347
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
347 points (94.8% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2110 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Some things do automatically require a supermajority, but removing Filibuster right before a Republican Majority is basically giving them complete authority, no?
But even if every single Senate Democrat was on board with the idea, they would still be outnumbered by Republicans for the last 10 years, they've only managed to pick majority leaders in that time period because of caucusing with Ind and an occasional VP tiebreaker.
Get 51 D + 2 Ind then I can fully support removing the filibuster.
And, much like most Republicans over the last decade or two or maybe three, you are thinking about what's good for your agenda in the short-term and not what's good for the nation in the long-term.
The procedural filibuster is bad for the country. It's bad for the country when Republicans have a majority, it's bad for the country when Democrats have a majority. And if the GOP tries to pass something awful, maybe one of our Democrats could grow a backbone and actually filibuster the damn thing.
If you think Republicans passing their proposed tax cuts for the rich, gutting benefits, and firing squads for undocumented migrants is good for the country, then you're not going to convince me of jack shit, pal. That is the power you propose handing them.
All those things would be worthy of a stand-up filibuster.
Yes, you said the filibuster should be gotten rid of. If we got rid of that, the 53 Senate Republicans have the votes to pass these.
I said get rid of the procedural filibuster. That's where a Senator can say 'I'm filibustering that bill' and it can't advance further until 60 Senators vote to end debate on the bill. The chamber then moves on to other business. That allows any Senator to mostly block any bill without consequence. That IMHO is bad.
The real filibuster- where a Senator will stand up for hours and read the phone book, that is essential to stop the worst bills. It should be used sparingly and it should be disruptive.
Yeah, I guess I could get behind that. At least make it really uncomfortable for people to block reform, I guess. Still not great when the senate majority is GOP, but who knows what could come of it.
I still think a much more ideal solutions is getting 60 Democrats in the senate.