this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
477 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2074 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“They’re all committed to it now, because Chuck has made them take a public position. Every Democratic challenger, I’m told, running for the Senate is taking the same position,” McConnell said. “I think they fully intend to do it if they can.”

Thanks for advocating for a good reason to have democratic control of the senate

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I respectfully disagree for the reason you stated at the end. Grueling filibusters are ableist - they're unfair to representatives with disabilities and their constituents.

Congress is not convincing each other of anything. They can make their point concisely for the C-SPAN viewers. Filibusters are a complete waste of time.

Say goodbye to the next FDR if you demand standing.

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You aren't wrong but...

Can you imagine the spectacle of an ancient senator literally taking a stand for something he/she believes in?

That'd be pretty powerful.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

How many Bernies are we missing out on because they're not particularly healthy like he is?

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Sure but I don't care about spectacle, I just want fair voting. It would be better to replace them entirely with liquid democracy and leave all discussion to the people.

[–] dborba@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Not an actual filibuster - but Pelosi's record setting 8h+ speech for children of undocumented immigrants was super impressive. (Doesn't make up for other things, but gotta give credit when credit is due.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-fake-filibuster-record-house-floor-dreamers-daca/

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I think it should require difficulty but allow for reasonable accommodation. Wheelchair using representatives shouldn’t need to stand but should need to speak and remain awake on the floor. Really just run it past the ADA tests

[–] aaa999@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

that's the point you aren't supposed to be able to do it no one can any olympian jacked mf will eventually pass out and then you can hold the vote, that is literally the point the filibuster is supposed to kill the person doing it

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Interesting point but name 1 senator with a disability that prevents them from doing an old school filibuster. And they are American citizens subject to laws like the rest of us. If they need an accommodation they can apply for one through the ADA

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'm not familiar with their disabilities because the policy we have right now doesn't force them to get ADA accommodation. I'm arguing that we should eliminate the filibuster entirely (and not introduce physical challenge filibusters) so physical fitness doesn't become a problem.

What's "sidecar" in this context?

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Sidecar was an autocorrect. It’s fixed now.

Physical fitness is already an issue. That’s why we have 90 year old senators out of touch with their constituents.

The reason the filibuster is important is because it prevents 51% of the country from deciding for 100% of the people. In order to steamroll something through there must be a supermajority. The old school filibuster works because if 1 party truly wants to stop something they must fight for it. Not send an email and the bill gets immediately killed. If a senator can not physically stand for a few hours they don’t need to be there.

Again I understand your point about being ableist however the key point when dealing with accommodations is that the person must be able to perform the job when given a REASONABLE accommodation. Fucking the entire country because 1 senator can’t walk makes no sense and imo is not reasonable.