this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
483 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2798 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“They’re all committed to it now, because Chuck has made them take a public position. Every Democratic challenger, I’m told, running for the Senate is taking the same position,” McConnell said. “I think they fully intend to do it if they can.”

Thanks for advocating for a good reason to have democratic control of the senate

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PorradaVFR 177 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ok, sounds great. Require an actual speaking filibuster if desired. No more procedural bullshit that enabled McConnell to appoint dozens of judges when Schumer foolishly agreed to kill the judicial filibuster.

Flip the House, hold the Senate and dump the obstructionist tool. Also the filibuster.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't always side with either Republicans or Democrats. I just want good government. And I am 100% in favor of repealing the procedural filibuster. I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation, but it should not exist as a way to make sure any and every contentious legislation requires 60 votes.

If someone feels that strongly about something, let them get up there and read the phone book into the record for six hours.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation

What might be bad for you might be good for someone else.

I agree with getting rid of the procedural filibuster. I suspect the reason it exists in the first place is because Senators are getting old and don't want to actually do it.

So, for good and bad, make them actually stand and deliver. If they feel so strongly that a bill needs to be killed, then let them fucking earn it.

[–] Cryophilia 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was supposedly created in the 70s because Senators were gumming up Senate business trying to grandstans for the TV using filibusters.

Personally, I think that's not a bad thing. Make Senators want to stand on a podium and give an impassioned speech about their beliefs, like they did in Athens.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That would be more in line with the actual American tradition.

But personally, I would recommend to only allow filibusters in the House, which has a more proportional representation, and to not allow it in the Senate, which has the least proportional representation, even less than the electoral college.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 95 points 2 months ago (2 children)

God, wouldn't that be amazing? Things actually getting done instead of our legislators sitting with their thumb up their asses.

Well, less of them sitting with their thumb up their asses.

[–] Lost_My_Mind 10 points 2 months ago

New rule. Every politician needs a heat signature based gps monitored butt plug inside them at all times.

That way their thumbs are always free.

[–] takeda 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It worked both ways though. But in the end, did it actually do much? The times I remember when fill buster was used ultimately the majority still managed to pass the legislation.

I think what would be better is that when there's a stalemate it would trigger a new election like it is done in some countries.

[–] Cryophilia 9 points 2 months ago

The times I remember when fill buster was used ultimately the majority still managed to pass the legislation.

That's because if you know the opposition is serious about blocking a bill via filibuster, you won't propose it because it doesn't have enough support.

[–] cybersandwich 71 points 2 months ago (6 children)

The issue with the filibuster,now, is that it's too easy. It needs to be hard like the old days.

Ironically, because it's so easy we actually don't even see filibusters often anymore. It's usually the threat of a filibuster that stops legislation in its tracks. If it was harder, where you stood for days, then it might not actually stop legislation. At least it would be brought to force the issue.

You should have to earn it.

I'm sure the geriatric core of our Congress will thrilled to have to stand for hours to prove their points.

[–] cogman 37 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The real problem with the filibuster, in my opinion, is it shields senators from taking a public position. The most extreme senator from Idaho can filibuster the "feed the children" act which prevents a senator from Georgia from having to vote no.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

Need to put in requirements for these lazy bums. They are supposed to be civil servants acting on our behalfs. We should demand attendance, votes on all measures, and at least a brief summary as to why our congressman/senator voted the way they did. If it doesn't line up with what we want. GTFO

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I respectfully disagree for the reason you stated at the end. Grueling filibusters are ableist - they're unfair to representatives with disabilities and their constituents.

Congress is not convincing each other of anything. They can make their point concisely for the C-SPAN viewers. Filibusters are a complete waste of time.

Say goodbye to the next FDR if you demand standing.

[–] cybersandwich 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

You aren't wrong but...

Can you imagine the spectacle of an ancient senator literally taking a stand for something he/she believes in?

That'd be pretty powerful.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Don’t tempt me with a good time

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Exactly! End another remnant of the North placating the South to get them to sign the Constitution

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There’s nothing in the constitution about the filibuster. It’s just a Senate rule and the current version (where you don’t have to make long speeches in an ultimately doomed attempt to block legislation with majority support) dates to the 1970’s. They adopted it because in the TV era, Senators were filibustering just to get on the national news and make a name for themselves.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jordanlund 54 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I would hope so, or at the very least go back to ye olden days of "You want a filibuster? Get your ass up there and hold the floor..."

[–] FuglyDuck 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] TallonMetroid 19 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Imagine him croaking from exhaustion because he has to actually get up there and stand for hours on end. A man can dream...

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Tuning into CSPAN like people tune in to NASCAR races to see if anyone’s going to die.

[–] JeeBaiChow 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He's just do a mental freeze and his handlers will just forget to poke him every now and then.

[–] Burn_The_Right 7 points 2 months ago

If he freezes up too long, the filibuster fails. I would pop popcorn for that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

This.

I think people tend to think about doing things while they're in control that fuck the other party, often forgetting that - at some point - power is going to flip and they'll be the underdogs. That said, Republicans tend to abuse these procedural instruments more.

But you have the right answer: the filibuster can be useful, if it's not easy to use and requires true dedication. Right now, it's just a spike strip (mostly) conservatives throw down whenever they want to throw a tantrum.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] taiyang 50 points 2 months ago

Pleeeease, don't threaten us with a good time.

Seriously, we don't need a extra layer of inaction on top of a government already designed to move slowly. That's the whole point of having three branches of government, you already have to compromise even without the filibuster unless you sweep (and at this point a sweep is well deserved!).

Although I guess I'm ok with the talking version. It'd be fun to watch those old assholes suffer an all nighter speaking non stop. Wouldn't ever pull it off.

[–] Raiderkev 40 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh no Mitch, you mean you'll actually have to do your job instead of sending Ted Cruz out to read Green Eggs and Ham? I feel so bad for you.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

Filibusting senators don't even do that anymore. All the senator has to do is send an email saying that they will filibust.

[–] Myxomatosis 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hope so. I want to watch Mitch’s legacy get destroyed as much as possible.

[–] JusticeForPorygon 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Don't worry, he'll go down in history as "The hypocrite who screwed over Barrack Obama and Merrick Garland, and set the country back decades in social justice."

[–] Burn_The_Right 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So... a champion of conservatism,then.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie 33 points 2 months ago

Just once, I wish the Dem leadership would be anywhere near as based as Republican demagogues always pretend they are 😮‍💨

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds good to me. Also add DC and Puerto Rico as states and then we will never see another Republican in the white house again.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

Great, PR would benefit greatly from politicians needing to campaign there. Get some of the Iowa corn subsidies that will soon be freed up now that Iowa is a solid red

[–] Rapidcreek 20 points 2 months ago

So afraid of majority rule. They put rules in place to stop it.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Republicans are just waiting for the opportunity to do it themselves. They literally do not care. They just like the idea of the democrats doing it so they can sqwak about decorum.

[–] barsquid 16 points 2 months ago

Nice to have some reasons to vote for them instead of just voting against nakedly racist authoritarianism.

[–] eran_morad 16 points 2 months ago

Fucking die already. Russian stooge.

[–] edg 13 points 2 months ago
[–] someguy3 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
[–] NotMyOldRedditName 10 points 2 months ago

Oh no, you won't be able to filibuster your own bills anymore!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

Is that a promise?

[–] lennybird 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Is that quote accurate?

I thought there would be 30 seconds worth of ellipses in between.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Cue Lucy VanPelt holding football meme

load more comments
view more: next ›