Filibuster Debate

[candycorn]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

So when the Republicans regain the Senate the rule should stay the same if the dems change it? Or is that different?

What rule? Just make the Senator hold the floor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the Republicans again play the obstruction card, they will lose the House in 2014 and maybe lose a couple of more Senators. The voters got it, at least those who were watching and listening and they expressed themselves clearly on Nov 6th. The Congress is broken and if the Democrats learned from their last experience they will not overreach.

The Republicans are still top heavy with radicals and I doubt the House can move beyond gridlock; with Rand Paul in the Senate, I expect the next two years will be much like the past. If the Democrats play their cards well and allow the Republicans enough rope they will hang themselves. Americans don't much like the radical fringe.

Isn't that what you said about this year?

 

[Rozman]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

Make em do it....
I would eat some of the most disgusting combination of foods right up until the fillibuster..then at the right time drop pants and let it go...

How do you like me now Harry....

 

[candycorn]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

I wonder why all the people who think they are experts on old fashioned filibusters haven't actually read the rules about them. There is nothing that prevents a Senator from yielding the floor for a question, thus letting another Senator speak for a few hours while he takes a rest. The only requirement for a filibuster to continue is that there is someone on the floor the entire time it is going on.

There is also a catch for the people that want to break a filibuster, they have to maintain a quorum and actually listen to whoever is talking. This is so that if he faints, they can immediately move for debate to end. This requires that a large number of Senators be on call to vote, which means they have to remain in the building, not go home, not go to parties, and not raise money for their campaigns. This actually puts a larger strain on the party that opposes the filibuster, and is the real reason the requirement to actually filibuster was dropped, and explains why it will never be put back.

If you want to discuss filibusters you should know how they work so you don't look like the idiot you actually are.

Yes, you can yield for questions. I knew that.

Whatever the rules are...enforce them. Don't just give the other side a pass. As for who it hurts; thats debateable.

 

[candycorn]

Yes. Get rid of the "lazy filibuster" . Make 'em stand there and talk.

You said it better than I did.

 

[candycorn]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

AGREED!!!!

Up-to-now, (just) the Republican-threat of filibuster has prompted the Dems to back-down.

Lets' SEE those old-fart Republicans filibuster.....without a Depends-break!!!!!!

I also love the optics of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

I wonder why all the people who think they are experts on old fashioned filibusters haven't actually read the rules about them. There is nothing that prevents a Senator from yielding the floor for a question, thus letting another Senator speak for a few hours while he takes a rest. The only requirement for a filibuster to continue is that there is someone on the floor the entire time it is going on.

There is also a catch for the people that want to break a filibuster, they have to maintain a quorum and actually listen to whoever is talking. This is so that if he faints, they can immediately move for debate to end. This requires that a large number of Senators be on call to vote, which means they have to remain in the building, not go home, not go to parties, and not raise money for their campaigns. This actually puts a larger strain on the party that opposes the filibuster, and is the real reason the requirement to actually filibuster was dropped, and explains why it will never be put back.

If you want to discuss filibusters you should know how they work so you don't look like the idiot you actually are.

Yes, you can yield for questions. I knew that.

Whatever the rules are...enforce them. Don't just give the other side a pass. As for who it hurts; thats debateable.

If it didn't hurt the majority the rules would never have been changed, would they?

 

[candycorn]

I want the filibuster rights eliminated. Set maximum time, and enforce it. Discuss, then vote. Get to the question on the table and settle it; without games.

You folks just can't get enough of fucking with the Constitution, can you? From the IRS and Federal Reserve to the direct election of Senators, you think you know better than the EDUCATED men who put this deal together.

You're a fucking RETARD Burt, go play with Ernie and leave the adults alone!

The filibuster isnt in the Constitution. Idiot.

 

[candycorn]

I wonder why all the people who think they are experts on old fashioned filibusters haven't actually read the rules about them. There is nothing that prevents a Senator from yielding the floor for a question, thus letting another Senator speak for a few hours while he takes a rest. The only requirement for a filibuster to continue is that there is someone on the floor the entire time it is going on.

There is also a catch for the people that want to break a filibuster, they have to maintain a quorum and actually listen to whoever is talking. This is so that if he faints, they can immediately move for debate to end. This requires that a large number of Senators be on call to vote, which means they have to remain in the building, not go home, not go to parties, and not raise money for their campaigns. This actually puts a larger strain on the party that opposes the filibuster, and is the real reason the requirement to actually filibuster was dropped, and explains why it will never be put back.

If you want to discuss filibusters you should know how they work so you don't look like the idiot you actually are.

Yes, you can yield for questions. I knew that.

Whatever the rules are...enforce them. Don't just give the other side a pass. As for who it hurts; thats debateable.

If it didn't hurt the majority the rules would never have been changed, would they?

Uhhh...okay. The rules were agreed to by members of both parties; one of whom was in the minority at the time.

Your silly contention that it hurts members who cant attend fund raisers cuts both ways. If the GOP does not get the majority in 2014, they will be the minority in 2016 and have more seats to defend in the Senate. Your reasoning is weak.

 

[francoHFW]

The 60 vote filibuster rule is the last constraint we have on whimsical mob rule, something the Founders were sagely aware of. As the saying goes, "Be careful of what you wish for."

No way should we let them change any rules,not these guys.

They already did- time to go back to the 'stand up and talk" rule. Which McConnell is against...

These rules naturally help the Pubs, since they are against any new policy or progress, they just like cutting taxes, which for some reason can't be filibustered.

 

[Cowman]

So when the Republicans regain the Senate the rule should stay the same if the dems change it? Or is that different?

As most of us have said (not that you listen to anything).

We are willing to take this risk.

And, the republicans will probably have a hard time getting the Senate back again. The house is a different story.

EVERYTHING is cyclical.

Repub control will come around again despite what the Left says (which they say EVERYTIME they win an election).

That's what you retards said in 2010. And that's what I say never. I don't believe in referendums.

 

[blackhawk]

I think some people here have watched Mr Smith goes to Washington one to many times.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, you can yield for questions. I knew that.

Whatever the rules are...enforce them. Don't just give the other side a pass. As for who it hurts; thats debateable.

If it didn't hurt the majority the rules would never have been changed, would they?

Uhhh...okay. The rules were agreed to by members of both parties; one of whom was in the minority at the time.

Your silly contention that it hurts members who cant attend fund raisers cuts both ways. If the GOP does not get the majority in 2014, they will be the minority in 2016 and have more seats to defend in the Senate. Your reasoning is weak.

It was agreed to by 66 Senators. There would be no reason for either side to go along with it if filibusters did not require people to actually sit there and listen, would there?

 

[longknife]

Senate Majority Leader Reid Threatens To End Filibustering

Another example of Dingy Harry's tactics @ Senate Majority Leader Reid Threatens To End Filibustering

Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) threatened changes to the Senate filibuster system, which forces most measures to receive 60 votes in order to receive an actual vote. The filibuster has been a centuries-old constitutional traditional driving compromise rather than one-party rule. Reid now wants to change that – although when Republicans ran the Senate, he was one of the filibuster’s most ardent advocates.

“I and no one on the Democratic side has proposed getting rid of the filibuster,” said Reid. “Just that we do away with the filibuster on the motion to proceed.”

 

[Article 15]

Can you explain what the difference is? Of course you can't, because there isn't one, and you are a complete idiot.

Yes, I can. Thanks for asking. The fact that you can't see the obvious difference is just your aspergers hindering you again.

Here is the obvious.

When they vote on a ending a filibuster if 40 Senators do not vote to keep it going it will end.

When they vote to maintain a filibuster if 60 Senators do not vote to end it it will continue.

Now I have proven I can see the obvious, and you have proven that you can't explain why your proposal is different than what they already do.

You can't see the obvious difference between having to have 60 Senators present to vote for cloture as opposed to having to have 40 there present to maintain a filibuster?

Wow, you're even more retarded than I thought.

Here's a clue:

Senator Byrd being pulled from a hospital bed to cast the 60th vote.

 

[Sallow]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

I like that idea. Or putting a hard limit on just how many filibusters can be carried our during the year.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.

If Reid wants to defeat filibusters, McConnell suggested, he should “use the fatigue factor to grind down opposition” by forcing senators who were filibustering motions or bills to stay on the Senate floor and keep speaking.

While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

So when the Republicans regain the Senate the rule should stay the same if the dems change it? Or is that different?

Liberals are the poster children for "well that's different".
In violation of Senate rules, they used the filibuster to hold up two SCOTUS nominees.
There is nothing in the Senate rules that allows this. Filibusters are to be used for legislation only. But of course the democrats said in unison "well that's different".

 

[thereisnospoon]

Mcconnell had a good idea. Return the Senate to the earlier tactic to where Senators had to hold the floor to prevent business from moving forward.



While its an unbelieveably bad idea to have such a thing, make the Senators physically hold the floor. The practice has been out of favor recently. Id like to see McCain speak for 55 hours just to prevent Rice's nomination coming to a vote. It also would be a civics lesson on obstructionism.

So when the Republicans regain the Senate the rule should stay the same if the dems change it? Or is that different?

What a dumb question.

Should the gop take control of the senate they can do what they want.

Yes, changing the rules of the game in progress are an exclusive province of liberals.

 

[Sallow]

Senate Majority Leader Reid Threatens To End Filibustering

Another example of Dingy Harry's tactics @ Senate Majority Leader Reid Threatens To End Filibustering

Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) threatened changes to the Senate filibuster system, which forces most measures to receive 60 votes in order to receive an actual vote. The filibuster has been a centuries-old constitutional traditional driving compromise rather than one-party rule. Reid now wants to change that – although when Republicans ran the Senate, he was one of the filibuster’s most ardent advocates.

“I and no one on the Democratic side has proposed getting rid of the filibuster,” said Reid. “Just that we do away with the filibuster on the motion to proceed.”

The filibuster isn't in the constitution.

And while the founders wanted the minority to have a say in governance, in no way were they looking for minority rule.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Reid should make them actually filibuster and also change the rule to 40 votes are needed to maintain a filibuster, not 60 to break it.

40 votes to maintain has never been the deal. So this is YOUR idea, correct?
The idea of the filibuster is the last bastion against pure democracy.
A pure democracy where 50.1% always rules quashes the rights of the minority in thier entirety.
Be careful what you wish for.