This would make sense if the Democrats hadn’t already absolutely promised to do this themselves the minute they get power. They’ve openly bragged about making DC and Puerto Rico states, packing the Supreme Court with anti-constitutional socialist judges, going after the first and second amendments and having a universal mail in no voter ID Voting periods lasting 100+ days if they get in, which basically means our democracy is over. So we could wait around for that to happen or we could pull the plug now and get some real constitutional protections in there beforehand. This whole idea that you can’t kill democracy because you have to wait for us to kill Democracy is just kind of crazy. I’m not falling for it.
The filibuster was supposed to be used very rarely. What Democrats do now as they simply use it to prevent the party that was voted in to never get anything accomplished until they can get in and then use it to rig the game for total control. If you do, the Democrats are crazy now just wait till elections. Don’t really matter And they don’t have to worry about what we say because what we say will be illegal and votes won’t matter anyway.
This is old school fatalism ignoring the fact that there is no more old school as Democrats have decided they can exploit the smallest majority to get their political way.
If Democrats take control of the legislature, they will absolutely pull the nuclear option. They did it under Harry Reid already.
I am sick and tired of the conservative constraint so we can feel all high and mighty and moralistic while we watch the Democrats go scorched earth with zero political consequences.
Democrats will have to do the speaking filibuster... so at least we can get them to do some work instead of their lazy ass protesting and silent resistance.
Even if you set morals completely aside (Which would be a bad idea in this situation in particular) and talk about pure strategy, there's no simple and easy answer. For example, there was a reason Lincoln WANTED the South to attack Fort Sumter instead of launching the first attack. It's because it gave moral justification for his cause to the North and the rest of the World treated them like the rightful government of the US.
We're talking about taking an action that literally justifies murdering people by the thousands. Something our country will likely never recover from. Once someone pulls the trigger on the nuclear option, the world we live in today is going to die. Do we want to be the ones to do that, especially when MOST CONSERVATIVES will not support or go along with it?
I get that, but I think Democrats have proven that they will go nuclear. They don't care. They don't seem to suffer any consequences. Didn't Harry Reid already go nuclear? And we are not talking about life and death here, the Dems are using the silent filibuster for spending demands. For me, that is abuse of the filibuster rule.
I believe if the parties were reversed here, today, the Dems would have already killed a Republican filibuster.
I agree. The left insists we on the right obey the rules that they have already shredded. REPEATEDLY. There is no democracy in America, when elections are blatantly stolen. There is barely a Republic.
I hear you but I'm 💯% certain that if Democrats ever get power again, it's done. Not even thought about. Look at the election results in NYC. Look at Newsom after he already has overrepresentation because Texas was undercounted and California was overcounted in the Census. Democrats are messaging loudly that they are done playing fairly. They have no standards after electing Jones. All of their moral regard is fake. Watch Mamdani speak after he won vs before. We are fools to wait. It's not if they will do it. It's who will do it first. We are past the point of where you or I would like to be. Look who stopped it last time. Manchin and Sinema. Where are they?
Are you aware that the British system does not have any filibuster and the party in power can do pretty much whatever it wants. There isn't even a constitution. Yet Britain has not turned into a flaming conflagration of Civil war, at least not yet, and whilst the left of certainly done a lot of damage to it, it's still a democracy. So the situation you are predicting does not seem to be 100% guaranteed by any means.
While agree about the reason for the filibuster, if we should keep it, then let's go back to the real original Senate, where senators are appointed by each state instead of being elected.
I would call your attention to a great counter argument to this from Tierney's Real News <tierneyrealnewsnetwork@substack.com>. You two need to correspond. I will send her the same message. The issue should be not deciding for or against the filibuster, but having a law created that kicks in when the filibuster threatens national security --as it now does. And, regardless, that law needs to deduct 2 days' pay from all senators for each day of a filibuster. Non-reimbursable. THAT may end the antics. Let those who cause the problem suffer the consequences!
I don’t think that the government paycheck of Senators or Congress persons is the source of their wealth. Better leverage would be to suspend the pay of their staff members, those who actually depend on that income to live. The feedback from staff would be a much harder voice to ignore.
So… In other words, what you’re saying is: Get rid of the filibuster NOW NOW NOW and quickly pass some laws that’ll disenfranchise Dems while we have the Senate?
And thereby prevent them from ever getting a majority in the Senate to pass their retarded shit?
The “nuclear option “ would end only the “silent “ filibuster, the talking filibuster remains available for the enjoyment and engagement of a minority party. The silent filibuster is a convenience for Senators to make their lives easier, but why should they not have to suffer along with all Americans for their inability to do the job of the legislative branch. Let Senators sit for hours on end through readings of the NYC phone book. I suspect it would increase the chances of resolving an impasse enormously.
Let them keep the speaking filibuster. If the minority wants more debate, they get as much debate as they want. If they want to obstruct by reading The Communist Manifesto in the original German? Sure, go right ahead. But speaking filibusters are very visible. They stop all business until it’s completed. They don’t allow 41 Senators to simply say “nope, not even getting a vote.”
We removed the silent filibuster for nominations because it was ridiculously obstructionist. We could remove it for other specified reasons and purposes without abolishing it entirely. Why not?
If we don’t figure out how to cut spending and over-regulation, the debt bomb will crash the nations in due course. If we can’t in the coming year clarify foundational questions like “who is permitted to reside here,” “who gets the vote,” and “who counts as a resident for census apportionment,” then the Democrats can resume flooding the nation with warm bodies and mass-producing ballots to go with Motor Voter registrations. That’s the end of the Republic, as well.
The Roman Republic ended when the Senators figured out they could rule by proscribing the opposition — until overthrown by force and proscribed in turn. The incompatible worldviews of the Optimates and the Populares could not be reconciled. So the civil wars dragged on until an Emperor arose who could put an end to them.
Should anyone want that? Probably not. Can we avoid it? Remains to be seen.
This would make sense if the Democrats hadn’t already absolutely promised to do this themselves the minute they get power. They’ve openly bragged about making DC and Puerto Rico states, packing the Supreme Court with anti-constitutional socialist judges, going after the first and second amendments and having a universal mail in no voter ID Voting periods lasting 100+ days if they get in, which basically means our democracy is over. So we could wait around for that to happen or we could pull the plug now and get some real constitutional protections in there beforehand. This whole idea that you can’t kill democracy because you have to wait for us to kill Democracy is just kind of crazy. I’m not falling for it.
The filibuster was supposed to be used very rarely. What Democrats do now as they simply use it to prevent the party that was voted in to never get anything accomplished until they can get in and then use it to rig the game for total control. If you do, the Democrats are crazy now just wait till elections. Don’t really matter And they don’t have to worry about what we say because what we say will be illegal and votes won’t matter anyway.
This is old school fatalism ignoring the fact that there is no more old school as Democrats have decided they can exploit the smallest majority to get their political way.
If Democrats take control of the legislature, they will absolutely pull the nuclear option. They did it under Harry Reid already.
I am sick and tired of the conservative constraint so we can feel all high and mighty and moralistic while we watch the Democrats go scorched earth with zero political consequences.
Democrats will have to do the speaking filibuster... so at least we can get them to do some work instead of their lazy ass protesting and silent resistance.
Even if you set morals completely aside (Which would be a bad idea in this situation in particular) and talk about pure strategy, there's no simple and easy answer. For example, there was a reason Lincoln WANTED the South to attack Fort Sumter instead of launching the first attack. It's because it gave moral justification for his cause to the North and the rest of the World treated them like the rightful government of the US.
We're talking about taking an action that literally justifies murdering people by the thousands. Something our country will likely never recover from. Once someone pulls the trigger on the nuclear option, the world we live in today is going to die. Do we want to be the ones to do that, especially when MOST CONSERVATIVES will not support or go along with it?
I get that, but I think Democrats have proven that they will go nuclear. They don't care. They don't seem to suffer any consequences. Didn't Harry Reid already go nuclear? And we are not talking about life and death here, the Dems are using the silent filibuster for spending demands. For me, that is abuse of the filibuster rule.
I believe if the parties were reversed here, today, the Dems would have already killed a Republican filibuster.
I agree. The left insists we on the right obey the rules that they have already shredded. REPEATEDLY. There is no democracy in America, when elections are blatantly stolen. There is barely a Republic.
I hear you but I'm 💯% certain that if Democrats ever get power again, it's done. Not even thought about. Look at the election results in NYC. Look at Newsom after he already has overrepresentation because Texas was undercounted and California was overcounted in the Census. Democrats are messaging loudly that they are done playing fairly. They have no standards after electing Jones. All of their moral regard is fake. Watch Mamdani speak after he won vs before. We are fools to wait. It's not if they will do it. It's who will do it first. We are past the point of where you or I would like to be. Look who stopped it last time. Manchin and Sinema. Where are they?
Are you aware that the British system does not have any filibuster and the party in power can do pretty much whatever it wants. There isn't even a constitution. Yet Britain has not turned into a flaming conflagration of Civil war, at least not yet, and whilst the left of certainly done a lot of damage to it, it's still a democracy. So the situation you are predicting does not seem to be 100% guaranteed by any means.
While agree about the reason for the filibuster, if we should keep it, then let's go back to the real original Senate, where senators are appointed by each state instead of being elected.
I would call your attention to a great counter argument to this from Tierney's Real News <tierneyrealnewsnetwork@substack.com>. You two need to correspond. I will send her the same message. The issue should be not deciding for or against the filibuster, but having a law created that kicks in when the filibuster threatens national security --as it now does. And, regardless, that law needs to deduct 2 days' pay from all senators for each day of a filibuster. Non-reimbursable. THAT may end the antics. Let those who cause the problem suffer the consequences!
I don’t think that the government paycheck of Senators or Congress persons is the source of their wealth. Better leverage would be to suspend the pay of their staff members, those who actually depend on that income to live. The feedback from staff would be a much harder voice to ignore.
I prefer that staff snd legislators forfeit all pay--including back pay--during a shutdown.
Good point. Then, EVERYONE who works for the Senate should be docked. The staff at 1 day's pay; the senators at 2 days' pay!
So… In other words, what you’re saying is: Get rid of the filibuster NOW NOW NOW and quickly pass some laws that’ll disenfranchise Dems while we have the Senate?
And thereby prevent them from ever getting a majority in the Senate to pass their retarded shit?
Ok, let’s do it!
Democracy ended with Warp Speed. Everything after that is just gravy. https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/the-defining-moment-of-our-time
If it's so crucial for our system of government, why did the framers of the Constitution fail to include it?
The “nuclear option “ would end only the “silent “ filibuster, the talking filibuster remains available for the enjoyment and engagement of a minority party. The silent filibuster is a convenience for Senators to make their lives easier, but why should they not have to suffer along with all Americans for their inability to do the job of the legislative branch. Let Senators sit for hours on end through readings of the NYC phone book. I suspect it would increase the chances of resolving an impasse enormously.
We were gifted a republic, which we squandered. Democracy will fail, as it always does. Let's get it on.
Let them keep the speaking filibuster. If the minority wants more debate, they get as much debate as they want. If they want to obstruct by reading The Communist Manifesto in the original German? Sure, go right ahead. But speaking filibusters are very visible. They stop all business until it’s completed. They don’t allow 41 Senators to simply say “nope, not even getting a vote.”
We removed the silent filibuster for nominations because it was ridiculously obstructionist. We could remove it for other specified reasons and purposes without abolishing it entirely. Why not?
If we don’t figure out how to cut spending and over-regulation, the debt bomb will crash the nations in due course. If we can’t in the coming year clarify foundational questions like “who is permitted to reside here,” “who gets the vote,” and “who counts as a resident for census apportionment,” then the Democrats can resume flooding the nation with warm bodies and mass-producing ballots to go with Motor Voter registrations. That’s the end of the Republic, as well.
The Roman Republic ended when the Senators figured out they could rule by proscribing the opposition — until overthrown by force and proscribed in turn. The incompatible worldviews of the Optimates and the Populares could not be reconciled. So the civil wars dragged on until an Emperor arose who could put an end to them.
Should anyone want that? Probably not. Can we avoid it? Remains to be seen.
I'm tired of the "what ifs"
Representative republic would change. But democracy would not die.
The majority voted for Trumps agenda. Not tying it up for grifters and drunks and thieves.
If removing the filibuster is so bad. It will be replaced