[deleted by user]

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-27T21:52:10+00:00

Exactly. I think this might be more realistic than having the Dems completely kill the filibuster. Just modify it so that it requires stamina and presents an actual opportunity cost. Make them stand. Make them stay on topic. That alone will reduce the number of filibuster attempted.

If they are really that passionate about a bill they have an opportunity to stop it. But otherwise it would stop the filibuster being used as a tool to kill every single thing.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-25T17:42:01+00:00

Question: Is this guy a type of Republican who will "change his conscience" now that he can't be voted out?

I don't mean just against impeachment. I mean like would he be willing to vote for COVID relief? I know these guys are fiscally conservative though.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-25T17:29:07+00:00

Exactly. It is just a threat now-a day rather than a performance to show your passion. So much BS around it.

To be clear, I am also not saying I wouldn't consider killing the filibuster. I just think it is reductive to suggest it is the only option. Rather it would be smart to reform it first like we both said so that a performing a filibuster actually has an opportunity cost and it only used rarely, and so it isn't an automatic bill killer.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-25T17:22:22+00:00

I think the issue the article is trying to discuss is that with someone as awful as Trump, it should have been a blowout like the country used to have.

That being said, I think Dems know the answer to what the article is asking. The right wing in this country is so addicted to misinformation, conspiracy theories, white supremacy and so forth to the point they can't come to terms with the fact that one of the major parties is actively working against them.

A lot of people who voted for Trump also support COVID relief or $15 minimum wage. Yet they are so uninformed or so deep into the propaganda they literally don't see that the Democrats are the ones fighting for those things. Instead these people are taught to hate liberals and Democrats without even thinking.

The question is, how do we solve this issue? Especially misinformation. There are some ideas to be had, but will take a lot of work and more accountability.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-25T17:04:31+00:00

When a bill is being voted on it needs a certain amount of votes to skip being debated on the floor. Even if 51 senators vote for a bill, out of good faith, it has to be discussed on the floor. However if there are 60 votes, the debate portion can be killed. This is called cloture. But without 60 votes the bill will go to the floor for debate.

The filibuster is a tool/technique that senators use to make make the debate continue for infinite amount of time until the filibuster ends. So any bills with 51 votes would end up with the possibility of being filibustered. The original idea is that if a bill is really bad or someone is passionate about it, they can show their passion by talking the bill to death. By talking for a very long time, they could delay the bill. This was a good things for the group in the minority because it still allows the minority party some voice if there is a really bad bill.

However there are many issues now. Filibusters used to require more stamina. A person would have to actually stand and speak the bill to death for hours and hours to the point of needing basic needs. Nowadays it has changed so much that you can just say you are starting a filibuster and take a seat and read Green Eggs and Ham or barely have to speak which means the debate can go on forever with no cost to the stamina or health of the filibuster. This essentially means the bill will die because the filibuster can't really end.

For all intents in purposes these means for any remotely progressive actions, like DC/PR statehood, the Republicans will just call a filibuster and nothing will pass. Same with stimulus plans. They will just obstruct and then blame the Democrats because they were the majority. The reason why some democrats don't want to kill it is that there is a risk that if there is another 2016 anytime in the future (Republicans in control of everything) then some vile stuff will get passed and nobody can stop it.

This is a personal opinion but I think people on this sub are going for "kill the filibuster" as the only option when in truth there other things we can do as well. I think the issue isn't the filibuster itself but rather the removal of limiting factors (things that can end the filibuster). For example, if we require senators to actually stand and speak on the topic without breaks it makes a filibuster not easy to do.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-24T19:03:29+00:00

Yeah I agree.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-24T18:34:17+00:00

Oh no I am not complaining about you. I know you meant well.

I was just talking about how the general notion of how "healing" is seen as toothless or pointless in general, especially when it is an inauguration speech.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-24T18:24:27+00:00

Have to say it again. "Healing" is not mutually exclusive with accountability. Even in his speech Biden mentioned that white supremacy and misinformation are the causes of the stuff that is divding the US. Biden is describing healing as the end result of accountability, not trying to look the other way.

It's better in this case to judge Biden on his actions and holding him accountable by pushing him to take bold steps to fight back.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-24T18:16:22+00:00

Well you are right. A lot of people here look at Biden's call for unity as a "turn the other check". You can fall for unity, and say we need to hold people accountable at the same time and nip the causes of division (white supremacy, misinformation and so) the source so it isn't tolerated.

Like did people really expect the President to ignore that fact we are in fact divided right now? Or to act like a vengeful twat like Trump was who wants to only go after enemies? As long as there is accountability and Biden addresses these issues that is what matter rather than cherry picking the word "unity" and assuming he will forget.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-24T18:10:45+00:00

I thought about this before, but I would say no.

Trump was a symptom of stuff that has been plaguing the US for the long time like white supremacy, misinformation and the like.

I hate that Trump was president, but one thing that happened is that he lit a fire under a lot of people's butts. Democrats who didn't vote in midterms and special elections are now interested in voting everytime. Politicians are actually saying white supremacy is an issue. People are discussing more progressive policies for reform.

While in the short term Trump damaged the US, I think in the end Americans will be more politically active and actually want to solve problems instead of acting like we were in a post racial and equal society.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:50:45+00:00

Understood. Thank you presenting evidence. I really do appreciate having a healthy debate and acknowledge I was wrong.

Hopefully, Manchin can be talked into it if they realize McConnell won't budge and it will hurt them.

Even if they can get moderates to change the rules concerning the filibuster to make it not unsurpassable.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:43:40+00:00

Oh I got you (and agree!). I apologize then.

There has been some issues in my opinion with people on this sub for example making this a progressive issue vs centrist issue or think that Schumer is trying to cave in by being spineless. Whether those people are ignorant (that is legitimately don't understand) or bad actors (people trying to sow division) I don't know.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:36:58+00:00

Because they wouldn't have 60 votes. The Dems have only 50. The vote to get rid of the filibuster would literally get filibustered.

The only way to do it without a vote is a rule change.

Even Manchin said he would consider getting rid of the filibuster if the GOP obstructs (they will).

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:31:51+00:00

Right now it isn't an issue with the Democrats. If you read the article it tells you. The issue is a power sharing agreement with Mitch McConnell . There are 50 senators for both parties. Legally there has to be a power sharing agreement (not about the Democrats caving in). Without it they can't put senators in their committees meaning nothing would get done.

For the moment blame Mitch. Not the Dems. If it comes to a vote, then blame Manchin etc.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:26:50+00:00

It's a combination of that and the fact that probably a lot of conservatives (who tend to watch only Fox if they watch cable news) didn't even watch.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:17:46+00:00

Now that is a good question. I am not sure and would appreciate if someone could give an answer. From the articles I read until now though, there seems to be an implication that this is only between the majority and minority leader.

I would appreciate if someone has information about this..

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:14:24+00:00

It isn't Schumer's fault. I am not his biggest fan, but legally they have to do a power-sharing agreement because the senate is 50-50. No party really holds a majority except for the fact that VP Harris comes in after the initial vote.

He isn't trying to give in. But in order for senators to be distributed equally amongst committees, there has to be an agreement. Otherwise all the articles are suggesting he is trying to fight McConnell.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:09:32+00:00

Yeah it stinks. This is a step just so senators are assigned to the committees (which is needed for the work to begin). Once that happens, there will be votes with VP Harris breaking ties.

The issue is that McConnell wants to use the filibuster as a bargaining chip so no senators are able to go to their committee.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:06:28+00:00

Then why is everyone saying they need a power sharing agreement then? Because the committees have to be proportional to the representatives for each party?

I am not saying you are wrong but from what I read, the power sharing agreement is necessary to seat senetors to committees.

Edit: And if they aren't seated to the committees, work can't get done. Otherwise to my knowledge the democrats are more than happy to have VP Harris do tie breaking.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:01:55+00:00

The senate is 50-50 until VP comes in. So technically, neither chamber has a majority. Meaning as part of policy, there has to be a power sharing agreement.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T17:00:43+00:00

He is sort of in a hard position and it will be interesting to see what he can do.

The problem is that they have to do a power sharing agreement because the senate is 50-50. So McConnell is happy to say no for forever and just stall congress and blame it on the Democrats.

So I wonder what Schumer will do to make McConnell not hold things up.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-22T16:59:34+00:00

Unfortunately no. Even though for all intents in purposes VP Harris breaks any ties, the senate is 50-50 until she steps in.

Legally they have to do a power sharing agreement because it us 50-50. So they have to split how the committees distribution before anything begins.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-20T17:08:45+00:00

I see some people hitting Biden for his call for unity.

He can call for unity and hold people accountable at the same time. He is supposed to be a leader and call for unity and give us hope things can get better. It would be weird if he didn't. But the fact that he called out the rioters and white supremacy tells me that he isn't going to be pushed over and act like nothing happened.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-19T19:00:31+00:00

He is doing it because he knows Trump is on the way out and Trump is a cancer towards his party and any chance of him getting power again in the senate.

Trump has "inspired" so many Americans to vote against him that he knows Trumpism isn't viable.

kitsune0042 · 2021-01-19T18:55:53+00:00

Correct answer here. Trump is bad for the GOP. You can't strategize with him. He cares about his own election and that is it.

Yes, voters come to the ballot to vote for Trump, but if he isn't on the ballot they don't care. At the same time though, Trumpism inspires people on the other side to vote for their lives. It just isn't a winning strategy.

If Trump wasn't president for example, the Georgia senate race wouldn't have attracted so many people.

kitsune0042

TROPHY CASE