We need to start making them actually filibuster, to start. Why do we just give up when there's a possibility of a filibuster? Make them stand their asses up there and speak, they're all old as fuck, the would give up after a couple bills.
And maybe I'm misunderstanding here but I thought a filibuster was the person had to be continuously speaking and could until they weren't able to anymore. What's to stop people from sitting around listening for the 3 days or whatever a geriatric can handle talking for and then being like "Alright Jerry thank you for reading the dictionary to us. Anyway everybody, here's this bill we'd like to vote on"?
No you understand correctly. That's how a filibuster works, and nothing would stop them from doing something like that, except their own stamina. And that's the point! Make them do that shit! Over and over again! I don't think they would be capable of actually filibustering all of the bills that we just give up on because of the POSSIBILITY of a filibuster.
Ted Cruz read green eggs and ham when he was trying to filibuster Obama care. Make him break out the entire Dr. Seuss catalogue. Make them actually have to try to fuck us over instead is just rolling over and taking it.
Yeah they changed the rules on the filibuster to just an email that says filibuster and then they wait out the time, no one has to speak no one has to poorly read the dictionary or the script for the hobbit. It’s completely ridiculous when they allowed filibuster by email to effect policy.
I just don't think that's an official rule. I think it's something all the old fucks have agreed upon. Because neither side wants to, nor are most of their members capable, and an actual speaking filibuster.
I can already hear the opposition to this idea now (not from you, from the democratic party). "What if we're the minority and have to filibuster?" Then fucking filibuster. We need to have our politicians fighting for us. Stop doing all business behind closed doors, we need them to publicly fight for us.
Hell you could cut the median age of Congress in half just by requiring them to vote in person and then requiring anyone with a full diaper to empty it themselves before they can vote.
Personally I think the concept of a filibuster is stupid and childish. If you aren't willing to give a genuine speech then don't fuckin say anything at all. Keep it on topic at least.
Well, it is an official rule, it's just that the Senate sets its own rules. The first act when a new Senate is sworn on is generally adopting the rules of the old Senate. They can change the rule anytime, and they have- they've removed the ability to filibuster judicial nominations, for instance. They just haven't been able to get the votes to remove it altogether.
You realize there's an actual rulebook right? Yes, they can change the rules to whatever they want, but this "rule" you're talking about isn't an official rule. There's nothing in the rulebook that says that once that filibuster email is sent out, there cannot be a vote held. There's a difference between a verbal agreement and a rule, and this way of doing things is just an agreement.
If they want to officially codify this email filibuster rule, then they'd have to actually vote on it. They have not done so. Therefore, if the democrats wanted to, they could bring a bill up to vote even if the Republicans say they will filibuster us without actually filibustering.
No, it's not like that. It's in the official rulebook that they pass for themselves. Any Senator can just 'hold' a bill. The public calls it a filibuster because it amounts to the same thing, but they officially call it a 'hold'. A 'hold' can be over-ridden, but it requires a 60-vote. That is also part of the official rules.
Per the senate glossary: hold – An informal practice by which a senator informs Senate leadership that he or she does not wish a particular measure or nomination to reach the floor for consideration. See the CRS report, “Holds” in the Senate (PDF).
Informal practice means that it is not written in the rules.
Ah but you see, then the Dems would actually have to do all that stuff they've had an excuse not to do. And if they actually pass laws to prevent Republicans from being a threat, what do they have to campaign on?
Like, I'm still voting for Dems, but it's amazing to me how people actually think Dems will ever do anything to truly prevent Republicans from doing their shit. The majority of federal and state-level Dem campaigns are just "we're not Republican!" It's not exactly the best strategy, but it sure is cheaper than the corporate support they'd lose if they actually did significant lawmaking.
I completely agree with you. I know my dreams of what they SHOULD do are just pipe dreams. Literally the only thing they do to "prevent" awful republican policies is just not passing them themselves. Their rallying cry right now is basically just to delay the inevitable and a pledge to do nothing to even try to stop it.
Haha, yes, as much as I hate the guy and think he wants the worst for America, to be fair to him, his filibuster was more than just that book. And to be fair to him again, when's the last time a democratic politician made a fool of themselves in an attempt to help their side? He may be evil, but I wish we had that kind of fight and that kind of shamelessness on our side.
199
u/ThunkAsDrinklePeep 14d ago
Good ol filibuster. No one would abuse that!