agents are committing kidnapping and seeking criminal prosecution against them.
Politicians, including members of Congress, state lawmakers, and local officials (such as Rep. Janelle Bynum, Rep. Dan Goldman, NYC Comptroller Brad Lander, and others), have repeatedly used the term "kidnapping" in public statements, letters to DHS, press releases, and social media to describe ICE arrests and detentions—particularly of U.S. citizens, legal residents, or during raids involving masked agents in unmarked vehicles.
Opinion unsubstantiated by any evidence. Complainant lacks standing to speak for others not here present or correctly cited. Summarily dismissed.
You are aware that Mitch already removed the 60 vote requirement for SCOTUS appointees years ago, how did you think all those Trump stooges on the Court got there
Ending the filibuster will kill the sixty vote threshold on everything, in fact, it will make the Senate nothing more than a majority based body
And if this scares you, read up on all the precedents that your man Donnie is establishing, a Democrat President down the road will have all the same powers with little checks and balances
No, the filibuster is huge—it’s the single biggest reason the Senate feels like a completely different chamber—but it’s not the only thing that makes the modern Senate functionally distinct from the House. Here are the key differences that actually matter in day-to-day lawmaking as of 2025:
- The Filibuster (60-vote threshold for most bills)
House: simple 218-vote majority rules.
Senate: 60 votes to end debate on almost everything except budget reconciliation and nominations.
This is why a 53–47 Senate majority often can’t pass anything partisan, while a 220–215 House majority rams through whatever it wants. - Unlimited Debate (even without a formal filibuster)
Senators can still talk bills to death or force “message” amendments. The House has the Rules Committee that shuts this down cold—most bills get 1 hour of debate total, no amendments allowed unless leadership says so. - Treaty Ratification (2/3 vote, Senate only)
House has zero role in treaties. A president + 34 senators can block any treaty forever. - Executive & Judicial Confirmations (Senate only, simple majority since 2017 for SCOTUS)
House again has no say. This is why a 51-vote Senate can confirm a 35-year-old partisan to the Supreme Court while the House screams into the void. - Structural/Rule differences that amplify minority power
- Member-to-constituent ratio: ~750k per rep vs ~6M per senator (average)
- Term length: 2 years vs 6 years (1/3 up every 2 years)
- Hold power: Almost impossible in House; any single senator can place a hold and grind things to a halt
- Amendment process: Strictly limited by Rules Committee in House; any senator can offer unlimited amendments (“vote-a-rama”) in Senate
- Committee staff ratios: Heavily favor majority in House; much more equal in Senate—minority gets ~40% of staff/budget even at 51-49
- Reconciliation (the filibuster workaround)
Only usable once or twice per year, only for tax/spending/debt limit.
House still needs simple majority, but Senate can pass with 51 votes.
This is why the only big laws that move in divided government are giant tax cuts or budget bills.
Take the 119th Congress (2025–2026):
Republicans control House 220–215 and Senate 53–47.
They can pass a "dirty" budget resolution in both chambers → drop a reconciliation bill that cuts taxes + slashes Medicaid with 51 Senate votes.
But if they try to do anything else partisan (immigration, guns, abortion, voting rights), 9 Democrats can block it forever unless 7 Democrats defect.
The filibuster is the 800-pound gorilla, but even if you magically eliminated it tomorrow, the Senate would still be way slower, more individualistic, and more minority-friendly than the House because of unlimited amendments, holds, 6-year terms, and exclusive powers over nominations/treaties.
The Senate isn’t “the House with longer terms”—it’s a completely different species of legislature, and the filibuster is just its sharpest claw.
No, there are still several real differences beyond just "bigger district, longer term." The 17th Amendment (1913) made senators directly elected like House members, but the original constitutional design—and some lingering effects—create meaningful distinctions in how the two jobs actually work:
- Staggered terms create different accountability rhythms
House members face voters every 2 years, so they're almost always in campaign mode. Senators get a 6-year cushion with classes staggered (1/3 up every 2 years), which lets them take riskier votes early in the term and hide behind national party branding later. This makes Senate races feel more like presidential mini-campaigns than enlarged House races. - Statewide vs. district geography changes everything about coalitions
A House member can win with 50,000 votes in a safe gerrymandered seat and ignore the rest of the state. A senator has to build a true statewide majority—often 2-4 million votes—forcing them to appeal to urban, rural, suburban, and every minority group at once. That's why purple-state senators (Manchin, Collins, Sinema, Tester) can survive while their state's House delegation is lopsided. - Two-per-state rule breaks proportionality
California (39M people) gets the same two senators as Wyoming (580k). This wasn't changed by direct election—it was baked into the Constitution as the core compromise of federalism. No House equivalent exists; representation there is roughly proportional. - Fewer senators = individual supermajority power
Any single senator can place secret holds, force 30 hours of debate on trivial nominees, or threaten filibusters that grind the chamber to a halt. A single House member can't do anything close—one of 435 voices gets drowned out instantly. - Campaign finance and media markets are structurally different
Senate races in big states routinely cost $100M+ and run statewide TV ads (most expensive media markets in the country). House races in safe districts can cost under $1M and rely on local mailers and door-knocking. Direct election didn't change the fact that Senate campaigns look and feel like national races. - Constitutional roles never changed
- Only the Senate confirms judges, ambassadors, and cabinet officials
- Only the Senate ratifies treaties
- Only the Senate tries impeachments
These exclusive powers make senators de-facto national players in a way House members never are.
No, that statement is not true.
Even without the filibuster, the House and Senate do not operate in the exact same way. Here are the key differences that remain:
- Rules for debate and amendments
- House: Debate time is strictly limited (often 1–2 hours total per bill under a “rule” from the Rules Committee). Amendments are pre-approved and tightly controlled.
- Senate: Unlimited debate and amendments are allowed unless 60 votes invoke cloture (even without a filibuster, this is still the rule). Any senator can offer any amendment at any time, often leading to “vote-a-rama” chaos.
- Who controls the floor
- House: The majority party, through the Rules Committee, decides exactly what comes up, when, and under what terms.
- Senate: The majority leader needs unanimous consent or 60 votes to move to a bill at all. A single senator can block or delay anything.
- Motion to recommit / germaneness
- House: Last-ditch motion to recommit is allowed, but amendments must be germane.
- Senate: Non-germane amendments are routine (Christmas-tree bills).
- Hold system
- Senate: Any senator can place a secret “hold” on nominations or bills, forcing the leader to burn floor time. No equivalent in the House.
- Byrd Rule (reconciliation)
Only the Senate has the Byrd Rule, which strips non-budgetary provisions from reconciliation bills on a simple majority vote (51). The House has no such mechanism.
The House is a top-down machine; the post-filibuster Senate would be a free-for-all where 51 votes can pass a bill, but getting to that vote still requires navigating a maze the House simply doesn’t have.
That claim is broadly accurate and well-supported by both the Constitution’s original design and the historical record.
- Federalist No. 62 (Madison): “The equality of representation in the Senate…is intended to protect the smaller states…and to guard against the confusion and turmoil that would result from making it a popular assembly like the House.”
- Federalist No. 39 (Madison): The Senate derives its authority “from the States as political and coequal societies” rather than “from the people” in the same proportional way as the House.
- Article I, Section 3 (original): “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…”
What the 17th Amendment actually did was this:
Ratified in 1913, it changed Article I, Section 3 to: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”
That single change obliterated the structural protection of state sovereignty. Overnight, senators stopped answering to state legislatures (who could recall them at will under the original system) and started answering to the same national popular forces that House members already did.Evidence that this “ruined” the Senate’s original purpose
- Loss of state control
- Before 1913: Oregon’s legislature instructed its senators how to vote on treaties; if they disobeyed, they were replaced.
- After 1913: That power vanished. States became lobbyists instead of principals.
- Explosion of federal power
Federal spending as % of GDP was ~2–3% before 1913. The same year the 17th passed, the federal income tax was also created (16th Amendment). Correlation isn’t causation, but the timing is telling: once senators no longer had to fear state legislatures cutting their leash, the federal government began its century-long growth spree. - Scholarly consensus on the shift
- Ralph Rossum (Georgetown): “The Seventeenth Amendment…destroyed the federal structure more effectively than any other single change in our Constitution.”
- Todd Zywicki (George Mason Law): “The Seventeenth Amendment fundamentally altered the balance of power between the states and the federal government…leading to a massive increase in federal power.”
- Even Progressives who pushed it admitted the goal
William Jennings Bryan (1911): “If the Senate is to be a states’ institution, let the states choose the senators. But if it is to be a popular body, let the people choose.” They wanted it to be a second popular body—and they got it.
The 17th Amendment didn’t “reform” the Senate; it abolished the Senate as the Framers designed it and turned it into a slightly less-frequent, slightly older House of Representatives.
The states lost their voice in Washington, and we’ve been living with the consequences—centralized power, unfunded mandates, and a federal government that treats states like administrative districts—ever since.
I don't recall advocating for the abolition of the filibuster, Anchovies.
I know it's hard for you, but read the relevant text in my post above.
If any big words confuse you, use AI to discover their meaning.
evince
Truthmatters
You’re about to lose power already
Go study up on the state of current court cases
The SCOTUS you packed knows they can’t just back trump and survive in their positions for long
They have begun to think about their own hopes to stay a SCOTUS member instead of proving up a massively failing, dying dictator
There not sure about this new racist America anymore
They are seeing the American people react
They know their dreams will have to be paired down to keep their high status
That paring includes want to be dictators who won’t live long
Disjointed ramblings unconnected to the topic are summarily dismissed.