Utopia Talk - Politics - Truth about filibuster

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Apr 20 00:00:01 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Truth about filibuster

Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ Mon Jun 17 15:12:49
We need to end this shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt4jHLteXag

Rugian
Member Mon Jun 17 15:17:47
FUCK VOX

Dukhat
Member Mon Jun 17 21:48:09
"FUCK SCIENCE, WOMEN, EMPATHY too while you're at it!"

Dumbass reactionary gonna dumbass.

obaminated
Member Mon Jun 17 23:09:48
PSA - this is the anniversary of cuckhat catching his wife blowing D-andre in his office, thus he is especially salty.

Dukhat
Member Mon Jun 17 23:41:32
You have one joke and it was never funny in the first place. It's just sad how your brains always have to resort to the same few constantly disproven points.

obaminated
Member Tue Jun 18 01:02:40
you going through a rough patch in life cause you life cheated on you with a black person has never been disproven. your behavior and reaction to it has sorta proven it.

Rugian
Member Tue Jun 18 07:40:40
As usual, Dukhat reveals himself to be a gigantic fool.

For the record, I did watch the video, and - as expected - it was a blatant ad for the Democratic Party. The - literal - message of the video was "Democrats might take the Senate in 2020, but the filibuster might prevent them from enacting their more extreme proposals, so we need to get rid of it."

Seriously, there wasn't even a pretense that the narrator wasnt shilling total propaganda, they just flat out came and said it. I guess this is the type of "informative content" that Dukhat thinks I'm denying myself by avoiding Vox?

Their argument in support of nuking the filibuster was also completely retarded. "If a simple majority can't pass the laws that it pleases, what is the point of living in a democracy?" This coming from the same party that has advocated implementing sweeping social changes via judicial reviewing. I actually loled at that part. I'd love to see Lispy McQueerFace Narrator's reaction if you told him that things like legalized abortion and gay marriage should be determined by 51 Republican Senators, because muh dictatorship of the majority.

In the end, Vox "content" is for impressionable teenagers who have already been radicalized by their far-left professors and need daily affirmation that their beliefs are the correct ones. It is *not* content for grown adults looking to make an informed decision on a matter. The fact that IBTY keeps trying to force us to invest our time in watching this shit is frankly an insult to everyone in this board with an above-Dukhat IQ.

Rugian
Member Tue Jun 18 07:40:56
Tl;dr, FUCK VOX

McKobb
Member Tue Jun 18 08:16:12
Fake news!

CrownRoyal
Member Tue Jun 18 08:18:07
". I'd love to see Lispy McQueerFace Narrator's reaction if you told him that things like legalized abortion and gay marriage should be determined by 51 Republican Senators, because muh dictatorship of the majority. "

51 senator, plus House majority, plus president's signature, you mean.

hood
Member Tue Jun 18 08:28:42
Plus being constitutional.

This whole "WAAAAAAAAAH judicial review!" bullshit is basically screaming that things should be legal even if they are illegal for other reasons or are prohibited by the constitution. Sure, these flappy vaginas wail like a siren when it prevents then from targeting based on a protected class (like religion; which incidentally they then also start wailing about the war on Christianity), but lawd have mercy if you try to pass gun legislation. That judicial review is cherished, celebrated even.

Please, keep whining about one of the checks actually balancing power in government. Next time a tiny little town decided to ban guns, I'll expect the same complaining when judges overturn the law.

Rugian
Member Tue Jun 18 08:47:42
CR,

I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that, but okay sure.

Hood,

Have you ever read Roe v Wade? Making up shit on the spot in order to completely overturn a near-universal societal standard is hardly what I would consider to be a basic review of constitutionality.

CrownRoyal
Member Tue Jun 18 08:51:49
"I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that, but okay sure. "

without stating it, your claim about 51 senators deciding anything is nonsensical, as it takes a lot more than a senate majority to pass laws in US

Dukhat
Member Tue Jun 18 08:57:32
Let's not pretend like you give 2 shits about Roe v. Wade. In the extremely unlikely chance you've ever had sex in your life, it probably saved you from having to pay child support you stupid fuck.

McKobb
Member Tue Jun 18 09:06:07
RvW is one of the reasons health costs have gone way up. Bastioning medical privacy allows chargemaster and insurance collusion.

Rugian
Member Tue Jun 18 09:06:52
CR,

My point being was that as of two years ago, the only thing that would have prevented a unified Republican Party from passing whatever the fuck it wanted was the Senate requirement. But yes, if you want it to be explicitly stated, the House and President would have had to agreed to it as well.

Hood,

Why so serious?

Rugian
Member Tue Jun 18 09:08:11
Dukhat,

Great counter-argument. I can see why progressives like yourselves are so beyond us dumb old white people.

CrownRoyal
Member Tue Jun 18 09:17:08
"My point being was that as of two years ago, the only thing that would have prevented a unified Republican Party from passing whatever the fuck it wanted was the Senate requirement"

also inaccurate. The only thing GOP really cared about was the tax cut, and they passed it just fine. You know how they did it? Via reconciliation, fuck filibuster. Other things they wanted, they failed to get 51 vote, like with ACA repeal and mccain vote

Rugian
Member Tue Jun 18 09:23:34
CR,

I'm not here to argue semantics.

hood
Member Tue Jun 18 09:29:29
The filibuster really should be nuked though. Get rid of this bullshit refusal to do your job, refusal to go on record. I'm fine with changing the % needed to pass a law (55% seems reasonable), but reps need to actually fucking do something. They need to accumulate a voting record.

McKobb
Member Tue Jun 18 09:29:53
We all know you are antisemantic!

Crownroyal
Member Tue Jun 18 09:34:52
Maybe you better stick with semantics because other stuff you posted in this thread doesnt make sense. No, a simple majority of senators is 7not capable of passing laws, and they cant "determine" issues like gay marriage as you suggest. Also, no, republicans couldn't "pass whatever the fuck they wanted" when they had control of all branches, not because of filibuster. In fact, they shat on filibuster when they needed to pass tax cuts

McKobb
Member Tue Jun 18 09:35:17
Put a time limit on voting to vote with dwindling count needed to pass per repetition

Rugian
Member Tue Jun 18 09:51:52
CR,

I decided to cut off debate with you because you are not bothering to address the issue at hand. If you cant see the point I was making, then I cant see the point in engaging with you.

CrownRoyal
Member Tue Jun 18 10:06:11
" If you cant see the point I was making, then I cant see the point in engaging with you."

I struggle to see a valid point that can be made by stating misleading nonsense, like you did with 51 senators claim and with alternative history of GOP recent control of all branches. But, I digress. Filibuster should be gone, it is not even what the founders wanted, if you choose that line of defense.

Rugian
Member Tue Jun 18 10:15:02
CR,

Ignored.

CrownRoyal
Member Tue Jun 18 10:28:08
filibuster is just a senate rule, after all, can be scrapped easily. There are deeper issues today with the whole preventing the tyranny of the majority, by the founders, with establishing EC and Senate. And sure, you can see why they did it, a republic might be more stable, etc. But I don't know, at what point you get a minority rule? You see presidents being elected with minority of popular vote, you see judiciary being blocked or confirmed by a senate majority that represents a really small % of the population, same with passing laws and governing. If you care about people being fairly represented, at what point you might want to correct this?

Not that this is US only issue, you see same stuff in canada constantly with our FPTP system. Currently in ontario we have a party in power, they won 40% of the popular vote and have a comfortable parliamentary majority of >60% of the seats.

show deleted posts

Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Mon Jun 17 15:12:49 We need to end this shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt4jHLteXag
Rugian Member	Mon Jun 17 15:17:47 FUCK VOX
Dukhat Member	Mon Jun 17 21:48:09 "FUCK SCIENCE, WOMEN, EMPATHY too while you're at it!" Dumbass reactionary gonna dumbass.
obaminated Member	Mon Jun 17 23:09:48 PSA - this is the anniversary of cuckhat catching his wife blowing D-andre in his office, thus he is especially salty.
Dukhat Member	Mon Jun 17 23:41:32 You have one joke and it was never funny in the first place. It's just sad how your brains always have to resort to the same few constantly disproven points.
obaminated Member	Tue Jun 18 01:02:40 you going through a rough patch in life cause you life cheated on you with a black person has never been disproven. your behavior and reaction to it has sorta proven it.
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 18 07:40:40 As usual, Dukhat reveals himself to be a gigantic fool. For the record, I did watch the video, and - as expected - it was a blatant ad for the Democratic Party. The - literal - message of the video was "Democrats might take the Senate in 2020, but the filibuster might prevent them from enacting their more extreme proposals, so we need to get rid of it." Seriously, there wasn't even a pretense that the narrator wasnt shilling total propaganda, they just flat out came and said it. I guess this is the type of "informative content" that Dukhat thinks I'm denying myself by avoiding Vox? Their argument in support of nuking the filibuster was also completely retarded. "If a simple majority can't pass the laws that it pleases, what is the point of living in a democracy?" This coming from the same party that has advocated implementing sweeping social changes via judicial reviewing. I actually loled at that part. I'd love to see Lispy McQueerFace Narrator's reaction if you told him that things like legalized abortion and gay marriage should be determined by 51 Republican Senators, because muh dictatorship of the majority. In the end, Vox "content" is for impressionable teenagers who have already been radicalized by their far-left professors and need daily affirmation that their beliefs are the correct ones. It is not content for grown adults looking to make an informed decision on a matter. The fact that IBTY keeps trying to force us to invest our time in watching this shit is frankly an insult to everyone in this board with an above-Dukhat IQ.
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 18 07:40:56 Tl;dr, FUCK VOX
McKobb Member	Tue Jun 18 08:16:12 Fake news!
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 18 08:18:07 ". I'd love to see Lispy McQueerFace Narrator's reaction if you told him that things like legalized abortion and gay marriage should be determined by 51 Republican Senators, because muh dictatorship of the majority. " 51 senator, plus House majority, plus president's signature, you mean.
hood Member	Tue Jun 18 08:28:42 Plus being constitutional. This whole "WAAAAAAAAAH judicial review!" bullshit is basically screaming that things should be legal even if they are illegal for other reasons or are prohibited by the constitution. Sure, these flappy vaginas wail like a siren when it prevents then from targeting based on a protected class (like religion; which incidentally they then also start wailing about the war on Christianity), but lawd have mercy if you try to pass gun legislation. That judicial review is cherished, celebrated even. Please, keep whining about one of the checks actually balancing power in government. Next time a tiny little town decided to ban guns, I'll expect the same complaining when judges overturn the law.
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 18 08:47:42 CR, I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that, but okay sure. Hood, Have you ever read Roe v Wade? Making up shit on the spot in order to completely overturn a near-universal societal standard is hardly what I would consider to be a basic review of constitutionality.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 18 08:51:49 "I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that, but okay sure. " without stating it, your claim about 51 senators deciding anything is nonsensical, as it takes a lot more than a senate majority to pass laws in US
Dukhat Member	Tue Jun 18 08:57:32 Let's not pretend like you give 2 shits about Roe v. Wade. In the extremely unlikely chance you've ever had sex in your life, it probably saved you from having to pay child support you stupid fuck.
McKobb Member	Tue Jun 18 09:06:07 RvW is one of the reasons health costs have gone way up. Bastioning medical privacy allows chargemaster and insurance collusion.
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 18 09:06:52 CR, My point being was that as of two years ago, the only thing that would have prevented a unified Republican Party from passing whatever the fuck it wanted was the Senate requirement. But yes, if you want it to be explicitly stated, the House and President would have had to agreed to it as well. Hood, Why so serious?
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 18 09:08:11 Dukhat, Great counter-argument. I can see why progressives like yourselves are so beyond us dumb old white people.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 18 09:17:08 "My point being was that as of two years ago, the only thing that would have prevented a unified Republican Party from passing whatever the fuck it wanted was the Senate requirement" also inaccurate. The only thing GOP really cared about was the tax cut, and they passed it just fine. You know how they did it? Via reconciliation, fuck filibuster. Other things they wanted, they failed to get 51 vote, like with ACA repeal and mccain vote
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 18 09:23:34 CR, I'm not here to argue semantics.
hood Member	Tue Jun 18 09:29:29 The filibuster really should be nuked though. Get rid of this bullshit refusal to do your job, refusal to go on record. I'm fine with changing the % needed to pass a law (55% seems reasonable), but reps need to actually fucking do something. They need to accumulate a voting record.
McKobb Member	Tue Jun 18 09:29:53 We all know you are antisemantic!
Crownroyal Member	Tue Jun 18 09:34:52 Maybe you better stick with semantics because other stuff you posted in this thread doesnt make sense. No, a simple majority of senators is 7not capable of passing laws, and they cant "determine" issues like gay marriage as you suggest. Also, no, republicans couldn't "pass whatever the fuck they wanted" when they had control of all branches, not because of filibuster. In fact, they shat on filibuster when they needed to pass tax cuts
McKobb Member	Tue Jun 18 09:35:17 Put a time limit on voting to vote with dwindling count needed to pass per repetition
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 18 09:51:52 CR, I decided to cut off debate with you because you are not bothering to address the issue at hand. If you cant see the point I was making, then I cant see the point in engaging with you.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 18 10:06:11 " If you cant see the point I was making, then I cant see the point in engaging with you." I struggle to see a valid point that can be made by stating misleading nonsense, like you did with 51 senators claim and with alternative history of GOP recent control of all branches. But, I digress. Filibuster should be gone, it is not even what the founders wanted, if you choose that line of defense.
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 18 10:15:02 CR, Ignored.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jun 18 10:28:08 filibuster is just a senate rule, after all, can be scrapped easily. There are deeper issues today with the whole preventing the tyranny of the majority, by the founders, with establishing EC and Senate. And sure, you can see why they did it, a republic might be more stable, etc. But I don't know, at what point you get a minority rule? You see presidents being elected with minority of popular vote, you see judiciary being blocked or confirmed by a senate majority that represents a really small % of the population, same with passing laws and governing. If you care about people being fairly represented, at what point you might want to correct this? Not that this is US only issue, you see same stuff in canada constantly with our FPTP system. Currently in ontario we have a party in power, they won 40% of the popular vote and have a comfortable parliamentary majority of >60% of the seats.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: