Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Rather its an important protection for when those 4-8 years are over, and ANOTHER trump gets elected, things don't get even worse.
Too much is already lost each time these people get elected, and they will get elected agian.... multiple times.... to just hand them free reign when they do, and worse its a lot easier to do damage then it is to fix it.
It absolutely would be 8 eight years getting nothing done.
We need to rebuild the welfare state, we need to fight climate change, we need to reform the healthcare system, and we need to push electoral reform.
We cannot do any of that with the filibuster in existence.
Republicans taking power and pushing bad things is a price well worth paying if its predated by systematic reform.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 19th 2019 at 3:50:21 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangPlease see the article I’ve posted. The SECOND we tried to use the filibuster to block the Republicans, they’d kill it anyway, just like they did for SCOTUS judges.
Trying to hold onto it as a failsafe makes the wrongful assumption that it would stay in place. If we’d nuked the filibuster when we had the Senate, our judiciary would look VERY different.
Yes, and this is true in a perfect spherical vacuum.
But we don't live in one.
People tend to like social programs, and by extension they dislike people taking it away from them. If we establish a large number of social programs that are widely felt in people's lives then Republicans will move very carefully to avoid the public's ire.
Ergo, while they will undeniably work to sabotage them they will not just undo it in a single legislative session. Because that's the kind of things that results in electoral waves that wipes out your national position.
So removing the filibuster will benefit us immeasurably while resulting in them behaving more or less the same way.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIs there a trope along the lines of Rules Are For The Weak? Because that’s the game the republicans are playing. I’d bet that if the dems played their cards right, killing the filibuster could lead to the death of the republican party too.
If healthcare became free, then suddenly it wasn’t, I can’t imagine a reaction any less than “eat the rich!”
Yeah, that’s about what I was going for. The only thing that made me unsure was that dems don’t play the same game even when they have the power to make the rules.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Jul 19th 2019 at 7:10:08 AM
My musician pageI feel it's worth pointing out that if the Republicans felt that removing the filibuster would allow them to just wipe away all Democratic reforms they would've removed it years ago.
But they haven't. And when Trump pushed for it to be removed Mc Connel suddenly remembered that he could say no to the President.
Because, fundamentally, as forces of mindless Reaction they are strongly benefited by the ability to kill major reforms. Because it's always easier to stop something good that hasn't implemented yet then to kill it once it has. And they know it, so for all their desire to wipe the slate clean you can bet they understand that in practice we would benefit more then they would by the removal of the filibuster.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 19th 2019 at 4:13:43 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThis is false, the republicians play by the same game, which is that they need it to keep people from undoing the evil they do, just as we need it to keep them from doing more evil.
With the exception of trump, republician politicians aren't dumb, there just.... not good people.
I think the people are making is, without the filibuster, all of that can be undone in one Thanos snap if a Republican should take the white house again.
This, exactly this.
And one way to do that is to just do it so fast people don't notice, which is super easy with the filibuster gone, you seem to be missing the point I made about how the point isn't just the delay it causes, but that that delay allows the public to notice something is going wrong and protest......
They won't get to do that at all without it, since they aren't informed about what comes up, only what the news spends weeks talking about.
They won't get to do that at all without it, since they aren't informed about what comes up, only what the news spends weeks talking about.
Alright, let's examine your claim.
This is something we can actually check because currently there is a process that is immune to the filibuster. It's called budget reconcillation
.
In the Republicans attempt to repeal the ACA they used budget reconciliation, and guess what? It failed, not because of the filibuster but rather because of the public outcry against it.
Thus conclusively demonstrating that your claim that removing the filibuster will allow Republicans to just snap their hands and erase progressive programs is simply untrue, they could such a thing but they would face the electoral consequences for such an action.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThats because none of them were expecting to have power at the time so there was no plan, there is easily something that proves the oppisite is true as well.
Putting kids in concentration camps is incredibly unpopular with the public, but since there was no method to stall it.... Here we are, 1 year later and its not going away.
Yes, and once we get the Presidency that will end.
The government doing what the ruling party wants, while still constitutional, is the entire point of democracy. Keeping something that stops the elected party from implementing its lawful policies isn't actually good for our democracy, especially considering what's at stake.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYour missing the fact though that we wont HOLD the presidency, no one ever does.... and in 4-8 years we will be right back here, only without any kind of protection at all.
That's the thing, its gambling our long term rights and protections for possible short term gain, its short sighted and dangerous.
There is a lot longer to life left then just 5-9 years from now.
My understanding of the argument being made is that removing the filibuster has the potential for longer term gains than the long term benefit of keeping it in place. On top of that, keeping it in place will, more likely than not, prevent short-term gains.
Anywho:
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2019/07/19/day-911/
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/trump-officials-refugee-zero-1603503
2/ The Trump administration is planning to update the naturalization test to become a U.S. citizen. Last year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services naturalized more than 750,000 people and the average pass rate on the test was 90%. Since becoming president, Trump has cut the number of refugees admitted to the U.S., banned immigrants based on their nationality in a handful of majority-Muslim countries, made it more difficult to qualify for asylum, and proposed a visa system overhaul that would prioritize immigrants with advanced degrees, English-language skills and money. (Washington Post)
3/ The House Judiciary Committee asked Hope Hicks to clarify her congressional testimony after newly unsealed documents showed "apparent inconsistencies." The documents reveal that Hicks spoke on the phone with Trump and Michael Cohen about Stormy Daniels and the Trump campaign's attempt to stop Daniels from going public with the allegations about an affair with Trump. Hicks originally stated that she "had no knowledge of Stormy Daniels other than to say she was going to be mentioned in the story." Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said the new documents "raises substantial questions about the accuracy" of Hicks' original statements. (CNN / NBC News / Politico / Vox)
4/ The House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees intend to press Robert Mueller to tell a "much clearer narrative" about "the gravity of the president's misconduct." Mueller is expected to appear publicly Wednesday for three hours before the Judiciary Committee followed by two hours before the House Intelligence Committee. Staffers said Mueller's report "lays out the dots" but "they don't connect any of the dots, at least through the most significant instances that we're so interested in." Lawmakers will focus on five different instances they think would incur criminal charges for obstruction of justice: Trump's attempts to have former White House counsel Don Mc Gahn fire Mueller; Trump directing Mc Gahn to deny that he had been ordered to fire Mueller; Trump directing to Cory Lewandowski to deliver a message to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the investigation by excluding Trump and only focusing on future elections; Trump directing Lewandowski to tell Sessions he would be fired if he didn't meet with Lewandowski; and witness tampering regarding Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen. Democrats also plan to press Mueller on the contacts with Russia and Wiki Leaks detailed in the report. (NBC News / CBS News / CNN)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/19/doj-memo-trump-hush-payments-1422933
The Trump administration asserted executive privilege to block the House and Senate intelligence committees from accessing classified documents from Mueller's investigation. Congressional investigators believe Mueller's team was given access to a range of materials that could include intercepts, secretive source interviews, and material shared by the spy agencies of other foreign governments. Justice Department officials, meanwhile, argued that the documents are covered by the privilege initially asserted in response to a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee for all of Mueller's records. (ABC News)
5/ Trump plans to name the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as his next secretary of labor. Eugene Scalia is a longtime labor attorney and a former top lawyer for the Labor Department under George W. Bush. Scalia spent most of his career defending Walmart and other large companies against labor unions and tougher labor protection laws. (New York Times / Politico / NBC News)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/trump-scalia-nomination-labor-chief-1422418
6/ Researchers correlated Trump's election with worsening cardiovascular health, sleep problems, anxiety, and stress. The study, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found 3.2% to 3.6% more premature births were reported among Latina women following Trump's election. (Washington Post / CNN)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/health/preterm-births-latina-presidential-election-study/index.html
poll/ Mitch Mc Connell is the most unpopular senator. Mc Connell has a 50% disapproval rating. He is trailed by Susan Collins with 48%, followed by Bob Menendez and Joe Manchin at a 42% disapproval rating. (The Hill / Morning Consult)
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/453802-poll-mcconnell-is-most-unpopular-senator
Protection for what? If the filibuster isn’t at least modified than no new laws will be made, there won’t be anything to protect. Republicans will be able to repeal things via reconciliation but democrats will never be able to reinstate the repealed laws because of the filibuster.
There’s a real long term risk with leaving the filibuster in place, because it doesn’t protect existing laws due to the reconciliation loophole. So say we win in 2020, get nothing done due to the filibuster and republicans will in 2024 or 2028, they can then repeal Obamacare even with the filibuster in place, okay but the backlash from that might well win democrats the next election, where they will be unable to restore Obamacare because of the filibuster.
If the filibuster is left than things like Obamacare and the Voting Rights act can still be killed and can’t even be bought back later on.
Also you’re ignoring a big thing, the current strand of republicans are only winning because they cheat, if their cheating is stopped they can’t win, sure some form of Republican Party will reappear eventually, but to win fair elections they will have to modernise and thus stop being such a huge destructive force.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranReconciliation only works once a year, it is a hard limit on what they can bruteforce past it..... it isnt a magical bypass every thing free card.
Also this?
This is bullshit that keeps getting repeated in the thread constantly dispite all the experts saying its untrue, because people are desprate to belive the American voter is good.... the thing is that while things like voter suppression HELP the republicans its far from REQUIRED for them to win..... even the experts like Nate Silver say higher turn out wont necessarily help the Democrats...
No one wants to admit it but the fact is that there is enough people that support this bullshit that we cant rely on "Well if we just remove the cheats they won't come back into power"
Edited by Imca on Jul 20th 2019 at 12:09:43 PM
The fact is that the cheats are the deciding factor, particularly in Presidential elections - the Electoral College is the biggest cheat around. Get rid of that cheat and there's no way in hell to elect another Trump.
And said loss by millions of votes has widely been agreed by the experts to have been a perfect storm of both anger and cheating. Like I said, you're giving way too little credit to the cheats.
As for Congressional districts, I don't need to tell you how those are cheated.
Edited by Ramidel on Jul 20th 2019 at 2:46:25 AM

My solution would be to re-write the rules so that the filibuster can not be used on legislation that:
The argument would be that this is the reason why we were elected so we have a mandate to enact these policies.
Anything else could be filibustered on the basis that the people didn't vote for this so there should be a higher barrier.
It would mean that if the Republicans want to undo the reforms, they have to explicitly put it in their platform, hopefully therefore allowing the Democrats to challenge them if the reform is popular.
The obvious downside however would be that embedding the party platform with pseudo-constitutional authority would be an absolute goldmine for rules lawyers to challenge the exact meaning of the platform. But then again that is going to happen to any reform legislation that gets passed, I mean how many legal challenges has the ACA faced?