Nuke the filibuster?
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Without the filibuster, the Senate becomes a rubber stamp of the House. Doesn't matter Republican or Democrat, the Senate is no longer relevant as a separate deliberative body since both houses are elected by popular vote. That means the two will almost always have the same mix of parties and both will be in the majority to the same party.
All it takes is one determined Leftist President with a majority of Leftists in the House and Senate in that case to end the US as it currently exists, and I guarantee they will do it if they can. The US in that situation becomes no more than Mexico or Venezuela.
All it takes is one determined Leftist President with a majority of Leftists in the House and Senate in that case to end the US as it currently exists, and I guarantee they will do it if they can. The US in that situation becomes no more than Mexico or Venezuela.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Get rid of the 17th Amendment? I don't think that's happening.
No, nuke the filibuster for appropriation bills only. Did you see the poll options?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That's just a slippery slope thing. First, they did it for the judges. Then they did it for appropriations... You get the picture. That's just dying in slow motion.
I agree, but the nuking has been going on for years already. Dirty Harry did it first. Didn't you know?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Rather than that, they should allow California to be broken up into say, three states, two low population Republican ones and one Communist / Democrat one on the coast. Then they could do that with say, Washington and Oregon. Toss in a few other western states, and it's like fuck Puerto Rico and DC, we just created 10 new states that are all Republican strongholds, and you made two that hate you.
Apostle_Frank
Verified User
It would be a bad choice for the GOP to nuke the fillibuster. Usually the only reason someone wants to nuke it is if they are on the back-foot and realize there's no hope for their agenda. It's a perfect solution to a short-term problem, but the real problems happen when the OPPOSING party gets in the lead and they can rip through and do whatever they want with a simple majority.
Kinda like cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.
Kinda like cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.
Apostle_Frank
Verified User
OC and SD counties are both on the coast and they're pretty red.
Oregon could easily be split. If Idaho would take the folks out west everyone would be happier.
Why is PR a problem being a state? It's been part of the US for a rather long time now, we treat them like Americans, they technically ARE Americans, so why don't we live our values and welcome them in as one of us since they already are? Is it a problem with sewing more stars on the flag?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I wasn't trying to draw some exact map. It was a general commentary.
Washington is the same way.
Half, roughly, of the population there doesn't want to be a state. They've had several referendums voting on statehood now and all have failed.
The seven referenda on Puerto Rico’s political status – referred to as plebiscites – were held in 1967, 1993, 1998, 2012, 2017, 2020, and 2024.
Puerto Rico's Plebiscites - PUERTO RICO REPORT
Puerto Rico's plebiscites - Since 1967, 7 votes been held asking people about the relationship they want for Puerto Rico to have with the US.
puertoricoreport.com
The Left would have to force statehood on them and a good number of Puerto Ricans wouldn't like that.