I know it's hard for some of you, but think about things like this

[Diogenes]

Wow That one really solidified the Putin diarrhea ink in your pen huh

Your ludicrous, irrelevant personal attack is summarily dismissed.

 

[archives]

No, the filibuster is huge—it’s the single biggest reason the Senate feels like a completely different chamber—but it’s not the only thing that makes the modern Senate functionally distinct from the House. Here are the key differences that actually matter in day-to-day lawmaking as of 2025:

1. The Filibuster (60-vote threshold for most bills)
   House: simple 218-vote majority rules.
   Senate: 60 votes to end debate on almost everything except budget reconciliation and nominations.
   This is why a 53–47 Senate majority often can’t pass anything partisan, while a 220–215 House majority rams through whatever it wants.
2. Unlimited Debate (even without a formal filibuster)
   Senators can still talk bills to death or force “message” amendments. The House has the Rules Committee that shuts this down cold—most bills get 1 hour of debate total, no amendments allowed unless leadership says so.
3. Treaty Ratification (2/3 vote, Senate only)
   House has zero role in treaties. A president + 34 senators can block any treaty forever.
4. Executive & Judicial Confirmations (Senate only, simple majority since 2017 for SCOTUS)
   House again has no say. This is why a 51-vote Senate can confirm a 35-year-old partisan to the Supreme Court while the House screams into the void.
5. Structural/Rule differences that amplify minority power

• Member-to-constituent ratio: ~750k per rep vs ~6M per senator (average)
• Term length: 2 years vs 6 years (1/3 up every 2 years)
• Hold power: Almost impossible in House; any single senator can place a hold and grind things to a halt
• Amendment process: Strictly limited by Rules Committee in House; any senator can offer unlimited amendments (“vote-a-rama”) in Senate
• Committee staff ratios: Heavily favor majority in House; much more equal in Senate—minority gets ~40% of staff/budget even at 51-49

1. Reconciliation (the filibuster workaround)
   Only usable once or twice per year, only for tax/spending/debt limit.
   House still needs simple majority, but Senate can pass with 51 votes.
   This is why the only big laws that move in divided government are giant tax cuts or budget bills.

Take the 119th Congress (2025–2026):
Republicans control House 220–215 and Senate 53–47.

They can pass a "dirty" budget resolution in both chambers → drop a reconciliation bill that cuts taxes + slashes Medicaid with 51 Senate votes.
But if they try to do anything else partisan (immigration, guns, abortion, voting rights), 9 Democrats can block it forever unless 7 Democrats defect.

The filibuster is the 800-pound gorilla, but even if you magically eliminated it tomorrow, the Senate would still be way slower, more individualistic, and more minority-friendly than the House because of unlimited amendments, holds, 6-year terms, and exclusive powers over nominations/treaties.

The Senate isn’t “the House with longer terms”—it’s a completely different species of legislature, and the filibuster is just its sharpest claw.



No, there are still several real differences beyond just "bigger district, longer term." The 17th Amendment (1913) made senators directly elected like House members, but the original constitutional design—and some lingering effects—create meaningful distinctions in how the two jobs actually work:

1. Staggered terms create different accountability rhythms
   House members face voters every 2 years, so they're almost always in campaign mode. Senators get a 6-year cushion with classes staggered (1/3 up every 2 years), which lets them take riskier votes early in the term and hide behind national party branding later. This makes Senate races feel more like presidential mini-campaigns than enlarged House races.
2. Statewide vs. district geography changes everything about coalitions
   A House member can win with 50,000 votes in a safe gerrymandered seat and ignore the rest of the state. A senator has to build a true statewide majority—often 2-4 million votes—forcing them to appeal to urban, rural, suburban, and every minority group at once. That's why purple-state senators (Manchin, Collins, Sinema, Tester) can survive while their state's House delegation is lopsided.
3. Two-per-state rule breaks proportionality
   California (39M people) gets the same two senators as Wyoming (580k). This wasn't changed by direct election—it was baked into the Constitution as the core compromise of federalism. No House equivalent exists; representation there is roughly proportional.
4. Fewer senators = individual supermajority power
   Any single senator can place secret holds, force 30 hours of debate on trivial nominees, or threaten filibusters that grind the chamber to a halt. A single House member can't do anything close—one of 435 voices gets drowned out instantly.
5. Campaign finance and media markets are structurally different
   Senate races in big states routinely cost $100M+ and run statewide TV ads (most expensive media markets in the country). House races in safe districts can cost under $1M and rely on local mailers and door-knocking. Direct election didn't change the fact that Senate campaigns look and feel like national races.
6. Constitutional roles never changed
   • Only the Senate confirms judges, ambassadors, and cabinet officials
   • Only the Senate ratifies treaties
   • Only the Senate tries impeachments
     These exclusive powers make senators de-facto national players in a way House members never are.

So yes, both are now "directly elected," but the Senate remains a radically different institution—more aristocratic, more powerful per member, and deliberately malapportioned. The 17th Amendment changed who picks them, not what they actually do once they get there.



No, that statement is not true.

Even without the filibuster, the House and Senate do not operate in the exact same way. Here are the key differences that remain:

1. Rules for debate and amendments
   • House: Debate time is strictly limited (often 1–2 hours total per bill under a “rule” from the Rules Committee). Amendments are pre-approved and tightly controlled.
   • Senate: Unlimited debate and amendments are allowed unless 60 votes invoke cloture (even without a filibuster, this is still the rule). Any senator can offer any amendment at any time, often leading to “vote-a-rama” chaos.
2. Who controls the floor
   • House: The majority party, through the Rules Committee, decides exactly what comes up, when, and under what terms.
   • Senate: The majority leader needs unanimous consent or 60 votes to move to a bill at all. A single senator can block or delay anything.
3. Motion to recommit / germaneness
   • House: Last-ditch motion to recommit is allowed, but amendments must be germane.
   • Senate: Non-germane amendments are routine (Christmas-tree bills).
4. Hold system
   • Senate: Any senator can place a secret “hold” on nominations or bills, forcing the leader to burn floor time. No equivalent in the House.
5. Byrd Rule (reconciliation)
   Only the Senate has the Byrd Rule, which strips non-budgetary provisions from reconciliation bills on a simple majority vote (51). The House has no such mechanism.

So: removing the filibuster turns the Senate into a majority-rules chamber, but it is still a very different beast from the House because of its decentralized, individualistic rules.

The House is a top-down machine; the post-filibuster Senate would be a free-for-all where 51 votes can pass a bill, but getting to that vote still requires navigating a maze the House simply doesn’t have.




That claim is broadly accurate and well-supported by both the Constitution’s original design and the historical record.

• Federalist No. 62 (Madison): “The equality of representation in the Senate…is intended to protect the smaller states…and to guard against the confusion and turmoil that would result from making it a popular assembly like the House.”
• Federalist No. 39 (Madison): The Senate derives its authority “from the States as political and coequal societies” rather than “from the people” in the same proportional way as the House.
• Article I, Section 3 (original): “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…”

The whole point of bicameralism was one chamber for the people (House, elected by population) and one chamber for the states as sovereign entities (Senate, elected by state legislatures). This was the “Great Compromise” that got small states to ratify the Constitution.

What the 17th Amendment actually did was this:

Ratified in 1913, it changed Article I, Section 3 to: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”

That single change obliterated the structural protection of state sovereignty. Overnight, senators stopped answering to state legislatures (who could recall them at will under the original system) and started answering to the same national popular forces that House members already did.Evidence that this “ruined” the Senate’s original purpose

1. Loss of state control
   • Before 1913: Oregon’s legislature instructed its senators how to vote on treaties; if they disobeyed, they were replaced.
   • After 1913: That power vanished. States became lobbyists instead of principals.
2. Explosion of federal power
   Federal spending as % of GDP was ~2–3% before 1913. The same year the 17th passed, the federal income tax was also created (16th Amendment). Correlation isn’t causation, but the timing is telling: once senators no longer had to fear state legislatures cutting their leash, the federal government began its century-long growth spree.
3. Scholarly consensus on the shift
   • Ralph Rossum (Georgetown): “The Seventeenth Amendment…destroyed the federal structure more effectively than any other single change in our Constitution.”
   • Todd Zywicki (George Mason Law): “The Seventeenth Amendment fundamentally altered the balance of power between the states and the federal government…leading to a massive increase in federal power.”
4. Even Progressives who pushed it admitted the goal
   William Jennings Bryan (1911): “If the Senate is to be a states’ institution, let the states choose the senators. But if it is to be a popular body, let the people choose.” They wanted it to be a second popular body—and they got it.

So, yes—the claim is not just accurate, it’s almost understated.

The 17th Amendment didn’t “reform” the Senate; it abolished the Senate as the Framers designed it and turned it into a slightly less-frequent, slightly older House of Representatives.

The states lost their voice in Washington, and we’ve been living with the consequences—centralized power, unfunded mandates, and a federal government that treats states like administrative districts—ever since.

I don't recall advocating for the abolition of the filibuster, Anchovies.

I know it's hard for you, but read the relevant text in my post above.

If any big words confuse you, use AI to discover their meaning.

Never said you did, but you did say you’d oppose dumping it because you feared a future Democrat President would use the precedent to stack the Court. I was just reminding you that Mitch set that precedent years ago making it only a majority vote for confirmation. Just updating you on the facts

And I don’t have to read all that to know what the end of the filibuster would mean, I even pointed out to you that it would turn the Senate into just another majority body thusly losing the Senate’s reputation as unique

Also quite noticeable that you had no comment on Trump’s record setting precedents that have had significant effects on existing checks and balances

 

[Diogenes]

Never said you did, but you did say you’d oppose dumping it because you feared a future Democrat President would use the precedent to stack the Court. I was just reminding you that Mitch set that precedent years ago making it only a majority vote for confirmation. Just updating you on the facts And I don’t have to read all that to know what the end of the filibuster would mean, I even pointed out to you that it would turn the Senate into just another majority body thusly losing the Senate’s reputation as unique Also quite noticeable that you had no comment on Trump’s record setting precedents that have had significant effects on existing checks and balances

Is that so?

Mitch McConnell and the Republicans used the nuclear option after the Democrats did.

Democrats were the first to deploy the modern nuclear option in 2013 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democrats, holding a 55-45 majority, used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold for most presidential nominations.

This applied to executive branch appointments (like Cabinet secretaries) and lower federal court judges, reducing the requirement to a simple majority (51 votes). The vote was 52-48, largely along party lines, with three Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition.

Democrats have repeatedly attempted but failed to nuke the filibuster for other legislation (e.g., in 2022 under Biden), due to opposition from senators like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Are any of the examples you cited in response relevant?

No.

Show us how they are not relevant, clown .

 

[Jake Starkey]

Both sides have used the nuclear option.

Quit yer whining, both sides.

 

[Diogenes]

Show us how they are not relevant, clown .

You posted 'em. The burden of proof lies with Y O U.

Please, do try to prove how "numerous individuals detained by ICE have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct. Some cases have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE." has any relevance to Mr. Melugin's post.

 

[Jake Starkey]

You posted 'em. The burden of proof lies with Y O U.

Please, do try to prove how "numerous individuals detained by ICE have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct. Some cases have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE." has any relevance to Mr. Melugin's post.

the post explained it. you can't refute it? You are so lightweight.

 

[Diogenes]

the post explained it. you can't refute it? You are so lightweight.

Are you really that obtuse?

Did any of the "numerous individuals detained by ICE (who) have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct." include politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping amd or seeking prosecution?


Were any of the "cases (that) have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE" filed by politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping and/or seeking prosecution?

 

[Jake Starkey]

IYSS

 

[Diogenes]

Let the record show that @Jake Starkey was unable to prove that any of the "numerous individuals detained by ICE (who) have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct" included politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping amd or seeking prosecution.

Let the record further reflect that @Jake Starkey has failed to establish that any of the "cases (that) have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE" were filed by politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping and/or seeking prosecution.

 

[Earl]

Let the record show that @Jake Starkey was unable to prove that any of the "numerous individuals detained by ICE (who) have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct" included politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping amd or seeking prosecution.

Let the record further reflect that @Jake Starkey has failed to establish that any of the "cases (that) have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE" were filed by politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping and/or seeking prosecution.

He’s a novice, an amateur…a two week wonder.

 

[Diogenes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1986456803639705735

View: https://x.com/LaNativePatriot/status/1986456803639705735

 

[FastLane]

You posted 'em. The burden of proof lies with Y O U.

Please, do try to prove how "numerous individuals detained by ICE have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct. Some cases have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE." has any relevance to Mr. Melugin's post.

So Co

On the filibuster:

Removing the 60 vote threshold to pass a short term funding bill (CR) is likely fine.

Removing the 60 vote threshold to pass *ANY* legislation is not a good idea, because when Democrats take power again, I don't want them to pack SCOTUS, among other things.

To assume that they will *NEVER* be in power again is unrealistic.

I would remove the filibuster only for budget bills.

 

[Diogenes]

I would remove the filibuster only for budget bills.

Let the Schumer shutdown continue. Maybe some people will self-deport when their benefits run out.

​

 

[Jake Starkey]

Let the record show that @Jake Starkey was unable to prove that any of the "numerous individuals detained by ICE (who) have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct" included politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping amd or seeking prosecution.

Let the record further reflect that @Jake Starkey has failed to establish that any of the "cases (that) have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE" were filed by politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping and/or seeking prosecution.

I posted the sources, and since Diogenes is not the rule of source, he can whine all he wants.

 

[Diogenes]

I posted the sources.

​

Your sources didn't prove that any of the "numerous individuals detained by ICE (who) have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct" included politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping amd or seeking prosecution.

Your sources didn't prove that any of the "cases (that) have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE" were filed by politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping and/or seeking prosecution.

​

You lost. Lean to read.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Let the Schumer shutdown continue. Maybe some people will self-deport when their benefits run out.

​

IYSS

 

[Jake Starkey]

​

Your sources didn't prove that any of the "numerous individuals detained by ICE (who) have filed lawsuits and legal claims against the agency, including allegations of medical neglect, physical abuse, and financial misconduct" included politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping amd or seeking prosecution.

Your sources didn't prove that any of the "cases (that) have also involved U.S. citizens mistakenly arrested by ICE" were filed by politicians filing police reports alleging kidnapping and/or seeking prosecution.

​

You lost. Lean to read.

IYSS However, folks, remember that Diogenes is not a snap when it comes to diction, syntax, and semantic. Hopefully, his exposure here to much better writers will spruce him up.