There is a world of difference. Riverman points out when they fail and succeed, normally with well thought out reasons for each. Tababker posts one line “fuck dems/libs” posts exclusively.
1 Like
Riverman has hundreds of simple Fuck Dems/libs posts.
4 Likes
lol, Riverman is a national treasure.
7 Likes
It depends on what rules dems make for the talking filibuster and which Manchin would go for.
This article lists a good example that would be amazing if Manchin goes for it.
Manchin has been in politics his whole life. That was not a slip of the tongue. He knew exactly what he was saying, both to Democrats (NBC) and Republicans (Fox). The message to Republicans is clear: “If all you are going to do is oppose and make it impossible to make a deal, then Jimmy Stewart, here we come.” The message to Democrats is also clear: “I really want you to try to work with the Republicans, but if it completely fails, the fall-back position is letting them read the Alabama phone book and when they finish it, then the Kentucky phone book.” Will he stick with that when push comes to shove? We’ll see, but the Republicans can’t say they weren’t warned.
To make the filibuster even more painful, former senator Chris Dodd has proposed that during a filibuster, three-fifths of the Senate would have to be present. He didn’t say what would happen if that threshold were not met. More realistically, the rules could be changed to say that at least 40 senators have to be present day and night in order to keep debate going. If fewer are present, then cloture would be automatically invoked. Since members of the majority wouldn’t show up, most of the minority would be forced to sit in their chairs, day and night, playing video games on their phones and taking turns leaving to eat pizza in their offices or go to the bathroom. How long would a filibuster last then? Probably not even a week.
There are tons of ways to make the rules so that the Minority basically has to operate in good faith and not just delay for insane amounts of time for no reason. I think we can get Manchin on board with making them stick to working towards actual bi-partisanship and not just delay tactics.
1 Like
Cinema is a wildcard and insane but insane people tend to be super selfish and I think we can get her on board with whatever Manchin goes for plus her own self interest.
Dems are going to go with the idea they aren’t getting rid of the filibuster, I think thats what Biden is saying too. We didn’t get rid of the filibuster, we made it so it could be more bi-partisan and working or whatever.
Honestly HR1 is going to be SUPER unpopular with Republicans. They know whats up, they know they need to prevent as many minorities as possible to win. They will bad faith it as allowing election fraud or whatever but they will know whats up.
So Manchin will have a choice. Help pass HR1 and save democracy and tank his already low chances of re-election despite being 76, or refuse to pass it and have maybe a 50% chance of staying in( super optimistic ). For what will 100% be his last election regardless.
No amount of being tough on the left is going to save him if he makes it easier for black people to vote.
He will already be seen as the guy who impeached Trump twice, was the 50th vote on a ton of baby killing judges etc. At a time when 70% of Republicans think Trump won. He only won by 2 points in 2018 before all of that happened.
Either the dude is ridiculous for trying to continue to play politics or this is his actual ideology and I lean towards this being his actual ideology.
Hot take: Restoring the talking filibuster is a great option for democrats right now. Let the 24 hours news cycle show congress doing nothing but reading phone books day after day. Pretty soon, “Both sides!” will experience the dysfunction of Congress. The biggest problem here was stopping the talking/standing filibuster to begin with. It allowed Mitch to have his way with his policy goals by just mentioning that he might filibuster. Filibuster is a valid procedural process to protect the minority but make them have some skin in the game, ffs.
2 Likes
This is a bad idea, as this kind of thing results in votes against incumbents because of “both sides”
Eventually the talking filibuster has to end though. Like the minority can hold the bill up and have their say but they can’t hold it up forever because Republicans will do this and their voters won’t give a shit.
1 Like
As a general rule, I am comfortable with incumbent senators in both parties getting voted out, so I don’t have the same concern level on that. If you are correct, I view that as a feature not a bug.
Exactly. Under the current system, the mere whisper of a filibuster kills a bill outright.
I’m only going hard at this because I know an awful lot of “centrists” who think the filibuster is a neat feature of the senate and is a signal if its gravitas and need to work together.
If the talking filibuster goes we don’t get anymore heart warming Stackhouse scenes.
(Someone will get this reference).
3 Likes
Well played
1 Like
Manchin isn’t going to be the problem. Just ignore him completely. It is the batshit crazy “tap Mitch on the shoulder and do a dance while shitting on tens of millions of working poor people” lady that’s going to make or break this thing.*
*Assuming they can bring Dianne Feinstein’s corpse in and tell her its a vote for bombing someone right before she presses the button.
9 Likes
One side wants dysfunction in government already.
I agree. Make it visible. 24x7.
1 Like
I don’t think people understand how a talking filibuster works. The filibustering Senator can request a quorum call every few hours. If less than 51 Senators answer the roll call, the Senate is adjourned for the day. So, you need all 50 Dems in the Capitol to show up in the Senate chamber. In theory, the Senate Majority Leader can direct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Senators and compel their attendance. Famously, Bob Packwood was once carried feet-first into the Senate when Robert Byrd once had the Sergeant search for Republicans hiding from a quorum call on a campaign finance reform bill and the Oregon Republican was found having barricaded himself in his office.
The Senate could, in amending it’s rules to return to the talking filibuster, also change the rule on quorum calls. The idea of requiring 40 votes to uphold a filibuster rather than 60 to break it is intended to put the onus on the minority to keep their members nearby and ready to show up at a moment’s notice.
WE HAVE THE BOOGEYMAN. IT IS THE INCARCERATED.
Never mind the CARES act did the same.