American Politics VII: Virginia Reel

[Picairn]

When the republicans win, everyone's gonna be like: NOOOOOOOOO BRING BACK THE FILIBUSTER!!!!!!!!

The pendulum swings back and forth, pal.

[Kilobugya]

Getting rid of the filibuster be like:
Every body Gangsta till the republicans win the senate and pass all the laws the dems don't like.

They would need the trifecta, the Senate and the House and the Presidency to do that. And not having the filibuster will allow the Democrats to pass voting rights bills that would actually make it much less likely for the GOP to seize the trifecta, since the GOP is supported by only a minority of the population (they won the popular vote only once since 1992, and that was just after 9-11), and can only hold to power because of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

[Antipatros]

A fair point. I expect that Biden will be exercising his veto hand quite a bit if that happens, though.

Ah yes, something the Republicans will love come campaign season

Most definitely.

I oscillate back and forth on whether or not our current system is too prone to gridlock or if it is working as intended. The steep increase in the use of the filibuster in recent times definitely points to a sickened political culture.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Getting rid of the filibuster be like:
Every body Gangsta till the republicans win the senate and pass all the laws the dems don't like.

They would need the trifecta, the Senate and the House and the Presidency to do that. And not having the filibuster will allow the Democrats to pass voting rights bills that would actually make it much less likely for the GOP to seize the trifecta, since the GOP is supported by only a minority of the population (they won the popular vote only once since 1992, and that was just after 9-11), and can only hold to power because of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

They don't need full public majority support to win the trifecta. Fucking Donald Trump had the trifecta at the start of his presidency, think about that and what it would have entailed with no filibuster. Getting rid of it is still supremely stupid.

[Tarsonis]

Getting rid of the filibuster be like:
Every body Gangsta till the republicans win the senate and pass all the laws the dems don't like.

Fun fact, when the Dems win back the Senate there's nothing stopping them too. And certain programs have become the third rail, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Good job at missing the point

[Kilobugya]

I oscillate back and forth on whether or not our current system is too prone to gridlock or if it is working as intended. The steep increase in the use of the filibuster in recent times definitely points to a sickened political culture.

It's both a symptom and a cause. The gridlock situation comes from the GOP no longer being a reasonable party but being a far-right personality cult. But that is also something made possible by the gridlock situation, the GOP would be unable to win much elections without voter suppression, gerrymandering, Electoral College, ... which can't be solved because of gridlock.

[Picairn]

Good job at missing the point

I literally pointed out that his "point" is utterly meaningless.

[Kilobugya]

They would need the trifecta, the Senate and the House and the Presidency to do that. And not having the filibuster will allow the Democrats to pass voting rights bills that would actually make it much less likely for the GOP to seize the trifecta, since the GOP is supported by only a minority of the population (they won the popular vote only once since 1992, and that was just after 9-11), and can only hold to power because of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

They don't need full public majority support to win the trifecta. Fucking Donald Trump had the trifecta at the start of his presidency, think about that and what it would have entailed with no filibuster. Getting rid of it is still supremely stupid.

Donald Trump had the trifecta at the start of his presidency because of gerrymandering and voter suppression. And those can't be fought because of the filibuster. Thanks for proving my point.

[Tarsonis]

Good job at missing the point

I literally pointed out that his "point" is utterly meaningless.

No, you demonstrated your inability to comprehend anything beyond 5 minutes in the future

[Washington Resistance Army]

They don't need full public majority support to win the trifecta. Fucking Donald Trump had the trifecta at the start of his presidency, think about that and what it would have entailed with no filibuster. Getting rid of it is still supremely stupid.

Donald Trump had the trifecta at the start of his presidency because of gerrymandering and voter suppression. And those can't be fought because of the filibuster. Thanks for proving my point.

No, Kilo, they just straight got more votes to win that trifecta. They beat the Dems for control of the House by a margin of 2,000,000 or so. All it takes for the GOP to get a trifecta is low Democrat enthusiasm and turnout. You're either aggressively naïve or you just haven't thought this through.

[Picairn]

No, you demonstrated your inability to comprehend anything beyond 5 minutes in the future

And you demonstrated an inability to read and understand my argument

[Northern Connecticut]

I understand your arguement. Its just false.

[Antipatros]

I oscillate back and forth on whether or not our current system is too prone to gridlock or if it is working as intended. The steep increase in the use of the filibuster in recent times definitely points to a sickened political culture.

It's both a symptom and a cause. The gridlock situation comes from the GOP no longer being a reasonable party but being a far-right personality cult. But that is also something made possible by the gridlock situation, the GOP would be unable to win much elections without voter suppression, gerrymandering, Electoral College, ... which can't be solved because of gridlock.

I mean, imagine trying to pass a constitutional amendment in today's environment. I don't think it could be done. The last time we did that was with the 27th Amendment (ratified in 1992). Gingrich became Speaker of the House (an event which many people identify as the start of the "bad times") in 1995.

[Tarsonis]

No, you demonstrated your inability to comprehend anything beyond 5 minutes in the future

And you demonstrated an inability to read and understand my argument

I understood you argument. Your mentality is the problem, not the solution. You're not half as clever as you think you are.

[Ifreann]

Getting rid of the filibuster be like:
Every body Gangsta till the republicans win the senate and pass all the laws the dems don't like.

That's a point you would only sincerely make if you were a Democrat who feared Republican control of the Senate. But I would conclude from your pro-cop flag that you are more aligned with the Republicans. So it doesn't make sense for you to warn Democrats not to do away with the filibuster, not if you really believe that it would ultimately benefit Republicans. If you really believed that abolishing the filibuster would be a win for Republicans then you'd just quietly gloat among your Republican friends about the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot, and say nothing around Democrats for fear of them realising their mistake.

Republicans would only warn against abolishing the filibuster if they believed that they would lose if Democrats started actually wielding power. No Republican with even a speck of political savvy would give real, honest advice to the Democrats on how to beat the Republicans. Not even Donald Trump would go around telling his political enemies how to make sure they win and he loses.

[Tarsonis]

Getting rid of the filibuster be like:
Every body Gangsta till the republicans win the senate and pass all the laws the dems don't like.

That's a point you would only sincerely make if you were a Democrat who feared Republican control of the Senate. But I would conclude from your pro-cop flag that you are more aligned with the Republicans. So it doesn't make sense for you to warn Democrats not to do away with the filibuster, not if you really believe that it would ultimately benefit Republicans. If you really believed that abolishing the filibuster would be a win for Republicans then you'd just quietly gloat among your Republican friends about the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot, and say nothing around Democrats for fear of them realising their mistake.

Republicans would only warn against abolishing the filibuster if they believed that they would lose if Democrats started actually wielding power. No Republican with even a speck of political savvy would give real, honest advice to the Democrats on how to beat the Republicans. Not even Donald Trump would go around telling his political enemies how to make sure they win and he loses.

Love the smell of cynicism in the morning

[Kilobugya]

No, Kilo, they just straight got more votes to win that trifecta. They beat the Dems for control of the House by a margin of 2,000,000 or so. All it takes for the GOP to get a trifecta is low Democrat enthusiasm and turnout. You're either aggressively naïve or you just haven't thought this through.

That answers only the gerrymandering part. Voter suppression is one of the tool they use to get a "low Democrat enthusiasm and turnout" by making it hard or impossible for demographics that skew Democrat to vote. Would it have been enough for the Dem to break the trifecta with HR1/HR5 in place ? It's very hard to say for sure, but it seems likely to me that at least of the 3 elections would have been carried by the democrats if not for all the dirty tricks. And since 2016 demographics changed in favor of the Democrats, making the chance of the GOP to seize the trifecta again even smaller in absence of dirty tricks (hence why they use more and more of them).

[Northern Connecticut]

Getting rid of the filibuster be like:
Every body Gangsta till the republicans win the senate and pass all the laws the dems don't like.

That's a point you would only sincerely make if you were a Democrat who feared Republican control of the Senate. But I would conclude from your pro-cop flag that you are more aligned with the Republicans. So it doesn't make sense for you to warn Democrats not to do away with the filibuster, not if you really believe that it would ultimately benefit Republicans. If you really believed that abolishing the filibuster would be a win for Republicans then you'd just quietly gloat among your Republican friends about the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot, and say nothing around Democrats for fear of them realising their mistake.

Republicans would only warn against abolishing the filibuster if they believed that they would lose if Democrats started actually wielding power. No Republican with even a speck of political savvy would give real, honest advice to the Democrats on how to beat the Republicans. Not even Donald Trump would go around telling his political enemies how to make sure they win and he loses.

Your point being?

Im just saying how it would be a bad idea for all involved.

[The Reformed American Republic]

That's a point you would only sincerely make if you were a Democrat who feared Republican control of the Senate. But I would conclude from your pro-cop flag that you are more aligned with the Republicans. So it doesn't make sense for you to warn Democrats not to do away with the filibuster, not if you really believe that it would ultimately benefit Republicans. If you really believed that abolishing the filibuster would be a win for Republicans then you'd just quietly gloat among your Republican friends about the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot, and say nothing around Democrats for fear of them realising their mistake.

Republicans would only warn against abolishing the filibuster if they believed that they would lose if Democrats started actually wielding power. No Republican with even a speck of political savvy would give real, honest advice to the Democrats on how to beat the Republicans. Not even Donald Trump would go around telling his political enemies how to make sure they win and he loses.

Love the smell of cynicism in the morning

It's accurate though. Plus, the GOP would bypass the filibuster or try some other sneaky method to wield power if they only had a slim majority.

[Tarsonis]

Love the smell of cynicism in the morning

It's accurate though. Plus, the GOP would bypass the filibuster or try some other sneaky method to wield power if they only had a slim majority.

it really isn't. It paints a broad brush of everybody being only interested in immediate gain, and perfectly willing to tear down the institutions to get it. While it's certainly true of some of our elected leaders on both sides, claiming everybody thinking that way is not only cravenly cynical, but a bad faith attempt to side step having to actually deal with the posters point.

[Northern Connecticut]

I outta report you jerks for flamebaiting.

[Kilobugya]

I outta report you jerks for flamebaiting.

Or one more occurrence of the "from modern right-wingers, accusation is admission of guilt" principle

[Tarsonis]

I outta report you jerks for flamebaiting.

A. Milquetoast as it is, calling them jerks is flaming

B. Threatening mod action is also against the rule

[Picairn]

I understood you argument.

Judging by your poor attempts at characterizing my argument, I have serious doubts.

Your mentality is the problem, not the solution. You're not half as clever as you think you are.

You are not as insightful as you think you are by making one-liner posts.

[Northern Connecticut]

I outta report you jerks for flamebaiting.

A. Milquetoast as it is, calling them jerks is flaming

B. Threatening mod action is also against the rule

ITs not a threat of mod action. and jerks is not flaming.