Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Are we for or against ending the filibuster?
Comments
-
GrundleStiltzkin said:
Yeah, nasty was the wrong word. Frustrating would be more apt.Southerndawg said:
Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.GrundleStiltzkin said:Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.
-
The 2A is the protection.Southerndawg said:
Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.GrundleStiltzkin said:Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.
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.PurpleThrobber said:
The 2A is the protection.Southerndawg said:
Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.GrundleStiltzkin said:Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.
The filibuster is just the warning.
The ballot is stronger than the bullet as Honest Abe once said. -
The Brits disagree.YellowSnow said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
The 2A is the protection.Southerndawg said:
Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.GrundleStiltzkin said:Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.
The filibuster is just the warning.
The ballot is stronger than the bullet as Honest Abe once said. -
Even the French Navy could win a battle once in a while.Sledog said:
The Brits disagree.YellowSnow said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
The 2A is the protection.Southerndawg said:
Nothing nasty about it. In the spirit of our founding principles, it provides protection of the minority from the majority.GrundleStiltzkin said:Nasty as it can be, I've always been in favor of keeping it.
The filibuster is just the warning.
The ballot is stronger than the bullet as Honest Abe once 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.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. -
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.
