Is the US really heading for a second civil war?

LV426 said:
Slow down debate to what end and for what purpose?

Can you please provide an example of a debate that was slowed down that resulted in better legislation?




Slowing down debate for the sake of slowing down debate only exacerbates the problems the legislation being debated would solve.




I totally agree...there shouldn't be a filibuster for anything in a chamber where, Constitutionally, you only need a majority to pass legislation.

But the representation problems of the Senate remain, which is why it's a dysfunctional chamber that only magnifies partisanship.

There is no benefit to democracy or the Republic by giving every state, regardless of population and whose borders are arbitrary, the same level of representation in our federal government.
Click to expand...

Hey dumbfuck..that's why the Founding Fathers built a republic that has lasted for over 2 centuries and you're just a 2-bit shill on a backwater internet message board.

The Senate was designed to make American law resistant to change from the original intent.

That's why it takes "An act of Congress" to change anything ever.

When they changed law to give themselves immunity from it, that was criminal. There was criminal intent in them doing that and when they did that.
 
LV426 said:
I totally agree...there shouldn't be a filibuster for anything in a chamber where, Constitutionally, you only need a majority to pass legislation.

But the representation problems of the Senate remain, which is why it's a dysfunctional chamber that only magnifies partisanship.

There is no benefit to democracy or the Republic by giving every state, regardless of population and whose borders are arbitrary, the same level of representation in our federal government.
Click to expand...

Many of the problems you have mentioned seem to be more about Senate rules and not the Constitution.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
Maybe the people that only get their history lessons from statues of losers will be doomed to repeat it.
Click to expand...

So there are no statues of left leaning or Democrat party leaders anywhere in America? WOW! Those lefty clowns are even worse then I thought!
 
Matt Dillon said:
I support rolling things back to before when they voted themselves those things.
Click to expand...

Regressive.


I suppose I would support that bill. The majority of the Senate probably won't, and that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Right, and the problem is that greed knows no partisanship.


Carter's and Reagan's congresses need hanged for being the traitors they were. They totally corrupted the Senate.
Click to expand...

The Senate was already corrupted by the likes of Jesse Helms and the racist Neo-Confederates who filibustered Civil Rights Legislation.


When Rick Scott, who is no stranger to the good ol' boy network and was kinda grafty gets up in the Senate and says "Damn! This thing is broken." That's what the congresses of Carter and Reagan did.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the previous 70 years of Senate dysfunction to try and blame the past 40 on Carter and Reagan is...not the convincing argument you think it is.


They broke American government and that's a very serious thing and it's been going downhill ever since.
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing...the STOCK Act was passed in 2012 and that law, among other things, would have banned insider trading in Congress completely until your Nazi friends sued in Court to stop it, and they won.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Hey dumbfuck..that's why the Founding Fathers built a republic that has lasted for over 2 centuries and you're just a 2-bit shill on a backwater internet message board.
Click to expand...

The word "filibuster" exists NOWHERE in the US Constitution.

And you said yourself that it didn't last two centuries...in fact, you said yourself that it was destroyed by Carter and Reagan.

So how could something both last and be destroyed at the same time?
 
Matt Dillon said:
The Senate was designed to make American law resistant to change from the original intent.
Click to expand...

Nope. The Senate was designed to be purely majority rule.

The filibuster, slowing down debate, etc....none of that stuff appears anywhere in the Constitution.
 
BidenPresident said:
Many of the problems you have mentioned seem to be more about Senate rules and not the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No, it's the fundamental design of the Senate. It's not representative democracy because if it was, Senate representation would reflect population, or simply wouldn't exist.

The Senate gave unequal power to slaveholders while denying the people they kept as slaves any representative voice.

Basically, the Senate is racist af.
 
Stone said:
So there are no statues of left leaning or Democrat party leaders anywhere in America?
Click to expand...

If a statue means so much to you that your way of life would be destroyed if that statue was removed, you are either a racist loser or a pigeon.
 
LV246 = triggered like a motherfucker. :dunno:

LV426 said:
Regressive.




Right, and the problem is that greed knows no partisanship.




The Senate was already corrupted by the likes of Jesse Helms and the racist Neo-Confederates who filibustered Civil Rights Legislation.




Ignoring the previous 70 years of Senate dysfunction to try and blame the past 40 on Carter and Reagan is...not the convincing argument you think it is.




Well, here's the thing...the STOCK Act was passed in 2012 and that law, among other things, would have banned insider trading in Congress completely until your Nazi friends sued in Court to stop it, and they won.
Click to expand...

LV426 said:
The word "filibuster" exists NOWHERE in the US Constitution.

And you said yourself that it didn't last two centuries...in fact, you said yourself that it was destroyed by Carter and Reagan.

So how could something both last and be destroyed at the same time?
Click to expand...

LV426 said:
Nope. The Senate was designed to be purely majority rule.

The filibuster, slowing down debate, etc....none of that stuff appears anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

LV426 said:
An act of Congress, not an act of Senate.

The Senate is a part of Congress.

If the Senate stops debate, then it's not doing its Constitutional duty, as you just laid out.
Click to expand...

LV426 said:
But that wasn't the start of Senate dysfunction.
Click to expand...
 
LV426 said:
No, it's the fundamental design of the Senate. It's not representative democracy because if it was, Senate representation would reflect population, or simply wouldn't exist.

The Senate gave unequal power to slaveholders while denying the people they kept as slaves any representative voice.

Basically, the Senate is racist af.
Click to expand...

The Senate is not racist. Sorry, that's a bad argument.
 
BidenPresident said:
The Senate is not racist
Click to expand...

LMAO! You sure about that? Just look at the ethnic makeup of the damn thing.

Look at the outcomes from Senate inaction the last 13 years.

Look at what legislation that would benefit the Poor that is being stalled, and by whom.

I think you need to start from the position that the Senate is a racist institution and try to work your way back arguing it isn't.

It was founded on racism, and racism is why it's dysfunctional today. So how is it NOT institutionally racist to give 700,000 poor white Wyomingers (in a state that is 98% white) the same representation and voice as the 38,000,000 Californians who live in a majority-minority state?

Why give Vermont, a state with 700,000 people that is 98% white, the same representation and voice as the 29,000,000 people who live in New York, which is also majority-minority?
 
LV426 said:
If a statue means so much to you that your way of life would be destroyed if that statue was removed, you are either a racist loser or a pigeon.
Click to expand...

They dont. I didnt bring them up,...one of your fellow lefties did. Glad you feel the way you do though. When we smash the George Floyd statues to rubble it will be much easier for you to deal with.
 
LV426 said:
Regressive.




Right, and the problem is that greed knows no partisanship.




The Senate was already corrupted by the likes of Jesse Helms and the racist Neo-Confederates who filibustered Civil Rights Legislation.




Ignoring the previous 70 years of Senate dysfunction to try and blame the past 40 on Carter and Reagan is...not the convincing argument you think it is.




Well, here's the thing...the STOCK Act was passed in 2012 and that law, among other things, would have banned insider trading in Congress completely until your Nazi friends sued in Court to stop it, and they won.
Click to expand...

LV426 said:
The word "filibuster" exists NOWHERE in the US Constitution.

And you said yourself that it didn't last two centuries...in fact, you said yourself that it was destroyed by Carter and Reagan.

So how could something both last and be destroyed at the same time?
Click to expand...

LV426 said:
Nope. The Senate was designed to be purely majority rule.

The filibuster, slowing down debate, etc....none of that stuff appears anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

LV426 said:
An act of Congress, not an act of Senate.

The Senate is a part of Congress.

If the Senate stops debate, then it's not doing its Constitutional duty, as you just laid out.
Click to expand...

LV426 said:
So instead of debating, you're just posting my arguments because...what...you can't come up with your own?
Click to expand...

What is there to debate? That you're a triggered idiot that doesn't know American history? I'm going to beat you and then beat you some more, you fucking commie idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top