Congress

The Senate's Problem Isn't the Filibuster, It's a Lack of Open Debate

Abolishing the filibuster will make it even harder for the Senate to function.

|

While Democrats have not yet abolished the filibuster, they have rejected Republican demands that they commit to maintaining the Senate's current rules over the next two years. Some Democrats are even threatening to blow up those rules if Republicans try to filibuster President Joe Biden's agenda. However, doing so will make the Senate even more dysfunctional than it is now.

Ending the filibuster will make it harder for senators to adjudicate their constituents' concerns, to negotiate with one another as equals, and to compromise. The Senate is one of only two places in the federal government where elected officials can gather to reconcile their disagreements and make collective decisions. And the Senate's rules are vital to making that debate process work.

The Senate's rules are designed to facilitate lawmaking by pushing senators to agree with one another. They do so by making the legislative process more predictable and reliable than it would be otherwise. That makes it possible for senators to form expectations about what will happen in the future and, by extension, make it easier to compromise in the present. And it gives senators leverage in negotiations. Those rules also lead to stable policy by reconciling losers in a debate to its outcome. For example, Sen. Richard Russell (D–Ga.) led the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After he failed to stop the bill, Russell accepted the outcome as legitimate and urged his fellow southern senators to do so as well.

Breaking those rules to abolish the filibuster would make it harder, not easier, for the Senate to function.

Unlike in the House of Representatives, where a simple majority can vote to end debate at any point, the Senate's rules require a three-fifths majority to end debate over senators' objections. The rules require an even larger two-thirds majority to end debate when the underlying legislation is a proposal to change the Senate rules. It thus takes more votes to end a filibuster (typically 60 senators) than it does to pass a bill (typically 51 senators).

In the past, senators rightly understood that their ability to filibuster was not absolute; it merely gave individual senators leverage to force their colleagues, the House, or the administration to negotiate with them in a debate. That is why legislation approved by the Senate almost always included minority-favored provisions in addition to those supported by the majority. In that way, the filibuster facilitated negotiation and compromise.

That changed as the gap between Democrats and Republicans widened in the late 20th century. Once a source of leverage that specific senators could use in negotiations, the filibuster morphed into a veto that Senate minorities could use to block legislation favored by the majority. Even the prospect of a filibuster is a powerful force—in recent years, gun-related legislation has stalled in the Senate, not because a committed minority is filibustering it but because senators on both sides are threatening to filibuster it.

Yet despite how it may operate, the filibuster is not really a veto. It does not level the playing field between the majority and minority sides in debates. It merely grants a senator, or senators, the opportunity to speak on the Senate floor for as long as possible. Using the filibuster to obstruct the majority regularly requires minority-party senators to be willing to expend considerable effort to succeed. And the filibuster cannot cause gridlock in a debate of reasonable length because no two sides in any debate are evenly matched in terms of their members' effort. One group of senators must always prevail after a debate. Gridlock only occurs when senators do not debate.

The filibuster operates like a veto today because Senate majorities are unwilling to use the rules to pass legislation. Senators may temporarily delay particular aspects of that agenda by speaking on the floor. But they cannot prevent the Senate from voting in perpetuity, because filibustering imposes physical and opportunity costs and because of the procedural limitations contained in the Senate's existing rules and practices.

For example, Rule XIX limits how many times a senator may speak on the floor in a debate and it stipulates that when a senator is no longer able to talk, he or she has no choice but to yield the floor. At that point, the Senate votes on the underlying question unless another senator seeks recognition and then speaks for as long as he or she desires and is able. While the length of the Senate's business delay is proportional to the number of senators who participate in a filibuster, there is no point at which business gets delayed indefinitely, since individual senators can speak for only a finite period. When no senator seeks recognition in a debate, the Senate must vote.

The Senate will rarely need to go to such lengths to overcome filibusters because simply debating a bill before trying to pass it creates buy-in among senators and builds bipartisan support for it. Legislation on issues like COVID-19 relief, criminal justice reform, privacy, and trade can pass on large bipartisan votes if leaders let the process play out instead of trying to control it. A freewheeling debate in which all senators can participate makes it easier for cross-partisan coalitions to emerge. And it also helps constituents assign responsibility for policy outcomes and hold their elected officials accountable in the next election.

Abolishing the filibuster will therefore not make it easier for senators to negotiate and compromise. Instead, it will give majorities an incentive to craft major bills behind closed doors and pass them through the chamber as quickly as possible by limiting senators' ability to participate in the legislative process. The result will be to make the Senate even more dysfunctional than it is now.

NEXT: The Sordid History of the Fairness Doctrine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Biden approval at over 60%. 2/3 of the country happy to see a president looking like he gives 1 actual fuck about attempting to do his job, rather than airing his mental farts on Twitter after waking up at 11 and ranting to Fox news.

    Sad that Trump couldn’t break 50%, spent most of his time in the 40’s, and ended in the 20’s.

    1. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings from this are just awesome for details. For more detail visit the given link………..INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

      1. Making money online more than 100$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18,376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular ACfz office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info…

        Visit>>>>>>>>>>> Home Profit System<<<<<<<<<<<

        1. Every month I am earning online more than $28,650 by doing a very simply online job from my home. By doing this in my part time I was able to save enough to buy me a new car in just a few months. WDfb This is so freaking easy that everyone should try it… Start making some dollars online today by following instructions on this website……..

          >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Profit System <<<<<<<<<<<<<

          1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6,000-12,000$ a month or even more EVym if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job But a good eaning opportunity…….

            >>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Profit System <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

            1. The Senate’s Problem Isn’t the Filibuster, It’s a Lack of Open Debate

              No it's not! It's the lack of secession. They have zero fucking reason to debate with us. Nobody here wants a fucking debate. We each want the other side to die. And that would be great! So secession 2.0 is on the only way to spare each other's lives. And the sooner the better.

              1. I am inclined to agree with you, Preet Bhara’s wood chipper. Like it or not, we are headed toward that very end.

                Not long ago I would have thought such ideas to be ludicrous at best. Now it just seems inevitable.

                But this all begs the question of just how do we divide this country between urban Blues and everyone else? Just look at the electoral map of almost any State and you will see what I mean.

                1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6,000-12,000$ a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job But a good earning opportunity……. >>>>>>>USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

                  1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. say Every Person join this FEgt and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
                    COPY This Website OPEN HERE….

                    >>>>>>>> Home Profit System <<<<<<<<<

                    1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than WAR regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                      on this page……..MORE READ

                2. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings from this are just awesome for details. For more detail visit the given link……… >>>>>>>USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

                  1. During his first week in office, Biden also abolished a Trump-era rule that imposed some measure AQxs of accountability on the federal bureaucracy.……..MORE READ

              2. No one is seceding. That’s why it is the UNITED States of America. What we have in Congress is a lack of backbone, integrity and a huge amount of personal GREED. We also have a lack of term limits which gives us entitled demigods like McConnell (or at least he thinks he’s a god). The greedy pigs who have been feeding from the trough for a lifetime need to go. No public term of office should be longer than 8 years. INCLUDING the Supreme Court.

                1. During his first week in office, Biden also abolished a Trump-era rule that imposed some measure of FQvw accountability on the federal bureaucracy.……..MORE READ

    2. 1. Was that poll conducted by the same clowns who predicted
      – a landslide Biden victory rather than the squeaker he achieved
      – a majority in the Senate rather than the tie we have
      – a run in the House rather than D’s net losing seats
      – and who completely missed the 2016 election?
      You think those polls are even slightly credible anymore?

      2. What does that have to do with the topic of this article? The way the filibuster and other Senate rules lead to Senate function or dysfunction would be equally true regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
          COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

          1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however XYZ my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

            Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HARE

      1. What does that have to do with the topic of this article?

        You’re trying to apply reason to a TDS sufferer.

      2. “What does that have to do with the topic of this article?”

        Thanks for saying out loud what every rationale human being on the planet was thinking.

      3. It wasn’t a squeaker – it was a definitive victory.

        The other named issues are a consequence of the voting populous SCREAMING for a balance in government versus one partisan controlling interest. A level playing field and a real chance to show unity, balance, and government in the interest of the people. Not simply grifting for personal gain.

    3. No one cares what you think

    4. Lol, you dishonest fucks always leave out key information:

      Poll: 60 percent approve of Biden’s job as president-elect

      How do you fuck up being “President Elect”? Trump was right there too when he was president elect, and that’s far lower than Obama, Bush or Clinton… or Bush I, or Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc.
      For a president-elect that’s a terrible number.

      I’ll be more interested in the polls coming up, now that he’s actually president and just EO’d a million more people out of their jobs in the middle of Covid.

      1. They really approved of the fact he hadn’t done anything yet.

        1. +1000

        2. It was a Libertarian moment.

    5. So you would be happy with a “presidential-looking” wax dummy?

      1. I would be much *happier* with just a presidential looking wax dummy than the actual dummy we have as president.

      2. What’s the difference?

        1. Well, there’s the audio animatronic tweeting sociopathic insurrectionist whose digital communication privileges were yanked. There’s that…

    6. yea democracy.
      now we’ll get those blue state pension bailouts and two trillion dollar green new deals we all wanted.

    7. ¦A¦M¦A¦Z¦I¦N¦G¦ ¦J¦O¦B¦S¦
      Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85$/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551$.pop over here this site………USA TOP JOB.

    8. Abolishing the filibuster will make it even harder for the Senate to function.While Democrats have not yet abolished the filibuster, they have rejected Republican demands that they commit to maintaining the Senate’s current rules over the next two years. ………MORE DETAIL.

    9. Abolishing the filibuster will make it even harder for the Senate to function.While Democrats have not yet abolished the filibuster ………MORE DETAIL.

    10. Aren’t you under indictment in New York state?

      I can’t imagine how Letitia James missed you.

    11. “Biden approval at over 60%. 2/3 of the country happy to see a president looking like he gives 1 actual fuck about attempting to do his job, rather than airing his mental farts on Twitter after waking up at 11 and ranting to Fox news.”

      TDS-addled shit making TDS-addled shit claims!

      1. It was approval for his job as president-elect, not president. Which is right around where Trump was as president elect.
        Jeff or WK or whoever is using the “Hamsandwich” sock left out that fact, because they’re decietful fucks.

        1. I was referring to this steaming pile of shit:

          “…happy to see a president looking like he gives 1 actual fuck about attempting to do his job, rather than airing his mental farts on Twitter after waking up at 11 and ranting to Fox news…”

          Our poor TDS-addled lefty shit is frightened by nasty tweets!

      2. At the risk of injecting facts into Reason comments –
        Rasmussen 50%
        Morning consult 54%
        YouGov 51%

        1. Shhh. Anything less than 60% is now insurrection.

          1. If the Politburo says it’s 60%, it’s 60%, traitors.

    12. You should be indicted.

      For wrong think.

    13. Sounds like buckshot to me. I wouldn’t believe anything like that the media reports. And speaking of the media, they worked tirelessly to bring Trump down, and support bullshit democrats like Biden no matter what.

      Anyway, you’re a silly bitch saying progtard garbage like that. So fuck off.

    14. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hoursVBH in the day and 2 in the evening…And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
      Here is what i did…… Visit Here

    15. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working nxd online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

    16. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No BossASDQ Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open… Find out how HERE……. Visit Here

    17. Biden's approval rating, as of today, is 49%. What the fuck are you talking about.

      Biden approval at over 60%. 2/3 of the country happy to see a president looking like he gives 1 actual fuck about attempting to do his job, rather than airing his mental farts on Twitter after waking up at 11 and ranting to Fox news.

      Again, 49% - not 60%. Whatever you are smoking, you need to stop. Further, attempting to do this job? I would prefer he do nothing at all, than try to do his job. And instead of mental farts on twitter - he puts his mental farts on executive orders - which is far worse! Also Trump notoriously got up early.
      So most of what you said was non-factual.

      https://www.sleepadvisor.org/donald-trump-sleep/

      Sad that Trump couldn’t break 50%, spent most of his time in the 40’s, and ended in the 20’s.

      If Biden keeps it up - he won't break 50% either. He'll never break 50% for me personally.

    18. Irrelevant to the article, but it’s pretty sad that 60% of the country are racist, rapist, anti-semitic, retarded Nazis with Alzheimers.

      OTOH, that’s pretty much the DNC platform, so…

  2. Ending the filibuster will make it harder for senators to adjudicate their constituents’ concerns, to negotiate with one another as equals, and to compromise.

    The democrats have renounced negotiation and compromise.

    1. There’s no compromise on Unity.

      1. Join our Unity Plan or die.

        1. Arrrrgh, Matey!

          Cap’n says pure democracy is how a pirate ship works!

          There’s no arguing with the Cap’n.

          1. Cap’n Pop. (I like New Caesar better)

            1. Well, thanks, but since New Caesar is is our oldest Caesar since Emperor Gordian I, it sounds kind of confusing. Besides, after the first hundred days of his reign, he becomes just plain Caesar by default.

              I don’t know. Maybe we could call him something like Caesar Dementia I as a way to distinguish an otherwise undistinguished hack Democrat mediocrity.

              1. Caesar de Facto I

              2. When Biden says "unity" he means "do what the fuck I say or I'll issue an executive order!"

    2. There is no debate. It’s a street fight. We need to act like it, ad take the democrats down once and for all.

  3. The Senate’s Problem Isn’t the Filibuster, It’s a Lack of Open Debate

    Not even close.

    The Senate’s problem is that they no longer even make a pretense at doing their jobs, the Senate is just a sinecure where you collect your bribes emoluments and your privileges and get to pretend you’re royalty. They don’t do a goddamn thing but bitch about what the Emperor does, but they’re the ones responsible for the fact that we now have an emperor running this country in contradiction to the Constitution.

    1. “the Senate is just a sinecure where you collect your bribes emoluments”

      Tulsi Gabbard said that every time Google threw a party in Washington, half the senate would show up to collect their cheques.

      1. Liking Tulsi better every day.

        1. She rocks that Rogue style white hair streak. I’d vote for her just to see if she could siphon some of the power from the other Elites.

          1. After embarrassing Empress-in-Waiting Fellatia I in the primary “debate” and knocking her out of the running for the Top Job, I doubt she could get a nomination for dog catcher as a Democrat. I hope she watches her back while the Clintons are still alive.

            And if anyone is going to do any siphoning of Elites, it’s Empress-in-Waiting Fellatia I. She could suck political power right off a mayor’s gavel. In fact, she did just that.

            I hope she’s watching her back.

            1. I hope she’s watching her back.

              Doesn’t need to. There is a mattress there.

        2. Other than the fact she’s a fucking communist.

    2. TOGA! TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!

    3. It’s probably more of a SCOTUS problem than Congress. But ALL 3 are certainly to blame.

  4. People are skeptical of our institutions now. I don’t know if it started in earnest after the 2016 election or it just became more noticeable, but the electorate does not trust the systems people used to – and some desperately now want us to – take for granted. Frankly, at this point, the lack of legitimacy might be the country’s only salvation.

    While I doubt it will, if it spurs in people a kind of return to individualism, to trust in only family and local community, in a rejection of federal dictate, then we might have a chance at keeping some semblance of the ideal we once had of America. If lawmakers directed less power over our daily lives, would it mean that much what parliamentary procedures they’re squabbling over? Whether you call it going forward or back, maybe these are the first steps of getting from here to there.

    1. People are skeptical of our institutions and have been since Watergate. It didn’t even get significantly worse since 2016. It’s been low for decades. I think you’re just noticing it now because you’re finally noticing that the federal government is in everything now. It was easy to ignore the crazies at the federal level when most rules and restrictions were local. But now that everything’s a federal case, we have to pay attention.

      1. No, even since Watergate there was still a pretense of fairness, an appearance, that let us all still pretend and deceive ourselves.
        Since 2016 that’s been blown away for naked self-interest, aggression and the crassest, most blatant open hypocrisy.

        1. 2016 was a symptom, not the cause

      2. Watergate lowered popular trust in government — even local government — in the USA. That hasn’t rebounded. But since then trust in other institutions — academia and communications — has dropped as well. Trust in business was already low. The only distinct institution left (Gallup polls on divisions of some of those) with high trust is medicine.

        1. Oh, I forgot religion. I forgot where trust stands on that in the USA overall and in relationship to the past.

          One institution that’s often not polled on directly is romance and family. They do track married status and divorce.

      3. Massive solar flare taking out the internet might help. Talk about everybody starting at the same level.

        1. All of this horror goes away if we simply pull together and get rid of the progressive movement. Our freedoms outweigh their existence.

          1. A free society can’t tolerate leftism. And leftists can’t tolerate a free society.

    2. There was no single point at which this happened, no unique triggering event, unless you want to name the 1787 illegal Constitutional Convention.

      The culprit is expanding government. The more it intrudes into people’s lives, the more sense it makes to sic government on your opponents to further your own business. It literally makes more sense to mind everyone else’s business than your own.

      There is no cure except a truly limited government, and that ain’t going to happen with this illegal 1787 Constitution. This suffocation cannot increase forever. At some point it will blow up, whether in dictatorship, rebellion, civil war, or an economy so crippled that we are ripe for invasion.

      1. How was the constitutional convention illegal, sovcittard? Please tell me so I can print it out and post it under my gold-fringed flag.

    3. “While I doubt it will, if it spurs in people a kind of return to individualism, to trust in only family and local community, in a rejection of federal dictate, then we might have a chance at keeping some semblance of the ideal we once had of America”

      I hope you’re right about that, but I fear that what we’re seeing right now is an all out assault on individualism, the family, local community, etc.–in favor of federal solutions to every problem.

      The left is explicitly against local communities making decisions for themselves. We saw that during the pandemic. They wanted New York’s policies inflicted on the rest of the country nationally. We see it in reference to the Green New Deal.

      The reaction to that stuff being imposed on us can only happen once every two years. This year we blew it. Why imagine it will be different next time–after they’ve maybe packed the Courts, added some states, deplatformed conservatives, etc.

      The bill to add DC as a state has already been introduced in the House with 205 Democrats representatives signing on as cosponsors. The means to change cannot be separated from the physical mechanism by which change happens. There is no resistance apart from the control of various levers of government that can have an impact on policy between elections.

      If the Democrats manage to defeat the filibuster, we’re toast. There won’t be any going back to the way things used to be–just like there isn’t any going back to the way the government was smaller before the New Deal. We’ll spend the next 40 years trying to limit the damage, but after the New Deal, the socialist programs of the Great Society, and the Green New Deal, there’s no going back.

      Going to Mars may become more realistic than going back to the way things used to be.

      1. Mars? Why not. Elon Musk would make a fine Emperor.

        And if he resists the idea, we’ll force him. Just so he can see how such things are done.

      2. You really think there’s going back even if they don’t immediately nuke the filibuster?
        Lol.

        There is no going back.
        What’s done is done.
        The only question now is will we react as needed, or become slaves?

        1. “You really think there’s going back even if they don’t immediately nuke the filibuster?”

          We’re better off with the filibuster than we are without it.

        2. He democrats must be dealt with. Decisively. Or we will be enslaved to them.

    4. Careful, friend, this “individualism” of which you speak sounds dangerously close to sedition. Insurrection, even!

      You should probably be cancelled.

    5. The problem is the people who are skeptical about our institutions are unwilling to actually pressure the government to change anything while “their guy” is in office.

      All the conservatives that wanted to limit Obama’s executive power dutifully embraced Trump’s, and all those progressives who hated that Trump was acting like a dictator are encouraging Biden to do exactly that. Its not going to change anytime soon

  5. If there’s any saving grace here, my understanding is that the old rules remain in effect until new ones are accepted, and that means the filibuster remains in place–even on the question of whether to end the filibuster. In other words, I believe it is still possible for the Republicans to filibuster on the question of whether to get rid of the filibuster. If there aren’t 60 senators willing to end it, . . .

    1. I bet you that Schumer will decide to unilaterally ignore the filibuster and say “fuck your rules, they’re unfair”, and the press and everyone else will tell us how it was undemocratic and worse than Hitler.
      America had a coup last November so these guys barely care about appearances anymore. They’re going to do whatever the hell they want.

      1. That’s something that would go the Supreme Court quickly.

        I’m genuinely concerned that the Court will capitulate to threats of packing the Court–but maybe not on this issue. The reason FDR didn’t pack the Court was because the Court capitulated to this threats, so it was unnecessary.

        The filibuster may prove to be the only thing keeping the Democrats from packing the Court, so I think we should assume the Court would rule against the Democrats–just as means of self-defense–if the senate Democrats ignored the filibuster while it was still in effect.

        If they’ll rule against the Democrats on anything, despite the intimidation, it’s that.

        1. No, the Supreme Court is real good at butting out from any internal Congressional disputes. Look at how Roberts created the penaltax in spite of the blatant violation of the Constitution requiring revenue bills to originate in the House. Last thing the justices want is to step into the middle of a political battle like that.

          1. Once again, by ruling against getting rid of the filibuster, we’re not only talking about the constitutionality. We’re talking about the Court defending itself from getting packed by finding in favor of any suit that challenges the Democrats’ ignoring congressional rules and ignoring the filibuster.

            In other words, this isn’t just a question of whether you have a right to shoot someone who’s broken into your house. If he’s threatening to kill you, you might be inclined to shoot the intruder even if the law says you can’t. No doubt, the Court can get loopy sometimes.

            When it’s their own power on the line, they’re likely to rule in their own favor, and the filibuster may be the only thing that stops the Democrats from packing the Court. It may be unreasonable to assume that the Court is so principled that they’ll uphold getting rid of the filibuster–even if getting rid of the filibuster means the Court will be savaged by the Democrats.

          2. The SCOTUS won’t get involved in Senate rules.

            But a key reason Biden issued 30+ Executive Orders (each of which took many months to research, draft, vet with other Dems/left wing allies, and prioritize) his first week (far more than any other president in US history) was because Biden (and Schumer) knew all along they didn’t have the votes to eliminate the Senate filibuster (even if they won both GA Senate seats, which they did).

            While the Republicans were smart to call attention to (and condemn) left wing agenda policies to stack SCOTUS, add two new states, and enact the Green New Deal during the election campaign, they duped most Americans (including most Reason writers and readers) to inaccurately believe that ending the Senate filibuster would occur if Democrats won the two GA Senate seats.

            As I’ve been pointing out here for many months, Joe Manchin has always opposed eliminating the Senate filibuster, and Kristyn Sinema joined him in saying the same last week.

            But it appears that McConnell is giving the Democrats control of the Senate (in negotiating the new Senate Rules) instead of having a power sharing arrangement (since its a 50-50 split) as occurred in the 1990s before Jim Jeffords switched to Democrat.

            1. “The SCOTUS won’t get involved in Senate rules.”

              The question under consideration was what they would do if and when the Democrats are unable to get rid of the filibuster, and Chuck Schumer simply decides to ignore the filibuster of the rules.

              In that situation, yes, I believe the Court would say that the rules need to be upheld until they’re changed. You can’t just ignore a filibuster rule if it’s on the books.

              The Court won’t involve itself in interpreting or writing the rules, but if the rules are just completely ignored, the Republicans will walk out of the government, and the Court will have no choice but to step in.

              1. Totes dude.
                The system totes works!

              2. As long a Manchin and Sinema keep their word opposing eliminating the filibuster, the filibuster will remain.

                But Schumer and Pelosi will try inserting many of their legislative priorities into budget reconciliation bills (that only take a majority to pass).

                1. I have more faith in the ability of the Republicans to filibuster any change of the rules that would eliminate the filibuster than I have faith in any politician to keep his or her word–but I certainly do hope they keep their word.

                  1. The only way Republicans can continue to filibuster is if Senema and Manchin keep their promises (as Schumer will change the rules if they both change their votes on the filibuster).

                    But Schumer will likely try to attain many legislative policy goals by trying to inserting them in budget reconciliation bills, which can be approved by a vote of 51 votes (to overrule the parliamentarian after he/she rules major policy change provisions as inappropriate for inclusion in the budget bill).

                    I remain confident Joe Manchin will keep his word on the filibuster (as WV is a very pro Trump state), but he also needs to vote to sustain parliamentarian rulings to keep left wing policy agenda bills out of Senate budget reconciliation bills.

                    1. Correction, both Manchin and Sinema would have to betray their word to give the Dems enough votes to eliminate the filibuster.

                      Schumer knows this, which is why Biden has issued tons of Executive Orders (for policy goals he cannot get 60 Senate votes for), and why Schumer will try to include lots of left wing policy goals in budget reconciliation bills.

            2. “Biden issued 30+ Executive Orders (each of which took many months to research, draft, vet with other Dems/left wing allies, and prioritize)”

              “You can’t [legislate] by executive order unless you’re a dictator. We’re a democracy. We need consensus.” —Joe Biden, October, 2020

              He would’ve already had those EO’s being processed when he said that, the dishonest old fuck.

              What are the odds a journalist questions him about it?

              1. They did and he got mad and basically told them to shut the fuck up that’s why

                1. Wow.
                  The game is now so rigged that they really just don’t give a fuck anymore.

        2. I suspect that Chief Justice PenalTax, profile in courage that he is, will discover that no one has standing to sue.

          1. Even Justice PenalTax wants to save his own power.

            Again, the question is whether the Supreme Court will rule to have itself packed and make their own votes irrelevant–on principle.

            By suggesting that some members of the Court don’t seem to have much in the way of principle is to further my argument.

            If they’re willing to ignore principles in order to achieve lesser goals, surely they’re willing to ignore whatever principles are involved to preserve their own power.

            1. Chief Justice PenalTax wants to save his own position. And in the end, it really makes little difference to him whether he presides over nine Nazgul, thirteen, or any other arbitrary number. His power is largely an illusion. His job is to preserve the status quo and to defend Government Almighty. And he knows this.

              1. If the Democrats pack the Court, his power will be lost. The whole point of packing the Court is to make him irrelevant.

                1. You think he has power for something other than preserving the status quo of an Imperial Executive Branch that has long ago escaped from its Constitutional moorings and metastasized wildly with the blessings of Congress every step of the way, and defending Government Almighty and the Establishment as a whole against anyone and anything that threatens the control of the ruling class. He does not.

                  Beyond preserving the status quo and rearranging a few chairs on the deck of the Leviathan, he already is irrelevant. Packing the Supreme Court or not will not change that one way or the other. It. Does. Not. Matter. The Republic as set forth in the Constitution is done. There is no going back.

    2. They change it by introducing a new precedent, which only takes 51 votes. It is how they changed the rules about approving judges. That is the procedure referred to when you hear “the nuclear option”.

  6. I’m surprised you don’t mention the need for a third party and the potential for rationality it could provide, especially since the Libertarian Party exists…

    1. The Libertarian Party, Jo Jorgensen and Reason are key reasons why Joe Biden is now president, why martial law has been imposed in DC, and why Dems and the left wing Big Tech allies are destroying Republicans, Conservatives and anyone else who supported Trump.

    2. The Libertarian Party is a circle jerk. It is not a serious organization. Especially for libertarians.

    3. Libertarianism is a social and political philosophy, not a shitty American political party. We should be encouraging libertarianism in all political parties, especially those that aren’t.

      1. Probably the best course but to many Libertarians wallow in hating both parties to make it happen. They post on here regularly.

        1. I absolutely loathe the Democrats, outside of the Nazis I think that they’re one of the most evil political parties in modern Western history. On par with Mussolini’s fascists for most of their early history.
          But I recognize their power and hold on portions of the American electorate, so I hope and wish that people with left libertarian inclinations like Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald would come to prominence in it.

          1. Unfortunately, all those you mention seem to have ethics and a modicum of common sense. This is why Tulsi Gabbard has been blackballed, and in a flash of Clintonian originality, smeared as a Russian asset.

            And there’s as much chance of Taibbi and Greenwald actually joining the Evil Party as there is for Bernie Sanders to have a fair shot at the nomination. And for that, I truly respect them both, not to mention their intelligence and journalistic independence and integrity in a field where any of those three characteristics is an automatic disqualification for a job.

  7. [FOR USA ] 
    Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page Click this link For Full Detail……     READ MORE

  8. The problem is that the filibuster has become a tool to stop all legislation, rather than being used by the minority to get concessions. It could be used as a tool to promote compromise but that require compromise from both sides. If you goal is to simply stop the majority for doing anything, then no compromise is possible and the filibuster is useless.
    Easiest remedy may be to keep the filibuster but make people stand on the floor and talk during the filibuster. No silent filibusters.

    1. Easiest remedy may be to keep the filibuster but make people stand on the floor and talk during the filibuster.

      A more general suggested requirement is that whenever a bill is introduced the sponsor must stand and read it aloud in its entirety.

      1. This is a real solution. The representitives of both houses almost never read a bill they vote on

      2. Heh! That is one hell of a wonderful idea! Make these bloviating gas bags smell every bit of everyone of their own farts!

        Too bad it’ll never happen.

    2. How precious… you dont think bills are made in committee and that the majority leaders like Reid then fill the tree to stop amendments or attempts at compromise.

    3. It could be used as a tool to promote compromise but that require compromise from both sides.

      “Compromise” to a Democrat is “give us half the shit we want now and we’ll be back for the rest later”. “Compromise” to a Republican is arguing over how many times the Democrats get to kick them in the nuts. There’s a one-way ratchet effect that’s been going on in Washington for years because the Republicans only focus on minimizing Democratic gains rather than rolling them back, they’re always playing defense and never going on the attack.

      And that’s because, at heart, there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between them. Both sides worship at the altar of Government Almighty, they both believe that the purpose of government is to help you and to solve your problems for you rather than to leave you the hell alone.

      1. And that’s why Trump made them lose their shit. They were too used to GOPe sticking to Marquess of Queensberry rules while they brought a handgun and a machete.

    4. The problem is that the threat of a filibuster has become more powerful than the filibuster itself, and the blame for that rests squarely on the majority, not the minority

      The majority (whichever party holds it at any given time) is now more prone to simply table a bill rather than compromise on changes whenever a filibuster is threatened. Alternatively they could allow the filibuster to proceed and vote on the bill when its complete (a filibuster cannot delay a bill indefinitely, only as long as senators willing to filibuster are physically able to continue talking) but again they choose to table the bill, because whatever party is in the majority wants to preserve that “veto” power for the next time they are in the minority

  9. Ending the filibuster will make it harder for senators to adjudicate their constituents’ concerns

    “Their constituents’ concerns”. What a quaint notion!

  10. The problem with the senate is they no longer represent the states and instead represent a party. Direct elections of senators was a dumb idea.

    1. Have a fun with family and do online work without investing single penny. No limit of earn, earn as much as you spent time online. For more detail … Visit Here

    2. As far as I know, a major impetus for the direct election of Senators was that, back when the state legislators were appointing them, the state legislators were acting corruptly in the appointment of Senators, selling the office to the highest bidder as it were.

      And yet, back in the day of the Yazoo land fraud when the Georgia legislature was taking bribes to sell off public lands, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the titles based on the idea that the Georgia legislature did in fact have the authority to issue titles and if they were doing it corruptly, well, you just needed to stop electing crooks to the Georgia legislature. It wasn’t their business to tell Georgia how to run their affairs.

      The direct election of Senators was an explicit adoption of democracy, which our Founding Fathers hated and feared and warned us about, and the elimination of the states as sovereign entities with some sort of control over the federal government. The states are now just essentially political subdivisions of the federal government with only a few vestigial and anachronistic powers of their own. Might as well just get rid of them all together.

      1. Even if they were appointed by bribes it would still make them dependent on the individual states instead of party. Look how much party PACs now contribute to a senate campaign. It is simply bribery of another form.

        1. And you think making them dependent on the states rather than PACs would change outcomes how? Who runs the states?

      2. Likewise our power structure is backwards with the federal government way above states. As you infer this is the opposite of intentional design. The states should be able to differentiate their behaviors in order yo allow the best systems to develop instead of the one size fits all system the democrats are so eager for.

      3. Do you seriously think that if senators were now selected by state governments, the result would be much different?

      4. Nah. In order to defer accountability, the powers-that-be need to have multiple layers of “the other guy” to point to, so the states, emasculated as they are, must remain so that the elites can continue to game the system to their own advantage.

        Getting rid of the states would be like playing the shell game with only two shells.

    3. As if the state legislatures would select different Senators.
      Maybe Rand Paul would still be an eye doctor in Kentucky.

    4. I disagree. A Senator appointed by the legislature would represent the party in control of the legislature. In gerrymandered states this might mean a minority of the population gets to pick the Senators. Direct election means the population of the entire state picks the Senators.
      I will not support direct election unless the legislature is truly representative of the state’s population.

      1. Do you ever make rational arguments? I really would enjoy you learning about the follies of pure democracy like ancient Greece. The founders were very well aware. You seem to not be despite the numerous books written on the subject. There is no such thing as pure equal representation when less than half the electorate votes.

        What you really want is more democrats.

        1. “What you really want is more democrats.”

          Of course he does. Those are the “moderates” to which his screen name refers. It would be more honest if he called himself OnePartyRule4ever, but then, he is a Democrat, and honesty is an impediment to his party’s objectives.

        2. What I want is for the people of a state to pick their representatives in the Senate. Do you see it as a problem if the people pick Democrats? If that is the party is addressing their concerns, then they should get elected. Or do you favor a more authoritarian government where the people have less say in picking their leaders?

          1. You offer that proposition as if there is a meaningful distinction between Democrats and authoritarians. Unfortunately, there is not. Either you know this already, in which case you are evil and dishonest, or you are one of the stupid people who have achieved critical mass after decades of careful cultivation by the Democrat/NEA educational complex.

            Congratulations. The Republic is dead, and people like you killed it. Of course, you may not like what comes after as much as you think you will, but at this point, I really no longer give a damn what you think. Nor, I suspect, do many others.

          2. How do you feel about CA’s “jungle primaries?”

    5. The system where state legislators appointed the US Senator had at least one advantage: it tended to eliminate senators serving multiple terms. For example, New Hampshire only allowed its senators to serve one six year term. Franklin Pierce served his six years and went back to being a lawyer.

  11. I doubt Democrats are much interested in pointers on respecting minority positions and the importance of the filibuster — after a few years of watching Republican senators put unqualified nominees on the federal bench with 52, 51, or even 49 votes — from a Heritage-class clinger.

    Being on the wrong side of history, like losing elections, has consequences.

    1. “I doubt Democrats are much interested in pointers on respecting minority positions and the importance of the filibuster”
      Lol, only when they weren’t in power. Every time they were they sure as hell didn’t.

  12. Again, and again, and again: It’s a REPUBLIC, not a democracy! For the newcomers: the whole system was set up to keep majorities from trampling the (negative) rights of minorities.

    1. Again and again, the founders and framers themselves used both interchangeably. Your ignorance is on display again and again.

      1. And they mean the same thing, although taking different etymologic paths. Demo-cracy = government by the district (i.e. the people of the district); res publica = the people’s thing.

        Unless you establish a regime in which the governors are distinct from the governed, it’s government by the people, of the people, and for the people. All the arguing over the details is just playing games over the long run.

        1. The modern meaning, according to All the Right People, is government by Democrats.

          Or else you’re a nazi.

        2. It’s code for “federal vs confederate”. The word “confederacy” has been unfairly tainted be the Conferate States of America. A more Confederate US is probably more conducive to limited, accessible, and accountable government, but a federal government making sure that the states are not violating civil liberties is also needed.

        3. “Unless you establish a regime in which the governors are distinct from the governed”

          Isn’t that effectively what we have at this point though?

    2. Not anymore, it isn’t.

  13. Let’s cut the bullshit and just be completely honest: in our current hyper-polarized environment where almost everyone picks and chooses what they do and don’t want to believe and almost nobody ever changes their mind about anything, debate doesn’t really accomplish anything at all.

    1. I don’t agree with that at all.

      1. I larfed, tried to hit the reply button to tell you I larfed and accidently flagged Rock Lobster for review. Good thing the “flag” button on this site is like the “close door” button on an elevator- it doesn’t actually do anything.

        1. Oh shit it did take away Rock Lobster’s comment. Oh no is Reason actually starting to moderate comments? I’m sorry Rock Lobster.

          1. You can’t see it but we still can

          2. No sweat. In jest, I was denouncing debate as racist. Even in jest, however, denouncing someone or something as racist is an approved and encouraged incantation of the Woke and is therefore usually safe from censorious PC moderators or their algorithms.

            Unless, of course, one is denouncing BLM, Louis Farrakhan, Ibram X. Kendi or something like that as racist–which they are, and I am–in which case the comment might very well be disappeared in the cause of righteous Wokeness. So, let’s experiment and see what happens.

    2. Debate is a racist.

  14. Seems like it’s mostly Democrats packing courts and nuking the filibuster or refusing to vote on judges, impatient when thwarted trying to ram huge changes through Congress. My experience has been that impatience like theirs is because they want to get something done before the public wakes up and realizes their goal is power and their excuses are a sham.

    1. Fortunately for the Democrats, the subjects of the Empire like their sleep, and when they do stir themselves to semiconsciousness, they seem content with the bread and circuses and Big Tech so selflessly provided by The Establishment.

  15. Shouldn’t we consider that compromise is rarely good for individual liberty? Usually, compromise lets some anti-liberty program get its nose under the tent, and it just gets progressively worse from there.
    Consider one of the first compromises: Jefferson taking a condemnation of slavery out of the Declaration of Independence.

    1. Compromise is as good or bad for liberty as it is for anything else. Everything in life is a compromise, rarely does anyone get all they want.

      You think anything in the language of the Declaration of Independence made any difference? It’s not legally binding. It didn’t even produce independence!! The only thing that produced independence was, “You make me independent, or I kill you.”

      1. “You think anything in the language of the Declaration of Independence made any difference?”
        Yes, yes it did.

    2. The alternative to compromise is radicalism. Incidentally, this is why we have single member districts, as well. It’s a check on radicalism.

      It’s true that some of the worst abuses of our rights, liberties, and capitalism have come when the country was unified, but it’s often when it was unified under a single party.

      FDR and George W. Bush were able to get away with the awful shit they did because there wasn’t any meaningful opposition from the opposing party.

      Forcing them to compromise is a check on their ability to act. Being free from that might be a good thing if they wanted to protect our rights and pursue capitalist policies. Forcing them to compromise when it’s about packing the Court and destroying capitalism with the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, etc. That can’t be a good thing.

      1. Think of it this way–eviscerating George W. Bush for torture, warrantless wiretapping, dramatically expanding Medicare, TARP, etc. took a toll on his popularity. But it only matters if it makes him compromise on implementing those policies.

        If the only hope we have of tripping Biden and the Democrats up is a filibuster rule, then without that filibuster rule, we’ll be completely at their mercy, and they have no mercy for the Supreme Court, capitalism, our gun rights, the First Amendment, etc.

        There are only two reasons why anybody does anything.

        1) They want to.

        2) They can.

        The reason General Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground was because he wanted to–and he could.

        The reason Custer and Sheridan massacred Native Americans was because they wanted to–and they could.

        There’s no question that the Democrats want to savage our rights and Capitalism the way Sherman burned Atlanta. The only question left is whether they can. Take away the filibuster, and they can.

        1. The Republicans are speed bumps, at best. True opposition when the rubber actually does meet the road, will not come from the GOP, if it comes from anywhere at all in an organized way.

          1. The transnational elite racing its way to a revolution.
            ​In America and around the world, a transnational elite postures for itself and despises the people it rules. This is a recipe for a bloody revolution, and if they don’t smarten up, that’s what’s going to happen.

            1. Maybe so. But I think it’s more likely that enough people are sated on material abundance (relative to any other time in history), Big Tech narcissism, and the vapid BS churned out by the propaganda/entertainment industrial complex, to be more apathetic than outraged. And they are likely to be more upset with anyone that seriously disrupts their personal status quo than sympathetic toward someone going on about the importance of freedoms they don’t really care about, which they see as just an abstraction if they see it at all.

  16. My understanding is that the modern filibuster in the US senate is conducted silently, so this article’s outdated.

    1. It makes for little difference. The majority just treats the threat of a filibuster as a filibuster and responds accordingly

  17. Lol. Democrats are a parody. A scary one. But a dam parody.


    Amy Klobuchar
    @amyklobuchar
    Woke up on a Saturday and didn’t have to respond to a mean tweet from the White House. Feels weird but good. I’m going to make some toast instead.

    Biden killed thousands of jobs, 40 EOs, ended women’s sports…. but hey. No mean tweets.

    1. Notably, Reason has an article up about the “Orwellian” measure of Europe not allowing companies to label products that aren’t milk as milk, but maintains silence on the new regime arresting Douglass Mackey for disfavored speech.

      1. Reason still hasn’t criticized the martial law police state that has been imposed in Washington DC for the past three weeks ago by Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/Bowser, which Pelosi intends to keep for months (or until she losses her Speaker’s gavel in 2022).

        Seems like there are no libertarians left at Reason, except for many libertarian readers who were thrown under the bus by Charles Koch’s $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

    2. Translation: Reason hasn’t said anything about [insert hobby horse here] which means they really believe [insert strawman here].

      1. Persistent in your being broken.

        1. You’re persistent with the same schtick John did. “Why aren’t they talking about what I feel to be important? They must think…..”

          It was lame when he did it. It’s still lame.

          1. “Why aren’t they talking about what I feel to be important”

            This isn’t just some penny-ante shit they ignored you fantastic retard:

            The end of the American war in Afghanistan and peace deal with the Taliban was important, monumentally important. Reason ignored it.

            The peace agreements between the Arabs and Israelis and the Serbs and Kosovars, were important, monumentally important. Reason ignored it.

            The Uighur genocide and destruction of democracy in Hong Kong were important, monumentally important. Reason largely ignored them.

            The occupation of the capitol by a praetorian guard is important, monumentally important. Reason ignored it.

            I could give you fifty more examples of monumental stories that Reason has ignored or lied about. To pretend they were immaterial to a libertarian magazine is one of the stupidest fucking things you’ve ever claimed.

            1. Sarc probably doesn’t think Clinesmith getting off with probation is important either.

              1. Buried on page 6, below the fold; no cite by The Chron; “News Brief”.
                I’ll say.

        2. I liked John though. He had class.

      2. Btw… 5 for 5 since I let you know you started shit more often than not. Really just another way you lie to yourself. It is amazing to watch. It is a trait of alcoholics though. So youre just ordinary. Lol.

        1. You’re counting? Wow. Talk about rent free.

          1. Counting to 5 isn’t hard for the rest of us.

      3. Freedom of speech and totalitarian political persecution is a hobby horse to you?

    3. And it’s not like anybody was forced to read the tweets. He vast majority of Americans aren’t on Twitter, only journalists, government officials, and activists. The other 70% just aren’t interested.

    4. “Woke up on a Saturday and didn’t have to respond to a mean tweet from the White House. Feels weird but good. I’m going to make some toast instead.”

      Too bad no one told her should could have spent the last 4 years of Saturdays making toast instead of engaging with Trump on Twitter.

      Does she seriously think responding to mean tweets is part of a Senator’s job description?

  18. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Here… Click here.

  19. “…However, doing so will make the Senate even more dysfunctional than it is now…”

    Win for everybody. Now stop paying them and take away the benes.

  20. Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home open door for all. make 89 Dollars for every hour and Make 17485 Dollars for each month.All you essentially Need an Internet Connection and a Computer To Make Some Extra cash. visit below website…. More Info

  21. I completely agree with this article. The one thing that wasn’t stated is that much of the impetus to curtail debate is a function of having essentially two parties. A de facto two-party system tends to make party affiliation at least as important as the actual intent of the legislation and makes it seem reasonable to simply bypass the minority opinion. It means we get less of an opportunity for real representation.

    1. Yes. Above others discussed how the 17th Amendment, changing the selection of Senators from state legislatures to popular vote changed the loyalties of Senators, from where their first concern is no longer representing their States, but rather their loyalty is now to their national party.
      Second, the electoral college’s winner-take-all system is what encourages two parties in america, rather than the multiparty parliamentary systems found in most of the rest of the world.
      I offer no judgement on any of the above, just pointing out why we have a powerful federal government consisting of a congress whose actions are dictated more by partisanship than by the interests of the several States.

      1. Its not the electoral college that produces two parties, even without the EC we would still have two parties because ALL of our elections are winner-take-all

  22. Today in libertarian news and commentary, but from the other side of the pond.

    The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a national terrorism bulletin yesterday, warning that extremists ‘may be emboldened’ by the 6 January riot at the Capitol to ‘incite or commit violence’. This alert came the day after reports that the 7,000 National Guard currently on duty in Washington, DC will remain until ‘at least’ the end of March.

    Just consider how extraordinary these measures are. This is the first-ever DHS terrorism bulletin that targets domestic American citizens.

  23. Today in libertarian news and commentary.

    We told you. We told you the European Union was not some hippyish, internationalist outfit but rather was a self-interested protectionist bloc. We told you it was a sclerotic bureaucracy whose centralisation of power made it more and more difficult for member states to behave as democratic nations and to respond sensitively and speedily to the needs of their own people. We told you the EU didn’t really give a damn about the Good Friday Agreement and was only using it as a weapon with which to beat Brexit Britain. We told you the EU was exploiting Ireland, cynically marshalling its concerns over a ‘hard border’ to try to further demonise Brexit, and that before long it would forget all about its concern for Ireland and relegate it once again to the status of a neo-colony. We told you all of this. And we were right.

  24. It’s not like anything is actually decided on the floor. It’s all theatrics

    1. Exactly. Does anyone actually believe they could ever convince a scumbag like Chuck Schumer to compromise on something, much less actually be swayed by a different opinion? Don’t make me laugh.

  25. Some Democrats are even threatening to blow up those rules if Republicans try to filibuster President Joe Biden’s agenda.

    They did this with judicial appointments, and we see how well that worked out for them. How many times do you need to stick your fingers into an electrical outlet to figure out it’s not a good idea?

  26. Today in libertarian news and commentary.

    The billionaire takeover of civil society
    Wealthy ‘progressives’ are shaping political life through a dense web of interconnected NGOs.

    As the founder and operator of a pro-democracy civil-society organisation, I’ve often been astounded at calls to give NGOs a greater say in rule-making, more visibility during negotiations and privileged access to decision-makers. Because I know what few people do – that small, member-driven, self-funded NGOs are relatively rare.

    Instead, the kind of organisation that tends to drive the political agenda is generally billionaire (or at least multimillionaire) funded. The most well-known examples here are groups funded by conservatives like the Koch brothers and large companies like ExxonMobil. I had naively assumed that others criticised these organisations for the same reasons I did – because their actions undermined the principle of democratic equality by giving the impression that their ideas enjoyed far more backing than they did.

    However, I stand corrected.

    1. Together with over 250 ‘angel investors’, Luminate also funds the New Media Ventures Innovation Fund (NMV). While NMV also covers information services (the Daily Kos forms part of its portfolio), it focuses much of its effort on:

      Grassroots groups, such as: PeoplesHub; LuzCollective; Momentum; Project Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations; Climate Cabinet Action Fund; Sunrise Movement; Mobilise America; Stay Woke;
      party-political campaigns and vote turn-out optimisation, such as: Vote.org; SwingLeft; Contest Every Race; Flippable; SisterDistrict; ActBlue Civics; Three Point Strategies; BallotReady; Resistance Labs; Run for Something; Pantsuit Nation; Voter Circle;
      and advanced market-research organisations like: Avalanche Insights; Swayable; and Open Field.

      Look up “Pantsuit Nation”. Look it up. I dare you, I double dog dare you.

      1. Meanwhile, the American Economic Liberties Project, funded by the Omidyar Network (which also funds Luminate, which together with other ‘Angel Investors’ funds all of this) is contemplating soulfully how the concentrated might of the coffee industry hides behind a series of flimsy brand names.

        The irony of that is just sublime.

      2. Members turn to Pantsuit Nation as a place of refuge and inspiration, where marginalized voices are amplified, faces are put to political decisions, resources are shared, and activism is ignited. It is a dynamic, diverse community united by an unwavering commitment to building a more just, inclusive world.

        “‘Activism is ignited’, if you catch our drift.”

  27. The Senate’s problem is that all sorts of undesirables are allowed to vote for the Senate’s composition. Limit voting to men with IQs over 100 who own property, and whom have never sired bastard children, and watch America’s problems go away within a few months.

  28. Your tax dollars at work, providing propaganda to the kids:

    “S.F. high school students get a lesson in subtle white privilege”
    […]
    “Three weeks ago I processed the Capitol insurrection with my high school students. Rallying our inquiry skills, we analyzed the images of that historic day, images of white men storming through the Capitol, fearless and with no forces to stop them. “This,” I said, “is white supremacy, this is white privilege. It can be hard to pinpoint, but when we see, it, we know it.”
    Across our Zoom screen, they affirmed, with nods, thumbs-ups, and emojis of anger and frustration. Fast-forward two weeks as we analyzed images from the inauguration, asking again, “What do we see?” We saw diversity, creativity and humanity, and a nation embracing all of this and more. On the day of the inauguration, Bernie Sanders was barely on our radar. The next day, he was everywhere…”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/S-F-high-school-students-get-a-lesson-in-subtle-15909700.php

    1. ‘“This,” I said, “is white supremacy, this is white privilege. It can be hard to pinpoint, but when we see, it, we know it.”’

      So when do they exhibit their White Privilege cards and get all charges dismissed?

  29. Nah, the Senate’s problem is that underpopulated states have vastly more power and influence than they should. Break California up into 15 states and then see if they still think it’s “fair” even though it’s the exact same amount of people in the country.

    Hint- smaller states wouldn’t find it so fair.

    1. Hint: It’s arranged so that the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is hard to achieve, meaning lefty parasites like you are prevented from taking all the wealth from the productive people.

    2. Break California up into 15 states

      You might not like that. Outside the urban wastelands California is pretty red.

      1. Yeah, 26 new R senators, with 2 geriatric Ds and 2 new ones.
        Lefty parasites have problems with arithmetic, let alone math.

    3. Dumbass. If you divided Cali into 15 states, 12 of them would be Republican. Or do you assume that the overwhelmingly liberal percentage of voters in San Francisco is a realistic mirror of the entire state?

      1. I’m sure the republikins would love the extra 24 senetor (15 states =30 senators, La sf and San deigo would go to the dems giving the d 6 new senetor and the r 24) I explain my math because progressives are retarded

    4. You might want to reconsider your exclusive diet of raspberries. Maybe then you’ll stop hallucinating from malnutrition and maybe, just maybe, begin to think coherently.

  30. Filibuster eh? That’s that thing that gives Republicans veto power on all legislation despite Democrats controlling Congress and the presidency, right?

    I’ll let you know how I feel about the filibuster as soon as I give a steaming pile of fetid corpse shit the bad news first.

    1. Tony was gonna make a post, but he got high
      It was gonna make a little sense, but then he got high
      his brain is all messed up and we know why
      – cause he got high (repeat 3X)

  31. “…Filibuster eh? That’s that thing that gives Republicans veto power on all legislation despite Democrats controlling Congress and the presidency, right?…”

    Ken S posted that shitstain, here, and others are not to be held to the same levels of analysis and criticism; they simply have not the abilities to understand any qualitative deference between their fantasies and objective reality. Note here that shitstain makes no factual claim, but offers (and argues against) a hypothetical; he is not capable of understanding the difference. He is, as understood among those capable of thought, an ignoramus.
    This is not to say the steaming piles of lefty shit should be given passes, just that we should expect steaming piles of lefty shit from such ignoramuses, and they should be called on it everywhere and always, understanding that they will not have any idea why their bullshit is being noted as such.
    You may engage shitstain, sarcasmic, turd, M4e, OBL and others, but if you expect any sort of honest response, you WILL be disappointed; the mental capability is not there to offer it. They will have no idea of what you propose.

  32. Are you alleging that Ken Shultz is also Tony? Really? Or am I just too drunk, or maybe not drunk enough to understand you?

  33. https://twitter.com/General_Lew1/status/1355346613103955968?s=19

    They shut down vote counting in 5 states when it wasn’t going their way.
    They shut down free speech and Parler when it wasn’t going their way.
    They shut down markets when they don’t go their way.

  34. Forcing debate IS the point of the filibuster. It makes sure if one side that has the majority and tries to impose radical outragesous laws, that the minority side has the ability to stop them and force a debate and compromise.
    Reason Magazine: Libertarians for a Left wing Socialist Dictatorship.

  35. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job…READ MORE

  36. Since I started with my online business I earn $90 every 15 minutes…READ MORE

  37. The filibuster should only be allowed if popular opinion polls do not support the legislation. Marijuana legalization is a good example of a law that may not enjoy the support of 60 Senators because of Republicans but it enjoys over 60% support from the American people and that’s the big picture. If the American people support something in those numbers hiding behind the filibuster is tyranny.

    1. These would be the polls which had the hag beating Trump?

    2. “only be allowed if popular opinion polls do not support

      Lol, when was the last time that the polls agreed on anything. 50 years ago?
      Also, giving the pollsters a role in government is the stupidest thing that I’ve ever heard.

    3. The problem is a good pollster can word a question to generate any response they want. So if the senate wants to pass something without worrying about a filibuster all they have to do is produce a poll that shows its popular

  38. 60% support from the American people should be the trump card for any filibuster. Make that the rule. The Senate is already rigged enough against democracy. I understand the idea of not wanting pass controversial laws with 50% support but again if the American people support it over 60% then that argument doesn’t exist.

    1. 100% of what passes for your brain turns out 2% of what a normal human considers ‘intelligent’

    2. Current Biden approval:
      Rasmussen 50%
      Morning consult 54%
      YouGov 51%

  39. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week.CMs i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.

    This is what do,………… Jobs App

  40. Rules for thee, not for me.

    When it was Democrats wanting to fillibuster, they were seen as holding up the Senate. Now when the Republicans do it, it’s considered proper debate?

    The bias is strong in this article.

  41. Spend some extratime and chat for free with hot sexy ladies on sex in dresden! Visit right now for your own pleasure!

  42. “Breaking those rules to abolish the filibuster would make it harder, not easier, for the Senate to function.”

    Actual libertarians realize that is a feature, not a bug.

  43. The Senate was not designed with a filibuster in mind. It is quite literally an accident of history, not a well-considered policy. Yes, it is favored and disfavored depending on which party gets shafted which way, but if you want to keep it, you have to explain why an unprecedentedly abused accidental increase in legislation clearance requirements just happens to be a good idea by chance.

    Majority rules. That’s how democracy works. I realize people have been trying to confuse us on this point, but they showed us the philosopher kings they’d put in charge if they had their way, and they wear moose costumes and worship guns yet forget to bring them to a coup.

    1. Without any understanding at all you write:

      Majority rules. That’s how democracy works.

      This defines not just how pure democracy works, but also how evil it is. Pure democracy is 51% enslaving the 49% – something our founders were well aware of and tried to prevent by creating a constitutional republic.

  44. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google.READ MORE

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.