We should get rid of it noon January 3rd, 2026.
If you Maoists block the SAVE act, you might win the house.
You DO grasp there is ZERO chance you'll take the Senate, right?
Filibuster - A Dive into the Crazy Life of the Filibuster - Let's Be Honest - It Must Go
- Thread starter Tobytone
- Start date
-
- Tags
- filibuster shut-down
If you Maoists block the SAVE act, you might win the house.
You DO grasp there is ZERO chance you'll take the Senate, right?
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
Cry some more I love it!
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
This is the same idea as abortion... So long as nothing was being done, it was something they could drag out every 2 years and pretend to be doing something about it.
The betting markets are putting the odds of Democrats winning the Senate at 50%, which is not zero, but also nowhere near certain. They put the odds of Democrats winning the House at 86%.
If the economy gets much worse, then Democrats have a much better chance of both.
Censored, I know you do not like reality, but you still have to face it.
You're not going to get it, shit-strain. Come with any ideas good for American and you might start winning election.
Bitch.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The filibuster should stay.
Republicans and Democrats can both agree that the minority should be protected instead of allowing mob rule.
Yep. That's exactly what it is.
Many revolutionary discoveries were either by accident or by mistake. How they come about is irrelevant.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
1. I really wish you would consider posting in English.
2. MAGA just cleaned your clocks. Who controls Congress and the White House.
3. You leftists are getting obliterated in November.
I see why you mumble.
I don't understand how people keep skipping over the origins of the filibuster. The Constitution did not include it, and neither did the original Senate rules. The Senate was intentionally designed as a majority-rule deliberative body.
What makes the Senate distinctive and valuable isn't the requirement that 60 senators must agree to end debate. In practice, debate and compromise have nothing to do with the modern filibuster. Simply saying the word 'filibuster' halts progress, with no actual debate required.
Why have a Senate? So that each state gets equal representation of the states themselves in the federal system, as established by the Great Compromise of 1787. This balances the population-based House (representing the people nationally) with a Senate that treats states as co-equal sovereign entities, protecting smaller states from domination by larger ones, preventing consolidation into a purely majoritarian national government. This help preserve Federalism, it had nothing to do with endless debates.
In addition, Senators serve six years, three times longer than a House member's two-year cycle and 50 percent longer than a president's term. This structure allows the Senate to see things through with a wider lens, precisely because they have such long terms. The House, by contrast, is almost constantly in election mode. I'm sure you can imagine many more reasons the two bodies have very different motivations because of the very different terms.
The argument that the filibuster is what makes the Senate worth having or that it preserves the Founders' vision falls apart for two clear reasons. First, again, I'll point out the filibuster was never part of the Constitution or the Senate's original rules. Second, since the 1975 reforms, the Senate doesn't have to debate a bill for even five seconds. When a filibuster is invoked today, actual debate time increases by zero. It's essentially a procedural veto that requires no speaking. Yet it is now used for nearly every bill.
For decades, some 'serious intellectuals' have produced lengthy, circular arguments praising the filibuster's supposed brilliance.
Take this example from Robert B. Dove, a former Senate Parliamentarian, in his 2010 testimony: 'If the filibuster is swept away, what becomes of the Senate of the Founders, of Madison's 'necessary fence' against the danger of an overzealous majority...'
That sounds profound until you actually read Madison and the Federalist Papers. Madison never envisioned anything like the filibuster, particularly not its current form or the even worse version in 1917, that required 67 votes to end debate. (but at least they did have to debate to filibuster)
Similar quotes get trotted out to defend it. Joseph Story, in his 1833 treatise, wrote: 'No system could be more admirably contrived to ensure due deliberation and inquiry, and just results in all matters of legislation.'
That's a fine ideal, beautifully written, but has nothing to do with the filibuster. The obvious unanswered question? Why not adopt a sensible rule that guarantees a reasonable period for debate and then moves to a vote? If 51 senators support a bill, it passes the Senate. That is how the Senate was always meant to function.
Instead, we allowed a procedural gimmick to take over, and too few people called it out for what it is. For decades, they've played us while consolidating power they were never meant to have. Who's fault is it? Ours, politicians will always take power whenever and wherever they can get it. We're the idiots that keep letting them do it.
Your concerns are noted
Perhaps. But aborted babies don't vote against them. Illegal aliens do.
Joe Biden imported 20 million illegals for a reason, not that veggie Joe knew the reason, but we do.
Does this reply remind you of anyone else? Let's just say I've seen better arguments from this guy. In fact, this might be the worst argument I've ever seen from him unless Israel is involved. He is usually methodical, taking apart a liberal's comments one line at a time with actual facts and logic. This is far from that.
Don't get me wrong. I welcome disagreement. I'm having good debates with Damo and Unsensored2008, and I truly welcome it. It is, after all, ultimately why I'm here. But you have to agree this is bush league at best. 'The filibuster should stay," lol. What a powerhouse of an argument. Then the second line? Both parties can agree the minority should be protected from mob rule, seriously. Sorry, but the system as designed hardly allows for mob rule. Suggesting that removing the filibuster would lead to mob rule is beyond absurd. What evidence is there for that one? Zero, or at least I don't recall the 'mob rule' problem spiraling out of control leading to the great debate about the filibuster, do you?
And the final line? How about offering some comparable examples? Not that they would matter much here, but seriously, what a weak comment in this context. It might have been less foolish if the filibuster had proven to be a mistake that turned out to be a blessing. But no argument was made for why it's necessary, other than the empty statement 'to keep from mob rule.'
Of course, that begs the question: how can anyone claim our system is vulnerable to mob rule? We have a majority of 535 representatives who are closest to the people and constantly in election mode. That makes them highly responsive to the people's needs and even their whims. If that were the end of the process, we would face a serious risk of mob rule. But it doesn't stop there. It goes to another body with 100 members who hold office for six years, two from every state regardless of population, to ensure fair representation across all states. The longer terms allow them to consider the deeper consequences of their votes. Then, after that, the President has veto powers as the final check against impulsive majorities, and he is the one person every American has a chance to vote for directly. Only then does a bill become law. Notice, I didn't mention the filibuster. Why? Because it doesn't belong in the conversation. After all, we are talking about a rule, not a law. I would argue that implementing the filibuster was born out of mob rule.
Tell me how that layered system is truly in danger of mob rule. Some mistakes are just that: mistakes. Leave it to politicians to capitalize on a mistake in order to gain more power and less accountability to voters. That is exactly what happened, and it is exactly why establishment Republicans and Democrats both want to keep the filibuster in place.
US boots on the ground or a major terrorist attack in the Homeland would push the Senate into Democratic Party territory.
Never Truthful Walt - the reality is that there are very few contested seats in the Senate. The market is extremely likely to rebound long before the end of summer, which means the Americans will campaign on the strength of the economy.
It didn't help you democrats/Iran that NATO was leveraged into safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz. Further, IF Trump is smart enough to do what he said, bomb your allies into oblivion (which he has done) then get the fuck out (which he claims he will do) then the Americans have a successful military operation against the democrat backed Iranian Mullahs. I admit that I was hoping one of the bombs was going to take out John Kerry with his fellow Mullahs.
But in the house it will likely depend on the SAVE act. Your party intends MASSIVE and overwhelming fraud. Obama brought in 20 MILLION illegal aliens during his third term; over half of them were non-hispanic. He intends to use them in the democrat war to end democracy. Daycare fraud isn't the endgame Obama and the Marxists have in mind for America. Remember, Obama spread his illegals all across America to saturate our elections, to corrupt them.
The SAVE act will destroy Obama's war plan.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
And we ended that in 1913. With two-thirds of states abdicating the power they had.
Since Senators are a product of that same overzealous majority and no longer appointed by the states, Mr. Dove is exactly correct.
Madison envisioned, and indeed designed, a Senate where the representatives were appointed by the states - the governor or legislature. THAT provided the "necessary fence." But we destroyed that in 1913. Senators grovel to the same masses that the house does. They do not serve the many states and the states have no impact on their position.
That scumbag Mike Mansfield (D MT) created the "silent filibuster" which is completely absurd. That is what democrats are abusing to block the SAVE act. That absolutely needs to be abolished.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
we need the filibuster in place.
considering your traitorous neocon sutupidity,
the opposite of what you say should be considered.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
and everyone bows to pac and lobby money.
this whole courtroom is out of order.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
the stock market is increasingly a fascist lie, being dominated by corrupt anti-human insiders who wouldn't understand free markets even if they sold their rectums on onlyfans.