Nuking the Filibuster (1 Viewer)

[Semper]

Is this a good idea? Personally I am against it. I believe both sides lose. You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way.

 

[Port City JJ]

Is this a good idea? Personally I am against it. I believe both sides lose. You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way.

Agreed. It's a bad idea. What happens when there is a power shift and the "other team" has the power. However obviously many of our elected officials (both parties) primarily think about the coming election cycles and no further. Getting reelected matters MOST and they will deal (or not) with the consequences after.

 

[zztop]

You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way.

curious, are you applying this idea to just this specific instance? Or the dozens of new voter suppression bills enacted in republican controlled states?

 

[MT15]

The most persuasive argument I have seen for getting rid of it is this:

Let the party in the majority have their way. Let them pass legislation they believe in, no matter how crazy. In the end, the people will hold them accountable. Their constituents will let them know if they go too far.

Second most persuasive: there have been dozens if not hundreds of changes to the filibuster over the years.

After saying that, my preference would be to alter it rather than get rid of it. If we leave it the way it is, the Senate will get nothing done, ever.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The most persuasive argument I have seen for getting rid of it is this:

Let the party in the majority have their way. Let them pass legislation they believe in, no matter how crazy. In the end, the people will hold them accountable. Their constituents will let them know if they go too far.

Second most persuasive: there have been dozens if not hundreds of changes to the filibuster over the years.

After saying that, my preference would be to alter it rather than get rid of it. If we leave it the way it is, the Senate will get nothing done, ever.

Same. The fact that legislation can have 59 votes (more than enough to pass), yet 41 people can prevent it from even being voted on by simply not showing up to work is ridiculous. If you want to filibuster, great. Get your arse to the microphone and start talking.

Combine that with changing rules regarding cloture votes from 60% of duly elected senators to 60% of senators that bothered to show up and you preserve the filibuster, you just make the filibustering side actually participate.

 

[J-DONK]

It is strange that all the "Originalist" disappear on this issue. What we are actually talking about on this issue is cloture really, not the filibuster. I think the rules should be changed so laws are passed. Let me explain why Republicans don't want this to happen though.

The major progressive talking point on this is as such. This rule change would be a huge boon to Democrats, not Republicans. Republicans simply put don't have a massive legislative agenda, or "mandate" to make law. The last time Republicans controlled everything we got permanent tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats on the other hand want to make massive changes to healthcare, wealth redistribution, and climate laws.

Also, once Democrats enact an "entitlement" it's never repealed. Did Republicans touch Obamacare?

P.S. If you want to go down on the jaded rabbit hole. This logic is sound, and evident. You may ask why didn't Obama get rid of the filibuster then? He has come out for it's elimination in recent years, but conveniently didn't eliminate it when he had all the power to do so. That will lead you to a not so nice opinion of the man.

 

[V Chip]

Same. The fact that legislation can have 59 votes (more than enough to pass), yet 41 people can prevent it from even being voted on by simply not showing up to work is ridiculous. If you want to filibuster, great. Get your arse to the microphone and start talking.

Yep. Filibuster if you must, but you have to be there, speaking on the floor about the bill/issue, until such time as you cannot physically continue.

 

[samiam5211]

I would rather the democrats pass legislation making the filibuster harder to get rid of than for them to nuke it.

 

[coldseat]

If you really want a democratic republic that's built on compromise and working together (as most people in the middle seem to want), then you need to either get rid of or seriously change the filibuster to make it harder to use.

When all you have to do to use the filibuster is raise your pinky and say NO and all of a sudden legislation needs 60 votes to pass, all you do is allow Republicans to retreat to their corners and nothing gets done. That's been happening for 40 years and it's why so many people are frustrated with government. This highly benefits Republicans, as @J-DONK mentioned and as most laws and rules in our republic seem to do, because they don't have a legislative agenda aside for lowering taxes (which they can easily do through reconciliation) and stopping all other legislation.

Not to mention, why do we even need it? Both Manchin and Senima have proven that it's hard enough just to get to 50 votes. Not having a filibuster doesn't mean legislation automatically gets passed, it just means there's likely more compromise and talking across the isle when the opposition side realizes they can't just say NO and be done with it. Without the filibuster, it finally means those that are in the middle in both parties can actually act that way and not be beholden to the extreme sides of their parties (admittedly this is more impactful on Republicans than Democrats).

 

[Semper]

curious, are you applying this idea to just this specific instance? Or the dozens of new voter suppression bills enacted in republican controlled states?

First you would have to explain what these voter repression rule changes are. Specifically I was referring to the filibuster. I wouldn't mind discussing the voter rules in another thread.

 

[zztop]

First you would have to explain what these voter repression rule changes are. Specifically I was referring to the filibuster. I wouldn't mind discussing the voter rules in another thread.

well I was trying to draw a line between your comment of "You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way." and yet things of this nature are already happening in other areas. So I was curious, are you only just against changes to this one specific issue, or all examples of: change the rules to get your way? And if just one issue (filibuster) then why do other "You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way." get a pass? I personally think if this (filibuster change) is a worrisome or concerning topic, then all instances of this happening should also be concerning.

 

[Semper]

well I was trying to draw a line between your comment of "You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way." and yet things of this nature are already happening in other areas. So I was curious, are you only just against changes to this one specific issue, or all examples of: change the rules to get your way? And if just one issue (filibuster) then why do other "You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way." get a pass? I personally think if this (filibuster change) is a worrisome or concerning topic, then all instances of this happening should also be concerning.

Umm I would say change should be made on a case by case basis. I don't like one side of our government having too much power and that goes both ways. We should be required to find common ground in our governing rules so our politicians should figure out a way to work together for the good of the country.

 

[J-DONK]

Umm I would say change should be made on a case by case basis. I don't like one side of our government having too much power and that goes both ways. We should be required to find common ground in our governing rules so our politicians should figure out a way to work together for the good of the country.

Semper just confirmed, he has in fact been living under a rock.

The GOP's no-compromise pledge

Republicans are promising to do "everything" they can to block the president.

www.politico.com

Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

 

[MT15]

Donk, you don’t have to make it personal. Uncalled for, IMO.

 

[Semper]

Semper just confirmed, he has in fact been living under a rock.

The GOP's no-compromise pledge

Republicans are promising to do "everything" they can to block the president.

www.politico.com

I am not under a rock. I haven't cast blame on either party. I simply stated an opinion. I know what the R's did and I know what the D's did. They are petulant children who believe there way is the only way. I just happen to believe it takes common ground to make this country great for everyone.

 

[Semper]

Donk, you don’t have to make it personal. Uncalled for, IMO.

You know the reason I gave up on the political board and quit posting for so long? This small experiment is the same as the shirt show in D.C. Self righteous people who believe they are right and the other side is wrong. If we can't debate and discuss ideas without personal attacks, on such a small scale, why would we assume the clowns in D.C. can do it?

 

[MT15]

Yeah, a thick skin really helps, lol. Let me know how to get one if you find out.

Seriously, I do think the current trend online everywhere is to go for the irreverent quip to try to seem edgy and - for lack of a better term - “cool”. I have found myself doing it too, even though I try not to. It is one of my NY resolutions to try to “assume good intent” first, and answer forthrightly without any snark.

Not to mention, not falling into the “outrage trap” is good for my blood pressure and peace of mind. How long will the “zen” me last? Stay tuned, lol.

FWIW, I don’t think Donk meant to be personally insulting. I hope so anyway.

 

[Semper]

Yeah, a thick skin really helps, lol. Let me know how to get one if you find out.

Seriously, I do think the current trend online everywhere is to go for the irreverent quip to try to seem edgy and - for lack of a better term - “cool”. I have found myself doing it too, even though I try not to. It is one of my NY resolutions to try to “assume good intent” first, and answer forthrightly without any snark.

Not to mention, not falling into the “outrage trap” is good for my blood pressure and peace of mind. How long will the “zen” me last? Stay tuned, lol.

FWIW, I don’t think Donk meant to be personally insulting. I hope so anyway.

I don't believe he meant it in an insulting manner either.