Protecting Democracy

task0778

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
12,247
11,350
2,265
Texas hill country
WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote on filibuster rules changes to advance stalled voting legislation that Democrats say is needed to protect democracy.

In a letter Monday to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate “must evolve” and will “debate and consider” the rules changes by Jan. 17, on or before Martin Luther King Jr. Day, as the Democrats seek to overcome Republican opposition to their elections law package.

“Let me be clear: January 6th was a symptom of a broader illness — an effort to delegitimize our election process," Schumer wrote, “and the Senate must advance systemic democracy reforms to repair our republic or else the events of that day will not be an aberration — they will be the new norm.”

The election and voting rights package has been stalled in the evenly-split 50-50 Senate, blocked by a Republican-led filibuster and leaving Democrats unable to mount the 60-vote threshold needed to advance it toward passage.

Democrats have been unable to agree among themselves over potential changes to the Senate rules to reduce the 60-vote hurdle, despite months of private negotiations.

Voting rights advocates warn that Republican-led states are passing election legislation and trying to install elections officials loyal to the former president, Donald Trump, in ways that could subvert future elections.



First, both sides have tried to delegitimize elections since 1990, and probably before that when they are on the losing end. So, nothing new there, but my question is whether abolishing or diminishing the filibuster is worse than the way things are now. The Senate did pass a bipartisan COVID Relief Bill this past fall, right? So, it's not like the Senate can't get anything done, they could if they wanted to but too often they don't want to for political reasons rather than what is in the nation's best interests. This effort to abolish the filibuster is not about protecting democracy, it's about protecting the democratic party. And Manchin and Sinema are correct, sooner or later the GOP will regain control of the Senate and they'll employ the same tactics and rules that the democrats want to impose now. And maybe add a plus 1.

Democracy is a messy business. You gotta find common ground and consensus on the way forward, that is after all the job of every politician, or it is supposed to be. That's how a constitutional democracy is supposed to work. The filibuster is there to limit the ability of the majority party to impose their dictates on the minority, like they do in the House of Reps. It's one thing if a party can achieve 60 seats or more in the Senate, I would call that a true mandate and in that situation the majority does indeed have the people's authority to do their will. And if they don't then they'll lose the super majority and maybe even their basic majority if they don't. BUT - when neither party has 60 votes then it should be incumbent on both parties to work towards common goals, or at least try to negotiate a deal where we get this and you get that. In other words, compromise and some cooperation. The majority party shouldn't be trying to impose their will with no concessions, and neither should the minority party obstruct everything whether they actually oppose it or not. I think we've seen both parties do both at different times, no one is without blame. I don't see the answer to that being to give total power to one side; IMHO the real answer is to through the fuckers out of office if they don't bargain in good faith with the other side. And not just the people in the majority party either. Sadly, we don't do that often enough.

But abolishing the filibuster eliminates the possibility of bipartisan agreements except under the direst of circumstances, and frankly we the people deserve better than a 51-50 majority doing whatever the hell they want. Mark my words if that happens the democratic party will pay for it in future elections. We'll be spending so much time, money, and effort undoing what the other party did when they were in power.
 
Chuck Schumer is a habitual liar.
The Democrats want to make their voter fraud crimes and their ballot rigging crimes easier.
Their HR1 bill will destroy America's constitutional representative democracy.
It will turn America into Northern Venezuela.
We will become a one-party country where the Democrat corruption will go unchecked.
It will enslave the American Taxpayers to the endless Democrat greed.
We will become an impoverished nation.
The Democrats will create a police state like Cuba and North Korea.
The Democrats are the real threat to our democracy.
 
The Democrats are the real threat to our democracy.

Right now I believe that is true, sorry to say. Trying to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of our elections is IMHO protecting our democracy. But frankly, I don't know if that bill is even constitutional anyway, because the states are granted authority to run their elections as they see fit and that includes the presidential election.

But that isn't the point of this thread - basically it's about the filibuster and whether or not eliminating it is actually protecting democracy. I say it is not; I say it's about protecting the democratic party's grip on power.
 
Last edited:
Right now I believe that is true, sorry to say. Trying to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of our elections is IMHO protecting our democracy. But frankly, I don't know if that bill is even constitutional anyway, because the states are granted authority to run their elections as they see fit and that includes the presidential election.

But that isn't the point of this thread - basically it's about the filibuster and whether or not eliminating it is actually protecting democracy. I say it is not; I say it's about protecting the democratic party's grip on power.
bingo
 
Just say no to voter fraud legislation.
Why? Can you explain how election fraud legislation is voter suppression? Other countries require voter id, why don't we? The Left wants some kind of id proof that you got the vaccine, right? Why not have the same thing for voting?
 
Why? Can you explain how election fraud legislation is voter suppression? Other countries require voter id, why don't we? The Left wants some kind of id proof that you got the vaccine, right? Why not have the same thing for voting?




75% say Jan 6th Riots were a "threat to democracy".
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote on filibuster rules changes to advance stalled voting legislation that Democrats say is needed to protect democracy.

In a letter Monday to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate “must evolve” and will “debate and consider” the rules changes by Jan. 17, on or before Martin Luther King Jr. Day, as the Democrats seek to overcome Republican opposition to their elections law package.

“Let me be clear: January 6th was a symptom of a broader illness — an effort to delegitimize our election process," Schumer wrote, “and the Senate must advance systemic democracy reforms to repair our republic or else the events of that day will not be an aberration — they will be the new norm.”

The election and voting rights package has been stalled in the evenly-split 50-50 Senate, blocked by a Republican-led filibuster and leaving Democrats unable to mount the 60-vote threshold needed to advance it toward passage.

Democrats have been unable to agree among themselves over potential changes to the Senate rules to reduce the 60-vote hurdle, despite months of private negotiations.

Voting rights advocates warn that Republican-led states are passing election legislation and trying to install elections officials loyal to the former president, Donald Trump, in ways that could subvert future elections.



First, both sides have tried to delegitimize elections since 1990, and probably before that when they are on the losing end. So, nothing new there, but my question is whether abolishing or diminishing the filibuster is worse than the way things are now. The Senate did pass a bipartisan COVID Relief Bill this past fall, right? So, it's not like the Senate can't get anything done, they could if they wanted to but too often they don't want to for political reasons rather than what is in the nation's best interests. This effort to abolish the filibuster is not about protecting democracy, it's about protecting the democratic party. And Manchin and Sinema are correct, sooner or later the GOP will regain control of the Senate and they'll employ the same tactics and rules that the democrats want to impose now. And maybe add a plus 1.

Democracy is a messy business. You gotta find common ground and consensus on the way forward, that is after all the job of every politician, or it is supposed to be. That's how a constitutional democracy is supposed to work. The filibuster is there to limit the ability of the majority party to impose their dictates on the minority, like they do in the House of Reps. It's one thing if a party can achieve 60 seats or more in the Senate, I would call that a true mandate and in that situation the majority does indeed have the people's authority to do their will. And if they don't then they'll lose the super majority and maybe even their basic majority if they don't. BUT - when neither party has 60 votes then it should be incumbent on both parties to work towards common goals, or at least try to negotiate a deal where we get this and you get that. In other words, compromise and some cooperation. The majority party shouldn't be trying to impose their will with no concessions, and neither should the minority party obstruct everything whether they actually oppose it or not. I think we've seen both parties do both at different times, no one is without blame. I don't see the answer to that being to give total power to one side; IMHO the real answer is to through the fuckers out of office if they don't bargain in good faith with the other side. And not just the people in the majority party either. Sadly, we don't do that often enough.

But abolishing the filibuster eliminates the possibility of bipartisan agreements except under the direst of circumstances, and frankly we the people deserve better than a 51-50 majority doing whatever the hell they want. Mark my words if that happens the democratic party will pay for it in future elections. We'll be spending so much time, money, and effort undoing what the other party did when they were in power.
I basically agree...with a few concerns, the most important being deliberate obstruction by the minority party. What used be infrequent, and only done to meaningful legislation now extends to almost everything the majority party attempts to do. What used to be a fairly routine process, confirming judges, turned into a routine blocking of any judicial nonimees and that started the chipping away at the filibuster.

If we (both sides) want to save it we need to totally rethink how we pass legislation and throw out the current idea that bipartisanship is either consorting with the devil or the mark of a RINO/DINO.

I oppose doing away with it BUT, I've said it before - it needs to be harder. It has become too easy and that is evident by the frequency of it's use. Just push a button.

Make it more painful the way it used to be AND the minority party needs to be the one to come up with enough votes sitting through to the end.
 


75% say Jan 6th Riots were a "threat to democracy".
Where do they come-up with those polls, what was the methodology used?

I can tell you straight-up nobody in my AO gives two shits about it and we are just 60 miles away.

I mean do you know how many protests, great and small, peaceful and not so much, we have seen on the DC/Metro news since the civil rights years?

Meh, on the whole it was not much of a much other than the murder. Wake me up when DC glows red at night from the fires again.
 
Where do they come-up with those polls, what was the methodology used?

I can tell you straight-up nobody in my AO gives two shits about it and we are just 60 miles away.

I mean do you know how many protests, great and small, peaceful and not so much, we have seen on the DC/Metro news since the civil rights years?

Meh, on the whole it was not much of a much other than the murder. Wake me up when DC glows red at night from the fires again.

From the OP's linked article:

This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted using Ipsos Public Affairs' KnowledgePanel® Dec. 27 to 29, 2021, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 982 adults with oversamples of Black and Hispanic respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 29-25-36%, Democrats-Republicans-independents. See the poll's topline results and details on the methodology here.
 
I wonder how many Americans believe the riots we saw in 2020 were threatening democracy. How many thought the CHAZ episode in Seattle was threatening democracy? How about when Chuck Schumer threatened the Supreme Court justices, was that also threatening democracy? Back in 2016 when ANTIFA thugs were attacking people outside Trump rallies, was that threatening democracy? Then there was that time in Wisconsin when 'peaceful protesters' took over the state capitol building, isn't that threatening democracy?

Why is it only 'threatening democracy' when the Right does it?
 
From the OP's linked article:

This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted using Ipsos Public Affairs' KnowledgePanel® Dec. 27 to 29, 2021, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 982 adults with oversamples of Black and Hispanic respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 29-25-36%, Democrats-Republicans-independents. See the poll's topline results and details on the methodology here.
Oh, well since it's Ipsos doing the polling I will discount it as their polls have shown a lot of bias favoring the left over the past several years.....Nice try.
 
Why? Can you explain how election fraud legislation is voter suppression? Other countries require voter id, why don't we? The Left wants some kind of id proof that you got the vaccine, right? Why not have the same thing for voting?

For all of those who may have misunderstood me. HR1 is the stuff of rank voter fraud. Just say no to the proposed legislation.
 
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").
Meaning "we" are the only boss of us. We are our government.

Democracy does not mean having "representatives" from (only) two allegedly opposed "(both sides)" groups deciding everything based upon legislation vastly concocted by corporate lobbyists nor people pressured to dial for dollars from corporate interests and billionaires just to be considered "viable" or worthy of appearing on a ballot. Corporations share only one interest - making money. We should be constantly stomping on their necks instead of continuing to let them control us in our name.
 
Last edited:
I oppose doing away with it BUT, I've said it before - it needs to be harder. It has become too easy and that is evident by the frequency of it's use. Just push a button.

If you make it harder to filibuster a bill that doesn't have the necessary 60 votes, then you are also making it easier for a bill to pass with 50 votes +1 (tiebreaker). IMHO, that is not the way the US Senate is supposed to work. The problem is not with the rule, the problem is with the people in the majority party wanting to do as they please without hindrance. Maybe it depends on which side you're on; some say its obstructionism while others decry the tyranny of the majority.

Maybe the real question is, are you willing to give the other party that same power and ability to pass what they want once they get to be the majority? Are you willing to forever eliminate the possibility for compromise and cooperation except perhaps in the direst of emergencies? Once it's gone, I don't think there's any turning back. Which majority party will give up that power once they have it over the other party? Maybe instead of changing the rule, we the people oughta change the people in the Senate until we get enough people onb oth sides who will sit down and negotiate in good faith. They did it a few months ago when they passed that bipartisan infrastructure bill.


"Make it more painful the way it used to be AND the minority party needs to be the one to come up with enough votes sitting through to the end."

Shouldn't the onus be on the majority party to come up with the necessary votes to pass something?
 
Last edited:
Make no mistake, the "filibuster" is a band-aid serving to "protect" our corporate owned duopoly, not democracy. The filibuster would be properly seen as pointless distraction if we allowed ourselves to consider having more than "two sides" the norm rather than a problem.
 
Right now I believe that is true, sorry to say. Trying to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of our elections is IMHO protecting our democracy. But frankly, I don't know if that bill is even constitutional anyway, because the states are granted authority to run their elections as they see fit and that includes the presidential election.

But that isn't the point of this thread - basically it's about the filibuster and whether or not eliminating it is actually protecting democracy. I say it is not; I say it's about protecting the democratic party's grip on power.
It is.
 

Forum List

Back
Top