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

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,104
Back to the desert
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.  

 

Mrleft8

Super Anarchist
26,635
3,743
Suwanee River
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.

 

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,806
Sandusky Sailing Club
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!!) 

 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,996
1,300
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,104
Back to the desert
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?  

 

shaggy

Super Anarchist
9,985
1,049
Co
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.....  

 

Ishmael

52,549
12,333
Fuctifino
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.

 

Nice!

Super Anarchist
4,420
1,215
Victoria, BC
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ishmael

52,549
12,333
Fuctifino
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.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
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. 

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,104
Back to the desert
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.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,342
5,523
De Nile
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.

 




Top