A Quora on Filibusters

[a425couple]

Anthony Cady
Proud American at The United States of America (1976–present)Tue

How did McConnell manage to confirm Amy Coney Barrett by a simple
majority but Schumer is struggling to get the Voting Reform Act passed?
It is a lesson that Democrats should learn and why Democrats are digging
their own grave when it comes to throwing out the filibuster.

Harry Reid (D-NV) was the Senate majority leader when Obama was in
office. He eliminated the filibuster in order to push Obama appointments
to all the other Federal Courts. Because of that McConnell paid
Democrats back. If a simple majority is all that is needed to push
people through and onto the Appellate courts, no reason the same can’t
be done for Supreme Court Justices. It was payback that haunted Democrats.

McConnell drew the line there and said he felt the filibuster for
legislation was too important to remove even though President Trump was
trying to get him to do so. Democrats, including Schumer gave floor
speeches on how important the filibuster was and how it should never be
removed.

Now, Schumer, who in his defense has pretty much proved himself a
hypocrite on every issue that comes up, wants to remove it so he can
pass partisan bullshit, which is what the filibuster is there to prevent.

Democrats have a problem where they never think much farther ahead and
how things are going to bite them in the ass. If they remove the
filibuster, it won’t be long until they find out how bad the
repercussions will be.


Christopher Siano
· 13h ago
Any clue what the longest Filibuster in history was?

Some 70+ DAYS. The bill? 1964 Civil Rights Act. The party delaying the
vote? Democrats.

[Baxter]

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:rABEJ.293423$I%1.20...@fx36.iad:

A democrat - not THE democrats - 69% of Senate Democrats voted FOR the
1964 Civil Rights Act.

[Al Czervik]

And the House Democrats even worse at 63%.

Racist then. Racist now.

[BT]

Baxter wrote:

> a425couple wrote in

> > Some 70+ DAYS. The bill? 1964 Civil Rights Act. The party delaying the
> > vote? Democrats.

> A democrat - not THE democrats

Nice try in your attempt to get people to believe that only one Democrat
opposed this bill.

> - 69% of Senate Democrats voted FOR the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

That's really sad considering it was just about a hundred years after the Civil War ended.

Here's a factoid: Algore says his daddy voted for the bill.

But he voted against it.

Bill Clinton's mentor also voted against it.

Algore was raised in a posh hotel in Washington, DC -- his only contact with the
common man during his childhood was when his daddy called room service.

B. T.

[Baxter]

Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ss79oa$rh0$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 1/15/2022 7:43 AM, Baxter wrote:
>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:rABEJ.293423$I%1.20...@fx36.iad:


>>>
>>>

>>> Christopher Siano
>>> · 13h ago
>>> Any clue what the longest Filibuster in history was?
>>>
>>> Some 70+ DAYS. The bill? 1964 Civil Rights Act. The party delaying
the
>>> vote? Democrats.
>>>
>> A democrat - not THE democrats - 69% of Senate Democrats voted FOR the
>> 1964 Civil Rights Act.
>
> And the House Democrats even worse at 63%.
>
> Racist then. Racist now.
>

You're math challenged - and proud of your ignorance. Or is it you
simply don't understand the word "majority"?

The MAJORITY of the House Democrats voted FOR the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And what you fail to note, is that regardles of Party, it was ALL
conservatives that opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yeah, there were
conservatives in both parties back then - now nearly ALL the
conservatives are Repugs - ALL of the Repugs are conservatives (or worse)
and only a couple of the Dems are conservatives.

[BT]

Baxter wrote:

> And what you fail to note, is that regardles of Party, it was ALL
> conservatives that opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yeah, there
> were conservatives in both parties back then

That's far too superficial. The southerners were hardly "conservative"
even using your definition. They weren't exactly free enterprise supporters
before the Civil War and for a century thereafter.

Besides, I thought you said the bigots sided with whatever party had
the most people registered. That's a crock anyway.

You're lower than pond scum.

B. T.

[Al Czervik]

On 1/18/2022 7:47 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ss79oa$rh0$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 1/15/2022 7:43 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:rABEJ.293423$I%1.20...@fx36.iad:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christopher Siano
>>>> · 13h ago
>>>> Any clue what the longest Filibuster in history was?
>>>>
>>>> Some 70+ DAYS. The bill? 1964 Civil Rights Act. The party delaying
> the
>>>> vote? Democrats.
>>>>
>>> A democrat - not THE democrats - 69% of Senate Democrats voted FOR the
>>> 1964 Civil Rights Act.
>>
>> And the House Democrats even worse at 63%.
>>
>> Racist then. Racist now.
>>
> You're math challenged - and proud of your ignorance. Or is it you
> simply don't understand the word "majority"?

The numbers say that Democrats are nearly 2X as racist as Republicans.
That's so much better?

[Baxter]

Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ssnfe3$i5l$1@dont-
email.me:

You mean the imaginary numbers pushed by conservaturd propagandists?

Or are you ignorant of the last 150 years of history?

[Al Czervik]

Are you a conservaturd? I'm using your numbers on the 1964 vote.

[Baxter]

Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in news:sssljt$jcc$1@dont-
email.me:

There were conservaturds and liberals in both parties back then.

Still, you don't understand the word "majority"

[BT]

Baxter wrote:

> There were conservaturds and liberals in both parties back then.

So? What matters is whether someone was a bigot or not. Many|
blacks of earlier times would tell you that "liberals" included many
bigots and were treated fairly by "conservatives".

You need to get rid of those coloring-book stereotypes you're
addicted to.

> Still, you don't understand the word "majority"

Neither do you -- majorities of voters in California and North Carolina
(including a majority of blacks) voted agains allowing same-sex marriages
and you were only too happy to let five people in the entire country squash
those majority votes.

B. T.

[Al Czervik]

I understand your logic. The Democrats weren't racist because only 40%
of them were KKK members. The Democrats weren't racist because lynching
a runaway slave wasn't against the law. Democrats aren't racist because
some white women get abortions too. Cops are racist because a white cop
killed a black man.

[Baxter]

Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ssv6q7$5dg$1@dont-
email.me:

Didn't I say that there were conservaturds/racists in both parties back
then? But that didn't make the *Party* racist.

>Cops are racist because a white cop
> killed a black man.
>

Oooh, let's take a look at the Portlan Police - with a long history of
racism, nazism, connections to White Supremacist groups like the Proud
Boys. You might claim that not Portland cops are racist - but they work
with and support those who are racist. Cops can pretty much expose the
racists or even walk away should it come to that. But legislators are
not in an at-will employment situation - and the votes pretty much told
you who the racists were.

[Gronk]

Al Czervik wrote:
> On 1/18/2022 7:47 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ss79oa$rh0$1@dont-

>>> On 1/15/2022 7:43 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in

>>>>> Christopher Siano
>>>>>     · 13h ago
>>>>> Any clue what the longest Filibuster in history was?
>>>>>
>>>>> Some 70+ DAYS. The bill? 1964 Civil Rights Act. The party delaying
>> the
>>>>> vote? Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>> A democrat - not THE democrats - 69% of Senate Democrats voted FOR the
>>>> 1964 Civil Rights Act.
>>>
>>> And the House Democrats even worse at 63%.
>>>
>>> Racist then. Racist now.
>>>
>> You're math challenged - and proud of your ignorance.  Or is it you
>> simply don't understand the word "majority"?
>
> The numbers say that Democrats are nearly 2X as racist as Republicans.

And what numbers are those? Somehting from your ass?

[Al Czervik]

You've mistaken the the numbers that come from whatever website you
trust that show the results of 1964 vote with your kibble.

[Baxter]

Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:stseri$mmj$1...@dont-email.me:

Who was it that integrated the military?

[BT]

Baxter wrote:

> Who was it that integrated the military?

In the modern era, Barry Goldwater in Arizona, followed by
Truman making it national.

"Goldwater founded the Arizona Air National Guard. Goldwater ordered the Arizona Air
National Guard desegregated, two years before the rest of the U.S. military."

B. T.

[BT]

Baxter wrote:

> Who was it that integrated the military?

Actually, it wasn't integrated. It was simply de-segregated.

Leftwingers never grasp the difference.

B. T.

[Gronk]

Could you repost that in English please? Thanks.