The party gridlock has been growing for 25 years, but it has fallen to all time lows -- see Senator Paul yesterday.
I still believe the 60 vote threshold in the Senate makes sense, as a counter/check to the simple 50% + 1 majority to pass bills in the House. Let the "adults" have the final word.
But, the GOP seated three Supreme Ct Justices without 60 votes. And they remain unwilling to protect basic democracy -- unwilling to extend voting rights, -- basic tenets that the Senate has always overwhelmingly supported.
Bring back the "adults" and keep the filibuster. Otherwise, let the river run wild.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-5/senate-debate-filibuster-rules
(no message)
The filibuster was never meant to be used like it is today.
Its days are numbered. Might as well get rid of it now.
It's all about you guys, isn't it? When you're not in power, it's justified, but when you are, you want to change the rules.
The people voted the way they did for a reason. They didn't trust you with the kind of mandate you want. Deal with it or you most certainly will pay for it soon.
(no message)
And why limit voting to citizens when wise foreigners add so much more "seasoning" to the recipe?
I mean... de Tocqueville was an alamist... right?
Makes perfect sense.
(no message)
Since when?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Without the filibuster it will be shit laws from both sides back and forth.
...in such an instance, there should NOT be massive changes like nonID voting which unfairly benefits your party's ballot harvesting operations nor especially not a giant BBB plan which fundamentally changes our country.
Again, the Constitution is working beautifully. The founding fathers (esp Franklin & to a lesser degree Jefferson, and Hamilton were geniuses).
(no message)
if the Left changes the rules, then the line has been crossed as it was Harry Reid.
But the system is broken.
...this country has an entire ruling system based on obstruction and small movements. It was designed to take people with markedly disparate views and backgrounds, and throw them in the same melting pot of a country and make it work.
The system was intentionally designed to make it very hard to achieve anything such that when it did, it would not be a splash of cold water to those opposed.
When looking at other country's national healthcare models, i felt that nobody took into account that our country was not designed in a way to run it well nor efficiently. A system based on opposition,and filibuster, and slow moves, and especially intentional bureacracy was not going to be successful at running healthcare. i pointed to the VA system as an example of my point. I wish people listened to that even to this day. Oh well.
I do love it as a form of government. You certainly loved it from 2016 to 2020 when it prevented the death of democracy, right? :)
(no message)
(no message)
West is correct.
I believe what the actual Senators have said over the years.
applicable with such razor thin margins. They should be compared only to other such settings. In addition, Biden is a shadow president with an utter lack of skill or leadership. You act as if he were Ronald Reagan when he is not.
The simple fact is that you don't have unanimity in your own party. You wrongly blame the GOP for it. Look to yourselves and quit whining.
If you didn't have such party members like Manchin, you souln't have ever won states like WV in the first place.
(no message)
...seriously:
Different circumstances, super tight majority, completely absent leadership from President (in fact, Schumer would have brought BBB home for Biden if he didn't open his mouth and reveal the subterfuge planned to Manchin),
and probably MOST important, the Democrat Party has moved remarkably to the left and is unwilling to compromise - even within its' own party, wheras this was not the case in the past.
You look at the GOP as the source of your obstruction, but has it occurred to you that in the past, the ruling party did not have such overzealous idealogues who were unwilling to give an inch on anything whatsoever?
You know this is true - just look at the trouble that Pelosi has had with The Squad and Bernie. I will point out the compromise deal that Manchin offered that the party spurned. In fact, I sat with my jaw open listening to Jen Psaki after Manchin initially said he would not support BBB. Psaki was filled with venom and unapologetic, uncompromising condemnation. i wondered, "could the dems be this stupid?". The answer was yes. She said those things and never walked them back even when a deal was still possible if they met somewhere in the middle of the Dem party.
Biden is not in charge, and his handlers, whomever they are, are exteme, far, far left zealots.
Look to yourselves.
Past performance does not guarantee future results - esp in this case.
playing games with the filibuster rules hasn't served the democrats very well over the last 10 years, yet here they are trying to do it again. I believe that is the definition of insanity. If they somehow sway Manchin to eliminate the filibuster, i'll make sure to keep this thread for future reference when you cry about something the other party is doing.
the system is working perfectly, but Chris wants cataclysmic change with bare majorites (achieved by dubious means, but achieved nonetheless).
He points at the GOP rather than at his own party. But his party has gone too far overboard to keep unanimity, and they couldn't even come back to the center even slightly to strike a compromise.
If the Left does, this, then the GOP will (and should) play by their rules as they did with the Harry Reid Rule. Their rules, no mercy.
I suspect the Left thinks that if the get these voting changes, the GOP will never hold the WH with Senate again. This fairly much confirms that they know as well that this is about nonID laws that let them fix the elections permanently.
(no message)
(no message)