Can Someone Explain the Filibuster?

Quote from TRNT : Yet it is not in the Constitution. Hmm...

The right of the Senate to create its own rules is though.

Quote : Blocking such a high-level presidential appointee is a rare move. Since 1917, when the Senate’s modern filibuster rules were created, a cabinet-level nominee has faced a supermajority barrier to confirmation only twice: Ronald Reagan’s nominee for commerce secretary in 1987, C. William Verity Jr., and George W. Bush’s nominee for interior secretary in 2006, Dirk Kempthorne.

Verity was filibustered by ... Republicans. Kempthorne's nomination was threatened with filibuster but Dems crossed the aisle to vote to close debate, so calling that a filibuster is not exactly telling the whole story. If Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for cloture right now, would we still call it a filibuster? No, of course not.

Dishonest post is dishonest.

Funny story about Kempthorne: He's the one that got his bathroom remodeled for $220k taxpayer dollaz. And when he was investigated by the Senate, they found him and his leadership deleting emails. And of course he was the head when MMS was found taking money from oil companies for personal use. Oh, and there was cocaine use at their parties. Oh, and employees were banging reps of the industry they were supposed to be regulating.

Great choice to stand tall on. Really, a top quality guy.

Quote from loop610bob : The right of the Senate to create its own rules is though.

Of course it is. But it is surprising that something that is characterized as this....

Quote : Having a filibuster is a good thing. When used, it is even better. You do not understand a Republic. This is not only an important procedure, it is CRITICAL to the success of the state. You don't even want to consider where we'd be without it.

...is not in the Constitution.

If it is not clear, I do not agree with the quoted comments. I think filibuster could/should be used to ensure the minority gets to be heard (unlike the republicans in a state gov who recently passed a significant piece of legislation in matter of hours), and gets to offer amendments. Beyond that using filibuster for stuff such as minor bills and say filibustering in case A (SoD) to get info in case B (Bengazi) is just not good government.

Quote from TRNT : Of course it is. But it is surprising that something that is characterized as this.... ...is not in the Constitution. If it is not clear, I do not agree with the quoted comments. I think filibuster could/should be used to ensure the minority gets to be heard (unlike the republicans in a state gov who recently passed a significant piece of legislation in matter of hours), and gets to offer amendments. Beyond that using filibuster for stuff such as minor bills and say filibustering in case A (SoD) to get info in case B (Bengazi) is just not good government.

Fair enough.

Does anyone doubt that if every single thing in Congress was filibustered for this entire term, that this country would be in BETTER shape in 4 years?

Quote from dealgate : Does anyone doubt that if every single thing in Congress was filibustered for this entire term, that this country would be in BETTER shape in 4 years?

Do you think Republicans are patriotic enough to filibuster every single thing in congress then?

Quote from dealgate : Does anyone doubt that if every single thing in Congress was filibustered for this entire term, that this country would be in BETTER shape in 4 years?

...really? We're that far down the rabbit hole?

Quote from TRNT : Do you think Republicans are patriotic enough to filibuster every single thing in congress then?

Are Democrats? I'm not either one so I don't care which one initiates it.

Quote from dealgate : Are Democrats? I'm not either one so I don't care which one initiates it.

Dems are in the majority.

Quote from TRNT : Dems are in the majority.

True. It matters not, 99% of all congressmen/woman are not patriotic. They are concerned with one thing; getting reelected which means pushing forward whatever agenda assures that will happen.

Quote from dealgate : True. It matters not, 99% of all congressmen/woman are not patriotic. They are concerned with one thing; getting reelected which means pushing forward whatever agenda assures that will happen.

Whether 99% or 95 or 90, I agree with the sentiment. But we can change the system so that they are rewarded for acting patriotic instead of for acting/being against the interests of the general public.

Quote from TRNT : Whether 99% or 95 or 90, I agree with the sentiment. But we can change the system so that they are rewarded for acting patriotic instead of for acting/being against the interests of the general public.

Elections are generally about who has the most money. This ensures the elite class will always rule. I see no way to stop this unless you equalize what candidates have to spend on their elections, which would never fly. Term limits would also help. 1 term that's it. It isn't like there is a shortage of people to fill the roles. This would also never fly. Also perhaps a total media blackout on election coverage from 6 months before the election until a winner is declared. Also not going to fly. Other then that, I see no way to get any candidate to uphold their vows and work towards the common good instead of their own good.

If you really think hard about this, the only solution to fix the rampant governmental problems of corruption, country killing back-door deals and unpatriotic legislation that we have is to break the system down and start over. I see no way other than revolution to do that. We are at the design limits of a Democracy at this point anyway. And it does look like this administration is trying to accomplish just that; Revolution

Quote from dealgate : Elections are generally about who has the most money. This ensures the elite class will always rule. I see no way to stop this unless you equalize what candidates have to spend on their elections, which would never fly. Term limits would also help. 1 term that's it. It isn't like there is a shortage of people to fill the roles. This would also never fly. Also perhaps a total media blackout on election coverage from 6 months before the election until a winner is declared. Also not going to fly. Other then that, I see no way to get any candidate to uphold their vows and work towards the common good instead of their own good. If you really think hard about this, the only solution to fix the rampant governmental problems of corruption, country killing back-door deals and unpatriotic legislation that we have is to break the system down and start over. I see no way other than revolution to do that. We are at the design limits of a Democracy at this point anyway. And it does look like this administration is trying to accomplish just that; Revolution

I disagree with you. We already have limits on campaign contributions so obviously further limit would/could fly.

The influence of money on our elections notwithstanding, we have free enough elections that IMO talk of revolution is ridiculous. But sadly, there are a small group of people and politicians who have seen their grip on power irreversibly weakened and as a result are intent on destroying our government and wishing for revolution. Hopefully they will be ignored by the general populace and even shunned and ostracized.

Quote from TRNT : I disagree with you. We already have limits on campaign contributions so obviously further limit would/could fly. The influence of money on our elections notwithstanding, we have free enough elections that IMO talk of revolution is ridiculous. But sadly, there are a small group of people and politicians who have seen their grip on power irreversibly weakened and as a result are intent on destroying our government and wishing for revolution. Hopefully they will be ignored by the general populace and even shunned and ostracized.

Free elections? I guess that depends on how you look at it. Your choices are Dumb or dumber. Both of which will take more of your freedoms and spend more of your great-great-great-great grand-children's money. And to say we have limits on campaign contributions is ludicrous. This POTUS more than ever has flaunted that when his entire campaign was financed by "private" entities with NO accounting/auditing. This is important and goes to my first point that he with the most money wins. If you have a benefactor with nefarious intentions they can get whoever they need elected with enough money, again as proven with the current POTUS.

I think you underestimate man's desire for freedom. Freedom has been so usurped under the past few administrations, especially this one, that revolution is more possible now than ever. Gun-control legislation could very well be the last straw. Certainly granting amnesty to 10 million new Democrat voters will make a big impact. Not wanting to believe it will only leave you unprepared when it happens. Minimizing it by saying it is a "small" group may work on some people, but the majority are not going to be swayed by the left's misinformation and propaganda campaign. The truth is too hard to hide anymore.

Quote from dealgate : Free elections? I guess that depends on how you look at it. Your choices are Dumb or dumber. Both of which will take more of your freedoms and spend more of your great-great-great-great grand-children's money. And to say we have limits on campaign contributions is ludicrous. This POTUS more than ever has flaunted that when his entire campaign was financed by "private" entities with NO accounting/auditing. This is important and goes to my first point that he with the most money wins. If you have a benefactor with nefarious intentions they can get whoever they need elected with enough money, again as proven with the current POTUS. I think you underestimate man's desire for freedom. Freedom has been so usurped under the past few administrations, especially this one, that revolution is more possible now than ever. Gun-control legislation could very well be the last straw. Certainly granting amnesty to 10 million new Democrat voters will make a big impact. Not wanting to believe it will only leave you unprepared when it happens. Minimizing it by saying it is a "small" group may work on some people, but the majority are not going to be swayed by the left's misinformation and propaganda campaign. The truth is too hard to hide anymore.

New Democrat [sic] voters? Hmm...

The way I see it TeaPartiers are not really against the two party system. They are just pissed off that they are, nay, might be, losing their influence over the Republican party. Yes, they are against the Dems but they also pretend to be against the GOP, aka against the two party system and wanting to weaken also the GOP in as much as it will help them maintain their grip on the GOP. So the pretense of being against both parities is a win-win situation: weaken the Dems -- (always) a win. Weaken the establishment GOP so that TeaParty type people will retain their influence -- win. And I do believe them when they talk of revolution. Yes, if they lose the grip on the GOP, they would prefer revolution just like a spoiled child who if he cannot constantly play would rather take his ball and go home.

Now whether this also explain your position, I have no idea. It is difficult to read a single person. But IMO the TeaParty agenda is pretty transparent (at least to me).