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.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
478 points (98.2% liked)
politics
18930 readers
5279 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
Don’t tempt me with a good time
Exactly! End another remnant of the North placating the South to get them to sign the Constitution
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.
It’s just tradition at this point. And tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
Also: we know Republicans don’t give a single flying fuck about tradition when the shoe is on the other foot and it’s getting in the way of their power grabs. The Supreme Court would be very different if they actually cared about respecting traditions in government (amongst many other things)
The filibuster is pretty funny
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
I say abolish the senate. The senate is there because we can't trust the people to fend off populism that prioritizes their whims over reasoned governance. In practice, though, senators inject their unreasoned, populist, ideas into government.
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.
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.
Interesting point but name 1 senator with a disability that prevents them from doing an old school filibuster. And they are American citizens subject to laws like the rest of us. If they need an accommodation they can apply for one through the ADA
I'm not familiar with their disabilities because the policy we have right now doesn't force them to get ADA accommodation. I'm arguing that we should eliminate the filibuster entirely (and not introduce physical challenge filibusters) so physical fitness doesn't become a problem.
What's "sidecar" in this context?
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Speech_(Sanders_book)
Bernie did it in 2010 for 8 and a half straight hours.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sure but I don't care about spectacle, I just want fair voting. It would be better to replace them entirely with liquid democracy and leave all discussion to the people.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
What changed to make them easier?
Previously they had to actually talk for so long that nobody could vote on the bill. Now they just send an email, like, "I fillibuster this," and that is that.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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
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..."
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.
McConnell:
Imagine him croaking from exhaustion because he has to actually get up there and stand for hours on end. A man can dream...
If it were anyone other than him, literally dropping dead in Congress because of the passion of your speech would be one of the most based things a politician could ever do.
But with Mitch you know he'd keel over arguing about how school kids don't actually need food.
Tuning into CSPAN like people tune in to NASCAR races to see if anyone’s going to die.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
Filibusting senators don't even do that anymore. All the senator has to do is send an email saying that they will filibust.
Hope so. I want to watch Mitch’s legacy get destroyed as much as possible.
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."
Just once, I wish the Dem leadership would be anywhere near as based as Republican demagogues always pretend they are 😮💨
So afraid of majority rule. They put rules in place to stop it.
Fucking die already. Russian stooge.
Nice to have some reasons to vote for them instead of just voting against nakedly racist authoritarianism.
DO IT!!!
Is that a promise?
view more: next ›