Harris to end filibuster to support abortion

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The vast majority of women do not want to kill their babies in the womb.

But that doesn't mean they also want to deny someone else the choice, at the end of a gun. So you didn't say much, here.

Let's shine the light on the true goal of Communists; forced abortion.

I'm not impressed by your feigned batshittery.

 

[Mashmont]

How many children have you adopted, gaslighting stupid son of a bitch? I walk the walk, you stumble around looking Fckn stupid. Sit the fck down

Are you kidding? Leftwingers don't adopt. They hate kids. That's why they want them aborted. I think JD was onto something there.

 

[Mashmont]

I'm not impressed by your feigned batshittery.

Ask, your Communists heroes in China, Russia, and North Korea about forced abortion. They've all done it. Kamala is no different.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

This right here is why I cannot support Kamala Harris. She wants to end the filibuster so the democrats can pass abortion rights with 51 votes. It's only for abortion she says, but any idiot knows that once you abolish the filibuster for a specific reason it ends up being permanent for everything. And once that happens, there will be no more compromise or cooperation in the Senate and bipartisanship goes right down the drain.

Harris backs ditching filibuster to pass nationwide abortion protections, angering Manchin in the process

Vice President Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that she supported changing Senate filibuster rules to allow a simple majority vote to codify the nationwide right for women to obtain an abortion.

www.yahoo.com

The democrats came close to doing just that back in 2021 when they tried to abolish the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema wouldn't go along. One of these days, they're going to get it done and that's when we start down the road to a one-party rule gov't. If you think gridlock is bad, wait until you get one-party rule.

It would seem democrats have a political strategy, whereas magaturds are content yelling at immigrants. I don't think it's a sound platform, but we shall see.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ask, your Communists heroes in China, Russia, and North Korea about forced abortion. They have all done it.

No really. You'll have to peddle this bad acting to someone else.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is so painfully dumb.

It's a big country, Frank. Lots of people. Big numbers.

The denominator is big, the numerator - not so much

You found a woman who died of sepsis AFTER an abortion

That’s 1 in 2.4 million

 

[1srelluc]

She wants to end the Republic.....Mob rule by those with no skin in the game, who that get their provender from the .gov.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This right here is why I cannot support Kamala Harris. She wants to end the filibuster so the democrats can pass abortion rights with 51 votes. It's only for abortion she says, but any idiot knows that once you abolish the filibuster for a specific reason it ends up being permanent for everything. And once that happens, there will be no more compromise or cooperation in the Senate and bipartisanship goes right down the drain.

Harris backs ditching filibuster to pass nationwide abortion protections, angering Manchin in the process

Vice President Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that she supported changing Senate filibuster rules to allow a simple majority vote to codify the nationwide right for women to obtain an abortion.

www.yahoo.com

The democrats came close to doing just that back in 2021 when they tried to abolish the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema wouldn't go along. One of these days, they're going to get it done and that's when we start down the road to a one-party rule gov't. If you think gridlock is bad, wait until you get one-party rule.

Wow, one more thing she and Trump agree on.

Trump calls for end to filibuster, says Senate Republicans "look like fools"

President Trump called for an end to the 60-vote threshold for most legislation, calling the filibuster "very outdated"

www.cbsnews.com

 

[SeaMajor7]

Right. Her values didn't change. The lay of the land did. Now abortion must be federally protected, since it was deleted as a constitutionally protected right.

How can you not puzzle this out?

For "changing values", see Trump's flip flop on the Florida abortion law. He can do it seamlessly, in mere minutes.

Abortion was NEVER a "constitutional right", you lying ghoul.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is so painfully dumb.

It's a big country, Frank. Lots of people. Big numbers.

Yeah Big Country, thanks for reminding me

 

[task0778]

Wow, one more thing she and Trump agree on.

Trump calls for end to filibuster, says Senate Republicans "look like fools"

President Trump called for an end to the 60-vote threshold for most legislation, calling the filibuster "very outdated"

www.cbsnews.com

Point taken. But IMHO the difference is that the democrats actually tried to do it back in 2021 and I think they will keep trying until they get it done. The GOP has not tried to abolish the filibuster (to my knowledge), despite whatever Trump wants. Even if the repubs get a majority in the Senate and Trump wins, I do not see them ending the filibuster and allowing Trump to do as he pleases. Not so with the democrats, if Kamala wins and they have majorities in the Senate and House then I can see them trying again. Sooner or later I think they will do it anyway. And if/when they succeed then the 'world's greatest deliberative body' will descend into mob rule and our gov't will forever be changed. And NOT for the better.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Point taken. But IMHO the difference is that the democrats actually tried to do it back in 2021 and I think they will keep trying until they get it done. The GOP has not tried to abolish the filibuster (to my knowledge), despite whatever Trump wants. Even if the repubs get a majority in the Senate and Trump wins, I do not see them ending the filibuster and allowing Trump to do as he pleases. Not so with the democrats, if Kamala wins and they have majorities in the Senate and House then I can see them trying again. Sooner or later I think they will do it anyway. And if/when they succeed then the 'world's greatest deliberative body' will descend into mob rule and our gov't will forever be changed. And NOT for the better.

I cannot argue with anything you said.

For this election, and all elections, all I really ever hope for is the Senate and White House to be held by different parties. That is the best thing for the country, the mix really does not matter.

 

[BlindBoo]

The GOP has not tried to abolish the filibuster (to my knowledge), despite whatever Trump wants.

How did they get the three highly partisan Judges on the SC if they didn't abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

 

[Sparker]

The filibuster has always seemed stupid to me. Letting it exist looks like a mistake in writing the Constitution. I would support an amendment to abolish it. People who oppose a bill in the Senate have their votes for senators and recall options.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The denominator is big, the numerator - not so much

Gibberish

Here is an easy one you won't mess up:

Just mind your own goddamn business.

So easy, a caveman could do it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wow, one more thing she and Trump agree on.

Trump calls for end to filibuster, says Senate Republicans "look like fools"

President Trump called for an end to the 60-vote threshold for most legislation, calling the filibuster "very outdated"

www.cbsnews.com

Of course, she wants to help people and guarantee a right, while Trump wanted to take healthcare away from people.

Slight difference.

 

[BlindBoo]

"After all, the filibuster is not authorized in the Constitution, nor is it expressly prohibited. I argue that the filibuster in its original, purest sense is constitutional, but that is not the filibuster we have today. In its current form, the filibuster is unconstitutional because it disrupts the Senate’s legislative process as outlined in the Constitution and has feeble historical support.

Tyranny of the Minority: The Unconstitutionality of the Filibuster - Princeton Legal Journal

By Madeleine Polubinski — In recent years, congressional gridlock has focused national attention on the Senate’s filibuster. The filibuster is the process by which a minority of senators delay or prevent a vote on legislation by speaking as long as possible on the Senate floor, until...

legaljournal.princeton.edu

........

However, the filibusters’ debate-promoting potential is inextricable from, and ultimately overshadowed by, its obstructionist implementation. For more than a century, senators have exploited cloture rules to stall Congress or block legislation altogether. Filibusters have become less about debate and more about grandstanding for media attention or simply killing time to stall a bill. After exhausting relevant topics, which are rarely genuine efforts for further deliberation, speeches often devolve into unrelated topics that range from discussions of salad dressing recipes to recitations of each states’ voting laws.

At best, today’s filibuster sees senators belaboring well-known objections to bills. At worst, it shuts down debate and stalls the Senate, delaying or blocking legislation. In an even more flagrant deviation from the filibusters’ supposed deliberative function, filibustering today usually does not even require debate. “Silent filibusters” allow senators to block legislation without debate by merely voicing their intent to filibuster. Silent filibusters are a complete perversion of the filibusters’ deliberative potential and prove that the process functions as nothing more than a three-fifths majority requirement for regular legislation."

 

[task0778]

The filibuster has always seemed stupid to me. Letting it exist looks like a mistake in writing the Constitution. I would support an amendment to abolish it. People who oppose a bill in the Senate have their votes for senators and recall options.

First, the filibuster is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, it's totally based on Senate rules that can be changed without legislation or SCOTUS approval.

What the filibuster does is require compromise to get support from the minority party if the majority does not have 60 votes of their own to do as they please. The House only requires a simple majority to pass anything and everything the majority wants with no influence from the minority party. They might not even be consulted and their considerations ignored, and that is not something to be desired. Remember, what goes around comes around, meaning that if and when the other party gets a majority in the House then it's their turn to ignore the other side.

I understand, majority rule in a democratic form of gov't is desireable, BUT do you really want to totally ignore the other 49% or whatever the minority party's strength is? The tyranny of the majority is a thing to be considered unless you want a one-party gov't that cares nothing about opposing viewpoints. I know that gridlock is a bad thing but IMHO not as bad as one-party rule.

 

[Lesh]

The vast majority of women do not want to kill their babies in the womb. Let's shine the light on the true goal of Communists; forced abortion.

No. But that vast majority want to have the choice

 

[Rawley]

This right here is why I cannot support Kamala Harris. She wants to end the filibuster so the democrats can pass abortion rights with 51 votes. It's only for abortion she says, but any idiot knows that once you abolish the filibuster for a specific reason it ends up being permanent for everything. And once that happens, there will be no more compromise or cooperation in the Senate and bipartisanship goes right down the drain.

Harris backs ditching filibuster to pass nationwide abortion protections, angering Manchin in the process

Vice President Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that she supported changing Senate filibuster rules to allow a simple majority vote to codify the nationwide right for women to obtain an abortion.

www.yahoo.com

The democrats came close to doing just that back in 2021 when they tried to abolish the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema wouldn't go along. One of these days, they're going to get it done and that's when we start down the road to a one-party rule gov't. If you think gridlock is bad, wait until you get one-party rule.

This move clearly shows how desperate her campaign is, that she has to propose this nonsense to rile up her base.