I think that in theory the filibuster is a good thing. When one party has a small majority, without the filibuster, they could pass legislation that half the country does not want. However, it means that the party with a small minority can block legislation that half the country wants. Keeping the debate going in good faith to achieve legislation that satisfies both sides, whether it be presenting a strong enough case to get votes, or agreeing to compromise, should be the goal of the filibuster. So, while it frustrates me at times that what I see as commonsense legislation is blocked, I think the filibuster should stay.
I was going to say we need more bipartisanship, but even when a bipartisan bill is introduced (like the border bill), it didn't get any traction. Heaven forbid a problem gets solved or partially solved by someone other than Trump and they get credit for it.
The border bill was essentially a Republican bill; Democrats gave up all the things they wanted included, like a path to citizenship, in order to secure the border. There was a time when moderates on both sides would routinely vote with the other party. Now even the appearance of bipartisanship is political suicide. Congress is not just divided by policy, but also by race and ethnicity, geography and economic background. I have no clue how we can fix this.
Clearly, you're more aware of what was in the bill than I. Suffice it to say that compromise means giving some things up. If the Dems gave up the citizenship portion in order to better secure the border and get the bill passed, that issue can be revisited at a later date. What I oppose is adding something unrelated to a "must pass" bill. If a bill can't stand on it's own, then it needs more negotiation. I'm also disgusted with the number of bills that get sent to the Senate that never even get heard and voted upon. It should be mandatory that every bill presented should be brought up for discussion and a vote.
I agree with your comments about the divisions in this country and, like you, I don't know how to fix this. Perhaps, one possibility is to have a better educated society. It doesn't appear that civics is delved into very thoroughly in schools. Students need to understand how their government works so they can make intelligent choices when they're able to vote. Perhaps, if the general population was better educated, they wouldn't fall for all the ridiculous conspiracies that come about. Only a moron would think, or believe, that if the sea levels rise, you'll have more beachfront property.
When I heard the reasons they gave for not passing the bill, I did my research. I read the actual bill and the reasons did not hold water.
I am beginning to think that the polarization began to surface when ' news' became a for profit commodity. Corporate media chooses what to focus on / sensationalize based on what will get the most views.
I prefer to stay within the parameters of the original question: the filibuster. Bipartisanship is relevant, specifics of a bill are not. Thank you for understanding.
No, Trump's last statement was to keep it. But in any case the President does not get to change the rules. Only the Senate can. They should make it were any changes to the rules do not going to effect until at least 2 yrs later so they do not know which party will be in control when the rule is applied. Will force them to actually do the best for the people.
Did you edit your description on this question after members answered it? If you had included that misleading information, I would have called it out right away, instead of waiting until you posted it in a reply to my answer. It does not change my opinion.
Harris called for an exception in order to codify Roe, which I don't agree with doing. Allowing exceptions has had disastrous consequences in the past. It is the reason Roe was overturned, for one thing. But she did not call for totally eliminating the filibuster.
Trump has been calling for ending the filibuster completely for years and it may be the one thing his allies have not given in to.
In any case, it is against the terms of service to edit content to distort a conversation, and I hope that is not what you did.
Trump has called for it and later called to keep it. I figure he understands now why we have it. But in any case it is not going anywhere.
Presidents don't get to make exceptions to things like the filibuster....it is either a Senate rule or it is not. You would think the Dems would have learned that by now after they removed it for judges....yet they whine about the number Trump got to appoint. It is their fault.
This post was edited by my2cents at September 30, 2024 12:29 PM MDT
So, I see you edited again. At least this time it's accurate.
Just to be clear, when Trump flip-flops that's good. But if someone else's position evolves, it's bad. At least that's what I have understood you to say in the past.
Dems removed it for federal judges, Reps removed it for the Supreme Court. That's why it's a slippery slope.
Jane S 