"The bigger question is this: How many times must Democrats be led down rabbit holes in search of GOP support that never materializes before Manchin accepts that in a fundamental sense, the bipartisan possibilities he dreams of are simply gone?"
yup, they'd be the two most junior Senators with no constituencies who have been branded traitors and hold zero political power- 50th and 51st. Why on earth would they give up what they have now for that?
The filibuster is a tactic to continue debate on a particular bill. In the Senate, as long as debate continues, a bill cannot pass. Once debate on a bill ends, it can be voted on and a simple majority is all that's required to pass it.
The filibuster is a way for the minority party to keep from being steamrolled. If they can keep debating the bill, it cannot pass. But it's supposed to require 41 Senators to maintain it. And one of them is supposed to be on the Senate floor 24/7 actually continuing the debate (or at least speaking about something).
The way it currently works is that a single Senator can call a filibuster and the bill simply dies. It plays perfectly into the hands of obstructuionists like Ted Cruz and rand Paul because they don't even need to form a coalition of support or spend any time debating the bill, they simply open their mouths and kill it.
I'm saying if we're not going to abolish the filibuster, we at least need to make it more difficult to use.
There is also a thing called a "motion to proceed" - which is what is needed to bring a bill to the floor if unanimous consent us not given. This is what I meant when saying a filibuster can completely prevent a bill from being debated.
So, there's actually no debate on a bill blocked in this manner.
I've not been lucky enough to see one of those.
And #MoscowMitch would own them.
Get us a few more Democratic Senators, and we can kick this bullshit to the curb.
we ran outside, turned around three times and spatAt least you didn't mention (dun dun DUN).. the Scottish play.
"The bigger question is this: How many times must Democrats be led down rabbit holes in search of GOP support that never materializes before Manchin accepts that in a fundamental sense, the bipartisan possibilities he dreams of are simply gone?"
Jesus... how long has Manchin been around?
yup, they'd be the two most junior Senators with no constituencies who have been branded traitors and hold zero political power- 50th and 51st. Why on earth would they give up what they have now for that?
If Mitt or Lisa were smart, they would go "I" and take away the swing vote power.
https://m.youtube.com/watch...
I'm worried that the "50% chop," is all people will hear, and conclude that the GOP has won, (again).
Kind of reminds me of what Manchin has been doing lately. Dragging Dems around by the nose.
I guess we'll have to get it from the Bernie Sanders National Parks fund.
The filibuster is a tactic to continue debate on a particular bill. In the Senate, as long as debate continues, a bill cannot pass. Once debate on a bill ends, it can be voted on and a simple majority is all that's required to pass it.
The filibuster is a way for the minority party to keep from being steamrolled. If they can keep debating the bill, it cannot pass. But it's supposed to require 41 Senators to maintain it. And one of them is supposed to be on the Senate floor 24/7 actually continuing the debate (or at least speaking about something).
The way it currently works is that a single Senator can call a filibuster and the bill simply dies. It plays perfectly into the hands of obstructuionists like Ted Cruz and rand Paul because they don't even need to form a coalition of support or spend any time debating the bill, they simply open their mouths and kill it.
I'm saying if we're not going to abolish the filibuster, we at least need to make it more difficult to use.
Jamaal Bowman has constituents to impress, too. Joe Manchin isn't the only one who's got to get reelected.
or LBJ
just raise the money and buy him
There is also a thing called a "motion to proceed" - which is what is needed to bring a bill to the floor if unanimous consent us not given. This is what I meant when saying a filibuster can completely prevent a bill from being debated.
So, there's actually no debate on a bill blocked in this manner.