Most Democrats Do Not Want To Safeguard Our Democracy

Minorities have a voice, where do you get the idea they do not have a voice?

They have various minority caucuses in Congress.

Remember, the EC was never about parties, it was about 'factions'. Shoemakers, Truckers, Farmers, doctors, teachers, associations of one kind or another, etc.

 

The filibuster rule currently prevents debate on a bill from beginning, unless they get 60 votes.

they should kill this. Allow debate on a bill with only 52 votes.

But 60 votes should be required to end debate and to start voting.

 

The minority STILL has a voice, even if the filibuster is ended. The Senate gives equal power to ALL states, which means the small states like Delaware still have as much power as big states like New York and California. All states are equal.

There is no "tyranny of the majority" in the Senate.

 

Hogwash. It's mostly dems that are in support of safeguarding our election system and preventing a party from promoting lies of a stolen election.

As for the fake filibuster, they should make the filibusting party actually to debate.
Not just send a letter that says, I want to filibuster. That's chicken sheet. Get on the floor and make your points. Not hide behind your desk.

 

That is where it should be. Make the side of the filibuster lay their concerns out on the table in a debate.

 

i do not advocate abolishing the states "completely and utterly," bit i do think the states belong in their proper function ; as administrative subdivisions of the nation. the 14th amendment, resulting directly from the events leading to appomattox courthouse, supersedes any 'original intent" of states rights.

in 1789 the limits of transportation made "sovereign" states a good idea. in 2021 i can get to london faster than madison could travel to philidelphia.

modern problems also travel faster than they did in the 18th century, and many, if not most, challenges requiring government attention are national or global in scope.

 

Well then, how about this idea, we get rid of the filibuster but it doesn't take effect until the after the midterm election winners are sworn in?

 

For four years Democrats claimed that Trump wanted to be a dictator and Republicans wanted to take our rights away and ever since the 2020 election results it has been the Democrats who have actually taken American's rights away.

 

No one. I'm asking if you do. If yes, why? If no, why?

 

Really? Then tell me how the Republican party can pass a single bill without the Democratic Parties help right here and now.

 

I know what a democracy is.

 

The only thing Democrats want to "safeguard" are their power and income.

 

What good is getting their agenda through when the next time the opposing side gets into office they can just get rid of the previous agenda and then institute their own? Do you have any idea what kind of chaos that would cause? Every two - four years legislation being completely repealed and new policy being put in place?

Or perhaps making it to where elections are so rigged that it will become a one party ruled government? Would you like Republican's to do that? Democrats?

 

They just need to get rid of the silent filibuster. It's way too easy these days to filibuster something. A filibuster today just amounts to one senator deciding that he or she wants something to take 60 votes. We may as well require 60 votes for everything in the Senate with the way things are today.

A filibuster should require the senator to hold the floor, and it should tie up the Senate and prevent any other business from going on until the filibuster is over. This would make the filibuster a rarely used tool that is only deployed in the most extreme situations.

If there was no filibuster at all, it would be too easy to just undo everything done by the previous congress each time a different party takes power. With our current political climate, that would be a disaster. We'd have no stability.

 

It’s not the tyranny of the majority within the Senate that’s the issue, it’s tyranny of the majority between the Senate and the House that’s the issue most of the time.

 

The OP has a history of reading Yahoo news and blaming every bad situation to Democrats. I've tried to converse with him and it was difficult because he isn't interested in anything other than his opinions.

However, with that said, I must admit that he's consistent (which doesn't appear to be the case for some posters that factor in race, religion and/or sexuality before they flip-flop on culpability in civil and criminal matters).

P.S. Admittedly, that thought went through my head but it stopped before it reached my fingers on the keyboard. Let's try to play well with others so our posts don't get deleted, 61.

 

I believe the party that wins the white house, the electorate says 'what want what you are selling'.

So, they should be allowed to deliver on their promises.

Right or left. Otherwise, nothing ever gets done.


OR,

Restore the talking filibuster.

 

I would support restoring the talking filibuster.

 

Why would you even ask me such a bizarre question? In my entire life of 70 years, I've never heard anyone, ever, mention such a thing.

It would be me like asking you, would you support getting rid of all borders in the world, and, if so, why?

I mean, there is absolutely no reason to ask bizarre questions.

 

either you believe in it, or you don't.

 

Why not even try it? hasn't been tried (in a long time).

If one side gets their agenda through, then the electorate really gets to know what that side is all about.

IF they don't like it, they will elect the other, and find out what they are all about.

If they don't like either, then a third party would really have a chance.

If they like the other, then they will just reelect them and the majority will be happy.

I don't see an issue with it.

But, the electorate is confuse, because, no matter who they elect, no one gets anything done, and that's worse.

But, we should limit SCOTUS terms to 10 years. Permanence isn't right.

 

What is your thoughts on the MAJORITY of people voting to ban Gay marriage in their home State? Do you support the Courts allowing Gays to marry, regardless of what the MAJORITY of people voted for in their State?

 

I must live in a different United States of American than you. I haven't lost any rights.
Nothing much at all since the Bush 2 admin said spying on Americans is ok with the Patriot Act.

I never had a bump stock, but the 2x impeached took that right away from all of us. I guess that doesn't matter.

 

Eventually, those changes will migrate to the middle or those who are on record voting for what a majority of citizens don't like, will get voted out of office.
That may be as good as term limits.

The only purpose of this fake filibuster rule was to limit what Civil Rights acts could be made law. 1970