calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Joe Manchin also said he'd be open to this.

---

This seems sensible, and seems consistent with the original intent that filibuster was intended to continue debate (which would require talking) and force into the open who is holding up the measure. No more hiding. Once talking stops, cloture vote should pass by a simple majority.

---

It's definitely returning the filibuster to its original purpose. Seems like the smartest play politically too: you can say you're not abolishing the filibuster, but you are rendering it much less useful than it is now. Republican Senators might be fine with holding up popular legislation by sending an email, but do any of them actually want to stand on the floor and talk for hours on end to do it?

Why should there be a filibuster at all? The Senate is already undemocratic. Why make legislation for the American people even harder?

sycasey said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

McConnell's quotes from the article I linked above:

Quote:

---

"This chaos would not open up an express lane to liberal change. It would not open up an express lane for the Biden presidency to speed into the history books," he said. "The Senate would be more like a hundred-car pile-up. Nothing moving."

McConnell said Republicans would take advantage of any rule changes the next time they retained the Senate majority.

"This pendulum would swing both ways hard," he said.

---

Sure, as if the GOP hasn't always just done whatever suits them regardless of what Democrats did before. I'm happy to see the Dems seem to be seeing through these empty threats now.

---

The Democrats don't want the filibuster to change much because they don't want to do much, but you're still thinking there's all these big changes they want to make.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Joe Manchin also said he'd be open to this.

---

This seems sensible, and seems consistent with the original intent that filibuster was intended to continue debate (which would require talking) and force into the open who is holding up the measure. No more hiding. Once talking stops, cloture vote should pass by a simple majority.

---

It's definitely returning the filibuster to its original purpose. Seems like the smartest play politically too: you can say you're not abolishing the filibuster, but you are rendering it much less useful than it is now. Republican Senators might be fine with holding up popular legislation by sending an email, but do any of them actually want to stand on the floor and talk for hours on end to do it?

---

I will say this. Warnock has the making of a star. Let some wanker wanting to filibuster passage of voting rights give a 24 hour speech to counter Warnock's speech today,

The filibuster gained notoriety specifically because it was the main tool used by Dixiecrats in the undemocratic Senate to prevent the expansion of rights within the American populace. It was so effective minority rule activists, like Mitch McConnell, mainlined it into everything.

The Senate was created in the 1700's to protect the white landowning minority from the American people. The filibuster is an extension of that. It should be gone entirely.

Step right up. Who else wants to join Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as a modern day Dixiecrat, ready to talk for hours on the Senate floor in defense of Jim Crow?

Dajo
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-brits-did-house-lords-043358647.html

concordtom said:

---

Dajo
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-brits-did-house-lords-043358647.html

---

Thanks for the article Tom. I have read up recently about how the British people freed themselves from the shackles of the anachronistic House of Lords. The Senate was created during the heyday of the House of Lords to serve the same purpose. The Senate should suffer the same fate as the House of Lords.

To think we fought a war to free ourselves from Britain and now the colonies that stayed with Britain have stronger democracies than we do because we are obsessed with 18th century limitations on government of the people.

Fake New said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Step right up. Who else wants to join Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as a modern day Dixiecrat, ready to talk for hours on the Senate floor in defense of Jim Crow?

---

Nothing is more amusing to me than people who claim they don't watch cable news and then post the videos of cable news talking heads trying to support their positions.

HR-1 has some good things about it and some things I don't like about it. But when you try to support the bill by insisting that anybody who opposes it is pro-Jim Crow, you're just spreading propaganda.

Lindsay Graham doesn't oppose the bad parts of HR-1, he opposes the good things about HR-1 because they aren't beneficial to his party. But you are a bad faith actor.

---

Not sure what claims you think I've made about cable news. I watch some cable news at night. Generally Rachel Maddow before I go to sleep (she's on at 9pm eastern). Sometimes add a little Chris Hayes before and Lawrence O'Donnell after. If a topic interests me I'll research it on the internet. Twitter is an easy and effective copy paste no matter the source.

We can put Yogi down as a defender of the Jim Crow Dixiecrats. What a surprise.

YogiHydra is all in with the Righteous Right...

dajo9 said:

---

Fake New said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Step right up. Who else wants to join Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as a modern day Dixiecrat, ready to talk for hours on the Senate floor in defense of Jim Crow?

---

---

---

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I don't understand why a filibuster can completely block legislation. Sure, they can man the podium for 24 hours, but that only lasts so long. Eventually the ARE going to fall over, and when that happens, the other side takes control again.

So, can anyone explain the process to me?

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Dajo
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-brits-did-house-lords-043358647.html

---

Thanks for the article Tom. I have read up recently about how the British people freed themselves from the shackles of the anachronistic House of Lords. The Senate was created during the heyday of the House of Lords to serve the same purpose. The Senate should suffer the same fate as the House of Lords.

To think we fought a war to free ourselves from Britain and now the colonies that stayed with Britain have stronger democracies than we do because we are obsessed with 18th century limitations on government of the people.

---

I'll tell you this, Dajo.... when I see videos of people breaking into the capitol, it worries me that we should have government "by the people". People are f---'ing IDIOTS! Why should I trust these People to pick good leaders - they don't!

Alas:

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Dajo
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-brits-did-house-lords-043358647.html

---

Thanks for the article Tom. I have read up recently about how the British people freed themselves from the shackles of the anachronistic House of Lords. The Senate was created during the heyday of the House of Lords to serve the same purpose. The Senate should suffer the same fate as the House of Lords.

To think we fought a war to free ourselves from Britain and now the colonies that stayed with Britain have stronger democracies than we do because we are obsessed with 18th century limitations on government of the people.

---

I'll tell you this, Dajo.... when I see videos of people breaking into the capitol, it worries me that we should have government "by the people". People are f---'ing IDIOTS! Why should I trust these People to pick good leaders - they don't!

Alas:

---

You don't trust government of the people because members of the minority are attacking the transition of power to the majority? 81 million people voted for Biden over Trump. That is the American majority.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Fake New said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Step right up. Who else wants to join Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as a modern day Dixiecrat, ready to talk for hours on the Senate floor in defense of Jim Crow?

---

---

---

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I don't understand why a filibuster can completely block legislation. Sure, they can man the podium for 24 hours, but that only lasts so long. Eventually the ARE going to fall over, and when that happens, the other side takes control again.

So, can anyone explain the process to me?

---

Over time, the Senate rules have been amended so that filibusters don't involve actual physical talking anymore. Senators are now allowed to filibuster just by saying they object to cloture (sending the bill to the floor). They can literally do it by email.

It's dumb, but the rule comes from a time when the Senate was generally more collegial, with Senators from different parties more often coming from the same state, so there wasn't a thought that they'd want to screw each other so badly. Obviously we are in a different world now and the filibuster is consistently abused.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Dajo
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-brits-did-house-lords-043358647.html

---

Thanks for the article Tom. I have read up recently about how the British people freed themselves from the shackles of the anachronistic House of Lords. The Senate was created during the heyday of the House of Lords to serve the same purpose. The Senate should suffer the same fate as the House of Lords.

To think we fought a war to free ourselves from Britain and now the colonies that stayed with Britain have stronger democracies than we do because we are obsessed with 18th century limitations on government of the people.

---

I'll tell you this, Dajo.... when I see videos of people breaking into the capitol, it worries me that we should have government "by the people". People are f---'ing IDIOTS! Why should I trust these People to pick good leaders - they don't!

Alas:

---

You don't trust government of the people because members of the minority are attacking the transition of power to the majority? 81 million people voted for Biden over Trump. That is the American majority.

---

Look, IN MY OPINION, if 74M people could vote for Trump in 2020, and if nearly 63M could vote for Trump in 2016, then people are NOT GOOD assessors of WHO and HOW the country should be led.

The Churchill quote should have moderated my statement for you. There is no alternative.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Fake New said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Step right up. Who else wants to join Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as a modern day Dixiecrat, ready to talk for hours on the Senate floor in defense of Jim Crow?

---

---

---

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I don't understand why a filibuster can completely block legislation. Sure, they can man the podium for 24 hours, but that only lasts so long. Eventually the ARE going to fall over, and when that happens, the other side takes control again.

So, can anyone explain the process to me?

---

Over time, the Senate rules have been amended so that filibusters don't involve actual physical talking anymore. Senators are now allowed to filibuster just by saying they object to cloture (sending the bill to the floor). They can literally do it by email.

It's dumb, but the rule comes from a time when the Senate was generally more collegial, with Senators from different parties more often coming from the same state, so there wasn't a thought that they'd want to screw each other so badly. Obviously we are in a different world now and the filibuster is consistently abused.

---

A good article on it. I'm learning new things.

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/18089312/myths-about-the-filibuster

Hope Rides Again said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Not sure what claims you think I've made about cable news. I watch some cable news at night. Generally Rachel Maddow before I go to sleep (she's on at 9pm eastern). Sometimes add a little Chris Hayes before and Lawrence O'Donnell after.

---

More great reporting by the folks at MSNBC.

---

No one should be sharing pictures of crowded beaches anyway. The beach is not the major spreading site, it's at the indoor locations that people populate later that night. Show pictures of crowded bars.

Hope Never Dies said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Why should there be a filibuster at all? The Senate is already undemocratic. Why make legislation for the American people even harder?

---

---

You may be surprised to learn that politics can change a lot in 16 years.

BearForce2 said:

---

---

The party in power doesn't need to filibuster.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

The party in power doesn't need to filibuster.

---

Good God, that's the most head-slappingly stupid take BF2 has posted yet, and that's saying something.

---

What part about tweet was head slappingly stupid?

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Joe Biden wants to gut the filibuster because of how badly it was "abused" last year

The White House won't tell you this—but in 2020, Republicans used the filibuster 1 time.

...Democrats used it 327 times.

🤔

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 27, 2021

---

The party in power doesn't need to filibuster.

---

Good God, that's the most head-slappingly stupid take BF2 has posted yet, and that's saying something.

---

Don't throw down the gauntlet, for he always finds a way to sink to new depths.

sycasey said:

---

There's a weird thing going on in American democracy right now....

---

"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware"
-Stephen Stills





Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

Those aren't men.
Those are idiots!
Both of them!