What about that filibuster Democrats didn't want to get rid of? Isn't this why they said they were keeping it around?
Turns out no, it was just to block progressive legislation. I'll be surprised if Democrats use it one time in the next four years.
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
41 points (97.7% liked)
politics
20345 readers
2958 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
“If we were fiscally conservative, why wouldn’t we take the savings from Elon Musk and DOGE and move it over here and help with the border?” Paul said on the Senate floor before voting began. “Why would we be doing a brand new bill to increase spending by $340 billion?”
I hope he really does think about that. Where is that money?
Budget bills are not subject to filibuster. There's not a lot they can do to stop this.
From Budget Reconciliation Explainer
Executive Summary
In the 119th Congress, Republicans might use reconciliation to push through their policy goals.
What is “reconciliation”?
Reconciliation is a tool – a special process – that makes legislation easier to pass in the Senate.
How is it different from a regular bill?
Instead of needing 60 votes, a reconciliation bill only needs a simple majority in the Senate.
People really need to stop blaming the Democrats for not stopping the Republicans for doing evil shit. When an axe-wielding maniac starts killing college co-eds, do you blame the maniac or do you blame the little old lady across the street for not stopping the maniac with her knitting needles. And yes, the Dems are for the most part a bunch of useless little, old ladies because that's who got elected. Don't like it? Get more people to vote in the primaries for more pols like AOC and Bernie Sanders. Assuming we ever have any more elections.
Not subject to filibuster per se, but there was absolutely something they could have done. From TFA:
Under the process, Senate rules allow for members to propose an unlimited number of amendments.
So while not literally a filibuster, they could have effectively filibustered it by simply continuing to propose amendments, preventing the bill itself from ever coming to a vote. Once again, the Democrats are showing themselves unwilling to play hardball.
Yes, knitting needles. We should still be blaming the maniac rather than bitching that the little old lady didn't do enough.
Am I mistaken, or does this budget represent an approximately 10x increase in border spending over 2022?
You just know most of it is going to be embezzled.
If the Dems don't block this in Congress, they are worthless as opposition.
This is only the beginning, though. This budget resolution is really just a planning tool, and doesn't mean anything without further action by both houses of Congress. Democrats did what they could in this round, offering specific amendments they knew Republicans would vote down, just to point out where Republicans priorities really lie. It is performative, and only really exists to give Democrats in the next election the ability to run commercials that say "My opponent voted against this thing". But in a close election, that may matter.
And please understand that Republicans have the majority in both houses, and can get anything passed that they can all agree on. (Yes, there is a Filibuster in the Senate, but there are ways around it for budget bills). Democrats may decide to be a permanent "no" vote on all this, and force Republicans to stick together. But be prepared for the fact it may not matter.
Anyone believing there will be any more free and fair elections in the US isn't paying attention.
It took less than 100 days for Hitler to consolidate power, and Trump is following the exact same playbook.
I've posted on this recently, but a key difference between the US and other countries is that elections here are run by the individual States, with some Federal oversight. In most states, there is a Secretary of State who is in charge of local elections, and is separately elected from other statewide posts. Furthermore, the actual administration of elections is done at the county or city level, by a local election board.
So, the new Fascists are limited in what they can do unless they pull off a widespread election takeover in enough localities to matter. Could they do that? Of course they could. But at least it's a lot harder than it is in other, smaller countries, where the central national government plays a more direct role in elections.
Trust me, I really, really hope you're right. But please understand that these new fascists have spent a lot of time thinking about these problems and how they're going to solve them.
Well yeah, they have a plan, it relies on a pliant Supreme Court who will do what they're told when Trump oversteps his authority. That is not guaranteed. Those justices have that job for as long as they want it, no matter how they rule. And unlike Congress, they won't cede their own power to the President just because he asks.
Here's a Constitutional Crisis for you: Trump attempts to postpone the midterms because of a made up emergency, several States sue, the SC rules against Trump. Then Trump's J6 buddies start attacking the Liberal justices directly, maybe even offing one, and Trump pardons them immediately. Will that be enough to get Republicans in Congress to snap to their senses, or will they continue to let him grab them by the pussy and promptly appoint Matt Gaetz (or Sergey Lavrov) as the next SC Justice?
Do note that the reason Hitler was able to dismantle the Weimar Republic that fast was because (IIRC) the constitution gave too much power to the chancellor. More robust democracies need a lot more time.
Take a good hard look at how rapidly Trump and his team are expanding the powers of the president. Those constitutional limits are close to breaking point already.
Why is the first comment on half the articles here about how Democrats are responsible for what the party in power does?
It doesn't feel sincere.
Because for a party that was screaming at the people that they need to do various things (vote, worry, protest, whatever), Dem party is sickened by inaction. Not even token opposition.
While they do absolutely suck, they can only vote against it and withhold votes but that's all they can really do with a budget bill.
They should be withhold votes and speaking to the public making damn sure everyone knows they are 100% against the bill, they will not even vote for it, and make sure that this budget is all on Republicans and not a single thing came from Democrats and all the fallout will be in them.
I mean to be fair they all voted against it. They have been worthless as opposition so far, but this isn't that.