NUKE THE FILIBUSTER

Halifax2TheMax

Nuke the fillibuster. Fuck Moscow Mitchy. He’s done having been re-elected and serving his final Putin term, granted, six years is a long time.

And, and, and remember that the record holder for filibustering was the father of a daughter he never publicly acknowledged during his life. Yea, good enough to fuck but not good enough to exist. Or vote.

Nuke the filibuster and ram shit through. And WV and Joey? Fuck him too (but shhh, not yet, he’s going repub soon enough)

brianlux

Fuke the Nillabuster! Right on, bro!

dankind

No Nukes!

By the way, who gave this poster the greenlight? Fuck actual the what!?!

Halifax2TheMax

dankind said:

No Nukes!

By the way, who gave this poster the greenlight? Fuck actual the what!?!

Have a concern about great music? Or was it the poster art? Swampscunt got you down?

By the way, “Ronny and Bonzo say nuke them till they glow.”

ymalkiel

The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

Halifax2TheMax

“Evidence?”

ymalkiel

ev·i·dence

/ˈevədəns/

noun

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

F Me In The Brain

Your point is not evidential.
I'm sure he knows what the word evidence means.

ymalkiel

Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?

dankind

Halifax2TheMax said:

dankind said:

No Nukes!

By the way, who gave this poster the greenlight? Fuck actual the what!?!

Have a concern about great music? Or was it the poster art? Swampscunt got you down?

By the way, “Ronny and Bonzo say nuke them till they glow.”

From my interpretation, the art is antithetical to the concert’s purpose. 

Merkin Baller

Halifax2TheMax said:

dankind said:

No Nukes!

By the way, who gave this poster the greenlight? Fuck actual the what!?!

Have a concern about great music? Or was it the poster art? Swampscunt got you down?

By the way, “Ronny and Bonzo say nuke them till they glow.”

lol

static111

But but but we have a system of coequal branches of government that works just as intended by the constitution and the really great amazing founding fathers who all had no flaws.

F Me In The Brain

ymalkiel said:

Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?

Here is what you shared:

The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

How is that evidentiary?

That there is the "nuclear option" which would allow the Senate to bypass the standing rules (60-40) and that the VP could break a 50-50 tie does not seem to be evidence of anything, other than the fact that the "nuclear option" would be able to provide a definitive result on a vote.

How does that provide evidence that it must go?

If there is a workable option for anything, in the governmental process, is that then evidence that the existing process must cede to the workable option?

This does not make sense to me.

Perhaps you meant something else -- I was only reading what you wrote and the understanding provided by the words used.

dankind

F Me In The Brain said:

ymalkiel said:

Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?

Here is what you shared:

The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

How is that evidentiary?

That there is the "nuclear option" which would allow the Senate to bypass the standing rules (60-40) and that the VP could break a 50-50 tie does not seem to be evidence of anything, other than the fact that the "nuclear option" would be able to provide a definitive result on a vote.

How does that provide evidence that it must go?

If there is a workable option for anything, in the governmental process, is that then evidence that the existing process must cede to the workable option?

This does not make sense to me.

Perhaps you meant something else -- I was only reading what you wrote and the understanding provided by the words used.

Perhaps precedent would've been a better word, from a legislative standpoint, though still not quite correct.

Anyway, I get what ymalkiel is trying to say. Basically, the constitution stipulates 51-50, which later legislative bodies then revised to 60-40.

This is just one of those cases in which folks will find themselves on the the side of the framers when it serves their interests. When the constitution does not serve their interest, of course, then it is an ancient document written by white supremacist goons. 

I tend to always agree with the latter and think the whole fucking thing should be revised every 10 years or so with the census.

static111

dankind said:

F Me In The Brain said:

ymalkiel said:

Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?

Here is what you shared:

The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

How is that evidentiary?

That there is the "nuclear option" which would allow the Senate to bypass the standing rules (60-40) and that the VP could break a 50-50 tie does not seem to be evidence of anything, other than the fact that the "nuclear option" would be able to provide a definitive result on a vote.

How does that provide evidence that it must go?

If there is a workable option for anything, in the governmental process, is that then evidence that the existing process must cede to the workable option?

This does not make sense to me.

Perhaps you meant something else -- I was only reading what you wrote and the understanding provided by the words used.

Perhaps precedent would've been a better word, from a legislative standpoint, though still not quite correct.

Anyway, I get what ymalkiel is trying to say. Basically, the constitution stipulates 51-50, which later legislative bodies then revised to 60-40.

This is just one of those cases in which folks will find themselves on the the side of the framers when it serves their interests. When the constitution does not serve their interest, of course, then it is an ancient document written by white supremacist goons. 

I tend to always agree with the latter and think the whole fucking thing should be revised every 10 years or so with the census.

It’s always an ancient document written by white supremacist goons.

gimmesometruth27

filibuster has to go, but the dems lack the spine to go through with getting rid of it.

F Me In The Brain

dankind said:

F Me In The Brain said:

ymalkiel said:

Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?

Here is what you shared:

The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

How is that evidentiary?

That there is the "nuclear option" which would allow the Senate to bypass the standing rules (60-40) and that the VP could break a 50-50 tie does not seem to be evidence of anything, other than the fact that the "nuclear option" would be able to provide a definitive result on a vote.

How does that provide evidence that it must go?

If there is a workable option for anything, in the governmental process, is that then evidence that the existing process must cede to the workable option?

This does not make sense to me.

Perhaps you meant something else -- I was only reading what you wrote and the understanding provided by the words used.

Perhaps precedent would've been a better word, from a legislative standpoint, though still not quite correct.

Anyway, I get what ymalkiel is trying to say. Basically, the constitution stipulates 51-50, which later legislative bodies then revised to 60-40.

This is just one of those cases in which folks will find themselves on the the side of the framers when it serves their interests. When the constitution does not serve their interest, of course, then it is an ancient document written by white supremacist goons. 

I tend to always agree with the latter and think the whole fucking thing should be revised every 10 years or so with the census.

Fair enough. 

Was more just responding to the wise ass listing of a definition to a word that everybody should know the definition to VS explaining what was meant by the post.

brianlux

I agree, like daylight savings, alarm clocks, and annoying music in the grocery store, the filibuster has to go.

josevolution

gimmesometruth27 said:

filibuster has to go, but the dems lack the spine to go through with getting rid of it.

Totally true after all the bullshit Moscow Mitch has rammed through with no regards to any opposition it’s unreal that the Democrats are showing up to a gun fight with a knife..

static111

Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system

gimmesometruth27

static111 said:

Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system

the filibuster is not in the constitution...

the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.