- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Darlene Graham calls for ending the filibuster
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:08 pm
9
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:11 pm to Padme
She’s saying anything to try to get elected in a crowded field. I don’t trust her one bit and she won’t get my vote.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:11 pm to Padme
Ending the filibuster is very short sighted for republicans.
Congress is already neutered by the direct election of senators. A mere majority of senators to pass legislation would destroy the senate.
Might as well do away with pretenses and abolish the senate or merge it with the house, which is what democrats ultimately want to do.
Congress is already neutered by the direct election of senators. A mere majority of senators to pass legislation would destroy the senate.
Might as well do away with pretenses and abolish the senate or merge it with the house, which is what democrats ultimately want to do.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:12 pm to Padme
She’s not wrong but the newest member of Congress who wasn’t elected shouldn’t be the one rallying for it. The Republican caucus should be calling for Thune to step down and putting direct pressure on him.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:12 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
Ending the filibuster is very short sighted for republicans.
Remember when Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judicial nominations - how did that turn out for the Dems?
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:14 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
Ending the filibuster is very short sighted for republicans.
Bullshat, it should have been ended years ago. It’s a smoke and mirrors gimmick to take blame away from senators and placed onto an abstract “tradition”, yet it’s not even allowed to be used as tradition because of the incredibly ridiculous “cloture”. It’s just another way to circumvent accountability
This post was edited on 8/4/26 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:20 pm to DeBoar
Have to disagree, the good ole boys wait your turn is for the birds. Granted the older veterans is where the power lies, but that’s why a newbie can shake things up. Notice AOC.
I don’t even care about the real motivation, if doing what’s right just to get elected is the path, then so be it.
I don’t even care about the real motivation, if doing what’s right just to get elected is the path, then so be it.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:21 pm to Padme
Kill the Fillibuster. Sounds like a Dimocrat plant to me
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:22 pm to Padme
Well, that apple grew up with the other apple and certainly did not fall to far away.
It is an election year and she will say, like her sister Linda, anything to get elected!!
It is an election year and she will say, like her sister Linda, anything to get elected!!
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:24 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
Ending the filibuster is very short sighted for republicans.
Right. I guess Republicans are "above that", right? You forgot that Democrats aren't though. They had zero problem using the legal system as lawfare, putting people in fricking jail for literally nothing.
Guess what. They're gonna do it again. They'll impeach Trump again, numerous times, even when he's out of office. But then they'll file charges against him.
But we're above that, right? Right Senator Thune?!
Stop being such an ignorant fool. Fight fire with fire.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:25 pm to Wolfwireless
The filibuster isn’t some great catch all like Hollywood has influenced people to think it is. The dems will drop it, and good for them if they do. It’s not constitutional, at least not how it’s being used. The original reason was supposed to be for debate. Yet we have zero debate. Why are senators afraid of debate?
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:36 pm to Red Stick Rambler
quote:
Remember when Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judicial nominations - how did that turn out for the Dems?
Biden got 1 more Article III judge confirmed than Trump 1.0 and left fewer seats unfilled than Trump 1.0. Now Trump got to get 3 SCOTUS judges which is what ultimately matters, but there's a world where there is a Dem majority in 2026 and/or a Dem POTUS in 2028 and Alito and/or Thomas is gone and then that's 2 open seats the Dems control filling. If I was rating it, the Dems are down currently based on that, but they have a chance to rally soon.
It was shortsighted for Harry Reid to use the nuclear option then, just like it would be shortsighted to end the filibuster now by the GOP.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:37 pm to Padme
quote:
The original reason was supposed to be for debate. Yet we have zero debate.
I would support abolishing the bs silent filibuster and require talking filibusters.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:41 pm to Cockopotamus
I have no problem with that.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 1:43 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
Ending the filibuster is very short sighted for republicans.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 2:04 pm to Padme
quote:
The filibuster isn’t some great catch all like Hollywood has influenced people to think it is. The dems will drop it, and good for them if they do. It’s not constitutional, at least not how it’s being used. The original reason was supposed to be for debate. Yet we have zero debate. Why are senators afraid of debate?
Ok, I'm not trying to avoid what you're saying. But ending the 'buster has almost always been a Dim agenda item.
Look back a few years ago, and they tried to pull it off.
And ended up losing two of their moderates over it, and a few other points.
I'm saying she's a dim plant, because it's a dim agenda item.
As far as senators being afraid of debate. Just opinions.
A) You can't debate with unreasonable people. You can't reason with the unreasonable. Democrats have become the party of the unreasonable.
B) The more a senator talks in debate, the more chance their real motives may slip out.
C) ummmm.... Ok I ran out.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 2:05 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
Ending the filibuster is very short sighted for republicans.
It’s not ending the filibuster. They misspeak on purpose. It’s ending the SILENT filibuster that allows our senators to never work and hide behind it to not vote so their constituents won’t see that they’re frauds and traitors.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 2:12 pm to Padme
You don't have to end the filibuster. You simply have to enforce the talking filibuster. Make the Dems play by the rules.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 2:29 pm to Padme
I’m OK with ending the virtual filibuster.
Posted on 8/4/26 at 3:59 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
A mere majority of senators to pass legislation would destroy the senate.
Constitution only requires a majority
Filibuster was never meant to be a defacto way to need 60 votes to pass legislation. It’s to allow opposition to a bill to hold the floor and debate. Not to indefinitely hold up voting on legislation forever. Just require talking filibuster only
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News