The Filibuster-racist??

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee The Filibuster-racist??

Viewing 28 posts - 1 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
  • #1958372

    Elizabeth Warren and other Dems now calling the Filibuster racist.
    Just some more nonsensical wokeness stupidity, the Filibuster is very necessary, has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with preventing a slim majority from passing major partisan changes that will be completely reversed 2yrs later. Actually ironic, is that the Dems filibustered Tim Scotts police reform bill last yr…


    To torahvalv: You clearly do not know the history of the filibuster rule.

    I am not sure whether the filibuster is good or bad – for the Jews, for Americans, for blunjet – but, yes, the history of the filibuster is tied to racism. Learn some American history.



    Elizabeth Warren said this on the campaign trail in 2019 and during the debates. Nothing new for her.


    Accusations of racism is an old time tool in the left’s and Democrats’ political arsenal. It is their best catch-all on-demand tactic when all else fails.

    It is best ignored.


    Regardless of its history. That does not make it currently racist.


    Whatever you favor, the “filibuster” (requirement of a super-majority in the Senate) is against. The super-majority requirements are likely to block Biden legislation, just as they previously blocked Trump legislation. Many things Trump wanted to do the Democrats consider racist, were blocked by the filibuster. The many administrative laws (executive orders) that were issued since Congress refused to act (due to the super-majority requirement in the Senate), would have been enacted as statutes but for the filibuster.

    In general, the super-majority rule protects minority groups who fear the majority will gang up on them and act contrary to their interests. That is probably a good thing.


    Huju, I wont bother checking what the filibuster was used for, because your argument is insane. If an anti-semite uses a gun to kill jews, that means the gun-bearer is an anti-semite, not the gun itself. If anti-semetic politicians way back when used the filibuster to hurt the jews, that makes them anti-semetic, not the filibuster itself. If nowadays you want to discuss how politicians are using the filibuster in racist ways, we can discuss that, but its plain stupid to call the filibuster inherently racist. The filibuster is very necessary for obvious reasons, ESPECIALLY in todays America. I’m sorry if it impedes the radical leftist plans…


    huju has been misled by the left-wing media that he gets his misinformation from. The history of the creation of the filibuster has absolutely zero to do with racism. That false narrative is part of the left’s typical false accusations of racism. Like the boy who cried wolf, cries of racism ring hollow today.

    The filibuster was created in the US Senate rules in 1806. It began to actually get used in 1837. Neither its creation nor its first use has anything whatsoever to do with racism.

    Reb Eliezer

    The filibuster currently is obstruction and can be racist. It has to reformed to stand, speak and justify one’s point about the issue as it used to be otherwise it is invoked just for obstruction.


    To torahvalv: You clearly do not know the history of the filibuster rule.

    I am not sure whether the filibuster is good or bad – for the Jews, for Americans, for blunjet – but, yes, the history of the filibuster is tied to racism. Learn some American history.

    To huju: You clearly do not know the history of the Democrat party.

    I am not sure whether the Democrat party is bad or worse – for the Jews, for Americans, for blunjet – but, yes, the history of the Democrat party is tied to racism. Learn some American history.


    To torahvalv: You have trouble understanding what I say, so I will say it slowly. The filibuster, talking or lazy non-talking, can be used for good or evil. In your opening post, you said that the filibuster rule has nothing to do with racism. It does: it was promoted by senators of slave-holding states to strenghthen their ability to prevent the federal government from making slavery illegal. That is the connection of the filibuster to racism.

    As I said, I am not sure the filibuster is good or bad for democracy or protects any particular political point of view. But the origin of the filibuster rule is tied to the protection of slavery in the early American republic. Do you think slavery is unrelated to racism?


    Should the Supreme Court be abolished because how the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott?


    Isn’t it the ultimate irony? D-s are saying that in order to protect various minorities they need to abolish a legislative practice that is directly protecting .. minority opinions.

    There is a legitimate reason against filibuster – that it light lead to inability to address issues of importance to the country and make the country lose in international competition. This happened in Polish Seim where each member had a veto and Poland ended up falling behind and being swallwed by empires around it. I don’t think US is in this position (yet). I don’t see 40 pro-China or pro-Russia senators stopping us from addressing external threats. If we don’t spend another $2T dollars immediately, the republic might survive.


    “the history of the Democrat party is tied to racism. Learn some American history.”

    There is not and has never been a Democrat Party in the United States. You need to learn some American history.

    Furthermore the Democratic Party expelled its racists in the 1960s and 1970s. The Republican Party embraced them with open arms. Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush all opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was unquestionably good for Jews. Like I said, learn some American history.


    ” I don’t see 40 pro-China or pro-Russia senators”

    Well there were over 120 members of the House of Representatives who voted to overturn a Presidential election. So while we arent at 40 percent yet there are indeed a lot of folks who are doing the work of Putin.

    “Should the Supreme Court be abolished because how the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott?”

    No, but the Constitution was amended to overturn that decision and Congress increased the size of the court to help to make sure that there would never again be such a horrible decision. Note that one of the justices in the majority, John Archibald Campbell, would commit treason against the United States, joining the Confederacy.

    anonymous Jew

    Charlie, Robert Byrd was a member of the Klan and a U.S. senator. No Democratic Party? Who do you think established and enforced the Jim Crow laws?


    charlie, while I am on board with the notion that Putin encourages discord in Us, as well as in other democratic countries:
    40% is for the Senate, not for hoi polloi of representatives who are supposed to represent people’s passions.
    It was probably a mistake to make Senate elections direct (17th amendment, 1912). This makes Senate in some aspects similar to Representatives, diluting the diversity of the forces embedded in the constitution. Progressive period has a bad streak of amendments (all in the name of improving people’s lives, of course) – Senate election is between direct federal income tax and prohibition and women’s votes :).


    Huju your not changing anything in your second post. Your saying the filibuster is tied to racism because racists once used it for their racist agenda. Well then, many things no one ever thought of as racist can also somehow be tied to racism. The point that I was saying, is on what Elizabeth warren said. That the filibuster should be rid of because its somehow racist. Absolute stupidity.


    “No Democratic Party”

    No Democrat Party. Idiot Republicans keep using that term.

    “Robert Byrd was a member of the Klan and a U.S. senator.”

    Ed Jackson was a KKK member and Governor of Indiana. Clarence Morley was a KKK member and Governor of Colorado. Both were Republicans. Calvin Coolidge openly sought KKK support in 1924. William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover actively tried to purge the Republican Party of Black’s, particularly in the South, and largely succeeded, in something called the “lily white movement”. Rutherford B. Hayes ended Reconstruction and allowed Jim Crow to proceed unabated. Not until 1936 would the Republican Party finally stop the racism, but it instead turned to anti-Semitism in the lead up to World War II. A miracle happened in 1940 when it nominated lifelong Democrat Wendell Willkie for President and endorsed Civil Rights but that ended in 1964 for good. Richard Nixon, who as late as 1960 had a good civil rights record, welcomed the racists into the Republican Party whom the Democrats had expelled. The last good thing a Republican president did for civil rights was when Nixon appointed Lewis Powell to the Supreme Court. Powell, an otherwise conservative corporate lawyer, was loved by Virginia civil rights activists. Lewis Powell was a Democrat, the last person to be nominates to the Supreme Court by a President of the opposite Party.

    There were exceptions. My great grandfather was a big Republican activist in Kentucky a century ago. He helped to get Edwin Morrow elected Governor in 1919. Morrow got the legislature to enact an anti-lynching law, and he sent the National Guard to Lexington to prevent a lynching. The National Guard opened fire on the lynch mob, killing a number of them. That of course ended Morrow’s political career. 🙁

    Republican apologists for their party’s terrible recent civil rights record rarely admit the party’s history. Only from 1940 to 1960 was it superior to the Democrats.


    If you read the history of the 17th Amendment you will learn that the impetus for it was the state legislatures themselves. They were tired of having their elections nationalized. They were very close to getting an Article V Convention when Congress finally gave in and sent them the 17th Amendment for ratification, which occurred quickly.


    todays republican-democrat parties dont even remotely resemble those of 50yrs ago, this discussion is rather irrelevant.


    I would still vote against the 17th. Most of current turmoil is because we are trying to have one system for the whole country using 51% majority. This maybe makes sense for core ideas – slavery, civil rights, but for the rest, we could live nicely with CA having Obamacare (at their own expense) and Utah having RomneyCare. This country has hat most countries in the world do not – open competition between state governments, not just private businesses. If you don’t like CA taxes – you can easily move to TX. Much easier than from Poland to Germany.

    So, progressives in it’s desire to achieve their goals quickly, starting 100+ years ago, federalized all issues, and ruined the good thing. Presidential elections will be less dramatic if we were to exclude vaccine shots, medical insurance, fracking, business taxes, and other non-federal issues. Presidential debates would be about China, Russia, and Mexican border. Last year, they even skipped foreign debate, concentrating on more “important” issues.


    Whoa @charliehall, you do like to sidetrack, don’t you.

    The history of the DemocratIC party is tied to racism. That is a fact.

    Therefore, if the DemocratIC party must do away with anything that is historically racist, than the DemocratIC party should be on the list.

    Don’t you agree?


    The Democrat Party ought to be forcibly disbanded by the law due to its history and currently ongoing activities related to electoral fraud, falsehoods and promotion of racism.


    To charlieha II: I have one footnote to your comment about Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including Reagan, Nixon and Goldwater. Barry Goldwater said, more than 10 years after his vote against the Civil Rights Act, that it was his biggest regret about his actions as a senator.


    Another footnote: Reagan & Bush I upheld civil rights of the entire Eastern Europe. And Bush II upheld civil rights of Iraqis. And Trump of citizens of IS and Ukraine.


    The Democrats aught to be careful what they wish for, ’cause they might get it. As mentioned above, the filibuster is a tool that protects the minority from the tyranny of a slim majority thereby requiring negotiation and compromise, the cornerstones of democracy, in order to pass legislation that all can live with. If the Dems are successful in removing the protection of the filibuster this go-round, they’re likely to regret it the next time the Republicans are in the majority.


    Redleg > Democrats aught to be careful

    They will not be. They believe in progress, so things got to go in their direction. Everything else is a travesty. Trump/McConnell were able to put a lot of conservative judges due to the weakened filibuster, but they did not learn the lesson, unfortunately.

Viewing 28 posts - 1 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.