Time to kill the filibuster

[TheGreatSatan]

Democrats use the filibuster way more than republicans. I say get rid of it.

 

[Dana7360]

Its not going to happen if I am hearing the only two level headed democrats in the senate correctly...besides you dems will rue the day that you did this...you won't be in power much longer....and then we will have the fillibusterless senate....remember we warned Reid and you all laughed and now the GOP has the Supreme court....be careful what you wish for....

Nothing says a few more seats on the court couldn't happen. It would be much more likely to happen in the current environment where repubs are the party of NO than it would be if there was even a small amount of cooperation. I would suggest you might be the one who should be careful of what you wish for.

Yes adding more seats can and has already happened in the past.

If the court rules against Obamacare this month it will further push Americans to want more judges on that court so we can have a balanced court.

 

[Rigby5]

Everybody is wrong.
The filibuster has to stay and the problem has nothing to do with the filibuster.
The federal government already does way too much, so the less it does the better.
And the real problem is the 2 corrupt party system.
Political parties are not supposed to have any legitimacy at all, and are not created or supported by the constitution or any law.
They are a corrupt and illegal monopoly on government function.
There are a number of things we could try to reduce their monopoly.
First of all eliminate the primary election and have only an open single vote, with all candidates where voters rank them instead of a binary single vote.
Another possibility would be a parliamentary system where the prime minister is appointed by coalitions within the legislative.

 

[Richard-H]

Everybody is wrong.
The filibuster has to stay and the problem has nothing to do with the filibuster.
The federal government already does way too much, so the less it does the better.
And the real problem is the 2 corrupt party system.
Political parties are not supposed to have any legitimacy at all, and are not created or supported by the constitution or any law.
They are a corrupt and illegal monopoly on government function.
There are a number of things we could try to reduce their monopoly.
First of all eliminate the primary election and have only an open single vote, with all candidates where voters rank them instead of a binary single vote.
Another possibility would be a parliamentary system where the prime minister is appointed by coalitions within the legislative.

...when pigs fly....

 

[JusticeHammer]

Nobody wanted to kill the filibuster. I didn't want to kill the filibuster. All that was true before the republicans refused to agree to a bipartisan 1/6 commission to investigate the attack on the capitol. Before the vote, repubs made demands for their cooperation, and democrats agreed to every one of them. Repubs still refused to cooperate. If they refuse to cooperate on something so momentous as that, it's obvious they won't cooperate on anything else. The country can't afford to capitulate to the party of NO for a full four years. The insurrectionists built a gallows on the lawn and were chanting “KILL MIKE PENCE!!” There are pictures of republicans stacking furniture to block the door in an effort to keep the insurrectionists out. Those were the same republicans who voted against the bipartisan investigation. Only an idiot wouldn't see that we need to drop the politics and discover what really happened, and who was instrumental in planning it. They obviously care more about protecting trump, and their members who were instrumental in planning the attempted coup than they care about taking care of the country's business. I would prefer to keep the filibuster, but the repubs are forcing the issue so that our only choice is to end it. Once that is done, it won't seem like such a big deal to reconsider statehood for DC and Puerto Rico or a few more seats on the Supreme court. If the republicans keep insisting on being obstinate, there is not much else we can do but to play hardball just like they are doing.

'Five-alarm fire': Liberals use Jan. 6 panel blockade as rallying cry to abolish filibuster

More than 100 advocacy groups sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for elimination of the 60-vote threshold.

www.aol.com

It should have been done months ago.

Republicans are not honest brokers, all of them are #BadFaith actors.

Still better than the lying left.

 

[Papageorgio]

Its not going to happen if I am hearing the only two level headed democrats in the senate correctly...besides you dems will rue the day that you did this...you won't be in power much longer....and then we will have the fillibusterless senate....remember we warned Reid and you all laughed and now the GOP has the Supreme court....be careful what you wish for....

Nothing says a few more seats on the court couldn't happen. It would be much more likely to happen in the current environment where repubs are the party of NO than it would be if there was even a small amount of cooperation. I would suggest you might be the one who should be careful of what you wish for.

Yes adding more seats can and has already happened in the past.

If the court rules against Obamacare this month it will further push Americans to want more judges on that court so we can have a balanced court.

Anyone currently wanting balanced court is not really wanting balance, they want the advantage, because they want four new justices not two or three. The only way the Democrats will settle for balance is if the court went 7-6 their favor. FDR wanted to pack the court so he'd have control and the American people saw right through his game and opposed it. This isn't about balance, it is a power grab by Democrats.

Then when Republicans gain power, which they will as history has showed us, the GOP can balance the court by adding two more justices and then the Dems later on can add two more and so on and so forth.

Americans are absolutely against packing the court.

Opinion | Mason-Dixon Poll: Americans Reject Court-Packing

Independents overwhelmingly oppose plan to add Justices.

www.wsj.com

FTA:
Poll participants were asked the following question:

Do you feel President Joe Biden should or should not back a plan proposed by Congressional Democrats to increase the number of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States from nine members to thirteen members?

A full 65% of respondents said he should not, while just 31% said that he should and 4% weren’t sure. Perhaps it’s no surprise that 95% of Republicans oppose the plan to expand the court, but independents in the survey also resoundingly rejected the idea, with a full 72% saying that the President should not support the court-packing scheme and just 22% saying that he should. And even within Mr. Biden’s party the idea has its share of critics, with a third of Democrats saying he should not back the proposal.

 

[Papageorgio]

Everybody is wrong.
The filibuster has to stay and the problem has nothing to do with the filibuster.
The federal government already does way too much, so the less it does the better.
And the real problem is the 2 corrupt party system.
Political parties are not supposed to have any legitimacy at all, and are not created or supported by the constitution or any law.
They are a corrupt and illegal monopoly on government function.
There are a number of things we could try to reduce their monopoly.
First of all eliminate the primary election and have only an open single vote, with all candidates where voters rank them instead of a binary single vote.
Another possibility would be a parliamentary system where the prime minister is appointed by coalitions within the legislative.

I agree with you on all except the final sentence.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nobody wanted to kill the filibuster. I didn't want to kill the filibuster. All that was true before the republicans refused to agree to a bipartisan 1/6 commission to investigate the attack on the capitol. Before the vote, repubs made demands for their cooperation, and democrats agreed to every one of them. Repubs still refused to cooperate. If they refuse to cooperate on something so momentous as that, it's obvious they won't cooperate on anything else. The country can't afford to capitulate to the party of NO for a full four years. The insurrectionists built a gallows on the lawn and were chanting “KILL MIKE PENCE!!” There are pictures of republicans stacking furniture to block the door in an effort to keep the insurrectionists out. Those were the same republicans who voted against the bipartisan investigation. Only an idiot wouldn't see that we need to drop the politics and discover what really happened, and who was instrumental in planning it. They obviously care more about protecting trump, and their members who were instrumental in planning the attempted coup than they care about taking care of the country's business. I would prefer to keep the filibuster, but the repubs are forcing the issue so that our only choice is to end it. Once that is done, it won't seem like such a big deal to reconsider statehood for DC and Puerto Rico or a few more seats on the Supreme court. If the republicans keep insisting on being obstinate, there is not much else we can do but to play hardball just like they are doing.

'Five-alarm fire': Liberals use Jan. 6 panel blockade as rallying cry to abolish filibuster

More than 100 advocacy groups sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for elimination of the 60-vote threshold.

www.aol.com

End the filibuster and it will comeback to bite us in the ass in the future. Changing the rules to benefit now, will hurt later, we have seen it so many times. I think we all need to be careful, we need to investigate what, how and who, then what we all can do to prevent this in the future. I'm not seeing why the House can't just investigate like they did with Benghazi or the inquiry to the Trump impeachment.

The house can and will investigate. I suspect the repubs know some of their members were instrumental in planning the insurrection. Hell, they probably know who those members are. Without cooperating, they can cry "deep state" and "partisan" It would have been much harder to do that if they participated in the investigation. The choice to not participate is just another example of the dishonesty and lack of ethics the right has adopted.

I see this BS on both sides of the aisle, I have no use for the Dems or the GOP. I am a fiscal conservative and neither party represents fiscal conservatives, they are both corporate money sucking pigs.

 

[Rambunctious]

Its not going to happen if I am hearing the only two level headed democrats in the senate correctly...besides you dems will rue the day that you did this...you won't be in power much longer....and then we will have the fillibusterless senate....remember we warned Reid and you all laughed and now the GOP has the Supreme court....be careful what you wish for....

Nothing says a few more seats on the court couldn't happen. It would be much more likely to happen in the current environment where repubs are the party of NO than it would be if there was even a small amount of cooperation. I would suggest you might be the one who should be careful of what you wish for.

Yes adding more seats can and has already happened in the past.

If the court rules against Obamacare this month it will further push Americans to want more judges on that court so we can have a balanced court.

The people will not stand for a power grab like that....it will keep dems out of power for years...remember...the media and twitter are not the people...

 

[meaner gene]

There are a number of things we could try to reduce their monopoly.
First of all eliminate the primary election and have only an open single vote, with all candidates where voters rank them instead of a binary single vote.

That would be fought with election fraud. Where one party runs "ringers" from the other party to dilute the vote. We saw it in Kanye West running in Missouri, Wyoming, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Montana. It's bad enough having 16 people running in a primary, but you would end up with dozens if not hundreds of people in such a presidential election.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nobody wanted to kill the filibuster. I didn't want to kill the filibuster. All that was true before the republicans refused to agree to a bipartisan 1/6 commission to investigate the attack on the capitol. Before the vote, repubs made demands for their cooperation, and democrats agreed to every one of them. Repubs still refused to cooperate. If they refuse to cooperate on something so momentous as that, it's obvious they won't cooperate on anything else. The country can't afford to capitulate to the party of NO for a full four years. The insurrectionists built a gallows on the lawn and were chanting “KILL MIKE PENCE!!” There are pictures of republicans stacking furniture to block the door in an effort to keep the insurrectionists out. Those were the same republicans who voted against the bipartisan investigation. Only an idiot wouldn't see that we need to drop the politics and discover what really happened, and who was instrumental in planning it. They obviously care more about protecting trump, and their members who were instrumental in planning the attempted coup than they care about taking care of the country's business. I would prefer to keep the filibuster, but the repubs are forcing the issue so that our only choice is to end it. Once that is done, it won't seem like such a big deal to reconsider statehood for DC and Puerto Rico or a few more seats on the Supreme court. If the republicans keep insisting on being obstinate, there is not much else we can do but to play hardball just like they are doing.

'Five-alarm fire': Liberals use Jan. 6 panel blockade as rallying cry to abolish filibuster

More than 100 advocacy groups sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for elimination of the 60-vote threshold.

www.aol.com

So when the left is in charge you want to flame the rules?

Sounds like a dictatorship

What part of ending the filibuster is illegal? If we learned anything from trump it was that if you can do it, you should do it.

Where did I say it was illegal?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Time to kill the filibuster​

Sure, until you're in the minority and then you'll scream about how unfair the minority party doesn't have a voice and demand the filibuster be brought back.

I'm fine with tightening the rules and making it a real filibuster where they have to stand up there reading out of the dictionary for three days and pissing in a bucket.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Time to kill the filibuster?

No, NO, and NO!!!!

 

[justinacolmena]

republicans refused to agree to a bipartisan 1/6 commission to investigate the attack on the capitol

Is that a realitor or a stockbroker after a commission? We don't want it either.

Another crazy right winger having wet dreams for a revolution.

So some dude rolls over on the right side of his bed and has an ejaculation or nocturnal emission,and you want to have him committed to a mental hospital or registered as a sex offender for that?

Democrats agreed to every demand the right made. Yes, that is cooperation.

Nodding their heads doesn't mean they are cooperating.

 

[BULLDOG]

republicans refused to agree to a bipartisan 1/6 commission to investigate the attack on the capitol

Is that a realitor or a stockbroker after a commission? We don't want it either.

Another crazy right winger having wet dreams for a revolution.

So some dude rolls over on the right side of his bed and has an ejaculation or nocturnal emission,and you want to have him committed to a mental hospital or registered as a sex offender for that?

Democrats agreed to every demand the right made. Yes, that is cooperation.

Nodding their heads doesn't mean they are cooperating.

I call some here an idiot in a hyperbolic way, but I believe you actually fit the textbook definition.

 

[eddiew37]

Republican Elephant Morphs Into Sheep​

08/11/2015 05:37 pm ET Updated Aug 11, 2016
The time has come. The Republican party should make it official: their new mascot, the new symbol of what they stand for, is now the sheep, not the elephant. Should there be any doubt, Google the word “sheep” and see what pops right up: “proverbial for its tendency to follow others in the flock.”
Other sources, having dutifully described the four-legged animal version of a sheep, press on:

Merriam-Webster: “A timid docile person; especially: one easily influenced or led.”

Urban Dictionary: “Someone who mindlessly follows and emulates anything and everything... A waste of flesh and brain cells.”
Wasted brain cells. How else to account for the fact that this flock of Republican sheep in Congress consistently votes 100 percent in concert with each other, when anyone with an IQ equal to room temperature or above knows that at least some of them must certainly believe, for example, that the nuclear-limitation deal with Iran has been carefully wrought and is really a good idea. (Truly curious persons might read “Tehran’s Promise” in The New Yorker of July 27, 2015.
After all, Democratic Senators and Representatives are loudly and proudly divergent in their views, some eager to support it and some who vigorously disapprove of it. And have the guts to say so. Could it be possible that Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) is the only Republican member of Congress actually thinking out loud about the pros and cons of this deal? Do none of the rest think any differently from what their shepherds are telling them to think?

If so, they lack the guts to say so. All we hear from that side of the aisle is, “Baaaaaa, baaaaa, baaa.”

 

[Wyatt earp]

Its not going to happen if I am hearing the only two level headed democrats in the senate correctly...besides you dems will rue the day that you did this...you won't be in power much longer....and then we will have the fillibusterless senate....remember we warned Reid and you all laughed and now the GOP has the Supreme court....be careful what you wish for....

Nothing says a few more seats on the court couldn't happen. It would be much more likely to happen in the current environment where repubs are the party of NO than it would be if there was even a small amount of cooperation. I would suggest you might be the one who should be careful of what you wish for.

That will never happen...the backlash across the nation would doom the dems for generations and the GOP would just switch it all back anyway....so please go for it....

If there was any chance the repubs would cooperate in any way, what you say might matter. Unfortunately, republicans have made it clear they will be the party of no for the foreseeable future. Refusing to cooperate on something as important as the insurrection investigation shows they intend to just act like petulant children for the next 4 years. If anything is to get done the filibuster has to go. We can't afford to go 4 years without taking care of the country's business. If your party insists on acting like selfish children, they will be treated like selfish children.

It depends on your meaning of cooperation...to the dems that are in office today cooperation means giving up on all of our principles to do things their way....if you want to place blame and only blame one side you are just what you accused the GOP of being... uncooperative....

Democrats agreed to every demand the right made. The right still refused to cooperate. If the filibuster is eliminated, you can blame the right.

WTF?