Jump to content

So Filibuster..... help me out here.


Recommended Posts

So having been out of the country for a number of years, I didn't pay a ton of attention to the intimate detail of the US political sausage making.  But when the fook did the filibuster because a "just don't show up to work" thing instead of having to take the floor for 24 hours??  Also, I assumed that to have a filibuster, the opposition had to at least VOTE no to deny the 2/3 need to advance debate.  Schumer was quoted this morning that the GOP can filibuster by just sitting in their offices and not even showing up.  IS this true?  Or was that typical political hyperbole on Chuck's part?  

I personally think the filibuster is stupid as fuck.  Simple majority rules.  Up or down vote.  Get shit done.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Smith goes to Washington effectively killed the filibuster.

It's been chiseled away at for years.

 The thing is that in practice, the filibuster would make people work to prove their point, and politicians loathe that very idea.

 In a proper filibuster you have to take a stance, and promote/defend it. In a silent filibuster, which we have now, all they have to do is not show up to vote. They can send a page into chambers to say "Absent". and that's all....

There are no real defenders of the constitution, or spokes-people of the common -person anymore. It's all corporations getting more, and the little guy getting squashed. Insurance, Credit cards/banks/ Lawyers/Medical industry/ and mega stores.... It's all bullshit. Microsoft can wipe out everything on your computer while you sleep, and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's very sad, and I try to avoid it all as much as I can, but it'll get you eventually.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All you really need to know is that it is a relic of our former and current oligarchy . . 

Had it not proved useful in oppression of the working class and minorities . . . 

it never would have survived that typo by Burr 

(amazing if you think about it that they could do typos prior to typewriters!!) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Republicans can't vote for Voting Rights.

They used to back in the day . . . 

but the animating force behind the current iteration of the GOP is racial animus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The problem is that Republicans can't vote for Voting Rights.

well they can, but then they'd be personally and collectively committing political suicide! ain't that a bitch, lol...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

So having been out of the country for a number of years, I didn't pay a ton of attention to the intimate detail of the US political sausage making.  But when the fook did the filibuster because a "just don't show up to work" thing instead of having to take the floor for 24 hours??  Also, I assumed that to have a filibuster, the opposition had to at least VOTE no to deny the 2/3 need to advance debate.  Schumer was quoted this morning that the GOP can filibuster by just sitting in their offices and not even showing up.  IS this true?  Or was that typical political hyperbole on Chuck's part?  

I personally think the filibuster is stupid as fuck.  Simple majority rules.  Up or down vote.  Get shit done.  

To answer your question, the 'cloture' vote was adopted in 1917 and amended in '75 to reduce the number of senators from 2/3rds to 60%.    That vote is not to accept or reject the bill - that vote is to stop talking about the bill.  The '75 amendment also allowed for the 'no-talkie' filibuster that is so ridiculously abused today.

In practice, the reason was that it prevented clogging up the system - filibusters were rare - but still 'allowed' if someone felt that passionate about something.  In fact, a principled senator might DEMAND to talk about something - and the cloture vote was to shut him up.  Now it's part of 'stupid town politics' and why we can't have nice things.

At the end of the day, I'm a big supporter of disclosure as an important pillar of democracy.  Senators should be on record for voting up or down.  Defend your vote to the constituents.  If the fine people of 'xxx' state want this person to represent them, then so be it.  But to hide behind the 'mechanics' of the system is wrong.

BTW:  The guy who DOESN'T want to see the voting rights vote forced through is Mark Kelly in Arizona.  He's the guy up for re-election, not Sinema.  He wants to be on the winning side of that vote. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BeSafe said:

To answer your question, the 'cloture' vote was adopted in 1917 and amended in '75 to reduce the number of senators from 2/3rds to 60%.    That vote is not to accept or reject the bill - that vote is to stop talking about the bill.  The '75 amendment also allowed for the 'no-talkie' filibuster that is so ridiculously abused today.

In practice, the reason was that it prevented clogging up the system - filibusters were rare - but still 'allowed' if someone felt that passionate about something.  In fact, a principled senator might DEMAND to talk about something - and the cloture vote was to shut him up.  Now it's part of 'stupid town politics' and why we can't have nice things.

At the end of the day, I'm a big supporter of disclosure as an important pillar of democracy.  Senators should be on record for voting up or down.  Defend your vote to the constituents.  If the fine people of 'xxx' state want this person to represent them, then so be it.  But to hide behind the 'mechanics' of the system is wrong.

BTW:  The guy who DOESN'T want to see the voting rights vote forced through is Mark Kelly in Arizona.  He's the guy up for re-election, not Sinema.  He wants to be on the winning side of that vote. 

Thank you for that explano.  And I 1000% agree with the idea that every politician should be held accountable for their vote.  And they must be there to defend that vote one way or the other.  None of this BS of not showing up or voting absent.  If the GOP doesn't want the voting rights bill to pass, then they should be required to tell the American public why.  Personally, there are some aspects of the VR bill that I wouldn't vote for either.  But I would have no issue explaining why.  They should be required to do the same.

BTW - what is up with sinema??  What is she gaining in all of this obstruction?  I can sort see why Manchin is doing what he's doing, especially back on the infrastructure bill.  But what's her play in that and the current filibuster issue?  Is it a power play?  Is she just parroting manchin to got more concessions from the party?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Thank you for that explano.  And I 1000% agree with the idea that every politician should be held accountable for their vote.  And they must be there to defend that vote one way or the other.  None of this BS of not showing up or voting absent.  If the GOP doesn't want the voting rights bill to pass, then they should be required to tell the American public why.  Personally, there are some aspects of the VR bill that I wouldn't vote for either.  But I would have no issue explaining why.  They should be required to do the same.

BTW - what is up with sinema??  What is she gaining in all of this obstruction?  I can sort see why Manchin is doing what he's doing, especially back on the infrastructure bill.  But what's her play in that and the current filibuster issue?  Is it a power play?  Is she just parroting manchin to got more concessions from the party?  

I would like to think it is simply dark money...  I fear it is much more than that...  Realistically, we weren't supposed to be here..  The shit in Georgia that brought the senate to 50/50 was not supposed to happen.  When it did, the dems got this big head and stars in their eyes to pass the stuff that they always have wanted and ran with it which failed spectacularly on the big issues.  Now here we are.  Reset.....  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Thank you for that explano.  And I 1000% agree with the idea that every politician should be held accountable for their vote.  And they must be there to defend that vote one way or the other.  None of this BS of not showing up or voting absent.  If the GOP doesn't want the voting rights bill to pass, then they should be required to tell the American public why.  Personally, there are some aspects of the VR bill that I wouldn't vote for either.  But I would have no issue explaining why.  They should be required to do the same.

BTW - what is up with sinema??  What is she gaining in all of this obstruction?  I can sort see why Manchin is doing what he's doing, especially back on the infrastructure bill.  But what's her play in that and the current filibuster issue?  Is it a power play?  Is she just parroting manchin to got more concessions from the party?  

I think Sinema was bought, plain and simple. She thinks she's smart to be a stupid cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

BTW - what is up with sinema??  What is she gaining in all of this obstruction?  I can sort see why Manchin is doing what he's doing, especially back on the infrastructure bill.  But what's her play in that and the current filibuster issue?  Is it a power play?  Is she just parroting manchin to got more concessions from the party?  

This is complete speculation on my part. I suspect Pooty (who hacked the DNC, remember?) has goods on most of congress. All he'd need to do is share a few juicy bits about Sinema and/or Manchin with Moscow Mitch and then sit back let the turtle do his dirty work.

Involving 2 Dem senators makes sense in a plan like this as you'd want a backup incase one of them suddenly had a come-to-jesus moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nice! said:

This is complete speculation on my part. I suspect Pooty (who hacked the DNC, remember?) has goods on most of congress. All he'd need to do is share a few juicy bits about Sinema and/or Manchin with Moscow Mitch and then sit back let the turtle do his dirty work.

Involving 2 Dem senators makes sense in a plan like this as you'd want a backup incase one of them suddenly had a come-to-jesus moment.

Whatever is going on stinks to high heaven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a rule for a club of honorable people, and it seemed to the Senators in the early 20th century that anything that was obviously true and fair would surely get at least 2/3rds of a club of honorable wise men to agree to it. However it's a rule which, in a club of partisan hacks, can be abused. The Senate was assumed to be for people who would not put their personal self-interests and party loyalty above the interest of the nation. Once upon a time it was, for the most part. 

  

   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nice! said:
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

BTW - what is up with sinema??  What is she gaining in all of this obstruction?  I can sort see why Manchin is doing what he's doing, especially back on the infrastructure bill.  But what's her play in that and the current filibuster issue?  Is it a power play?  Is she just parroting manchin to got more concessions from the party?  

This is complete speculation on my part. I suspect Pooty (who hacked the DNC, remember?) has goods on most of congress. All he'd need to do is share a few juicy bits about Sinema and/or Manchin with Moscow Mitch and then sit back let the turtle do his dirty work.

Involving 2 Dem senators makes sense in a plan like this as you'd want a backup incase one of them suddenly had a come-to-jesus moment.

Nah, I don't think so - re the Russian angle.  Poots would have far more to gain by having this stuff pass that 1) bleeds the American treasury dry with yet another lifetime of entitlements. but more importantly 2) having these huge bills pass that are so divisive along such narrow lines - especially if the filibuster is removed - actually is a win in his column because it would give grist to the haters to have something concrete for decades to hold onto.

Occam's razor - I think the simple answer is she, like many service providers, just sold herself to the highest bidder.  It's the oldest profession.  Whore's come in all shapes, sizes and genders.  And in this case, the John's paid for and got a tag team duo.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Nah, I don't think so - re the Russian angle.  Poots would have far more to gain by having this stuff pass that 1) bleeds the American treasury dry with yet another lifetime of entitlements. but more importantly 2) having these huge bills pass that are so divisive along such narrow lines - especially if the filibuster is removed - actually is a win in his column because it would give grist to the haters to have something concrete for decades to hold onto.

So, you like the “lazy-man’s” ‘buster? Didn’t think you’d go for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

So, you like the “lazy-man’s” ‘buster? Didn’t think you’d go for that.

???  Engrish Prease.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Nah, I don't think so - re the Russian angle.  Poots would have far more to gain by having this stuff pass that 1) bleeds the American treasury dry with yet another lifetime of entitlements. but more importantly 2) having these huge bills pass that are so divisive along such narrow lines - especially if the filibuster is removed - actually is a win in his column because it would give grist to the haters to have something concrete for decades to hold onto.

Disagree. Pooty doesn't want Americans to have voting rights. That makes America more (quite?) likely to continue down the road to fascism. Fascism makes America weaker, makes NATO weaker, and gives Pooty more opportunity to do the things he wants (like take back Ukraine) without opposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

BTW - what is up with sinema??  What is she gaining in all of this obstruction?  I can sort see why Manchin is doing what he's doing, especially back on the infrastructure bill.  But what's her play in that and the current filibuster issue?  Is it a power play?  Is she just parroting manchin to got more concessions from the party?  

Honestly?

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/industries?cid=N00033983&cycle=2022&type=C

I think that tells the tale of Sinema.  Her major base is retirees, lawyers, and bankers.  In other words, old rich people who live in Arizona.  The truth is that Sinema DID vote to bypass the filibuster for the debt ceiling vote.  So it's not a 'general' principle.  That being said, I think issues like gun control and immigration are at the top of her 'flammable topics list'.

The 'break the filibuster' proponents have already talked about doing away with it so they can pass voter reform, and gun reform, and immigration reform, and climate reform, and ...

Yea.. there's a lot of people who don't actually WANT all those things.  In states like Arizona, constituents - particularly old rich ones - may even LIKE things the way they are.

Arizona isn't that liberal.  its KIND of liberal on some topics, but not on all topics, particularly guns and immigration.  For example (https://www.findlaw.com/state/arizona-law/arizona-gun-control-laws.html) "Arizona gun control laws are among the least restrictive in the United States. Arizona law states that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license."  Sinema would much rather 'stand her ground' against voting rights in a state that actually seems to like tightening voting requirements than deal with gun issues. (pun intended).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Nah, I don't think so - re the Russian angle.  Poots would have far more to gain by having this stuff pass that 1) bleeds the American treasury dry with yet another lifetime of entitlements. but more importantly 2) having these huge bills pass that are so divisive along such narrow lines - especially if the filibuster is removed - actually is a win in his column because it would give grist to the haters to have something concrete for decades to hold onto.

Occam's razor - I think the simple answer is she, like many service providers, just sold herself to the highest bidder.  It's the oldest profession.  Whore's come in all shapes, sizes and genders.  And in this case, the John's paid for and got a tag team duo.  

  In a way. Both WV and Arizona are borderline purple at best, leaning red. These days the term "Democrats" is seen as "Blacks! OMFG!!", and Arizona was the last state in the union to approve MLK Day as a holiday. Money is an advantage but not universally the determining factor, not by a long shot. Money buys ads but FOX News is free. The elections can't simply be bought, so IMO the two Senators are looking to maintain their political careers more than fishing for money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

???  Engrish Prease.

 

Lazy man’s filibuster is 60 vote cloture. Want to filibuster? Get up and talk. Convince others to take your position. Be persuasive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 3to1 said:

well they can, but then they'd be personally and collectively committing political suicide! ain't that a bitch, lol...

Would they really?

In my mind, the very squeaky wheels are a very small minority of bigots and racists that are controlling the questioners and focus groups behind a lot of politicians decision making. And politicians are fearful of going against these groups. Political science has gone haywire. Politicians are a commodity to be marketed and sold every 2,3,4 years. The focus groups don't actually represent the voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/industries?cid=N00033983&cycle=2022&type=C

I think that tells the tale of Sinema.  Her major base is retirees, lawyers, and bankers.  In other words, old rich people who live in Arizona.  The truth is that Sinema DID vote to bypass the filibuster for the debt ceiling vote.  So it's not a 'general' principle.  That being said, I think issues like gun control and immigration are at the top of her 'flammable topics list'.

Except it's looking to turn out the opposite of that:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/donors-threaten-cut-funding-sinema-527413

Top donors threaten to cut off funding to Sinema

The donors said they will support a primary challenge, and demanded that the senator refund their contributions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ncik said:

Would they really?

In my mind, the very squeaky wheels are a very small minority of bigots and racists that are controlling the questioners and focus groups behind a lot of politicians decision making. And politicians are fearful of going against these groups. Political science has gone haywire. Politicians are a commodity to be marketed and sold every 2,3,4 years.

I'm not sure I clearly understand what you're saying. but yes, straightforward national voting rights are toxic to right-wing political interests all across this grate cuntry. it's now 'cheat' to survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Except it's looking to turn out the opposite of that:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/donors-threaten-cut-funding-sinema-527413

Top donors threaten to cut off funding to Sinema

The donors said they will support a primary challenge, and demanded that the senator refund their contributions.

I read that article when I was looking at her funding.  I appreciate their passion but there's an AWFUL lot of weasel words in that article.

"70 Democratic donors — some of whom gave Sinema’s 2018 campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law" -   Ok, what's the maximum contribution?  (https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2021-2022-campaign-cycle-contribution-limits/) says individual limits are $2K for a senator.   It also says they're counting money given to the Democratic election campaigns in general - some of which was certainly redirected.

Sinema has raised over $30 million dollars in 10 years.  Some of those PACs in the article have certainly given her money - $50K from the League of Conservation Voters for example.  Good luck getting that money back. 

I think that article is performative.  We'll bookmark it and see if they live up to their threats when she's up for re-election in 3 more years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'm not sure I clearly understand what you're saying.

I am saying that I think the political focus groups used to determine the public opinions (not private ones) and voting decisions of politicians are being distorted by a very small minority of people that have one, or more, of a number of goals:

  • Power for powers sake, at any cost to the public. They are literally deciding the political messages of all politicians that can afford them.
  • Fascist leanings.
  • Racist leanings.
  • Other, non-freedom loving for all, persuasions.
  • Financial gain.
  • Other

The people that control these focus groups will not stand for election themselves on such platforms.

Alternatively, it may just be that political focus groups naturally tend to stray towards the extremes by their very nature.

All this is to say that I don't think a politician with a moral back-bone will actually lose votes if they can argue their case clearly and succinctly. Clearing a path through the stream of shit deliberately generated by those at the extremes is probably the hardest part of being a modern, moral politician though. There's nothing marketable in the centre...except maybe peace...when enough people want it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would doubling down on voting rights go down with the populous? Add in compulsory voting to the existing voting rights bill, maybe drop something contentious from the existing bill as a show of compromise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ncik said:

How would doubling down on voting right

Actual gummints that give a fig about popular participation . . 

work hard to make it easy to register to vote. 

Why is that so darn hard ?????????

Generally speaking, Canada has a system of universal voter registration.  The Canadian government has largely taken on the onus of registering its citizens to vote as a means of protecting their constitutional right.  It does so by capturing the information needed to register voters when citizens interact with various branches and agencies of the Canadian government. Although no system is perfect and invariably someone will slip between the cracks, , , ,

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ncik said:

How would doubling down on voting rights go down with the populous? Add in compulsory voting to the existing voting rights bill, maybe drop something contentious from the existing bill as a show of compromise.

"populace"

Just trying to help here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

It's a rule for a club of honorable people, and it seemed to the Senators in the early 20th century that anything that was obviously true and fair would surely get at least 2/3rds of a club of honorable wise men to agree to it. However it's a rule which, in a club of partisan hacks, can be abused. The Senate was assumed to be for people who would not put their personal self-interests and party loyalty above the interest of the nation. Once upon a time it was, for the most part.    

Respectfully disagree . . . for decades the ol' white guys in the Senate did indeed use the filibuster judiciously . . . 

they carefully reserved its use only to stomp all over rights of black Americans. 

If that is "honorable", I want do know what dishonorable is. 

That is just one more reason why we need critical race theory across the curriculum. 

That is it for today class.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Lazy man’s filibuster is 60 vote cloture. Want to filibuster? Get up and talk. Convince others to take your position. Be persuasive.

It's lazier than that. They don't talk any more, they just notify their caucus chair of an intention to filibuster and the rest of the Senate agrees to pretend you are really doing it.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BeSafe said:

Honestly?

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/industries?cid=N00033983&cycle=2022&type=C

I think that tells the tale of Sinema.  Her major base is retirees, lawyers, and bankers.  In other words, old rich people who live in Arizona.  The truth is that Sinema DID vote to bypass the filibuster for the debt ceiling vote.  So it's not a 'general' principle.  That being said, I think issues like gun control and immigration are at the top of her 'flammable topics list'.

The 'break the filibuster' proponents have already talked about doing away with it so they can pass voter reform, and gun reform, and immigration reform, and climate reform, and ...

Yea.. there's a lot of people who don't actually WANT all those things.  In states like Arizona, constituents - particularly old rich ones - may even LIKE things the way they are.

Arizona isn't that liberal.  its KIND of liberal on some topics, but not on all topics, particularly guns and immigration.  For example (https://www.findlaw.com/state/arizona-law/arizona-gun-control-laws.html) "Arizona gun control laws are among the least restrictive in the United States. Arizona law states that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license."  Sinema would much rather 'stand her ground' against voting rights in a state that actually seems to like tightening voting requirements than deal with gun issues. (pun intended).

Fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...