Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[Gelston]

And if you reread my post you'll see exactly where the problem is 50 Republicans and 2 Democrats stalling any progress whatsoever.

Democracy in action.

[Tgo01]

So in your mind, if I'm not pissing and moaning about someone it means I support them?

You live in a strange bubble of your own insecurities.

You pissed and moaned 24/7 about Trump when he was president, but now all you can do is deflect and defend Biden, so yeah, it sure seems like you support him. Again you aren’t that deep, you aren’t difficult to figure out.

[Tgo01]

Democracy in action.

Seran: zomg! We need to save our democracy!
Also Seran: zomg! Democracy is the worst when it doesn’t work my way!

[Parkbandit]

And if you reread my post you'll see exactly where the problem is 50 Republicans and 2 Democrats stalling any progress whatsoever.

You should take a Civics for Dummies class.

The Senate is working as intended.

And because of that, now the Democrats want to change it.

Suck it up, buttercup. You're going to be ok without the government spending another 4 trillion dollars it doesn't have.

[Seran]

Democracy in action.

So, the filibuster was originally used prior to the Civil War to allow the minority party to voice their grievances in the Senate. That is fair and I think thoughtful debate /is/ a lost art and in the halls of power in our country. But even then it was universally understood that only an active speaker or speakers, so long as they held the floor could keep the filibuster alive. The talking filibuster was the greatest expression of minority appeal, putting objectors on the spot to air their grievances with legislation. Yet that was done away with, stupidly enough by a Democrat, in a brain dead attempt to prevent minority from stalling the Senate entirely. Now a senator need only give notice they intend to object, adding an unconstitutional threshold to overcome a simple piece of paper and superimposing a 3/5ths rule to invoke cloture. Nowhere in our constitution exists a requirement for supermajority to pass legislation. And yet here we are.

[Gelston]

So, the filibuster was originally used prior to the Civil War to allow the minority party to voice their grievances in the Senate. That is fair and I think thoughtful debate /is/ a lost art and in the halls of power in our country. But even then it was universally understood that only an active speaker or speakers, so long as they held the floor could keep the filibuster alive. The talking filibuster was the greatest expression of minority appeal, putting objectors on the spot to air their grievances with legislation. Yet that was done away with, stupidly enough by a Democrat, in a brain dead attempt to prevent minority from stalling the Senate entirely. Now a senator need only give notice they intend to object, adding an unconstitutional threshold to overcome a simple piece of paper and superimposing a 3/5ths rule to invoke cloture. Nowhere in our constitution exists a requirement for supermajority to pass legislation. And yet here we are.

52 vs 48 doesn't need a filibuster.

[Tgo01]

adding an unconstitutional threshold to overcome a simple piece of paper and superimposing a 3/5ths rule to invoke cloture. Nowhere in our constitution exists a requirement for supermajority to pass legislation. And yet here we are.

You keep using the word "unconstitutional" when you clearly have no idea what the word means.

A) Only a simple majority is required to pass legislation in the Senate, 60 votes is required for ending debate.
B) Just because filibuster and cloture isn't discussed in the constitution doesn't mean the Senate rules are unconstitutional.
C) What IS in the constitution is that both the House and the Senate can make their own rules of how they conduct business.
D) At one point a filibuster in the Senate could theoretically last forever, then this rule was changed to require 66 votes to end debate, then the rule was changed again to only require 60 votes to end debate.

Does this mean the Senate could just as easily change their own rules to do away with filibusters altogether and rely on a simple majority for all legislation? Absolutely. Is it "unconstitutional" if they decide to leave things the way they are? Absolutely not. Stop being a dumbass and stop spreading constitutional misinformation, you are literally murdering people with your words.

[Neveragain]

And if you reread my post you'll see exactly where the problem is 50 Republicans and 2 Democrats stalling any progress whatsoever.

Sounds like the Democrats are divided.

[Parkbandit]

So, the filibuster was originally used prior to the Civil War to allow the minority party to voice their grievances in the Senate. That is fair and I think thoughtful debate /is/ a lost art and in the halls of power in our country. But even then it was universally understood that only an active speaker or speakers, so long as they held the floor could keep the filibuster alive. The talking filibuster was the greatest expression of minority appeal, putting objectors on the spot to air their grievances with legislation. Yet that was done away with, stupidly enough by a Democrat, in a brain dead attempt to prevent minority from stalling the Senate entirely. Now a senator need only give notice they intend to object, adding an unconstitutional threshold to overcome a simple piece of paper and superimposing a 3/5ths rule to invoke cloture. Nowhere in our constitution exists a requirement for supermajority to pass legislation. And yet here we are.

June 10, 1964

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including seven Saturdays. A day earlier, Senate whips Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), the bill's floor managers, concluded they had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate.
The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities—including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.


As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others—150 of them—vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.
Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come." He continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"


Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only five times in the 47 years since the cloture rule was established had the Senate agreed to cloture for any measure.
The clerk proceeded to call the roll. When he reached "Mr. Engle," there was no response. A brain tumor had robbed California's mortally ill Clair Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting a crippled arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote. Few of those who witnessed this heroic gesture ever forgot it. When Delaware's John Williams provided the decisive 67th vote, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield exclaimed, "That's it!"; Richard Russell slumped; and Hubert Humphrey beamed. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Nine days later the Senate approved the act itself—producing one of the 20th century's towering legislative achievements.


https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-...ster-ended.htm

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And if you reread my post you'll see exactly where the problem is 50 Republicans and 2 Democrats stalling any progress whatsoever.

So 52% of the peoples representatives are against the bill. Sounds like it's working exactly as intended.