Bannon and other Trump sycophants helped export their election fraud nonsense/ insurrection to Brazil
1 Like
In recent history we went from using it once a year, to 10 times a year, to 100 times a year.
Are you saying that the 10-times-a-year period was the most stable?
If a policy is really popular, but impossible because of the filibuster, it creates a solid incentive for the POTUS to move ahead unilaterally. Maybe we could punish the POTUS somehow though.
Well, would there be more compromise without the filibuster? There would be more legislation without it, but not necessarily more compromise. I think the tendency of the parties to gerrymander and play to the base for primaries leads to more divergent views between the parties. The filibuster isnât the cause.
To be clear, I held to RDOâs position for many years. I was pro " keep the filibuster". But the past 20 years have forced me to reconsider. I suppose the overturn of Roe sealed the deal. Weâve ended up using SCOTUS as a proxy for legislation. To me, this is tantamount to admitting the legislative branch is virtually impotent.
Maybe we could talk about specific legislation?
Would there have been better compromises on health care or immigration without the filibuster?
Would there have been more/less stability with the policies?
I agree that the filibuster isnât the underlying cause of our mutual hatred, but I donât know if it adds or subtracts or does nothing to our compromise.
The filibuster actually helps prevent the legislature from swinging wildly with slim party majorities, which is what it is supposed to do. Unfortunately instead of compromise it is resulting is stasis.
Right now the filibusterâs push for compromise is being overwhelmed by gerrymandering and geographic self-sorting in the electorate allowing the extremes to have WAY too much power⌠I think the prevalence of law by regulation and court fiat is a result of the failure of the legislature to try to effectively govern.
1 Like
Maybe such discussion should not be in this Brazilian thread but in a US thread unless you are talking about legislation that Brazil should adopt?
1 Like
It was never supposed to do anything. Itâs an Air Bud rule. Which is why I donât like it.
If someone could demonstrate that it that does what we want it to do in practice, I could be convinced (though I guess in another thread).
Surely itâs self evident that it prevents much from getting passed without a 60 vote majority, whereas without it youâd only need a 50 (+ VP) majority. Thus it prevents the passage of laws with only small majorities of Senate support.
Thatâs kind of the premise of the Senate, to put a bit of molasses in the gears of legislature, whereas the House is a bit more of the WD40.
Yes-- it absolutely stops things from passing. I was asking for evidence that it causes stability or compromise.
Well it reduces things from happening which is basically the definition of stability (with some notable exception of debt ceiling etc which creates instability⌠although I think you only need 50 for that?)
To make this thread about American in a new wayâŚ
Itâs funny that Bolsonaro has been hiding out in Orlando for the last month.
1 Like
Florida-- home of disney, old people, presidential candidates, and right wing insurrectionists.
(Some overlap)
1 Like
There was an interesting Wendover Productions YouTube video about how Florida basically developed itself into having lots of disparate towns/cities that are super designed around a specific demographic which is why you get lots of eccentricity in the state. A lot to do with the fact that FL was very late to become developed because itâs basically a swamp naturally.
Those South Florida towns all look like mazes of lakes and canals full of alligators. There are horror stories of having to go miles to get from your house to a neighbors house, or to a store, that is literally a stoneâs throw away.
Yes thatâs the demographic of people who really want waterfront (including canal-front) property! EVERYone gets a boat spot!
1 Like