• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the filibuster exist four years from now?

Will the filibuster exist four years from now?

  • Total voters
    21
This was discussed here recently. Some republicans, too many to reach majority, are on record to keep the filibuster. They know if it's removed it won't be coming back, including when democrats have power. This is the path that leads to single payer for instance. In addition, many likely including Trump secretly do not want another extremist like Scalia. No, this will get compromised, or the seat will remain unfilled, as it should
 
BrewerBob said:
I agree. But it has to be a real filibuster where they care enough to stand up there for as long as it takes.
Click to expand...


Or just get rid of political parties and the fantasy that all 50+ senators are in true agreement on everything goes away. When we talk of responsible governing, that isn't possible in a two party system, with or without the filibuster
 
If the Democrats don't get their act together and focus on politics and why they lost the rust belt they will lose seats at Mid Term and the Republicans will hold enough seats that filibuster won't be an issue. I don't see the Democrats fixing their party so I think the Senate will be filibuster proof with no changes to the rules for filibuster as those changes would be moot.
 
chromium said:
Or just get rid of political parties and the fantasy that all 50+ senators are in true agreement on everything goes away. When we talk of responsible governing, that isn't possible in a two party system, with or without the filibuster
Click to expand...

Sure. But I'm going to guess bringing back the filibuster is more likely. :)
 
Cardinal said:
The poll question isn't should there be a filibuster in four years, but will there be?

Yes, I'm asking people to break out their crystal balls and make a prediction based on the current political climate.
Click to expand...

The political climate, the left would do away with the Electrical Collage, in that regard the majority rules. Harry Reid started down that road by eliminating parts of the filibuster.
 
Born Free said:
The political climate, the left would do away with the Electrical Collage, in that regard the majority rules. Harry Reid started down that road by eliminating parts of the filibuster.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. You just used your post as an opportunity to bitch about the political party you don't like. The question is, will the filibuster still exist in four years?

On another note, an electrical collage sounds like it would be bitching to look at on LSD.
 
Cardinal said:
You didn't answer the question. You just used your post as an opportunity to bitch about the political party you don't like. The question is, will the filibuster still exist in four years?
Click to expand...

Based on your reply you are all for eliminating the filibuster entirely as it was your party that stated the ball rolling and it is your party that wants to do away with the EC. You on the left want majority rule. Period

To answer your question, yes it will still exist.
 
Born Free said:
Based on your reply you are all for eliminating the filibuster entirely as it was your party that stated the ball rolling and it is your party that wants to do away with the EC. You on the left want majority rule. Period

To answer your question, yes it will still exist.
Click to expand...

No, I do not want to eliminate the filibuster. Thanks for answering the question.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I would hope that the GOP repairs the damage done by the Democrats and reinstates the filibuster for all nominations and leaves it alone for every other type of debate/vote.

It's a check and balance by ensuring that the minority party at least has a say in what happens. The filibuster is one of the main reasons that the Senate worked, that the Senate was able to come to compromise. Because they had to. If you take away the filibuster from the minority, you'll only be left with the majority forcing their will upon the people.
Click to expand...

Excellent points made - Both parties have to compromise, no one party should have the ability to shove nominations down the peoples throats.
IIRC Reid was more than willing to use the Nuke option. He is an idiot, that has since left. He was also IMHO, a crook and a liar of epic proportions.

From what I recall, and pls correct me if I am in error, but all nominations, excluding SCOTUS, Judiciary and such, require a simple majority.
Your suggestion would make the Senate more viable, and holds any President, in check. IMHO, that is the balance desperately needed
 
Beaudreaux said:
I would hope that the GOP repairs the damage done by the Democrats and reinstates the filibuster for all nominations and leaves it alone for every other type of debate/vote.

It's a check and balance by ensuring that the minority party at least has a say in what happens. The filibuster is one of the main reasons that the Senate worked, that the Senate was able to come to compromise. Because they had to. If you take away the filibuster from the minority, you'll only be left with the majority forcing their will upon the people.
Click to expand...

That is funny...Since the rule was put in place to replace the 60 vote requirement by Harry Reid and the democrats and now since the republicans control the Senate now Chuckles Schumer want to go back to the 60 vote rule...total funny.
 
JANFU said:
Excellent points made - Both parties have to compromise, no one party should have the ability to shove nominations down the peoples throats.
IIRC Reid was more than willing to use the Nuke option. He is an idiot, that has since left. He was also IMHO, a crook and a liar of epic proportions.

From what I recall, and pls correct me if I am in error, but all nominations, excluding SCOTUS, Judiciary and such, require a simple majority.
Your suggestion would make the Senate more viable, and holds any President, in check. IMHO, that is the balance desperately needed
Click to expand...

So the republican in the Senate should compromise with democrats and reinstate the 60 vote rule on nominations......strange how that works when democrats are in power it 'A' ok but when republican gain power it no longer acceptable..
 
Beaudreaux said:
I would hope that the GOP repairs the damage done by the Democrats and reinstates the filibuster for all nominations and leaves it alone for every other type of debate/vote.

It's a check and balance by ensuring that the minority party at least has a say in what happens. The filibuster is one of the main reasons that the Senate worked, that the Senate was able to come to compromise. Because they had to. If you take away the filibuster from the minority, you'll only be left with the majority forcing their will upon the people.
Click to expand...
Reid and the Democrats removed it to force their agenda through. I think it only fitting the Republicans let the Democratic senators get a taste of their own medicine.

The same way the Democrats shoved things through will be the same way the Republicans will undo them. By midterms with a large number of Democrats in red states up for re-election there's a good chance the Republicans will add significant number of seats to their majority. Then would be a good time to restore the filibuster. :)
 
antiquity said:
So the republican in the Senate should compromise with democrats and reinstate the 60 vote rule on nominations......strange how that works when democrats are in power it 'A' ok but when republican gain power it no longer acceptable..
Click to expand...

As mentioned the Senate does change hands. I gave my opinion as it then must consider the minority, who still represent a substantial number of voters.
The I am in power and I will ram thru nominations- bills, well it creates division and detracts from the ability of the Senate to work together, most part, and if needed compromise on many issues.
2 questions
Does this harm the country? How
Does this help the country? How
 
vesper said:
Reid and the Democrats removed it to force their agenda through. I think it only fitting the Republicans let the Democratic senators get a taste of their own medicine.

The same way the Democrats shoved things through will be the same way the Republicans will undo them. By midterms with a large number of Democrats in red states up for re-election there's a good chance the Republicans will add significant number of seats to their majority. Then would be a good time to restore the filibuster. :)
Click to expand...

Those elections normally run against the Incumbent in the WH. Though, a good number are in red states carried by Trump.
Comes down to how well Trump performs between now and then.
Also how those Dems vote with or against Trump on a variety of issues, from SCOTUS, Guns control, illegal immigrants and such.
 
JANFU said:
As mentioned the Senate does change hands. I gave my opinion as it then must consider the minority, who still represent a substantial number of voters.
The I am in power and I will ram thru nominations- bills, well it creates division and detracts from the ability of the Senate to work together, most part, and if needed compromise on many issues.
2 questions
Does this harm the country? How
Does this help the country? How
Click to expand...

Harry Reid and the Democrats passed the nuclear option to get their nominations though the Senate because they said it was hurting the country.....now the shoe is on the other foot and now democrats seem to believe doing way with a majority vote would help the country...do you see the hypocrisy in that?
 
JANFU said:
Those elections normally run against the Incumbent in the WH. Though, a good number are in red states carried by Trump.
Comes down to how well Trump performs between now and then.
Also how those Dems vote with or against Trump on a variety of issues, from SCOTUS, Guns control, illegal immigrants and such.
Click to expand...

I'd say Trump is off to a great start. First full day in office and he had the big union honchos praising their meeting with him. And the following day he signed several EO's that have the real potential to help produce many union jobs.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Frightening, isn't it? You'd think they would remember how it felt to have Harry Reid and the Democrats shove the PPACA, federal judge nominations, and many other votes down their throats without even being allowed to have a floor vote on ONE amendment and no way to slow the train down because the filibuster had been nuked.

But, NOOOOOOOO... We have to be dicks and shove our agenda down THEIR throats while we can. What assholes.
Click to expand...

Harry Reid was a menace for too many years. I'm still mad about him, corrupt bastard. If we care about conservatism, we had better make sure we get true constitutionalist justices on the SCOTUS.
 
antiquity said:
Harry Reid and the Democrats passed the nuclear option to get their nominations though the Senate because they said it was hurting the country.....now the shoe is on the other foot and now democrats seem to believe doing way with a majority vote would help the country...do you see the hypocrisy in that?
Click to expand...
So your answer is look over there?
 
vesper said:
I'd say Trump is off to a great start. First full day in office and he had the big union honchos praising their meeting with him. And the following day he signed several EO's that have the real potential to help produce many union jobs.
Click to expand...
Times will be interesting. From a Canadian standpoint, Keystone is finally progressing. It also will be used for Bakken fields production. A real no brainer.

As to Trade, we are fairly even on that. Each country has protected areas.
Mexico, last stats I have ran a 60 B surplus with the US.
Now how will he do with China, that is the elephant in the room.
 
vesper said:
Reid and the Democrats removed it to force their agenda through. I think it only fitting the Republicans let the Democratic senators get a taste of their own medicine.

The same way the Democrats shoved things through will be the same way the Republicans will undo them. By midterms with a large number of Democrats in red states up for re-election there's a good chance the Republicans will add significant number of seats to their majority. Then would be a good time to restore the filibuster. :)
Click to expand...

I definitely don't think anyone's not aware that the Democrats aren't getting a taste of their own medicine. The question now is whether Republicans will even permit Democrats to retain the remaining filibuster power that Democrats left in place. Keep in mind that while I entirely agree that what Reid did was incredibly short sighted, well, they did leave in place the ability to hold up legislation and SCOTUS appointments.
 
Cardinal said:
I definitely don't think anyone's not aware that the Democrats aren't getting a taste of their own medicine. The question now is whether Republicans will even permit Democrats to retain the remaining filibuster power that Democrats left in place. Keep in mind that while I entirely agree that what Reid did was incredibly short sighted, well, they did leave in place the ability to hold up legislation and SCOTUS appointments.
Click to expand...

Look, it is understandable that you want to keep the remnants of the filibuster in place. That is Democrats only hope of doing well in 2018 & 2020. Because it would have the effect of making the congress and administration look like do nothings. Not unlike what Republicans did to Obama and congressional Democrats. Time will tell if McConnell will have the guts to go toe to toe with Schumer.
 
washunut said:
Look, it is understandable that you want to keep the remnants of the filibuster in place. That is Democrats only hope of doing well in 2018 & 2020. Because it would have the effect of making the congress and administration look like do nothings. Not unlike what Republicans did to Obama and congressional Democrats. Time will tell if McConnell will have the guts to go toe to toe with Schumer.
Click to expand...

Do you like this idea knowing that Democrats will have the full, unlimited power of zero filibusters next time they're in control of the Senate?
 
JANFU said:
So your answer is look over there?
Click to expand...

No, I am saying look at the obvious democratic hypocrisy and why this is just one reason out of many they have lost so many election over the past couple years. If the democratic party don't get their heads out of their arse they will continue to lose elections.
 
antiquity said:
No, I am saying look at the obvious democratic hypocrisy and why this is just one reason out of many they have lost so many election over the past couple years. If the democratic party don't get their heads out of their arse they will continue to lose elections.
Click to expand...
And your answer is to do the same??
 
Cardinal said:
Do you like this idea knowing that Democrats will have the full, unlimited power of zero filibusters next time they're in control of the Senate?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am tired of either side totally blocking progress for the country. I favored the filibuster when it was only used when one party thought something was to extreme. Now it is a tactic to stop government from doing its job. Republicans overused the filibuster IMO so now Democrats think it is their turn.

As you know the eye for an eye tooth for a tooth concept leaves everyone blind and toothless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom