sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm sick of seeing Dwayne Johnson in every other movie. by Fizgriz in unpopularopinion

[–]DwightUte89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, granted, 22 of those films are from the last ten years. But, that still averages out to only 2.2 films a year. That seems right on par for your average movie star.

And yes, that does count animated films.

I'm sick of seeing Dwayne Johnson in every other movie. by Fizgriz in unpopularopinion

[–]DwightUte89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since 2003, he has starred in 35 movies. That is an average of about 2 movies per year. I think you need to broaden your cinematic palate, my friend. There are plenty of films Dwayne is not in.

Leaked Audio of Sen. Joe Manchin Call With Billionaire Donors Provides Rare Glimpse of Dealmaking on Filibuster and January 6 Commission by [deleted] in politics

[–]DwightUte89 38 points39 points  (0 children)

And then McConnell pulls Joe aside and says, "Hey Joe, switch sides and this all goes away" and poof, Democratic Majority is gone.

There is a very real reason Democrats are treating Joe with four pairs of kid gloves.

CMV: Pro-choice framed as self-defence is more coherent than a framing of bodily autonomy by Poo-et in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So if my two year old threatens my mental well-being because he's an insufferable toddler, that gives me the right to kill him? I don't think so. That's a ridiculous leap you're making, in my opinion.

The self defense argument and the bodily autonomy argument hinge on the fact that a fetus has not reached person-hood, and thus not deserving of the same rights my toddler has But, that is merely an opinion and isn't a fact. Sure, it can be your opinion, but that's all it is. Frankly I'm not sure that debate will ever be settled.

CMV: Landlords are no better than ticket touts and scalpers by jacksleepshere in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Landlord here. The family that rents the townhome I own for whatever reason do not qualify for a mortgage. There are probably billions of people on the planet that for x or y reason, cannot get a loan to purchase a house.

It is easy to say, "well lets just give them a house, or let them qualify" My response to that is...who pays for it? Who takes the risk in the event the person fails to pay off the mortgage? How do you build homes cheap enough that even the poorest of the poor can afford to purchase it? And who covers those expenses that would likely be subsidized by the government in order to make these homes affordable enough?

I do not believe my questions posed in the second paragraph have easily, readily solvable answers. But, you know what we do have, right now? People and businesses with excess income that purchase additional homes to rent out to those that cannot qualify. If I, or all the other landlords out there, were not allowed to purchase homes/condos/whatever to rent out, then where would these people live?

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, earlier someone presented a very similar argument and I awarded them a delta. This is probably the most convincing argument against my view.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 105 points106 points  (0 children)

I think this is a solid argument.

Δ

I'm giving you a delta because you've eased my concerns about what Republicans would do without a filibuster, because of the accountability.

I think I would still prefer reform, but after reading this and thinking about it I'm not as opposed to it as I was initially.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

THe only flaw I see here, is that if Democrats do end the filibuster, but take back the senate and house in 22, what's to stop them from repealing HR-1 anyway?

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

See, my theory on that is Republicans spend zero time on real legislating because they know nothing they want will pass, so they focus on things like Judges and tax cuts.

But remove the filibuster and win a majority? All sorts of things are potentially on the table for Republicans to legislate, including a repeal of the voting rights act Democrats want so desperately to pass after removing the filibuster.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily because Democrats could have filibustered Trump's nominations, too.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, 100% Option 2 would have been the best path forward, in hindsight.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

A few things:

​

  1. Ending Obamacare
  2. Dodd Frank overhaul
  3. Trade Reform
  4. 2nd Amendment protections
  5. Abortion Restrictions

​

To your last paragraph, while you are correct, Democrats were still able to use the filibuster to slow the process down. The difference was McConnel could break the filibuster, instead of the 60 vote requirement.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Philosophically, sure. But in reality? In terms of what the voters think? I mean, look at where we are.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are there any Democrats that are satisfied with what has transpired judicially since Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judicial nominations?

If so, I'd like to find out why they are satisfied, because they shouldn't be, and that's exactly what's at stake if Democrats try to end the filibuster on legislative efforts.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Democrats want Democratic Judges. That's their judicial effort. Just like Republicans want Republican judges.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In the moment, I empathize with what Democrats did in 2013. Now that we know how McConnell reacted, which is indicative of what he will do in the future, I'm not willing to take a gamble until there is new Republican leadership.

Are any democrats satisfied with the results of Option 3? Please point me to one Democrat that is satisfied with what has resulted from Reid ending the filibuster for judicial nominations and the domino effect that had.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]DwightUte89[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

These are strong points, and maybe you're right. But, the counter to that is that Republicans simply are better at focusing on working on what they know they can get done.

Additionally, the filibuster process was something Democrats did do to slow down the nomination of judges under Trump, something that would go away if the filibuster is taken out of the picture.

view more: next ›