Zone1 Why Republicans Are Loathe To End The Filibuster. Even For Trump

[skews13]

Republican Senators, in their calculation, the temporary gain resulting from the change in procedure is outweighed by the prospect of a future Democratic Senate majority playing by the new rules.

The GOP is OK with legislative inertia. In general, they want the 60-vote threshold for passing bills. It puts a wall between the desire to do something and the ability to do it. For decades, Southern Senators in the minority used the filibuster to keep civil rights legislation theoretical rather than enacted.

Today’s Republicans are their political heirs. The last time the Democrats were able to cobble together a brief 60-seat majority, they passed Obamacare. Heaven forbid they do more of the same.

Should the new Senate standard be a simple majority, Republicans know their antagonists, the radical socialists, would be able to easily inflict universal Medicare on the population. And that would be just the tip of an activist, big government, legislative iceberg. To the Party of a do-nothing legislature, a government helping anyone besides its owners is a prospect too awful to allow.

The Impact of the Filibuster on Federal Policymaking

This report looks at the impact of the filibuster on legislative policymaking, describing how the filibuster came to be; its increased use; the disproportionate power it provides to a small segment of society; and what legislative priorities it has been used to derail.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[yidnar]

Republican Senators, in their calculation, the temporary gain resulting from the change in procedure is outweighed by the prospect of a future Democratic Senate majority playing by the new rules.

The GOP is OK with legislative inertia. In general, they want the 60-vote threshold for passing bills. It puts a wall between the desire to do something and the ability to do it. For decades, Southern Senators in the minority used the filibuster to keep civil rights legislation theoretical rather than enacted.

Today’s Republicans are their political heirs. The last time the Democrats were able to cobble together a brief 60-seat majority, they passed Obamacare. Heaven forbid they do more of the same.

Should the new Senate standard be a simple majority, Republicans know their antagonists, the radical socialists, would be able to easily inflict universal Medicare on the population. And that would be just the tip of an activist, big government, legislative iceberg. To the Party of a do-nothing legislature, a government helping anyone besides its owners is a prospect too awful to allow.

The Impact of the Filibuster on Federal Policymaking

This report looks at the impact of the filibuster on legislative policymaking, describing how the filibuster came to be; its increased use; the disproportionate power it provides to a small segment of society; and what legislative priorities it has been used to derail.

www.americanprogress.org

the left [especially the new socialist led radical left] will end the filibuster and go nuclear to implement their communist agenda when they become the majority in the Senate .. Bank on it !

AI Overview



In general,
democratic socialists strongly oppose the legislative filibuster because they view it as an undemocratic institutional barrier that obstructs majority rule and prevents the passage of progressive reforms. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the U.S., advocates for a "true democracy" where the working class has more control, and the filibuster is seen as a tool of obstruction by the minority party.

 

[Crepitus]

Republican Senators, in their calculation, the temporary gain resulting from the change in procedure is outweighed by the prospect of a future Democratic Senate majority playing by the new rules.

The GOP is OK with legislative inertia. In general, they want the 60-vote threshold for passing bills. It puts a wall between the desire to do something and the ability to do it. For decades, Southern Senators in the minority used the filibuster to keep civil rights legislation theoretical rather than enacted.

Today’s Republicans are their political heirs. The last time the Democrats were able to cobble together a brief 60-seat majority, they passed Obamacare. Heaven forbid they do more of the same.

Should the new Senate standard be a simple majority, Republicans know their antagonists, the radical socialists, would be able to easily inflict universal Medicare on the population. And that would be just the tip of an activist, big government, legislative iceberg. To the Party of a do-nothing legislature, a government helping anyone besides its owners is a prospect too awful to allow.

The Impact of the Filibuster on Federal Policymaking

This report looks at the impact of the filibuster on legislative policymaking, describing how the filibuster came to be; its increased use; the disproportionate power it provides to a small segment of society; and what legislative priorities it has been used to derail.

www.americanprogress.org

Republican have used the filibuster to delay or prevent more stuff than you could ever list. From minor shit they just didn't like right on up to supreme court nominations. It has been their favorite tool for decades and they apply it far more frequently than Democrats.

 

[yidnar]

Republican have used the filibuster to delay or prevent more stuff than you could ever list. From minor shit they just didn't like right on up to supreme court nominations. It has been their favorite tool for decades and they apply it far more frequently than Democrats.

AI Overview



In general,
democratic socialists strongly oppose the legislative filibuster because they view it as an undemocratic institutional barrier that obstructs majority rule and prevents the passage of progressive reforms. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the U.S., advocates for a "true democracy" where the working class has more control, and the filibuster is seen as a tool of obstruction by the minority party.

 

[blackhawk]

It amazes me how stupid some people are rather through poor education system or by their own choice remember you set this precedent anything you pass with that simple majority vote can be undone by it when you are no longer the Majority party. Harry Reid and the Democrats did this in 2013 with lower court nominees and cabinet nominations didn't work out very well for them then Mitch McConnell and the Republicans did the same thing with the Supreme Court, and the Democrats took advantage of that. Both parties have become the classic example of those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[White 6]

Republican Senators, in their calculation, the temporary gain resulting from the change in procedure is outweighed by the prospect of a future Democratic Senate majority playing by the new rules.

The GOP is OK with legislative inertia. In general, they want the 60-vote threshold for passing bills. It puts a wall between the desire to do something and the ability to do it. For decades, Southern Senators in the minority used the filibuster to keep civil rights legislation theoretical rather than enacted.

Today’s Republicans are their political heirs. The last time the Democrats were able to cobble together a brief 60-seat majority, they passed Obamacare. Heaven forbid they do more of the same.

Should the new Senate standard be a simple majority, Republicans know their antagonists, the radical socialists, would be able to easily inflict universal Medicare on the population. And that would be just the tip of an activist, big government, legislative iceberg. To the Party of a do-nothing legislature, a government helping anyone besides its owners is a prospect too awful to allow.

The Impact of the Filibuster on Federal Policymaking

This report looks at the impact of the filibuster on legislative policymaking, describing how the filibuster came to be; its increased use; the disproportionate power it provides to a small segment of society; and what legislative priorities it has been used to derail.

www.americanprogress.org

Yes, they figure (probably accurately), the balance in the US Senate will flip after the 2026 mid term elections, as well as the House of Representatives, so preserving the filibuster becomes more important than Donald Trump's short term goals of control.

 

[yidnar]

Yes, they figure (probably accurately, the balance in the US Senate will flip after the 2026 mid term elections, as well as the House of Representatives, so preserving the filibuster becomes more important than Donald Trump's short term goals of control.

The new younger radicals taking control of your party will do away with the filibuster when they take power .. Bank on it !


AI Overview



In general,
democratic socialists strongly oppose the legislative filibuster because they view it as an undemocratic institutional barrier that obstructs majority rule and prevents the passage of progressive reforms. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the U.S., advocates for a "true democracy" where the working class has more control, and the filibuster is seen as a tool of obstruction by the minority party.

 

[Muhammed]

The GOP is OK with legislative inertia. In general, they want the 60-vote threshold for passing bills. It puts a wall between the desire to do something and the ability to do it. For decades, Southern Senators in the minority used the filibuster to keep civil rights legislation theoretical rather than enacted.

Today’s Republicans are their political heirs. The last time the Democrats were able to cobble together a brief 60-seat majority, they passed Obamacare. Heaven forbid they do more of the same.

**** off. The Democratic party of slavery filibustered civil rights and now they are filibustering SNAP.

 

[White 6]

The new younger radicals taking control of your party will do away with the filibuster when they take power .. Bank on it !


AI Overview



In general,
democratic socialists strongly oppose the legislative filibuster because they view it as an undemocratic institutional barrier that obstructs majority rule and prevents the passage of progressive reforms. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the U.S., advocates for a "true democracy" where the working class has more control, and the filibuster is seen as a tool of obstruction by the minority party.

View attachment 1182413

You are saying Independents are getting ready to take charge? That is a pretty bold claim. I doubt it seriously. You must be relatively unfamiliar with politics or the makeup of the two houses. Independents are not the problem. They just want one side or the other to put forth a normal candidate with American values, for a change, instead of these radical right or radical left candidates.

 

[yidnar]

You are saying Independents are getting ready to take charge? That is a pretty bold claim. I doubt it seriously. You must be relatively unfamiliar with politics or the makeup of the two houses. Independents are not the problem. They just want one side or the other to put forth a normal candidate with American values, for a change, instead of these radical right or radical left candidates.

you're a leftist .. you're not an independent .. and yes Marxist are taking over the party in DC you voted for and will continue to vote for ... AND YOU KNOW IT !

 

[wamose]

When you have a Democrat party that used the filibuster to shut our government down, then maybe the filibuster has outlived its usefulness. But if we do away with the filibuster, then Democrats will pack the courts, take your guns and free speech rights, codify election fraud and make DC and Puerto Rico states, to name a few things on their wish list. Either way Republicans go, Democrats seem hell bent on punishing the American people. Something needs to be done about the communist direction of our Democrat party. They just can't be trusted by the American people to do what's best for the country anymore. So for now, they should drop the filibuster and do as much for the American people as possible before the commies get in there and **** everything back up.

 

[MarcATL]

Republican Senators, in their calculation, the temporary gain resulting from the change in procedure is outweighed by the prospect of a future Democratic Senate majority playing by the new rules.

The GOP is OK with legislative inertia. In general, they want the 60-vote threshold for passing bills. It puts a wall between the desire to do something and the ability to do it. For decades, Southern Senators in the minority used the filibuster to keep civil rights legislation theoretical rather than enacted.

Today’s Republicans are their political heirs. The last time the Democrats were able to cobble together a brief 60-seat majority, they passed Obamacare. Heaven forbid they do more of the same.

Should the new Senate standard be a simple majority, Republicans know their antagonists, the radical socialists, would be able to easily inflict universal Medicare on the population. And that would be just the tip of an activist, big government, legislative iceberg. To the Party of a do-nothing legislature, a government helping anyone besides its owners is a prospect too awful to allow.

The Impact of the Filibuster on Federal Policymaking

This report looks at the impact of the filibuster on legislative policymaking, describing how the filibuster came to be; its increased use; the disproportionate power it provides to a small segment of society; and what legislative priorities it has been used to derail.

www.americanprogress.org

Basically.

 

[Crepitus]

AI Overview



In general,
democratic socialists strongly oppose the legislative filibuster because they view it as an undemocratic institutional barrier that obstructs majority rule and prevents the passage of progressive reforms. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the U.S., advocates for a "true democracy" where the working class has more control, and the filibuster is seen as a tool of obstruction by the minority party.

And yet it's still the republi-can'ts who use it all the time.

 

[White 6]

you're a leftist .. you're not an independent .. and yes Marxist are taking over the party in DC you voted for and will continue to vote for ... AND YOU KNOW IT !

What a self-deceiving snob! You really think you are special and can make somebody a Dem or a Rep or a Com or a socialist, simply by the laying on of your own made up label, regardless of voting records, voter registrations records, anything of actual records, simply because you think you are the "exalted one"? Who died and made you king? Nobody buys your shit. You don't really get to make up the rules, except in your own fevered little mind. Grow up.

Does your little rant mean something related to Trump wanting to end the filibuster? Or were you stupid enough to think I was the deciding voter or actually had a vote? I will tell you point blank. I don't. But, it is doubtful, the Republicans with nuke the filibuster, knowing it may be their only power after 2026, and people will remember them putting America under authoritarian rule, long after the deed is done. Of course, I am just one of the majority of Independents watching, that will be voting in the 2026 and beyond, whether you are stupid and conceited enough to think you can pigeonhole Independents. If you think that is the way to attract Independents, you simply do not understand what it means to be independent.

 

[yidnar]

What a self-deceiving snob! You really think you are special and can make somebody a Dem or a Rep or a Com or a socialist, simply by the laying on of your own made up label, regardless of voting records, voter registrations records, anything of actual records, simply because you think you are the "exalted one"? Who died and made you king? Nobody buys your shit. You don't really get to make up the rules, except in your own fevered little mind. Grow up.

Does your little rant mean something related to Trump wanting to end the filibuster? Or were you stupid enough to think I was the deciding voter or actually had a vote? I will tell you point blank. I don't. But, it is doubtful, the Republicans with nuke the filibuster, knowing it may be their only power after 2026, and people will remember them putting America under authoritarian rule, long after the deed is done. Of course, I am just one of the majority of Independents watching, that will be voting in the 2026 and beyond, whether you are stupid and conceited enough to think you can pigeonhole Independents. If you think that is the way to attract Independents, you simply do not understand what it means to be independent.

lol ! you'll be voting for Newsom in 2026 ! and YOUR party will probably win the midterms [the party not in power usually does] ... and your radical leftist dear leaders will end the filibuster,or at least attempt too .. they came close in 2022 with much of the old guard still in power .. in 2026 with the more extreme socialist shift happening they will succeed ! bank on it !

AI Overview



In January 2022, Democrats attempted to change the Senate filibuster rules, specifically proposing changes to the 60-vote threshold, in order to pass voting rights legislation
. However, the effort failed because two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, opposed the change, and the proposal did not receive enough votes to pass. The proposed changes would have included a talking filibuster, requiring senators to actively hold the floor to delay a bill.

• Reason for the attempt: Democrats wanted to overcome the Republican filibuster on voting rights legislation, which was stalled in the evenly-split Senate. They argued the legislation was needed to protect democracy.
• Proposed changes: The plan was to either eliminate the filibuster entirely or create a "carve-out" or "talking filibuster" where senators would have to physically hold the floor to object.
• Outcome: The attempt failed due to opposition from moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. They argued that eliminating the filibuster would harm Democrats in the long run if Republicans gained control of Congress.
• Status: The filibuster was not abolished, and the voting rights legislation did not pass at that time .

 

[skews13]

It amazes me how stupid some people are rather through poor education system or by their own choice remember you set this precedent anything you pass with that simple majority vote can be undone by it when you are no longer the Majority party. Harry Reid and the Democrats did this in 2013 with lower court nominees and cabinet nominations didn't work out very well for them then Mitch McConnell and the Republicans did the same thing with the Supreme Court, and the Democrats took advantage of that. Both parties have become the classic example of those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

This is true. And that's a problem for your side. The overwhelming majority of America is for all of the things that Republicans, conservatives, corporatists, racists, and religious nut jobs despise.

Abortion rights
Voting rights
Gun laws
Climate protections
Equal opportunity
Higher taxes on the morbidly rich

And that's just a very short list.

And if those things are enacted, then your side has to run campaigns on getting rid of any of it.

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

You know it, and I know it, that once we do get rid of that abomination of a rule the Founders never intended. That's the end for right wing conservative, and white christian nationalist rule permanently in America.

But look at the bright side. Now you get to learn how to be a decent human being that gets along with other people.

 

[blackhawk]

This is true. And that's a problem for your side. The overwhelming majority of America is for all of the things that Republicans, conservatives, corporatists, racists, and religious nut jobs despise.

Abortion rights
Voting rights
Gun laws
Climate protections
Equal opportunity
Higher taxes on the morbidly rich

And that's just a very short list.

And if those things are enacted, then your side has to run campaigns on getting rid of any of it.

How do you think that's going to work out for you?

You know it, and I know it, that once we do get rid of that abomination of a rule the Founders never intended. That's the end for right wing conservative, and white christian nationalist rule permanently in America.

But look at the bright side. Now you get to learn how to be a decent human being that gets along with other people.

Thank for the perspective of the massively stupid out of touch far left.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Republican Senators, in their calculation, the temporary gain resulting from the change in procedure is outweighed by the prospect of a future Democratic Senate majority playing by the new rules.

The GOP is OK with legislative inertia. In general, they want the 60-vote threshold for passing bills. It puts a wall between the desire to do something and the ability to do it. For decades, Southern Senators in the minority used the filibuster to keep civil rights legislation theoretical rather than enacted.

Today’s Republicans are their political heirs. The last time the Democrats were able to cobble together a brief 60-seat majority, they passed Obamacare. Heaven forbid they do more of the same.

Should the new Senate standard be a simple majority, Republicans know their antagonists, the radical socialists, would be able to easily inflict universal Medicare on the population. And that would be just the tip of an activist, big government, legislative iceberg. To the Party of a do-nothing legislature, a government helping anyone besides its owners is a prospect too awful to allow.

The Impact of the Filibuster on Federal Policymaking

This report looks at the impact of the filibuster on legislative policymaking, describing how the filibuster came to be; its increased use; the disproportionate power it provides to a small segment of society; and what legislative priorities it has been used to derail.

www.americanprogress.org

As we all always look to cynically point out: They are career politicians.

The veterans among them aren't naïve. They know that the pendulum swings back and forth. That a loss in a presidential year for one party produces a win in the midterms, for that party.

Also, I think a lot of Republicans would secretly be fine with Medicare for All. They can see the numbers and the writing on the wall. This isn't going to go backwards. But I think a lot of Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the private insurance system, byy proxy, in being beholden to their lovely jobs.

Obama managed to swing a bunch of old blue dogs (and their money) over to his camp by countering Hillary's Single Payer rhetoric with the Republican healthcare plan that eventually became Obamacare. And he then sold the idea to voters that Republicans would support this idea (given it was their idea) , leading to a more likely success of passage than Single Payer would have.

He didn't figure the Republicans would recoil at his mere existence and spit in his face, once he won the election.