Republicans in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday blocked a Democratic bid to push through new voting rights protections reuters.com/world/us/…

twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1484112611616735233 Always a good look when you confirm an alarming accusation from a coworker by saying that it happens so often there's no time to investigate it

@Wipqozn It was the right move to vote against lowing the vote limit from 60 to 50. That at least is a good thing

@Flats I don't think you're going to find many people here that agree with that opinion

@MBraedley I think it's a bad thing in the short term, but it may be a good thing long-term. I don't think it would be possible to lower that vote limit for just 1 bill, so the change would remain for later congresses, like the possible Republican majority that's likely to be the next one

@Nzall Thinking that the GOP won't eliminate the filibuster as soon as they deem it necessary to do so is just fantasy. As soon as they want to pass any legislation that isn't fiscal/budget policy (which, let's be honest, isn't that common for the GOP) and doesn't have the support of the Dems, they're going to get rid of the filibuster anyway. Dems want to do a lot on the social policy front, but can't get any of that past the filibuster.

@MBraedley More than that, the GOP has already demonstrated their willingness to change the rules when it benefits them (e.g., changing the filibuster rules for Supreme Court nominations). So the idea that they're going to "respect the tradition" if/when they come into power is delusional

One of the main differences in how that might play out, practically speaking, is that the GOP, as a matter of policy, is opposed to the government working. Literally.

@BradC yup, because that's what "lean government" resolves to

So they're generally happy to not pass anything ever, to break the government in support of their position that the government is broken.

@BradC It's like being certain your fugu is toxic, then not preparing it properly and shouting "I told you it was toxic"

Right. So in practice, there may be fewer times under a GOP-controlled Senate when they want to actually pass something meaningful. But when they do, they have zero shame in changing the rules however they like. Again, just look at the twists and turns they went through to get their 3 supreme court nominees through under Trump, no matter how shamefully obvious it was as a power grab

@MBraedley Hard for me to grasp the fact that its even being considered. There should at the very least be one place where there has to be a tiny bit of bipartisan agreement, otherwise we will just be in a big swing back and forth on policy introduced by the side that had the majority last time vs the side with the majority this time

@BradC where can I read on that instance of the GOP subverting the filibuster for their own purposes?

@Flats bipartisan agreement is impossible with the GOP when their stated explicit goal is the complete shutdown of anything you want to do

(no matter what it is)

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

@BradC fair enough, but its still just naïve to think that there is actual long term benefit for scrapping the 60/100 vote requirement. Like @Nzall said above

@Flats History has shown that the GOP prefer to legislate through the courts and budget. They can do that without the filibuster because they removed it from budget reconciliation.

@Flats Not true, there is a long term benefit: the preservation of democracy.

I think the BIG issue right now is that the Democrats have only 48 senators in reality, with those 2 DINOs Manchin and Sinema

I'm not being hyperbolic, I think the blocking of this bill in the Senate could mean the literal end of democratic rule in the US, permanently

Because GOP-controlled states have learned that they don't have to play fair; without strong federal laws, they can implement brutal voting restrictions without consequence

Winning is everything

@BradC I mean yes. I think that's pretty obvious.

The GOP have spent the past year doing everything they can to make it difficult for non-GOP supports to vote.

@BradC i mean to be fair, none of these votes should have been gone through imo. Making everything a simple majority makes at best about 45% of the country pissed

The GOP and their representatives have said quite bluntly multiple times the reason go after voting restrictions is to ensure they can win election: washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/14/…

washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/…

@Wipqozn thanks

→ 10 messages moved to Android Hell

@Nzall :)

@Flats I don't have the time to write a whole essay on why scrapping the filibuster is a good idea, even if it the GOP some day regains the Senate. But this piece is a reasonable summary of the main points:

How a biased filibuster hurts Democrats more than Republicans

@Flats Yeah, reported posts don't show any context, and that message definitely didn't look good without context(hell, even with context, it's questionable)

Here's a much more recent, more strongly worded, opinion piece that lines up with my thoughts: The GOP's spooky filibuster threats are hollow. Ignore them, Democrats.

@Nzall lol

@BradC The main argument there though is that democrats want to pass federal laws and republicans dont. But like, It makes sense to leave it like that imo. For example, they mention in there that a small percentage of the senators can represent a disproportionately large amount of the population. But that isnt what the senate is meant to do. The House takes care of that qualm

@Flats What? "it makes sense to leave it like that" means allowing a 41-person GOP minority to block anything and everything the Democrats might ever want to do ever

Including absolutely critical bills like this voting rights legislation

the reason that legislation is harder to pass in the senate (in my understanding) is so that each state gets an equal say. If all of the rural states get their opinions pushed aside, we'd might as well just ask California, New York and Texas what they wanna do, screw the rest of the states.

and rural states have a significant impact on the rest of the country. maybe not with manufacturing and tech like the big blue states do. but we have to get food from somewhere

oil production (however bad that may be) is still important for now, and thats done in low population states

@Flats I understand the makeup of the Senate, but requiring a 60-vote super-majority is not in the constitution. People like Manchin (and you) imply that this is part of the original vision of the body, and its just not. It came from a literal error in the Senate rules years ago

@BradC yup, and it's unlikely that either party is going to end up below 41 senators unless there are significant demographic changes between now and November

federal law banning pipeline work might not bother some guy in NYC, but it will bother tens of thousands of people in the Dakotas

The creation of the filibuster was a literal mistake. From Wikipedia:

@BradC Oh I'm not saying that we should follow the constitution word for word, or adhere to tradition exclusively. There are flaws in all government documents, including the first (thats why we revise it lol) but I think that even if it wasnt the original vision, its still a good way to interpret it

> In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question (by simple majority vote), which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated, which was done in 1806, after he left office.

> The Senate agreed and modified its rules. Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible.

@BradC just cause it was a mistake doesn't mean it was a bad idea

Yes it was those guys had a lot of bad ideas lol

@Flats I can see that argument for a time long past when both parties were interested in reaching across the aisle and accomplishing common goals. But today is not that time, and when one party has explicitly stated that their highest purpose is to oppose everything Biden wants to do, the filibuster has outlived its time

@Unionhawk lol

whole thing was designed to be antidemocratic

, but technically not a monarchy

@BradC Exactly, it was at one time a good thing (a long time ago indeed) but just because people dont want to work together right now, doesn't mean that they wont in the future

it was also not designed for ideologically cohesive parties it was designed for like

the state of rhode island has a concern

or whatever

which is essentially not a thing anymore

Fulton DA requests special grand jury for Trump probe

getting rid of it will just start a game of ping pong with legislation and foster even more divisiveness

@Unionhawk its totally a thing, see my scenario above. low population states do matter to the overall economy and wellbeing of the country

@Flats That's my big worry: that any attempt at relaxing senate rules may lead to a ping-pong policy where each party just decides to undo the legislation created by the other party in the past 2 years

@Flats No, it's not, the senator from north dakota is not voting to poison the water because the industry is important to the people, he is doing it because it is in his ideological interest.

and it's important to his real bosses in the industry

same as the senator from ohio voting for it

fucken, dakota access isn't here

but you bet rob portman thinks it's good

@Unionhawk but you cant deny that it would have a big impact on people's lives. Regardless of levels of corruption. You put a farmer out of work because of some policy that ignored rural states, now you've got less food, or at the least, more expensive food

What

err, US agriculture is AFAIK mainly for export

@Nzall exactly this, its already basically like that, unfortunately. And that's the reason everyone is so divided in the first place. There is never any compromise at all

@Nzall okay, but we still eat some of it

or for non-human food purposes

@Nzall either way, it has an impact on the greater economy

That's still not a local concern

the point is that you can't just make policy based on population alone. otherwise you could have like 20% of the states govern what happens to all of the states. Since the US is so environmentally and economically diverse, this doesnt make sense to me

perhaps I am missing something that I can't see, but mob rule (in this context, I think it's fair to call it that) is not ideal imo

Why is it fair to call a democracy mob rule

@Flats But the Senate is ALREADY set up that way, to give each state, no matter the population, 2 votes. Demanding a super-majority gives all the power to one party

it disenfranchises the party in power, and that is a good thing

it requires that there be mutual benefit, or at least that there be a larger majority that benefits than 50%

@Flats if your goal is to never get anything done, it is

The problem is "never get anything done" is the goal of the GOP, not the Democratic party

@BradC thats ideal when you agree with what the people in power are trying to get done

lets say that in 10 years, GOP has the senate by a few seats, sweeping legislation outlawing abortion, gay marriage and gun laws at a federal level. The minority deserves to be heard

obviously its an extreme example

but the concept is shown I think

I hope

@Flats This seems entirely realistic to me. And the filibuster will not stop the GOP; they don't fucking care about procedure.

Its a ruse

they're lying

they're lying liars

you really think someone would do that

You can't believe anything they fucking say

go on the senate floor and tell lies

lol

My point is that the Democrats are bringing a plastic spork to a gunfight.

@BradC if its so realistic, wouldn't you want as much protection from it as you could get?

I mean realistically like

either the senate is this great democratic institution that allows lower population states to be heard more loudly

or it is good that you need 60 votes

literally pick one

why is both not an option?

@Flats I don't believe preserving the filibuster will protect us from any of those things. Because the GOP will shrug and drop it anyway

@BradC Maybe I'm just not pessimistic enough, but I don't think that its reasonable to assume that the world will be ruined if we ever let anyone with an R in front of their name in power again

Are you familiar with global climate change

@Unionhawk sure am

and so are plenty of republicans

not enough, I'll give ya that

things will continue on as they always have. The person in power will make small changes, and then when they lose power the next person will change it back and add in a few small changes of their own

Like what

the real progress happens at the societal level, not through the government

Which ones

What has even passed actually

has it just been military budgets?

exactly my point

the things that do get through are so meaningless, or they have bipartisan support (war, woohoo)

one congress will give the military more money, then the next, then winter will stop being a thing, ecological collapse,

normal stuff

but a handful of guys will make a lot of money so that's cool I guess

but the reason we have gained any progress at all over the last 50-100 years is not because of democrat policy, its because of societal growth

if it was suddenly legal to discriminate against people based on race again, its not like everyone would just go right back to doing it. there were more racists 100 years ago than there are now, and its not just because it was "ok back then"

its because we are better as a society than they were

and we didnt grow as a society because someone said we had to, it was because we learned on our own that it was better taht way

I'm too hopeful

@Flats people still discriminate based on race though.

Like, that never left

it may be illegal, but only certain forms

and there is still TONS of institutionalized racism

As well as implicit racism

but it would be wrong to say that its just as bad as it was before

there was an interesting question on one of the stacks the other day about affirmative action as a policy being racist

you can tell what the OPs opinion on it is right away, but there are some good contradicting answers too

Trump held secret meetings in days before Capitol attack, ex-press secretary tells panel theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/20/…

its all coming together:

Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

> Giuliani and his allies coordinated the nuts-and-bolts of the process on a state-by-state level, the sources told CNN. One source said there were multiple planning calls between Trump campaign officials and GOP state operatives, and that Giuliani participated in at least one call.

this man better go away for a few decades

> "We fought to seat the electors. The Trump campaign asked us to do that," Meshawn Maddock, co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party, said at a public event last week that was organized by the conservative group Stand Up Michigan, according to a recording obtained by CNN.

lol a few decades? he'll be dead by then

old as dirt

Confirming story at the Washington Post: As Giuliani coordinated plan for Trump electoral votes in states Biden won, some electors balked

If you have issues with the paywall, Raw Story has a summary of the WaPo article