“They’re all committed to it now, because Chuck has made them take a public position. Every Democratic challenger, I’m told, running for the Senate is taking the same position,” McConnell said. “I think they fully intend to do it if they can.”

Thanks for advocating for a good reason to have democratic control of the senate

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    I respectfully disagree for the reason you stated at the end. Grueling filibusters are ableist - they’re unfair to representatives with disabilities and their constituents.

    Congress is not convincing each other of anything. They can make their point concisely for the C-SPAN viewers. Filibusters are a complete waste of time.

    Say goodbye to the next FDR if you demand standing.

    • aaa999@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      that’s the point you aren’t supposed to be able to do it no one can any olympian jacked mf will eventually pass out and then you can hold the vote, that is literally the point the filibuster is supposed to kill the person doing it

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      You aren’t wrong but…

      Can you imagine the spectacle of an ancient senator literally taking a stand for something he/she believes in?

      That’d be pretty powerful.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think it should require difficulty but allow for reasonable accommodation. Wheelchair using representatives shouldn’t need to stand but should need to speak and remain awake on the floor. Really just run it past the ADA tests

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      Interesting point but name 1 senator with a disability that prevents them from doing an old school filibuster. And they are American citizens subject to laws like the rest of us. If they need an accommodation they can apply for one through the ADA

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        I’m not familiar with their disabilities because the policy we have right now doesn’t force them to get ADA accommodation. I’m arguing that we should eliminate the filibuster entirely (and not introduce physical challenge filibusters) so physical fitness doesn’t become a problem.

        What’s “sidecar” in this context?

        • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Sidecar was an autocorrect. It’s fixed now.

          Physical fitness is already an issue. That’s why we have 90 year old senators out of touch with their constituents.

          The reason the filibuster is important is because it prevents 51% of the country from deciding for 100% of the people. In order to steamroll something through there must be a supermajority. The old school filibuster works because if 1 party truly wants to stop something they must fight for it. Not send an email and the bill gets immediately killed. If a senator can not physically stand for a few hours they don’t need to be there.

          Again I understand your point about being ableist however the key point when dealing with accommodations is that the person must be able to perform the job when given a REASONABLE accommodation. Fucking the entire country because 1 senator can’t walk makes no sense and imo is not reasonable.