Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It really is. Going back and forth between extremes just costs us a lot of money and gets us nowhere. It also inspires division and hatred as we play tug-o-war with the government. It might be good for the "news" industry, and the TV fear machine in general, but for the rest of us it's just a lot pointless headache.You make it sound like a big deal. It's not.
A Republic Is a Self-Serving Elitist TyrannyI was just sent this video. I don't know how old it is, but it certainly rings true today.
View attachment 1024194
I was just sent this video. I don't know how old it is, but it certainly rings true today.
View attachment 1024194
How about no tyranny? How about no one gets to force their will on others?So you prefer the tyranny of the rich? Tyranny of the minority
Exactly. Which is why it should only be employed when it's truly necessary. It shouldn't be a tool to score "free shit" for special interest groups.Government rules by force.
Why didn't our founding fathers create the filibuster for the senate when our Constitution and how we govern, was written?There's only one thing saving us and that is the senate filibuster, which democrats continually talk about ending, which they tried doing already and, thankfully, failed. If that goes then the 50.1% will be able to do whatever the hell they want to the other 49.9%, the Constitution be damned. Dictatorship would be the outcome.
I'd be willing to help you look for a consensus government that is stable and dependable.It really is. Going back and forth between extremes just costs us a lot of money and gets us nowhere. It also inspires division and hatred as we play tug-o-war with the government. It might be good for the "news" industry, and the TV fear machine in general, but for the rest of us it's just a lot pointless headache.
It would be far better to seek consensus government that is stable and dependable, even if you don't get all your druthers in terms of policy.
Truly necessary being an objective measurement we can all agree on......Exactly. Which is why it should only be employed when it's truly necessary. It shouldn't be a tool to score "free shit" for special interest groups.
Since government has always done that, we should push back. Remember that MAGA does that for their supporters.Exactly. Which is why it should only be employed when it's truly necessary. It shouldn't be a tool to score "free shit" for special interest groups.
Maybe. But the result would be far more valuable.I'd be willing to help you look for a consensus government that is stable and dependable.
We'd be more successful prospecting for gold.
Those are some awfully big letters!Since government has always done that, we should push back. Remember that MAGA does that for their supporters.
I'm a big fan of the filibuster, regardless of genuine debate. If I had my druthers, every law Congress votes on would require a supermajority - 2/3 of the votes - to become law. That would ensure that the laws they do pass have actual broad support and aren't simply partisan gotchas, and immediately targets for repeal with the next left/right swing.Why didn't our founding fathers create the filibuster for the senate when our Constitution and how we govern, was written?
The filibuster was created later, for UNLIMITED DEBATE.....
no one debates crap with the filibuster anymore.... It's abused and just used by the minority to kill things without debate....that's it....imo.
Not that I want them to get rid of it....I just want them to use it to debate the issue, like it was created for....
Nasty Conceited BlowhardI was just sent this video. I don't know how old it is, but it certainly rings true today.
View attachment 1024194
The filibuster without debate, is useless, other than a bill kill....how can it be bi partisan without unlimited debate on both sides, on the floor? Your way is an automatic kill, no discussion, no debate of any kind...ever on any contentious issue.....just...kill it, no discussion on it?I'm a big fan of the filibuster, regardless of genuine debate. If I had my druthers, every law Congress votes on would require a supermajority - 2/3 of the votes - to become law. That would ensure that the laws they do pass have actual broad support and aren't simply partisan gotchas, and immediately targets for repeal with the next left/right swing.
Its usefulness is in making a defacto requirement for a super majority. Which ensures legislation with broad support. That's what we need more than anything - real consensus instead of all this two-party division bullshit.The filibuster without debate, is useless, other than a bill kill....how can it be bi partisan without unlimited debate on both sides, on the floor?
True. The best solution would be a Constitutional amendment requiring a super majority.I can understand slowing a contentious bill down, and debating differences on it by both sides, working it out if possible, and bring it to a vote for yay or nay, as our constitution dictates with a simple majority....
