Filibuster Rreform [Pic]

Submitted by: McDuff73 3 years ago

Someone explain whats happening with the filibuster please
There are 46 comments:
Male 837
@OldOllie
Well, it is either saying that either President Obama is appointing unacceptable individuals with no intent to work in a bipartisan manner OR Republicans are just stone walling each appointment because they have no interest in working in a bipartisan manner.

Those on the Right see one thing, those on the Left see the other.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
So, what this graphic says is that Obama is appointing wholly unacceptable left-wing radicals.
0
Reply
Male 837
@MeGrendel
I learned a long time ago that I hate people and have an inborn need to destroy their fun.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
@5Cats, HumanAction, pazerlenis & JadesDitoyr

Hey, what`s with the thoughtprovoking and well reasoned discussion? You`re going to ruin everyone`s imaage.

Good reading, too.
0
Reply
Male 36,536
[quote]would there have still been enough momentum to generate the global movement to abolish slavery?[/quote]
@panzerlenis: I think absolutely yes. Importation of slaves was already banned in the USA. The British Empire had outlawed slavery already, in 1833! They were THE #1 world power at the time. Even France had abolished it by 1848...

The irony is: by banning importation? It made existing slaves and their offspring MUCH more valuable! That kept slavery legal (in MY opinion) in the USA longer than otherwise.
By the Civil War`s outbreak? Buying & selling slaves was the South`s #1 economic driver... (so I`ve read).
0
Reply
Male 10,845
Now if you`ll excuse me I`m off to get more graphics cards so I can mine MORE Bitcoins. I expect our fiat currency to be useless within a year.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
This move will come back and bite the democrats in the ass, when the tide turns. These hypocrites all railed against the "nuclear option" during GW Bush`s term and it was never used. Now they use it for their divisive purposes.

So much for "Advise AND Consent", now it`s only "Advise".
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pazerlenis

Sorry, didn`t mean to imply that you needed a history lesson. I was just pointing out that an anti-slavery movement already existed throughout the world - including in the politically important European countries - prior to the Civil War.

So, to answer your original question, yes, I believe that the anti-slavery movement would have been successful without the Civil War.

I suppose it could even be suggested that our ban was the one result of the European movement instead of considering ourselves the origination point.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
@HumanRights, "Arguably, the US wasn`t really noticeable until the World Wars."

Right, I understand that pretty clearly (I`m a history buff, just haven`t dug into world slavery much). What I meant by my postulation was how much influence the US had on the slave trade at the time and how that might have influenced it. I know the US was not perceived as any sort of world player until after the Spanish-American war.

Sounds like an interesting book. I`m gonna have to check it out.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
"the US wasn`t* a global player back then"
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pazerlenis

You should look through the Abolition of Slavery Timeline. The "movement" to ban slavery was already in full swing by the time of the Civil War.

It`s weird to think about, but we have to remember that the US was a global player back then. People around the world were still much more interested in what Europe was up to.

Arguably, the US wasn`t really noticeable until the World Wars.
0
Reply
Male 837
@pazer
It definitely would have, eventually, but yes, it would have taken longer.

Ultimately, though, it doesn`t matter. The inability of a State to withdraw, ever, from the Union is a terrible thing (in my opinion). I am not in favor of ceding from the union, but I believe that a state should have that right.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
@Andrew155 & HumanAction

Certainly good reasoning there the both of you. Only comment I`d have as a "devil`s advocate" would be this; if the civil war had never happened (or the South had won), would there have still been enough momentum to generate the global movement to abolish slavery? I suppose that would depend on how much of a factor the US Civil War was in that movement (something I honestly know little about).

Still, I enjoy these types of conversations. It`s interesting to think about how the world would be different.
0
Reply
Male 36,536
So now a simple majority in the Senate is ALL that`s required: the minority party need not attend, they are meaningless.

Obama used to think Filibuster was terrific! What a hypocrite.

The graphic is misleading, as has been mentioned. It has little to do with the PotUS and usually isn`t a problem AT ALL when the House and Senate are of the same party.

WAIT! Isn`t Obama the "Great Uniter"?? He would reach across the aisle and work with Republicans as equals? Doesn`t he have a Nobel Peace Prize???

"We Won" - Barack H Obama

[quote]Hey, Andrew, the House is *always* controlled by one party.[/quote]
HEY @SMAGBOY1! Learn how tor read! He specifically said House and Senate, I guess you just skimmed his post until you found something to get !outraged! about, then stopped reading, correct?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Smag, you misread. I stated that it`s rare when the House is controlled by one party and the Senate by another. That is, a divided legislature. That`s not common, but when it happens, you can expect heavy deadlock.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pazerlenis

Slavery has existed in every single country on Earth during various timespans. Today, it is legal in very few places - if any.

Feudalism was once very prevalent throughout the world; today, it is all be gone.

Worshipping multiple deities has all but disappeared.

There is no reason to suspect that slavery would still be around in the South had the Civil War never happened. However, it likely would have gone on for longer without the Civil War.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
pazerlenis, that`s an interesting question, one difficult to answer. I mean, Brazil was the last major country to abolish slavery, in 1888, so I think abolition had so much momentum that it couldn`t be stopped for much longer. Slavery had actually been on the decline in the South until the cotton gin, too. So really, the answer would depend on the economics of it all.

Slavery historically existed most strongly in places with lots of land and few people (New world, Russia, etc). Slaves were considered necessary because with so few people and all that land, labor costs were so high. So, once that equation began to shift (and I would say it was changing by the late 1800s), then slavery is no longer economical.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
@JadesDitoyr "Join the Union voluntarily, should be able to withdraw voluntarily."

I wonder if the South would`ve ever ended slavery if they had managed to leave one way or another. I have my doubts considering how entrenched racism was in the South prior to the Civil Rights movement.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
Just don`t forget this means when Republicans take office, Dems won`t have this to use anymore either.

I`m a little conflicted myself. I like that this takes a weapon away from lobbyists/Special Interest Groups (who were now dinging senators who would even allow votes on some nominees). On the other hand, this doesn`t really fix anything. Short term there will be more partisanship (bad), and long term this doesn`t bring us any closer to having more moderate representatives or more compromise (also bad). We kinda need that in a Representative Republic.

I wish they would`ve pulled the trigger on the "nuclear option" for Gerrymandering instead.
0
Reply
Male 837
While I don`t care if I`m called a racist, that`s my reasoning too. Join the Union voluntarily, should be able to withdraw voluntarily.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
In before SmagBoy calls me a racist for putting Lincoln on my list. Just in case, I`ll say it now - he destroyed the most important of states` rights - the right to leave.
0
Reply
Male 837
3. Carter
2. Lincoln
1. Harrison

I think Carter and Lincoln are self explanatory, Harrison because he, by far, did the least in his term of any President.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
bliznik-"the Obama of 2005 would _never_ have stood for this"

Hell yes he would`ve. He has always been an opportunist with no values. He`d say anything to get what he wants. ("If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. Period.")

The difference is NOW, if you point out what he said yesterday, he has the media on his side calling you a racist.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Smagboy:

Carter, Pierce, and Nixon come to mind for me.

I liked Clinton.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Oh, yeah, Carter, Clinton and Obama.[/quote]
Hmmm.... I smell a side debate here.

3. FDR
2. Lincoln
1. Wilson

That should piss off just about everyone in one way or another.
0
Reply
Male 1,305
While the Senate Republicans have been ridiculously obstructive, this is a horrible road we`re going down. Republicans refuse to cooperate, and so now Democrats also refuse to cooperate.

The Democrats are essentially absorbing the infantile, obstructive, bull-s*** ways of the Republicans. This does not bode well...

I agree with Andrew155...the Obama of 2005 would _never_ have stood for this. Instead of holding himself up to a higher standard to be a leader of the country, Obama has started adopted the political strategies of Eric Cantor and Ted Cruz.
0
Reply
Male 404
american nazi/republican? i take offense, just because i like my women blonde, blue eyed and pure as the driven snow doesn`t mean im a republican.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
Zeegrr60-"American nazi/republican party."

Ignorace demonstrated.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
Obama 2005: "What they don`t expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and be quite."

Obama 2013: "Sit down, and be quite"

Biden 2005: "This nuclear option it ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab."

Biden 2013: "What?"

Reid 2005: "Once you have a rule changed ILLEGALLY.."

Reid 2013: "What!?"
0
Reply
Male 2,143
Now if we could just do away with the American nazi/republican party.
0
Reply
Male 2,143
Bush only had seven. More people on his staff went to jail than that.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Hey, Andrew, the House is *always* controlled by one party. The Senate, which we`re talking about here, is, too. As far as the Senate always having enough people to "control" things, they`d have needed 61 at all times to stop the filibuster. That`s almost NEVER been the case. You`re just bummed because the data are real and they don`t paint the current Republican Senators in a very friendly light.

As for when Dems are back in the minority, AJ, sure, it`s going to suck for them. I think it sucks for us as a country now that things have come to this. But, let`s review, who are the worst presidents EVER, in your opinion? Oh, yeah, Carter, Clinton and Obama. So, yeah, I don`t reckon things are ever going to get better unless we all take a damn chill pill. As a country. And I don`t see that happening. Do you?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Male 2,578
0
Reply
Male 7,353
Is there ANY subject that Obama has not been on all sides of?

Hypocrite.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Obama on the nuclear option

I strongly suggest you all listen to Obama from 2005. Such a good guy he was.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
It`s like you guys don`t like thinking in depth. Most of the time mentioned above, the legislative branch was controlled by one party. The only time one would expect lots of filibusters is when the house is under one party and the senate is under another. Historically, that`s not very common.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Until Dems need to use it when they are a minority. Then there will be a call to bring back filibuster, and that the law blocking it is old and needs to be updated, right Smagboy?
0
Reply
Male 4,431
I guess the answer to that question would be: Republicans. They said they`d quit being idiots about cloture. I faulted Harry Reid for twice not following through on this after he`d been burned twice by this crap. All I can say now is, FINALLY! Damn.
0
Reply
Male 72
President nominates somebody for a federal position and congress delays talk about it so it never really happens unless a super majority (3/5) votes to end the debate about it. This graph show how much congress has tried to railroad Obama`s terms by delaying many of his nominees and why the filibuster rule (for lack of a better word) was just recently changed to a majority instead of super majority to end a filibuster. In other words, it`ll be easier for a president to get his nominees into office or whatever.
0
Reply
Male 226
Racism! Right? It`s the only explanation.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Whodat: Good. He sucks at appointing people. They are all pooty choices.
0
Reply
Male 329
Explaination is that you don`t actually have to Filibuster anymore. A rule passed where a congressmen only has to say that they intend to and they just act like it happened and kill whatever immediately. pansy congress.
0
Reply
Male 3,909

0
Reply
Male 10,339
The Senate has done away with it.

The minority no longer has a method to be heard.
0
Reply
Male 871
Link: Filibuster Rreform [Pic] [Rate Link] - Someone explain whats happening with the filibuster please
0
Reply