Keep the filibuster?

[Stinky The Clown]

We lost the House and we're down to the skin of our teeth in the Senate.

What do we do? Do we let the don nothing Senate continue to do nothing and use it as cover for getting nothing done or do we get rid of the filibuster, let Obam and the Senate do things and show the republibaggers to be obstructionists in the House?

The filibuster saved our bacon when we were out in the cold during The Reign Of The Lesser. Do we risk trying to go without it?

I say we dump it.

I also say we add term limits.

[arbusto_baboso]

1. Time to get rid of it.

The senate just naturally moves things more slowly and deliberately than the house, and doesn't need to keep the filibuster to maintain that function.

[Zen Democrat]

2. I say we keep it, but actually stand up to it and make filibusterers filibuster!

No more courtesy BS. Make them talk all night and the next day. That will stop the filibuster-everything culture.

[madinmaryland]

3. Yes. The Democrats will probably need it over the next couple of years.

Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and two others could force us into a filibuster.

Not that Harry Reid will use it. Gotta keep the powder dry. :mad:

[SomeGuyInEagan]

4. I say Dems in the Senate piss down their legs any time a Republican says, "Boo! Filibuster."

Free them of their adult diapers once and for all!

Or, grow some spine and make the bastards actually filibuster something, so that the electorate can see what they are truly about.

On second thought, get the mops ready.

[RandomThoughts]

5. The Fillabuster is not a problem if it actually existed.

The rule that allows the Filibuster to done in secret replaced the Filibuster long ago.

The Filibusterer says someone has to stand up and read a phone book holding up any debate by not yielding the podium. That really is not a problem, since it would be seen as obstructionism, if reported accurately.

To protect obstructionist, they made a rule that instead of a filibuster, the vote would require 60 votes, so the Filibuster was removed long ago, and replaced by a super majority rule.

The super majority rule should not exist, since its only purpose is to make sure nothing gets done, the groups with money main goals is not having a government, so by keeping electorate equally split by theft and dishonesty, they can, with a super majority rule, keep things from being done.

The actual Filibuster is a concept that requires accurate seeing of what is going on by the electorate, hence why taking over media was a huge priority of money, since regardless of what is done, if deception is used in the media, people can be gotten to vote to keep things from getting better. So without an honest accurate media, even the filibusterer becomes questionable, since it requires being seen in perspective with understanding of what happens.

Basically a 50-50 vote takes away the ease of grid lock, the 60-40 rule has one purpose, to make it harder to do anything. Think of the 60-40 rule as a protection for status quo no change, since money can make it difficult for either party to get to 60 senator majority. They can not make it difficult to get to a 50 senator majority.

[cynatnite]

6. I want the filibuster, but I don't want to see it so easily abused as it has been. n/t

[SoCalDem]

7. Tweak the rules.. Give the minority 2 per congressional 2-yr term

Make them choose carefully, which issues are filibuster-worthy

It would leave the option open, but would make them think twice..

Sports teams do not have unlimited Time outs:)

[Renew Deal]

8. Get rid of it

and deal with the consequences. The government can't function with the Senates rules.

[HopeHoops]

9. Use it enough to piss the hell out of the GOP and THEN get them to agree to eliminate it.

It wouldn't be so bad if it actually required Senators to stand up and talk the entire time, but all they have to do is whisper the word while standing at the urinal and the bill is dead. If they DO keep it, the cutoff should be reduced to 55 votes and the party saying "NO" should have to keep the floor until they're out of hot air - and that could take a while.

On Edit: And no reading "War And Peace" out loud to hold the floor. The delivery must be relevant to the specific bill they are obstructing.

[pgodbold]

10. Dump it! Never before has there been anything that has fucked up America like the GD filibuster.

I've heard the arguments for keeping it. Don't bother trying to sell that BS to me. I have a lifetime's supply of BS from the daily network news thank you. The filibuster must DIE or be reformed to delay progress no more than a few days.

[Statistical]

11. There will NEVER be term limits. Not now, not in a decade, not in a century.

Why?

Because the very people who need to pass it would be the ones who would be affected. They would be voting against their own interests.

Think Senator X is going to vote to limit his future candidacy? Really? Even if some would does anyone think a majority would.

Take someone like Kerry who has served what 5 terms? Think he is going to vote FOR term limits? Hell any reasonable limit you set he is already past it. Essentially he is voting himself out of office before the next election cycle even begins.

Even if you grandfathered people in you won't get the votes? Why? Because it makes them a target. If all new senators are limited to 3 terms and Kerry (just as an example) is seeking his 6th term that will be used against him both in primary and general election.

Never going to happen. Never.