The Filibuster MUST Go

[Lakhota]

What happens when you toss the filibuster and then the republicans take over power?

Funny. It didn't do Democrats much good when Moscow Mitch was the Senate Majority Leader. The main difference is that DEMOCRACY is on the line this time!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't see why not. Maybe not?

Given that the senate changes its rules with no intention of reverting said changes, I would think not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doesn't that put the lie to the assumption that they are being actively denied the right to vote?

No, because you would have to also show that their numbers were not reduced. Think of it more like a math problem on a test. But I am not going to make or defend the assertion you just stated.

New obstacles to voting can be systemically racist, in that they would disproportionately affect minorities. This can be true whether or not it is the intent of the measures. Thus, "systemic".

 

[whitehall]

The time was when a filibuster had to be real. In another words a politician had to use his bluster for several hours to prevent the passing of a bill. Which party changed that concept? You got it, democrats. The democrat party passed a rule change so all you had to do was call out "filibuster" and go home. Democrats created the concept and their drooling inept uneducated minions want to change the rules again while democrats run the show. No surprises here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, because you would have to also show that their numbers were not reduced. Think of it more like a math problem on a test. But I am not going to make or defend the assertion you just stated.

New obstacles to voting can be systemically racist, in that they would disproportionately affect minorities. This can be true whether or not it is the intent of the measures. Thus, "systemic".

So, where is the evidence that their numbers were reduced in the 2020 election? I can't seem to put my finger on it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

, where is the evidence that their numbers were reduced in the 2020 election

I don't have it. All we have is circumstantial evidence that certain new obstacles would have his effect.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't have it. All we have is circumstantial evidence that certain new obstacles would have his effect.

Then your argument is speculative at best. Misleading at worst.

 

[elektra]

Not a bad idea. Get rid of the filibuster, protect voting rights, then put it right back in place. Well done, sir.

Sarcasm and irony is lost on you, as is history. Democrats have always used the filibuster. It is fine when the Democrats use it but it violates voting rights? When the GOP uses it?

The filibuster is a fine thing. Sadly over the years the Democrats have changed the rules making it much easier to filibuster. Now that the Democrats want to change our country, spend trillions of dollars, force big government and dumb ideas upon us, the filibuster is bad.

Yet, the Democrats loved to use the filibuster when they were not in power.

Hypocrites

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then your argument is speculative at best. Misleading at worst.

Yet still compelling that it is a possibility. And since the argument is made in the context of cost/benefit of new measures whose claimed benefit is to combat a problem that does not exist, the argument remains compelling.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sarcasm and irony is lost on you, as is history. Democrats have always used the filibuster. It is fine when the Democrats use it but it violates voting rights? When the GOP uses it?

I don't have any need for this psychobabble. This is how simple minded people see the world.

I am beholden to ideas. I think voting rights should be protected. That's all. I know you want to find something in there that feeds your partisan fetishes, but it's just not there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet still compelling that it is a possibility. And since the argument is made in the context of cost/benefit of new measures whose claimed benefit is to combat a problem that does not exist, the argument remains compelling.

A speculative argument does not a compelling argument make.

The only thing it compelled me to do was look for evidence to substantiate said speculation, and found very little, if any, to support it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

argument make.

A speculative argument does not a compelling argument make.

Well that's totally false, especially when the entire collection of arguments is to analyze possible future effects of something. Way off on that one.

The only thing it compelled me to do was look for evidence to substantiate said speculation, and found very little, if any, to support it.

And even less to support significant voter fraud. I think you are starting to get a handle on why the speculative arguments do matter. Even if accidentally.

 

[elektra]

I don't have any need for this psychobabble. This is how simple minded people see the world.

I am beholden to ideas. I think voting rights should be protected. That's all. I know you want to find something in there that feeds your partisan fetishes, but it's just not there.

translation: fort fun indiana does not anything about the filibuster and it's use so fort fun indiana will simply try to sound smart, insult a bit, and move on without any facts to support his/her fantasy.

Sorry, but I think the rights of minorities, given the history of the Democrats, should be protected.

Sad is the hypocrites in the Democrat party, who used and supported the filibuster when they were not in power, but now wish to abolish it when it does not work for them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

translation: fort fun indiana does not anything about the filibuster and it's use so fort fun indiana will simply try to sound smart, insult a bit, and move on without any facts to support his/her fantasy.

Sorry, but I think the rights of minorities, given the history of the Democrats, should be protected.

Sad is the hypocrites in the Democrat party, who used and supported the filibuster when they were not in power, but now wish to abolish it when it does not work for them.

Oh look, you invented little dollies for yourself to play with, because you don't have the tools to address anything i actually say. Enjoy your dollies, son.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And even less to support significant voter fraud. I think you are starting to get a handle on why the speculative arguments do matter. Even if accidentally.

Speculative arguments with no provable evidence are not compelling whatsoever.

They cause others to be compelled by their emotions, not by the facts at hand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A speculative argument does not a compelling argument make.

The only thing it compelled me to do was look for evidence to substantiate said speculation, and found very little, if any, to support it.

The irony here is that, really -- once you peel away the facade of lies the republicans are presenting as the ostensible reason for the new obstacles to voting -- both sides are making the exact same speculative argument

The GOP wants new obstacles, because they speculate that they will reduce turnout.

The democrats oppose them, because they speculate they will reduce turnout.

Crazy, huh? But catch your breath and compare the two...clearly one side is on the correct side of ethics and morality.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well that's totally false, especially when the entire collection of arguments is to analyze possible future effects of something

When speculation is all you have, speculation is all that will remain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When speculation is all you have, speculation is all that will remain.

Totally false. Legislation and its effects are very real.

 

[elektra]

Oh look, you invented little dollies for yourself to play with, because you don't have the tools to address anything i actually say. Enjoy your dollies, son.

Address what you said? I simply stated that the Democrats have always used the filibuster. That the Democrats changed the Filibuster rules so that the filibuster is easier to use.

Those are facts.

You said you supported voting rights? I said I support the rights of the minorities.

I have addressed what you said, which is very, very, very little. Nice try and being clever. Next time try being clever with the subject and the comments. I keep having to redirect you to what was said, and what was not said.

In fort fun indiana's case, he/she supports voting rights? A Republic is much different than a Democracy, maybe you should find a Democracy to live in.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

simply stated that the Democrats have always used the filibuster. That the Democrats changed the Filibuster rules so that the filibuster is easier to use.

That isn't all you said. Now you are just shamelessly lying. So boring.