Protestors storm capital

[Deleted member 365]

Another important point:



Republicans don't care about the filibuster unless it helps them prevent Democrats from legislating. Republican priorities are judges and tax cuts, which can be passed by a simple majority vote. Democratic priorities (actual legislation), like gun reform, health care, climate change legislation, etc requires 60 votes. So really, maintaining the filibuster only helps Republicans. Democrats don't benefit by keeping it because Republicans can pass their agenda with a simple majority.

I think one thing that would help pacify our country's population would be for Congress to be able to legislate and solve some of the big issues exacerbating frustrations and fears. Unfortunately, without the ability to pass anything in the Senate, these problems will continue to worsen.

 

[One Brow]

Another important point:



Republicans don't care about the filibuster unless it helps them prevent Democrats from legislating. Republican priorities are judges and tax cuts, which can be passed by a simple majority vote. Democratic priorities (actual legislation), like gun reform, health care, climate change legislation, etc requires 60 votes. So really, maintaining the filibuster only helps Republicans. Democrats don't benefit by keeping it because Republicans can pass their agenda with a simple majority.

I think one thing that would help pacify our country's population would be for Congress to be able to legislate and solve some of the big issues exacerbating frustrations and fears. Unfortunately, without the ability to pass anything in the Senate, these problems will continue to worsen.

Republicans want to overturn the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, among other things that they can't do right now without 60 votes.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Republicans want to overturn the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, among other things that they can't do right now without 60 votes.

I'd love to give them the power to do stuff like that. I think the winning party should have the opportunity to pass/repeal legislation through majority votes. If the public doesn't like what the majority did, they can vote them out. That's how things are supposed to work. Right?

If Republicans want to repeal Clean Water Acts and take away health care to millions through their majority, have at it. If the American electorate is so dumb and bitter to "reward" Republicans for that, then we get the kind of society that we deserve. That's a democracy I can live with.

As it stands right now, the American electorate overwhelmingly desires legislation promoted by Democrats but cannot obtain it because Republicans hold the power of the filibuster. That's not a democracy and it's not something that's healthy. The filibuster is exacerbating issues by crippling the Senate's ability to respond to them.

 

[Red]

The Case for the Talking Filibuster

Sure, it has its drawbacks, but forcing politicians to stand on the Senate floor for hours at a time, monologuing, might be the only way to pass desperately needed voting rights legislation.

newrepublic.com

 

[Red]

How is a democracy supposed to function when one political party:

A) Doesn't want to govern; they want to rule
B) When they want to make it hard/impossible for certain types of people to vote
C) When they want to cover up the crimes of their own at the expense of our country (Trump's first impeachment, second impeachment, and now refusal to authorize a 1/6 commission). At some point they're going to break the government (if they haven't already).
D) Believe violence is justified against their political enemies.

And you can add that living at a time when conspiracy theories, and adherence to grievance, are allies and enablers, in the creation of a large enough segment of the electorate that can be manipulated, by weaponizing hyper-partisanship and understanding that extreme grievance means anything is acceptable, is something they understand and will use in their will to power. Trump showed the way. It may grow worse before something has to give. But eventually, something has to give. I can’t see rule by reactionaries lasting for generations.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Republicans want to overturn the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, among other things that they can't do right now without 60 votes.

First time I've heard this. Googled it, found nothing.

 

[One Brow]

First time I've heard this. Googled it, found nothing.

You have the first two years under Trump. They don't want to do it in a flashy way, but they would do it piece by piece.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

You have the first two years under Trump. They don't want to do it in a flashy way, but they would do it piece by piece.

Oh please. You have fallen for someone's fear mongering. Nobody wants dirty water or air. Pushing back against new, bureauocratic GHG regulation does not mean they want to dismantle CAA or CWA. Listing GHG as air pollutants was obviously controversial and a huge new stretch by the EPA's interpretation of CAA. Of course there would be push back. GHG pushback was wanting to repeal or dismantle? Rubbish.

Also, a couple republicans =/= republicans. You won't hear republicans from Utah for example ever talking about repealing CAA. I think you used a pretty bad example here.

 

[One Brow]

Oh please. You have fallen for someone's fear mongering. Nobody wants dirty water or air.

Want? No, they just don't care about it, and are more concerned with not requiring businesses to pay for living up to it. The wealthy don't live downstream/downwind of the factories.

Also, a couple republicans =/= republicans. You won't hear republicans from Utah for example ever talking about repealing CAA. I think you used a pretty bad example here.

Will you hear said Republicans discussing loosening up environmental restrictions generally? As I said, they would cut them apart piecemeal, not all at once.

 

[fishonjazz]

Oh please. You have fallen for someone's fear mongering. Nobody wants dirty water or air. Pushing back against new, bureauocratic GHG regulation does not mean they want to dismantle CAA or CWA. Listing GHG as air pollutants was obviously controversial and a huge new stretch by the EPA's interpretation of CAA. Of course there would be push back. GHG pushback was wanting to repeal or dismantle? Rubbish.

Also, a couple republicans =/= republicans. You won't hear republicans from Utah for example ever talking about repealing CAA. I think you used a pretty bad example here.

I think some people are fine with dirty water and air if it makes them more money and they can simply live where the water and air are clean.

Edit: I see onebrow already basically said the same thing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Want? No, they just don't care about it, and are more concerned with not requiring businesses to pay for living up to it. The wealthy don't live downstream/downwind of the factories.


Will you hear said Republicans discussing loosening up environmental restrictions generally? As I said, they would cut them apart piecemeal, not all at once.

Environmental regulations have become more and more strict over time regardless of which party has been in power. At some point the republicans hate the environment mantra became far fetched.

 

[JazzGal]

This is so upsetting. Republicans whined about Benghazi for years, investigated the crap out of it. But an attack here by our own people? They are afraid it will be used against them? Valid, I guess, since it should be.

Why is this minority of Americans able to destroy our democracy like this?

GOP blocks Capitol riot probe, displaying loyalty to Trump

Senate Republicans have blocked the creation of a bipartisan panel to study the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

apnews.com

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app