Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 112

Thread: Filibuster

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,071

    Filibuster

    Can anyone give a compelling argument for keeping the filibuster? I think itís flaws easily outweigh any potential benefit but wonder if maybe Iím just missing something.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    104,331
    It is supposed to encourage bipartisanship but since we live in an entirely unbipartisan world, itís hard to argue that it does anything except reinforce the status quo. So if one likes the status quo it is great. If you want anything to be accomplished, itís a pox.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,071
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    It is supposed to encourage bipartisanship but since we live in an entirely unbipartisan world, itís hard to argue that it does anything except reinforce the status quo. So if one likes the status quo it is great. If you want anything to be accomplished, itís a pox.
    Right. It seems like it leads to performative representation. ďIf we could get the vote we would would pass X and that would make everyone life wonderful and our political opponentsí heads explode.Ē Knowing full well that their assertions will never be tested since supermajorities + WH are rare. You even hear Washington insiders talk about how representatives often strongly support causes they would never vote for just to appease some constituent. Or take contradictory positions depending on the audience.

    And bipartisan compromise is mostly coming up with a bill that says it will achieve X despite the fact that itís been so watered down or hamstrung that itís best hope is to be a weak law that becomes popular enough to get support later on. So thatís really just performative representation too.

    Even the argument that the other side wonít be held in check seems like a bad argument to me. They get a majority and the WH, go for it. Pass stuff I think is bad so we can judge you on your ability to solve problems. Iím tired of intractable problems with calcified arguments that never get tested so they keep getting argued. Itís designed to let people keep their jobs which they see as being on cable news shows and fundraising.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,918
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Right. It seems like it leads to performative representation. ďIf we could get the vote we would would pass X and that would make everyone life wonderful and our political opponentsí heads explode.Ē Knowing full well that their assertions will never be tested since supermajorities + WH are rare. You even hear Washington insiders talk about how representatives often strongly support causes they would never vote for just to appease some constituent. Or take contradictory positions depending on the audience.

    And bipartisan compromise is mostly coming up with a bill that says it will achieve X despite the fact that itís been so watered down or hamstrung that itís best hope is to be a weak law that becomes popular enough to get support later on. So thatís really just performative representation too.

    Even the argument that the other side wonít be held in check seems like a bad argument to me. They get a majority and the WH, go for it. Pass stuff I think is bad so we can judge you on your ability to solve problems. Iím tired of intractable problems with calcified arguments that never get tested so they keep getting argued. Itís designed to let people keep their jobs which they see as being on cable news shows and fundraising.
    It will be awful for our economy because businesses would have no clue whatís going to happen election cycle to election cycle.

    Republicans win and all the changes dems make now go out in the window etc


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    It will be awful for our economy because businesses would have no clue whatís going to happen election cycle to election cycle.

    Republicans win and all the changes dems make now go out in the window etc


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thereís probably some truth there but wouldnít that just incentivize both sides to push for more reasonable/moderate policy solutions and marginalize the portion of politicians that care more about Twitter and cable news than actually trying to fix problems? Let them pass legislation and then we hold them accountable if it doesnít work out.

    The Filibuster isnít some foundational piece of our history crafted by the founders. It hasnít even always looked like the current iteration. Half of the filibusters have been used since the 90ís.
    Last edited by GasMan; 01-16-2022 at 02:07 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,918
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Thereís probably some truth there but wouldnít that just incentivize both sides to push for more reasonable/moderate policy solutions and marginalize the portion of politicians that care more about Twitter and cable news than actually trying to fix problems? Let them pass legislation and then we hold them accountable if it doesnít work out.
    You really think that would make them more moderate? If this happens any sort of bipartisanship is out the window. They will keep adding to Supreme Court. Itís a ridiculous idea and the only reason why the dems want it changed is because they are in power


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    You really think that would make them more moderate? If this happens any sort of bipartisanship is out the window. They will keep adding to Supreme Court. Itís a ridiculous idea and the only reason why the dems want it changed is because they are in power


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If a party got penalized for passing radical, unserious and unpopular policies and rewarded for passing reasonable and effective policies then yes I think we would see more reasonable and serious policy politicians.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    3,221
    Truthfully, I think that this country is so divided right now that if they eliminated the 60 vote rule, a slight majority like we have now could result basically with an effective dictatorship in the White House.

    Personally, I don't like the war that is now going on between the two sides and I wish that somehow there would be some compromising between them on stuff that is beneficial for all of the people. But that is just wishful thinking. Power corrupts and it is on both sides. This didn't use to be this way even back when Clinton was prez and Gingrich ran the House, the two sides would compromise on occasion. Those days are done.

    No term limits are part of the problem. The DEEP STATE is an even greater problem. Government employees being unionized is something that never should have been allowed. The US is basically STUCK.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    17,262
    You really have to go back to Ronald Reagan and Tip O' Neal when the two parties were more willing to work with each other. The Clinton's administration was constantly being investigated for outrageous accusations by the republicans. A lot of today attitudes extend from that period. The Democrat abandoning their base to be seen as more conservative and the Republican doing whatever it take to hold on to power. The rise of Rush and right wing radio.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,071
    But is that because we expected politicians to make serious attempts at solving problems? It seems that the focus has shifted more to not giving the other side what it wants than to get the changes we want. Even the possibility that policy that we think is bad policy may be part of a solution shouldnít be a deterrent to moving forward. Some version of evaluate, plan, enact, review, modify is in most institutional mission. We struggle to get to the enact phase and when we do we refuse to have an honest review phase because we know admitting flaws is dangerous because the solution isnít modify itís repeal and give up.

    Iíd rather we passed more policy even if it was more policy I disagreed with because at least we could see what works and what doesnít. Weíd also be able to take several smaller swings at issues if there wasnít this expectation that you only get one chance to fix a problem. I think that many politician simply donít see their job as trying to solve problems but rather get re-elected and grow their Twitter following. In fact, Iím sure some politician donít really want their favorite issue to get solved because then theyíd have to deal with any failures or collateral issues plus find some new issue to pretend to care about. Itís easier to have your aggrieved base and repeatable solution to their problem.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,321
    Whatever their initial motivations for running for national office, I imagine the numerous ancillary demands of the job really impede any sustained effort to accomplish things.

    ó preparing for a primary and an election every two years.
    ó raining money for the above.
    ó playing the game with the party leaders in order to get good assignments and subsequent advancement.
    ó fending off hoards of lobbyists

    There is little time and few resources left to attend to the business of the country.

    That said, i agree that eliminating the filibuster would facilitate more sustained legislative activity, which in turn can help the country and help the electorate make more informed voting decisions.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    3,221
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    But is that because we expected politicians to make serious attempts at solving problems? It seems that the focus has shifted more to not giving the other side what it wants than to get the changes we want. Even the possibility that policy that we think is bad policy may be part of a solution shouldnít be a deterrent to moving forward. Some version of evaluate, plan, enact, review, modify is in most institutional mission. We struggle to get to the enact phase and when we do we refuse to have an honest review phase because we know admitting flaws is dangerous because the solution isnít modify itís repeal and give up.

    Iíd rather we passed more policy even if it was more policy I disagreed with because at least we could see what works and what doesnít. Weíd also be able to take several smaller swings at issues if there wasnít this expectation that you only get one chance to fix a problem. I think that many politician simply donít see their job as trying to solve problems but rather get re-elected and grow their Twitter following. In fact, Iím sure some politician donít really want their favorite issue to get solved because then theyíd have to deal with any failures or collateral issues plus find some new issue to pretend to care about. Itís easier to have your aggrieved base and repeatable solution to their problem.
    I thank you for your posts. I think that government is way too big and certainly not what the Founding Fathers wanted. I really go back to how huge the DEEP STATE really is. Career unelected people who are basically untouchable from losing their jobs. When people like Fauci can effect the lives and welfare of the citizenry of this country to such a terrible extent, is a perfect example.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    63,326

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    3,221
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Thereís probably some truth there but wouldnít that just incentivize both sides to push for more reasonable/moderate policy solutions and marginalize the portion of politicians that care more about Twitter and cable news than actually trying to fix problems? Let them pass legislation and then we hold them accountable if it doesnít work out.

    The Filibuster isnít some foundational piece of our history crafted by the founders. It hasnít even always looked like the current iteration. Half of the filibusters have been used since the 90ís.
    The Democrats have to be elated at one thing. They trounced the Republicans 321-1 in the number of filibusters that were done last year.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Whatever their initial motivations for running for national office, I imagine the numerous ancillary demands of the job really impede any sustained effort to accomplish things.

    ó preparing for a primary and an election every two years.
    ó raining money for the above.
    ó playing the game with the party leaders in order to get good assignments and subsequent advancement.
    ó fending off hoards of lobbyists

    There is little time and few resources left to attend to the business of the country.

    That said, i agree that eliminating the filibuster would facilitate more sustained legislative activity, which in turn can help the country and help the electorate make more informed voting decisions.
    So when Republicans take control and pass all their extreme right wing agenda I hope we donít see you on this site complaining about the filibuster


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •