Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: new filibuster rules are worthless

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 24, 2013, 8:29 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

reid caved!!!

43 Comments

43 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

Of course he did. Every leader is going to fear the possible day when he could be back in the minority.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

FYI- if there were 51 Rs TODAY -the Rs would have gotten rid of the filibuster


This rule can ALWAYS be changed by 51 votes in the senate session on the sessions "first" day so "fearing" about being in the minority is not real. If harry is in the minority , the Rs WILL END IT


Four years ago, the Rs met to decide to block Obama on everything
Four years sgo, the Rs; used gerrymandering to eviscerate demovracy
Six years ago the tp decided to take over the Rs
Few moths ago, Rs decided to suppress the vote
Now the Rs are going to change the electoral process to guarantee a minority will elect the next president


and now harry reid has given the Rs another weapon

[-] 2 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

They may or they may not have ended the filibuster, we can't know. It's a hypothetical and the answer to what would the R's do comes from our bias. I try to just look at what is and explain it.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

A "People's Veto" ... fixes all this

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

A peoples veto requires a constitutional amendment to allow it
have any been proposed in DC ?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

not yet,,,, what are we doing ?... it should be Occupy DC's One and Only Demand

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Look, if Reid had unilaterally revoked the filibuster, Cons with their 1% Citizen United money (and our anemic/petulant Dem turnout) would sweep the airwaves and polls, have FREE REIN over a GERRYMANDERED Congress, and we would all be pledging allegiance to the Corporate State of Exon-Mobile or risk being GITMOed or FEMAed! For Real!!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

keep in mind- the gerrymandered r districts in the House will stay that way & have nothing to do with the filibuster in the Senate
you can bet your life that if there were ever 50 r senators, the filibuster would instantly evaporate

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

My (unfortunate) points exactly!

Sieg Heil, Exon-Moble, or else!!!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5953) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

prophetic

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Demand an end to censorship!

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Sure. What censorship are you referring to specifically.?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The attempts by some to abolish the filibuster.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I support abolishing the filibuster because it has abused and misused to obstruct all recovery strengthening measures and become a political tool to prevent action that will benefit the 99%

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

You support it's abolishment because it's use obstructs your attempt to project your agenda upon others.

The filibuster is a counter measure against majortarianism and oligarchy.

[-] 4 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

HC, what you want is perfection... Direct Democracy can bring perfection...the filibuster is simply a way to stop the progress of the majority (the People's Voice)

[-] -3 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Populism is accepting the ignorance of the masses and ignoring REAL solutions.

[-] 4 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

ok... so you do not have faith in the 99% .... ?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I have faith in me and those whom I agree with, I doubt that adds up to 99% of society.

Do you honestly believe that 99% of other people agree with you and or OWS?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

you are missing the point.... the 99% represents... at the least... the majority of the people.... and it appears you believe more in the select few...than the majority.... no ?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

It is hard to get two people to agree on the same thing, let alone 99% of the humans living in america.

Only individuals represent themselves. I only represent ME, I dont represent anyone else.

I beleive in ME, not the majority and not the minority. Just ME.

You gotta change yourself before you can change the world.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And yet the oligarchy uses it to prevent passage of the agenda that will benefit the working class.

Whaddyathink of that fact!

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I want what is good for everyone, not just certain people.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Me too! I submit if we help the middle class, Everyone benefits.

Don't you agree?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

and this filibuster idiocy will make it worse

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Yea. If peopl;e rise up against the anti 99% policies ofrepubs we might defeat them. We might force change. Maybe idealistic. But it is worth a try. There is nothing the people united can't do.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You know, last week or week before he wanted to focus on things that could be passed. Given the opportunity he blows it. I have to wonder, just what is it that he deems worthy enough.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Well, the guy did deem that an audit of the banking cartel wasnt something worth looking into.

We are in a monetary and economic collapse. Not a recession, but with the numbers coming down the tubes, its the beginning of a collapse.

A currency crisis.

And he decided it wasnt worth looking into.

Here's what he said in the 90's, when he wasnt a party leader and the economy was fine:

""I have sponsored legislation every year that would call for an audit of the Federal Reserve system. I offer that amendment every year, every year it gets nowhere. I think it would be interesting to know about the Federal Reserve. I think we should audit the Federal Reserve — it's taxpayer's money that's being used there. But we don't do that."

"People just don't care about the Federal Reserve. Maybe it's because it's a subject that's not very interesting — it's not pornography, it's not murder, it's not an issue that deals with the Wild West."

Fuck em all.

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Yup. If it wasn;t for the filibuster rules, my LTCH would be recognized in any state. That measure, as well as the one ensuring due process for veterans before their rights are smashed both got MORE VOTES than Manchin-Toomey and still failed.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Shocking.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Filibuster=perfect free speech.

Any attempts to get rid of the filibuster is an attempt to limit free speech.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

How many times have you complained about the fact that there is NO filibuster in the House?
HYPOCRITIC TROLL

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I did not specify between house if you notice and was only stating that ANY attempt to limit or abolish the filibuster is the attempt to limit or abolish free speech.

OWS's GAs should not have limited speech anymore than the US Senate should.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

This exact issue - has nothing to do with "free speech"
it has to do with control of the majority by the minority
the minority did not want to "speak" - they wanted to suppress the vote
sort of like Syria & South Africa

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Id rather the minority and majority be on equal footing than for one to have power over the other.

Without the filibuster, then the minority is the whims of the majority.

Just because the minority has the ability to prolong the process, doesnt mean that they have free reign over everything that happens. The filibuster is not the same as apartheid.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

It is not the same - but it is clearly a way for the minority to oppress the majority - sort of like un-regulated capitalism

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Id rather it be so that nobody is oppressing anyone. A majority opressing a minority is just as bad as a minority opressing a majority.

Why cant each person just be equal before the law?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

equality implies majority rules - as we have in ( most ) elections

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Equality implies equality, not majoritarianism.

Everyone has a say, not just most people.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

have you ever been to an OWS GA where 75% want to do something but one person stands up and blocks?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

It's the only thing protecting the Constitution at this low point in time.