Democrat Plan to Kill The Fillibuster

[silveth]

You are very misinformed.


The filibuster was eliminated for non-SCOTUS judicial appointments by Harry Reid and a slim Democratic majority during the first half of Obama's second term, in response to Republican filibusters of every lower court nominee, leading to hundreds of vacant seats in the Federal circuit courts. The filibuster for SCOTUS appointments was eliminated by Mitch McConnell in early 2017 in response to Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, which was itself in response to McConnell's refusal to even call hearings for Merrick Garland for nearly a year.

The filibuster for Executive appointments and general legislation still stands.


Nothing I mentioned requires an amendment. The 14th already covers all persons, and is the constitutional backing for the CRA. The CRA is simple legislation (in that it is part of US Code, rather than the Constitution), and can be amended the same as any law is passed - by a majority in both chambers of Congress and the signature of the President.


Don't care. Hold the hearings. Drag out the hearings to buy more time for vetting if needed. Hearings must start within 30 days of nomination. Voting must happen within 30 days of hearings concluding. There is no can of worms here, we have dozens of unconfirmed "acting" whatevers filling key positions in the cabinet and military leadership, and have for the entirety of Trump's residency.


Which is why point 4 (which you ignored) is to reinstate normal rules (including the filibuster) prior to the midterms, including additional rules preventing the filibuster itself from being removed again without a supermajority.

So I am right then? Your point is screw the rules when it benefits my side only. Change the game because sometimes you lose and that's not ok. Have to make it so only my side matters no matter how tyrannical it is. Got it. if you can't always win playing by the rules, cheat and change the rules.

- - - Updated - - -

It's amazing when people who know jackshit about the history of this country and the reasons things are... speak as thought hey have any authority or knowledge on the subejct.

It is absolutely amazing.

So if one party are literal nazis you're like "that's cool because they're not the other guys"

It seems thinking has flown out the window.


Why do you think if you can't win the majority of peoples minds you deserve to be the MAJORITY DECISION MAKER FOR THE ENTIRE MAJORITY DESPITE BEING A TINY MINORITY

The last time this happened we got nazis... you know the people who only won 37% of the votes but attained power in Germany.

it is amazing how America is supposed to be a representative democracy and yet weird conservative republicans who back genocide and terrorists (going by your own posts in the other threads...) for some reason think that the minority who can't win fairly the right to represent people should for some reason get to represent more people than anyone else.

Tyranny by the minority is far worse than tyranny by the majority... the majority were for gay marriage, the majority were against jim crow. The majority were for women's rights. What held us back for so so so long were the minority... the minority given far too much power for their population and unpopular ideas

Your side is busy electing fucking QANON psychos who think Hillary Clinton is eating babies to live forever and is really a fucking 200 year old vampire living off baby blood.

"but but but but to keep the balance we need to make sure the people who want autocracy and fascism have an equal chance to take away everyone's rights!"

Tolerance of the intolerant is stupid... but I don't think you are saying to tolerate the intolerant. I simply believe based on your posting that you are fully in with that side of the country and therefore you are simply sitting here lying and giving bs excuses because for some reason you are scared of being seen for what you really are.

Like the majority of people who support those far-right people on this forum.

You will support genocide, but try to say genocide isn't genocide when it's "these brown people who deserve it and I don't like."

You will support terrorist attacks, but only when they're targeted again to people you don't like and then you will equivocate on the issue. But you fool no one.


it's like trying to have a conversation with a person who ears a pointy white hood once a week as they gather around a fire talking about how they need to take back the country. You talk to them, and they will try to convince you there is nothing at all racist about their wanting to exterminate everyone else because they view it as the right thing so how can it be bigoted

It is really odd how people like this are almost entirely incapable of even a modicum of self-awareness. Like who do you think you're fooling Kellhound? Or is it worse than I thought and you are actually fooling yourself????

The US is a representative democracy. That's false. The US is a constitutional republic. The states are more of a representative democracy. It was funny because reading his thoughts, they were all about minority over riding the majority. When the idea of the electoral college is suppose to offset that at a state level. The US is the collection of states. The college is suppose help stop the minority of states from over riding the rest. Am I saying its perfect? No, but its the best we have right now.

Just curious on the rest. All of the nazi, terrorist, genocide talk.... I really am interested in how your thoughts got there.

Who is supporting acts of terror and genocide?
What acts of terror and or genocide are you talking about?

I am asking honestly so I can understand where you are coming from because those are big words to throw out and I am really trying to understand what got you to use them.

[Themius]

So I am right then? Your point is screw the rules when it benefits my side only. Change the game because sometimes you lose and that's not ok. Have to make it so only my side matters no matter how tyrannical it is. Got it. if you can't always win playing by the rules, cheat and change the rules.

- - - Updated - - -



The US is a representative democracy. That's false. The US is a constitutional republic. .

Stopped here at this folly of an argument.

do you understand what these words mean and how the government functions? Or do you enjoy ignoring facts and choosing to believe pundits who tell you want you should know?????

Here's some basic ass fucking knowledge fo you, that you should be worried you did not know.

A constitutional republic is a state where the chief executive and representatives are democratically elected by the people, and the rules are set down in a written constitution.

Indirect democracy, or representative democracy, is when citizens elect representatives to make laws for them.[1] This is what most modern countries have today.

In many representative democracies (USA[2], Canada, India, etc.) representatives are chosen in elections. Elections may be won by plurality or majority or some other way. In theory other methods, such as allotment (selection by a lottery) could be used instead. Also, representatives sometimes hold the power to select other representatives, presidents, or other officers of government (indirect representation).

My fucking god, these silly arguments about this seem to only come from the right.. I think it is due to them being horrible students of history and the propensity for cultish behaviour.

Who is supporting acts of terror and genocide?
What acts of terror and or genocide are you talking about?

Either you're not from America or you're privileged enough to be entirely out of the loop.

[Antiganon]

So I am right then? Your point is screw the rules when it benefits my side only. Change the game because sometimes you lose and that's not ok. Have to make it so only my side matters no matter how tyrannical it is. Got it. if you can't always win playing by the rules, cheat and change the rules.

My point is screw the other side, who has proven for literal decades that they could not give a flying fuck about the rules if those rules don't directly and personally benefit them. McConnell and Senate Republicans are the ones that decided Garland didn't get a hearing, in March if 2016, because it was an election year. If those same Republicans vote to confirm Trump's nominee, they have openly and emphatically admitted they don't care about the rules, AT ALL, even the rules that they themselves created.

Yeah I'm fucking tired of being kicked in the teeth for trying to get equal rights for people based on immutable characteristics and taxpayer funded healthcare like every other civilized western country has.

Fuck outta here with your bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Just curious on the rest. All of the nazi, terrorist, genocide talk.... I really am interested in how your thoughts got there.

Who is supporting acts of terror and genocide?
What acts of terror and or genocide are you talking about?

I am asking honestly so I can understand where you are coming from because those are big words to throw out and I am really trying to understand what got you to use them.

Forced sterilizations on refugees seeking asylum while they are in the custody if US Immigration & Customs Enforcement, for starters.

[Themius]

My point is screw the other side, who has proven for literal decades that they could not give a flying fuck about the rules if those rules don't directly and personally benefit them. McConnell and Senate Republicans are the ones that decided Garland didn't get a hearing, in March if 2016, because it was an election year. If those same Republicans vote to confirm Trump's nominee, they have openly and emphatically admitted they don't care about the rules, AT ALL, even the rules that they themselves created.

Yeah I'm fucking tired of being kicked in the teeth for trying to get equal rights for people based on immutable characteristics and taxpayer funded healthcare like every other civilized western country has.

Fuck outta here with your bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -


Forced sterilizations on refugees seeking asylum while they are in the custody if US Immigration & Customs Enforcement, for starters.

I’m gonna fuck outta here... once I’m done with my masters which incidentally is less than a year from now. If the republicans continue down this path and democrats don’t check them.... I’m leaving. I can’t... I pay too much in taxes for a country this broken.

[Kellhound]

So it's okay to abuse people as long as they have the option to uproot their life and move away suddenly?

There's a hot take for ya.

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.

[Antiganon]

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.

Would you consider forced sterilizations of refugees seeking asylum to be abuse?

[Kellhound]

Would you consider forced sterilizations of refugees seeking asylum to be abuse?

Depends on the alternatives.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm half-positive that is a quote from a slave owner

Abuse is subjective, not objective.

[Antiganon]

Depends on the alternatives.

- - - Updated - - -



Abuse is subjective, not objective.

The alternative is just, you know, not doing it.

[Kellhound]

The alternative is just, you know, not doing it.

That doesn't address the alternatives.

[Antiganon]

That doesn't address the alternatives.

I'm talking about women being forcibly given hysterectomies without a medical reason to do so.

What the fuck alternative are you looking for? Just don't do it. It's very simple.

[Kellhound]

I'm talking about women being forcibly given hysterectomies without a medical reason to do so.

What the fuck alternative are you looking for? Just don't do it. It's very simple.

You would have to qualify "forcibly".

[Felya]

You would have to qualify "forcibly".

Actually, no... you need to qualify “forcibly”... I am unaware of a mired definition... is there a variation that means something other than “against their will”? You got my interest peeked...

Edit: You can’t just imply a semantics argument, but not say what it is... especially with a word like ‘forcibly’.

[Themius]

Depends on the alternatives.

- - - Updated - - -



Abuse is subjective, not objective.

So when slaves were being killed or tortured it wasn't abuse because slaves weren't people, just property right?

[Felya]

Depends on the alternatives.

What are they?

Abuse is subjective, not objective.

Only in the sense of the victim and the abuser. People usually side with the victims... for obvious reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't address the alternatives.

What alternatives? What do you consider an alternative?

- - - Updated - - -

So when slaves were being killed or tortured it wasn't abuse because slaves weren't people, just property right?

Silent majority...

[Antiganon]

You would have to qualify "forcibly".

Women in ICE custody are being sent to non-board-certified OB/GYNs for routine procedures like draining a cyst. They wake up to find both ovaries have been removed. Whistleblowers and legal complaints indicate this has happened a number of times, all to women in ICE custody, many seeking asylum.

Many of these women do not speak English. Adequate translation services are not available, and in many cases, medical staff is reliant on other prisoners to translate for the women who need medical attention.

Please try to defend this, I really want to see what you conservatives have to say here.

"No comment" or "I haven't heard about this" isn't an option. Give an actual statement on this atrocity being committed in your name and paid for by your tax dollars, or I will assume you are fine with genocide by way of forced sterilizations of Hispanic women.

You have 24 hours.

[Antiganon]

Women in ICE custody are being sent to non-board-certified OB/GYNs for routine procedures like draining a cyst. They wake up to find both ovaries have been removed. Whistleblowers and legal complaints indicate this has happened a number of times, all to women in ICE custody, many seeking asylum.

Many of these women do not speak English. Adequate translation services are not available, and in many cases, medical staff is reliant on other prisoners to translate for the women who need medical attention.

Please try to defend this, I really want to see what you conservatives have to say here.

"No comment" or "I haven't heard about this" isn't an option. Give an actual statement on this atrocity being committed in your name and paid for by your tax dollars, or I will assume you are fine with genocide by way of forced sterilizations of Hispanic women.

You have 24 hours.

So @Kellhound, I gave you almost 36 hours here.

I'll take your silence as a tacit admission you are fine with genocide of Hispanic women in ICE custody.