Filibuster Debate

[Avatar4321]

You mean actually make them filibuster? Novel concept.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are even dumber than I thought.

They don't actually have to have 60 Senators to end a filibuster, they have to have a vote with 3/5ths of the duly sworn Senators. That means that if there were only 99 Senators because, for example, the presidential election left a vacant seat for the junior Senator from Illinois, or the senior Senator from Massachusetts dies, it would only take 59 Senators to end a filibuster. Since Senators are, technically, required to be present for all floor votes, or at least in the building, getting those votes is only a problem for the uneducated idiots that don't know what the rules of the Senate actually are.

Wait, that is you, isn't it?

 

[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.

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.

That is what those who oppose the filibuster like to forget. That a quorum of Senators MUST remain, I believe in the Chamber, or at least in close proximity during the ENTIRE filibuster process.
Also, a Senator may under the rules, "talk a bill to death". This is the purest form of filibuster.
Hey, if the democrats in this case can find 9 Olympia Snow types, they can vote for Cloture and kill any GOP filibuster they like. Good luck!

 

[thereisnospoon]

The most interesting thing about this is that no one here actually understands what the Republicans are objecting to. Just to explain it to all the idiots that think this is about the filibuster, it isn't. It currently takes 66 votes to change the rules for the Senate. What Reid is talking about is trashing that rules, and going with a 51 vote majority to change the rules, and then using that breach of protocol to change the rules for the filibuster.

Anyone that thinks that is a good idea is beyond stupid.

Who said Harry Reid ever had any respect fora rule that does not work to his advantage.
He has stated to the effect that the filibuster prevents the Senate from doing the People's business. What he really means is the filibuster prevents the Senate from doing the business of HIS agenda.
Changing the rules in this manner is tantamount to disenfranchisement of the minority and creating a pure democracy where the rights of the minority are trounced 100% of the time.
That is not governing. It is ruling. We are not a kingdom or a dictatorship. Of course to people like Reid and Obama, being in the majority means "revenge". After all this is what Obama said during his campaign.
Let's face it. Liberals do not govern. They rule.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You know, the Republicans wanted to eliminate the filibuster when THEY held the power back in 2005. Their proposal was IDENTICAL to what the Democrats are proposing now. All of the Democrats lined up to argue against such a blatant power grab, and they were very eloquent in their defense of the status quo. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, they ALL spoke out forcefully to castigate the Republicans for their unConstitutional proposal.

And now they're all in favor of it...

Go figure.

While it is fair to compare the reversal of roles here it is important to realize that the senate has been shut down completely, almost nothing gets through. It is one thing to block individual votes on appointments or, historically, civil rights legislation but to shut the whole thing down on everything is another. They can't say that every single thing the majority seeks to pass is on the level of the Bork nomination or the civil rights act, most of it is stuff any of them would have voted for before they decided to start taking everything hostage.

The simple solution is for the democrats to stop trying to ram their far left agenda down our throats.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It would be nice if Obama was required to hold a 3hr. press conference each week..

..also if the leadership in the Congress was required to do the same..


... but it would be nice to hold their feet to the fire and also know what the hell their up to..

Obama does not do press conferences. He wants to have the right to look at and approve every question asked of him. This way he and his staff and prepare talking point answers.
More often than not Obama has gotten testy or even angry at the majority of his press conferences.
BTW, the kicking of the door video which was made up, was absolutely hilarious.

 

[Article 15]

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.

You are even dumber than I thought.

They don't actually have to have 60 Senators to end a filibuster, they have to have a vote with 3/5ths of the duly sworn Senators. That means that if there were only 99 Senators because, for example, the presidential election left a vacant seat for the junior Senator from Illinois, or the senior Senator from Massachusetts dies, it would only take 59 Senators to end a filibuster. Since Senators are, technically, required to be present for all floor votes, or at least in the building, getting those votes is only a problem for the uneducated idiots that don't know what the rules of the Senate actually are.

Wait, that is you, isn't it?

3/5th of 99 rounds up to 60....try again. Besides you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances in which anything less than 60 votes would be required.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It would be nice if Obama was required to hold a 3hr. press conference each week..

..also if the leadership in the Congress was required to do the same..


... but it would be nice to hold their feet to the fire and also know what the hell their up to..

I would settle for once a month.

I guess the daily WH press briefing is not good enough? No one pays attention to them as it is. The value of a press conference is pretty dubious when the press is only looking for out of context sound bites rather than an honest exploration of policy. Journalistic integrity is dead, cable news killed it, so fuckem. They can subsist on the thin gruel of press releases until they remember what they are supposed to do.

Ok...But when a friendly main stream media gets to toss up softball questions, that is good journalism, correct?
And please, the "out of context" issue is just an excuse to cover up gaffes.
Immature pro athletes use "you took my statement out of context" as a excuse. Not the leaders of the free world.
I find it highly arrogant of these people to believe they can say whatever they wish and take no responsibility for what they say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are even dumber than I thought.

They don't actually have to have 60 Senators to end a filibuster, they have to have a vote with 3/5ths of the duly sworn Senators. That means that if there were only 99 Senators because, for example, the presidential election left a vacant seat for the junior Senator from Illinois, or the senior Senator from Massachusetts dies, it would only take 59 Senators to end a filibuster. Since Senators are, technically, required to be present for all floor votes, or at least in the building, getting those votes is only a problem for the uneducated idiots that don't know what the rules of the Senate actually are.

Wait, that is you, isn't it?

3/5th of 99 rounds up to 60....try again. Besides you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances in which anything less than 60 votes would be required.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

59.4 rounds up to 60? Since when?

 

[Article 15]

You are even dumber than I thought.

They don't actually have to have 60 Senators to end a filibuster, they have to have a vote with 3/5ths of the duly sworn Senators. That means that if there were only 99 Senators because, for example, the presidential election left a vacant seat for the junior Senator from Illinois, or the senior Senator from Massachusetts dies, it would only take 59 Senators to end a filibuster. Since Senators are, technically, required to be present for all floor votes, or at least in the building, getting those votes is only a problem for the uneducated idiots that don't know what the rules of the Senate actually are.

Wait, that is you, isn't it?

3/5th of 99 rounds up to 60....try again. Besides you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances in which anything less than 60 votes would be required.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

59.4 rounds up to 60? Since when?

Fair nuff' ... it does round to 59, my bad. But again you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

3/5th of 99 rounds up to 60....try again. Besides you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances in which anything less than 60 votes would be required.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

59.4 rounds up to 60? Since when?

Fair nuff' ... it does round to 59, my bad. But again you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

You still don't get it, every Senator votes on every floor vote, there already has to be 40 votes to keep the filibuster going.

 

[Article 15]

59.4 rounds up to 60? Since when?

Fair nuff' ... it does round to 59, my bad. But again you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

You still don't get it, every Senator votes on every floor vote, there already has to be 40 votes to keep the filibuster going.

I don't see anything to verify such a thing. Only that 16 Senators have to sign a cloture petition and a majority of senators have to be present for a quorum call to put it to a vote....then 3/5ths (60 votes) are needed for it to pass.

 

[Article 15]

Changing the rule so that 40 sentators must be present and vote to maintain a filibuster puts the onus on essentially the entire filibustering party to be present at all times to keep it going. This makes the filibuster a pain point for them and much more difficult to keep up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fair nuff' ... it does round to 59, my bad. But again you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

You still don't get it, every Senator votes on every floor vote, there already has to be 40 votes to keep the filibuster going.

I don't see anything to verify such a thing. Only that 16 Senators have to sign a cloture petition and a majority of senators have to be present for a quorum call to put it to a vote....then 3/5ths (60 votes) are needed for it to pass.

Ever read the Constitution? It actually gives each House of Congress the power to compel attendance. (Historical note, if it wasn't for that Constitutional provision we would never have had the Alien and Sedition Act.) Cloture votes are a mandatory vote, and all Senators are present.

 

[Article 15]

You still don't get it, every Senator votes on every floor vote, there already has to be 40 votes to keep the filibuster going.

I don't see anything to verify such a thing. Only that 16 Senators have to sign a cloture petition and a majority of senators have to be present for a quorum call to put it to a vote....then 3/5ths (60 votes) are needed for it to pass.

Ever read the Constitution? It actually gives each House of Congress the power to compel attendance. (Historical note, if it wasn't for that Constitutional provision we would never have had the Alien and Sedition Act.) Cloture votes are a mandatory vote, and all Senators are present.

And you still don't see the difference between putting the existance of a current filibuster on the filibustering party?

Here, read this:

"We've seen the filibuster used in the last three or four years in ways it was never used throughout our history. And it's not just the rule — the rule's been the same since 1975 [when the Senate reduced the majority requirement from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 members]. It was a deliberate misuse of the rule. ... The whole idea behind Rule 22 as it is ... is that you could have a minority, not necessarily a partisan one, feel so intensely about an issue that they're willing to put themselves on the line, to debate around the clock, to sleep on mattresses outside the chamber, to take the issue to the country.

"What's happened since the rule's change in 1975, and especially in the last few years, is you don't have to do any of that. You lift your little finger and say, 'I intend to filibuster,' ... and to stop that process, the majority needs to produce 60 votes. We had a spectacle, a couple of times in the last Congress, where Democrats had to bring in 92-year-old Robert Byrd, out of his hospital bed basically ... to provide that 60th vote. And instead, if you basically say, 'If you want to keep blocking action, [to] keep debate going, you have to consistently provide the 40 votes' — it's different.

"It used to be that before we had this last change, it took two-thirds of those senators [who were] present and voting. So if the majority said, 'You want to bring the place to a halt, we'll do that, we'll go 'round the clock,' [then] the minority had to keep its members around — because if they didn't show up, you could get two-thirds of 50 ... members of the majority to stop debate and move forward.

"Now, the minority only has to keep one or two people around to note that there's no quorum of a majority of members, and to block unanimous consent action. And it's the majority that has to keep its members on the couches and the mattresses going around the clock, so it doesn't work in the traditional fashion."

Could A Second Term Mean More Gridlock? | WBUR & NPR


Get it now?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

You are even dumber than I thought.

They don't actually have to have 60 Senators to end a filibuster, they have to have a vote with 3/5ths of the duly sworn Senators. That means that if there were only 99 Senators because, for example, the presidential election left a vacant seat for the junior Senator from Illinois, or the senior Senator from Massachusetts dies, it would only take 59 Senators to end a filibuster. Since Senators are, technically, required to be present for all floor votes, or at least in the building, getting those votes is only a problem for the uneducated idiots that don't know what the rules of the Senate actually are.

Wait, that is you, isn't it?

3/5th of 99 rounds up to 60....try again. Besides you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances in which anything less than 60 votes would be required.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

Wow,really? You are on a computer that has a calculator and you can't even be honest.

3/5 * 99 = 59.4

You do NOT round up less than .5........

The needed votes will be 59 if the quorum is 99 present.

 

[Article 15]

You are even dumber than I thought.

They don't actually have to have 60 Senators to end a filibuster, they have to have a vote with 3/5ths of the duly sworn Senators. That means that if there were only 99 Senators because, for example, the presidential election left a vacant seat for the junior Senator from Illinois, or the senior Senator from Massachusetts dies, it would only take 59 Senators to end a filibuster. Since Senators are, technically, required to be present for all floor votes, or at least in the building, getting those votes is only a problem for the uneducated idiots that don't know what the rules of the Senate actually are.

Wait, that is you, isn't it?

3/5th of 99 rounds up to 60....try again. Besides you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances in which anything less than 60 votes would be required.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

Wow,really? You are on a computer that has a calculator and you can't even be honest.

3/5 * 99 = 59.4

You do NOT round up less than .5........

The needed votes will be 59 if the quorum is 99 present.

Yeah...scroll down a couple more posts, asshat ... that was cleared up.

 

[Darkwind]

3/5th of 99 rounds up to 60....try again. Besides you are talking about extremely unusual circumstances in which anything less than 60 votes would be required.

Now...are you ready to admit the huge and obvious differnence between the 60 vote requirement for cloture and the 40 vote requirement to maintain a filibuster yet?

Wow,really? You are on a computer that has a calculator and you can't even be honest.

3/5 * 99 = 59.4

You do NOT round up less than .5........

The needed votes will be 59 if the quorum is 99 present.

Yeah...scroll down a couple more posts, asshat ... that was cleared up.

At least you manned up about it. Kudos.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see anything to verify such a thing. Only that 16 Senators have to sign a cloture petition and a majority of senators have to be present for a quorum call to put it to a vote....then 3/5ths (60 votes) are needed for it to pass.

Ever read the Constitution? It actually gives each House of Congress the power to compel attendance. (Historical note, if it wasn't for that Constitutional provision we would never have had the Alien and Sedition Act.) Cloture votes are a mandatory vote, and all Senators are present.

And you still don't see the difference between putting the existance of a current filibuster on the filibustering party?

Here, read this:

"We've seen the filibuster used in the last three or four years in ways it was never used throughout our history. And it's not just the rule — the rule's been the same since 1975 [when the Senate reduced the majority requirement from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 members]. It was a deliberate misuse of the rule. ... The whole idea behind Rule 22 as it is ... is that you could have a minority, not necessarily a partisan one, feel so intensely about an issue that they're willing to put themselves on the line, to debate around the clock, to sleep on mattresses outside the chamber, to take the issue to the country.

"What's happened since the rule's change in 1975, and especially in the last few years, is you don't have to do any of that. You lift your little finger and say, 'I intend to filibuster,' ... and to stop that process, the majority needs to produce 60 votes. We had a spectacle, a couple of times in the last Congress, where Democrats had to bring in 92-year-old Robert Byrd, out of his hospital bed basically ... to provide that 60th vote. And instead, if you basically say, 'If you want to keep blocking action, [to] keep debate going, you have to consistently provide the 40 votes' — it's different.

"It used to be that before we had this last change, it took two-thirds of those senators [who were] present and voting. So if the majority said, 'You want to bring the place to a halt, we'll do that, we'll go 'round the clock,' [then] the minority had to keep its members around — because if they didn't show up, you could get two-thirds of 50 ... members of the majority to stop debate and move forward.

"Now, the minority only has to keep one or two people around to note that there's no quorum of a majority of members, and to block unanimous consent action. And it's the majority that has to keep its members on the couches and the mattresses going around the clock, so it doesn't work in the traditional fashion."

Could A Second Term Mean More Gridlock? | WBUR & NPR


Get it now?

And you still don't get that they are fracking constrained. They have to be there for the vote just like the other guys do, so changing the rules to make the lower win only makes sense to idiots. The blurb you posted only apples to denying unanimous consent, not to a vote on cloture.

 

[Article 15]

Ever read the Constitution? It actually gives each House of Congress the power to compel attendance. (Historical note, if it wasn't for that Constitutional provision we would never have had the Alien and Sedition Act.) Cloture votes are a mandatory vote, and all Senators are present.

And you still don't see the difference between putting the existance of a current filibuster on the filibustering party?

Here, read this:

"We've seen the filibuster used in the last three or four years in ways it was never used throughout our history. And it's not just the rule — the rule's been the same since 1975 [when the Senate reduced the majority requirement from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 members]. It was a deliberate misuse of the rule. ... The whole idea behind Rule 22 as it is ... is that you could have a minority, not necessarily a partisan one, feel so intensely about an issue that they're willing to put themselves on the line, to debate around the clock, to sleep on mattresses outside the chamber, to take the issue to the country.

"What's happened since the rule's change in 1975, and especially in the last few years, is you don't have to do any of that. You lift your little finger and say, 'I intend to filibuster,' ... and to stop that process, the majority needs to produce 60 votes. We had a spectacle, a couple of times in the last Congress, where Democrats had to bring in 92-year-old Robert Byrd, out of his hospital bed basically ... to provide that 60th vote. And instead, if you basically say, 'If you want to keep blocking action, [to] keep debate going, you have to consistently provide the 40 votes' — it's different.

"It used to be that before we had this last change, it took two-thirds of those senators [who were] present and voting. So if the majority said, 'You want to bring the place to a halt, we'll do that, we'll go 'round the clock,' [then] the minority had to keep its members around — because if they didn't show up, you could get two-thirds of 50 ... members of the majority to stop debate and move forward.

"Now, the minority only has to keep one or two people around to note that there's no quorum of a majority of members, and to block unanimous consent action. And it's the majority that has to keep its members on the couches and the mattresses going around the clock, so it doesn't work in the traditional fashion."

Could A Second Term Mean More Gridlock? | WBUR & NPR


Get it now?

And you still don't get that they are fracking constrained. They have to be there for the vote just like the other guys do, so changing the rules to make the lower win only makes sense to idiots. The blurb you posted only apples to denying unanimous consent, not to a vote on cloture.

Nevermind....you clearly don't get it and never will. I knew it when you questioned it to begin with and shouldn't have wasted my time even talking to your tarded ass.