filibuster!

[Hayabusa Rider]

Again, ur original argument was a strawman. Very few people have actually called for the elimination of the filibuster. THe filibuster has evolved since it's inception. People want to tweak the rules so that people actually have to filibuster like Rand Paul did or something similar where legislation isn't stalled just because of a threat to filibuster.

That would be fine with me if some modernization of rules were to come about but the talk of some here wasn't quite so rational. If there was going to be a filibuster it was going to be on the majority's terms. I see an effectively invulnerable majority as a detriment. There is already too little accountability while in office and that too is a bad thing. The downside is the potential for abuse and yes that is an issue however IMO it's better that unbridled power which exists because it can. We've had enough problems over the last decade or so that we ought to have learned what power can do to unaccountable people.

 

[nextJin]

I'm suprised by the amount of people from both sides actually say it was a good thing. I was listening to a roundtable today on Sirius POTUS where almost all sides were agreeing with the point, and that it was a good thing even if it was political grandstanding.

 

[Trell]

I don't agree with all of Rand Paul but I can say I respect him for at least making the filibuster a REAL filibuster.

I agree with this post 100%. The filibuster is an important tool for our democracy to have available to it, but it should always require a full on "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"-esq filibuster where you must talk to hold the floor.