Well this is a no-brainer, isn’t it. As a tool, the filibuster has always been hogwash. If the rules are that you need 60 votes, then make that the official rules. Or don’t, but don’t leave it like it is. She’s probably just talking the talk, but it’s something worth saying and maybe she means it.
I’m in favor of the filibuster, but the original version. You want to delay legislation? Fine, stand your happy ass up and start talking for hours without stopping. The old fucks wouldn’t be able to do it, and those that can would have to spend days doing nothing else, and getting no other work done. After hour 4 or 5, a senator bought by corporate interests is going to be exhausted and start wondering if what they’re being paid is worth the personal effort. By 24 hours, only those who feel true, personal conviction about their beliefs could continue.
Bernie pulled off an 8.5 hour filibuster when he was 69
I’m in favor of the filibuster, but the original version.
I’d settle for that, but I’m going to continue to push for the complete and permanent eradication of the filibuster. I see no reason to pre-negotiate.
I’ll hold my breath until it’s actually done, but this is a good thing to hear
Prove it.
Tbf, she says she supports ending the filibuster. Whether or not she can do it or convince enough senators to do so is another thing entirely.
Just make them actually stand there and talk instead of doing it by computer
Exactly. The old filibuster rule actually required some true effort. This, sending an email bullshit is not at all what the filibuster entails.
I’d rather they eliminate it.
-
They aren’t having actual discussions anyways. Just vote already.
-
Grueling filibusters are ableist; I don’t want physical endurance to be a factor in who wins votes.
-
Sanders did it for 8 hours once.
That’s true. We’ve heard it before though, and it’s been dropped a few times. To me it just sounds like a campaign promise.
The filibuster makes a big difference when the president, the speaker of the house, a majority of the House, and between 50-59 senators all support something.
If you don’t have all of those others lined up, the filibuster isn’t the only hurdle.
For example, Biden hasn’t been president during a Democratic-controlled House, so everything he’s accomplished legislatively has been with the support of either Kevin McCarthy or Mike Johnson, who have been the critical veto point while he has been president.
Plus with only 51 Senators in the Democratic caucus (and 50 in the last Congress), getting 50 votes through Manchin and Sinema has been a challenge sometimes, too.
The last time the filibuster has mattered for a Democratic president in actual legislation was the 111th Congress, when Democrats last held a trifecta. The Democrats did abolish the filibuster for presidential appointments, which don’t go through the House, during the 113th Congress, when they controlled the White House and the Senate.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the filibuster is gone the next time it matters, the next time there’s same party control of all 3. It’s just that it’s better if it’s Democrats in control.
Democrats are just as capable of whipping a vote as republicans when they feel like it.
I’m excited to see people screaming “Presidents don’t have the power to do that, idiot!” when some far left Trump loving Tankie brings up this promise in another six months.
I don’t understand what you mean. I’m saying prove it as in do what you’re promising.
She won’t. And when it comes time to talk about her failure, you’ll be castigated for bringing it up.
Honestly, I’ll be surprised if I even remember about it next year.
Seems we’re getting brigaded today. Hilarious.
Brigaded assumes that politics are confined to liberals
And just like that, centrists have to pretend that they never liked the filibuster.
Well is she gonna overturn President Joe Mansion’s veto?
Does she feel like appointing an AG who will go after him and his family’s various conflicts of interests?
Removed by mod
You’re not wrong, but refrain from attacking other users.
Manchins R replacement is up something like 70-30 in current polling BTW, definitely going R.
And whoever takes his place will be a Republican.
His seat, or his function? Because his seat will be occupied by a Republican. We’ll have to see who will come to occupy his function of convenient turncoat obstructionist. Because that person will be a Democrat.
My point is “is she going to take the necessary action to whip the vote”, Manchin isn’t the only dem senator who’d rather the democrats didn’t accomplish anything as it could hurt their donors.
Really? “Joe Mansion”? That’s Trump-level wordplay. Surely you can do better?
They’re referring to the Senator from West Virginia, who’s literally named Joe Mansion. He’s a living political cartoon of a corrupt politician. He’s also not seeking reelection, so Kamala wouldn’t need to negotiate with him at all to begin with.
It’s spelled Manchin. OP was criticizing the spelling/bad pun
You’re right, I should’ve waited 'til after I had my morning coffee to post 😅
literally
Lol. I agree with what you’re saying, but jesus christ.
If you’re not being hyperbolic, i dont even know what to say.
How many times does the boy have to cry wolf before people realize there is no wolf? This is more of that ‘on day one’ bullshit we heard from Obama, dangling carrots in front of voters to lure them to the poles only for them to backtrack the day after being sworn in.
At least there’s a carrot now, before we were just getting the stick of “vote for me or the fascists will take over”
They’re still using their stick
Be specific. What exactly?
Because Obama also got a lot done he promised
In contrast, Trump clearly makes up things on the spot to impress whoever is in the room at the time
There actually was a wolf in that analogy. Just cause the villagers decided to ignore the warnings didn’t make him not exist.
There is still no wolf.
Based accelerationist Kamala Harris
I wouldn’t call an ideology that literally just makes everything worse “based”
Well, all that exists are forwards and backwards. What climate apocalypse? /s
Common Dreams - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Common Dreams:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
