DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Racist History of The Filibuster

Seems like this is the big fight to start off the congressional term. Minority leader Mitch McConnel is trying to do the only thing he’s good at with obstructing the democratic lead congress. He refuses to vote on common rules and procedures because he doesn’t respect the will of the American people to let Dems govern. He’s crying “but bipartisanship!” by holding meaningful legislation that will immediately help the American people by trying to ensure the racist filibuster stays in place.

Right now, I know many of you are probably saying “oh look, ANOTHER RACIST CLAIM?!”

Read the following article in facts and analysis.

Audio Interview and Transcript

So how many of you want to keep this racist relic around in our government?

so you don't want bipartisan government when the country is basically split 50/50?

Glad you took the time to listen and/or read the transcript!

If you’d like to start a thread about “bipartisanship”, please click the new thread button on the main index of Paulus Politics. This thread isn’t here for your WHATABOUT on “bipartisanship”.

Also:

Oh snap.

Hi arch, I believe you missed the new thread button on the main page.

If you wish to create a thread about neoliberal President Barack Obama, please click the new thread button. You may not realize you have engaged in a Soviet Totalitarian propaganda technique known as a whataboutism. I know you fashion yourself to be a patriot, so please be aware of the propaganda techniques you use.

Nothing from you is new. A button won't change that.

That's right folks... filibusters are now... RACIST!

I'm no McConnell defender, but this is typical partisanship at play. Certain folks are just realizing that the filibuster is the devil right when they're gaining majorities.

I hate the idea of the filibuster and will be glad it's gone, but drop the ruse that this is some sort of righteous effort.

I see it differently.

I agree it has been used simply to go against the other party for purely political window dressing.

It does serve a vital purpose. Majority rule isn't what this country is about as much as people think so. The minority not having the right to stuff things in the Senate could be a very dangerous thing if a rouge party gained control and could ram through just about anything they wanted.

I know it can be frustrating at times, but so be.

To Rockets point, the filibuster's he is talking about were waged by Democrats. The KKK was the democrat's enforcement arm on the local level.

How that applies to things today I don't know, but he is the one who brought it up.

So you're still one of those trying to act like the political parties of today somehow represent the Civil war era. Well aren't you special. Yet as those parties stand now, segregationists ran as fast as they could away from the Democratic party to become Republicans.

Where were you when the Republicans blocked the filibuster to confirm Neil Gorsuch?

Where were you while Trump was screaming for an end to the filibuster?

You should know that I'm no fan of dem leadership. Regardless of whatever is going on in congress, there's plenty of historical information showing what the filibuster has been historically established to be.

Be careful, you're going to end up another 3-4 page back and forth with Erik about dixiecrats...

All the majorities want the filibuster gone...until they become the minority. Then it's a "crucial aspect of preserving American rights."

I do get Peen's point about preserving the minority rights, but I just can't envision our founding fathers being very glad with this loophole.

It might be important, but it's become a clownshow. Perhaps instead of just throwing it out, it needs to be replaced.

Agree. It's awful. Understand the need to protect minority rights, but to do so by procedurally outlasting the majority vote seems objectively ridiculous to me.

Did you ever notice how using the term, "protecting minority rights" is only brought up and heavily discussed by some people when it involves their own political interests and not so much at any other time?

I'm not saying you don't know this, but it's two different minorities. We're still not talking about THAT minority rights. I mean... we're talking about Mitch McConnell.

Yep...everyone wants things until those things aren't convenient.

Time out. I have been a long believer in minority rights.

Majority rule can be a dangerous thing. That is why we are a Republic of States and not a democracy.

A Republic of states is a pretty package to wrap around some Americans having more political power than others. When a state like Wyoming with a population of 580,000 people has the same two senators wielding the same power as a state with 39.37 million people like California, you have to have a pretty package to sell that kind of crap.

to a certain extent I agree with you. It's like Larry Flynt said,"Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper."

But at some point, ignoring a super majority is where we are now.

To be more on point, we are talking about Democrats and Republicans and their political views. The names of the players change over the years. Actual leaders for each party didn't occur until the 1920's.

Nope. I didn't miss your new thread.

I made my post at 12:23 a.m.

Your 'new' thread was posted at 1:37 a.m. according to the time stamp. Didn't miss a thing.

Also, you sure like throwing out big words, and labeling others don't you.


THIS thread is titled, YOU titled it. I thought perhaps you would be interested in seeing that stupid labels are just that.

Racist history of the filibuster when one party does it, but not when a different party does it? Okay.

I think the point was why the filibuster began. what the purpose of creating it was for and how it was used at its inception. But then maybe again I'm misunderstanding what "the history" of something means.

The filibuster is dumb because the American people decided by voting who should have control of Congress.

Republicans in 2016 were openly bragging about winning full control of government and not needing the Dems to pass anything.

Now they don’t have control and all of a sudden want to talk about “preserving minority rights” and sharing power.

Nah. End the filibuster.

I think you may have a point. But the larger point still stands. Figure it out.

I don't think I'm the one that's having the problem "figuring it out". Unless of course you think the word history has a different definition? Words have meanings.

Glad you read the transcript and/or listened to the audio!! Glad the only retorts you can come up with involves engaging in society style propaganda techniques.

I'm glad you're happy. I'm sad you can't see the irony in your initial post compared to what I posted.