Are we for or against ending the filibuster?

RaceBannon

http://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/955092657331728384?s=20

http://twitter.com/MariaMicchelli/status/955094320301969408?s=20

http://twitter.com/RollingStone/status/1371894784512626690?s=20

And the paid shill

http://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1371873406975672322?s=20

I am not in favor because the minority party needs the protection. I'm hoping that Trump joining the left in wanting to end it will help keep it. On the other hand elections really would have consequences without it.

RaceBannon

Note the date on the democrats in favor of keeping it. That is an argument right there to keep it. The party out of power wants it

GrundleStiltzkin

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

RaceBannon

Once upon a time the Senate was the saucer to cool the hot tea of the House. Or something

It should be HARD (Hi Coach) to pass major legislation and if the people really want it elect 60 of your team.

Somehow the crafty dems slipped Obamacare through anyway. I'm sure it would be illegal for the GOP to do the same

YellowSnow

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

Agree. The electorate are rubes and I still want it to be HARD and a PROCESS to pass significant legislation.

doogie

Who cares? They’re gonna do whatever the fuck the want anyway.

Bob_C

Want something, give up something.

PurpleThrobber

WAR FILLIBUSTER!

There's enough things in the Throbber's life that already end prematurely.

Let's not have political opposition meet the same fate.

LebamDawg

anything that can slow down the process - stopping those bastards in their tracks is good.

Southerndawg

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.

GrundleStiltzkin

Southerndawg said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.

Yeah, nasty was the wrong word. Frustrating would be more apt.

YellowSnow

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Southerndawg said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.

Yeah, nasty was the wrong word. Frustrating would be more apt.

PurpleThrobber

Southerndawg said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.

The 2A is the protection.

The filibuster is just the warning.

YellowSnow

PurpleThrobber said:

Southerndawg said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.

The 2A is the protection.

The filibuster is just the warning.

Not really. The South went the 2A route and it ended badly (for them). They could have just fought a delaying action in the Senate and kept their peculiar institution for another 30 or 40 years.

The ballot is stronger than the bullet as Honest Abe once said.

Sledog

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber said:

Southerndawg said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.

The 2A is the protection.

The filibuster is just the warning.

Not really. The South went the 2A route and it ended badly (for them). They could have just fought a delaying action in the Senate and kept their peculiar institution for another 30 or 40 years.

The ballot is stronger than the bullet as Honest Abe once said.

The Brits disagree.

YellowSnow

Sledog said:

YellowSnow said:

PurpleThrobber said:

Southerndawg said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.

Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.

The 2A is the protection.

The filibuster is just the warning.

Not really. The South went the 2A route and it ended badly (for them). They could have just fought a delaying action in the Senate and kept their peculiar institution for another 30 or 40 years.

The ballot is stronger than the bullet as Honest Abe once said.

The Brits disagree.

Even the French Navy could win a battle once in a while.

thechatch

It is absolutely essential, and was created SPECIFICALLY for terms where a single party held everything by narrow margins.

Sorry, bitches. You’ll have to dust off budget reconciliation again, like you did for the ACA.

YellowSnow

thechatch said:

It is absolutely essential, and was created SPECIFICALLY for terms where a single party held everything by narrow margins.

Sorry, bitches. You’ll have to dust off budget reconciliation again, like you did for the ACA.

Most of the massive legislative change in this country has occurred when like 60% or more of the electorate is for it which is as it should be. Tyranny of the 51% isn't good for either side.

Bob_C

I heard from Kobe that there was a mandate. 50/50 senate, 8 diff in the house and 42k votes in the presidential. Greatest mandate of my lifetime.