Kyrsten Sinema reiterates support for the filibuster...again

[7,052,770]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

That's good. If America elects Republicans to power (legitimately), Republicans should be able to enact the policies they ran on. Elections should have consequences for both parties.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Sinema isn't wrong, if you take the long view and think beyond the next 2 years.

Elections have consequences. That's how democracies are supposed to work. What's the point of passing any bills then if they can be reversed in the future? Why even do anything then?

That's just a stupid excuse for not getting rid of the filibuster. It doesn't hold any weight.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sinema isn't wrong, if you take the long view and think beyond the next 2 years.

Elections have consequences. That's how democracies are supposed to work. What's the point of passing any bills then if they can be reversed in the future? Why even do anything then?

That's just a stupid excuse for not getting rid of the filibuster. It doesn't hold any weight.

Elections has consequences does not mean "the opposition party should have 0 voice in decision making whatsoever". To think such is to adopt a profoundly stupid and unnatural perspective in regards to governance. Compromise is on some level an absolutely essential part of how governance works.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Sinema isn't wrong, if you take the long view and think beyond the next 2 years.

Elections have consequences. That's how democracies are supposed to work. What's the point of passing any bills then if they can be reversed in the future? Why even do anything then?

That's just a stupid excuse for not getting rid of the filibuster. It doesn't hold any weight.

Elections has consequences does not mean "the opposition party should have 0 voice in decision making whatsoever". To think such is to adopt a profoundly stupid and unnatural perspective in regards to governance. Compromise is on some level an absolutely essential part of how governance works.

1) The filibuster actively disincentivizes compromise and encourages partisanship-fueled, crippling dysfunction. 

2) Respecting minority rights doesn’t mean “the majority party should have zero ability to pass 90% of its agenda, regardless of how popular it is;” that’s called tyranny of the majority and is why the filibuster is something the founders expressly opposed.

[Del Tachi]

1) The filibuster actively disincentivizes compromise and encourages partisanship-fueled, crippling dysfunction.[/url]

I don't understand the logic of this argument.  The filibuster actually ensures compromise by requiring an affirmative supermajority to advance legislation.  A majority party that could pass any bill with only 50 votes would never have any reason to compromise, and this is exactly what we see with reonciliation bills like TCJA and ARPA.      

2) Respecting minority rights doesn’t mean “the majority party should have zero ability to pass 90% of its agenda, regardless of how popular it is;” that’s called tyranny of the majority and is why the filibuster is something the founders expressly opposed.

Maybe this is a quaint answer, but there's at least some truth in the idea that if Democrats' agenda was *so popular then Republican senators, as well as Democratic holdouts like Manchin/Sinema, would be feeling more pressure from their constituents to get onboard.  They don't, so it must be that positive issue polling on discrete, amorphous issues like "voting rights" doesn't actually translate into a workable legislative majority (which should not be very surprising.)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is a way for Sinema to be resurrected, the Standing Filibuster mist insisted upon so the burden is on the minority

[wbrocks67]

The problem with what Sinema is saying is that she's not technically wrong in the sense that yes, this is why things were put in place the way they are - but she's not addressing the fact that this isn't your normal everyday GOP.

Yes, was the 60 vote threshold MEANT for bipartisanship and for extremes not to take hold in either direction? Yes, she's right. It was. But it also wasn't meant for a competing party that was refusing to work in any good faith.

She needs to answer follow up questions. We get where you stand, but how do you expect to get things done with a party that is obstructing nearly every single agenda item and refuses to cooperate?She's living in this fantasy land where the GOP is willing to work with Democrats on the agenda, and that's not reality. So she is failing to come up with a solution to that issue. OK, you won't blow up the filibuster. But then what are you doing to get GOPers on board, and what is your backup plan to get stuff done if they won't??

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

The problem with what Sinema is saying is that she's not technically wrong in the sense that yes, this is why things were put in place the way they are - but she's not addressing the fact that this isn't your normal everyday GOP.

Yes, was the 60 vote threshold MEANT for bipartisanship and for extremes not to take hold in either direction? Yes, she's right. It was.

It really wasn't.

[Greedo punched first]

Does she not care about Brnovich v. DNC? Brnovich v. DNC might cost her a second term.

[7,052,770]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

[Greedo punched first]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

I just said that here.

Does she not care about Brnovich v. DNC? Brnovich v. DNC might cost her a second term.

This is what the case is about.

[lfromnj]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

I just said that here.

Does she not care about Brnovich v. DNC? Brnovich v. DNC might cost her a second term.

This is what the case is about.

Yeah the only way to win is by Ballot harvesting

[Greedo punched first]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

I just said that here.

Does she not care about Brnovich v. DNC? Brnovich v. DNC might cost her a second term.

This is what the case is about.

Yeah the only way to win is by Ballot harvesting

It isn't about ballot harvesting at all. It's if SCOTUS goes beyond upholding the ballot harvesting and out of precinct bans and decides to kill section 2's results test entirely. Doing so would also mean Terri Sewell's district in Alabama would become safe R.

[emailking]

Winning a majority doesn't mean the opposition should be shut out of governing, but it should mean that the option is there to shut them out of whenever desired or needed. Hundreds of bipartisan bills are passed every session so the opposition is not going to be shut out if we get rid of the filibuster. Even for something like voting rights, if there was no filibuster there would still be an amendment process and Republican amendments could be offered and some would probably pass. But yeah, if they can't offer anything constructive then the majority should be able to just pass something.

[Del Tachi]

The problem with what Sinema is saying is that she's not technically wrong in the sense that yes, this is why things were put in place the way they are - but she's not addressing the fact that this isn't your normal everyday GOP.

Yes, was the 60 vote threshold MEANT for bipartisanship and for extremes not to take hold in either direction? Yes, she's right. It was. But it also wasn't meant for a competing party that was refusing to work in any good faith.

She needs to answer follow up questions. We get where you stand, but how do you expect to get things done with a party that is obstructing nearly every single agenda item and refuses to cooperate?She's living in this fantasy land where the GOP is willing to work with Democrats on the agenda, and that's not reality. So she is failing to come up with a solution to that issue. OK, you won't blow up the filibuster. But then what are you doing to get GOPers on board, and what is your backup plan to get stuff done if they won't??

This post does not engage with reality.

Right now, there is an almost $600B bipartisan infrastructure package to be released that will almost certainly be passed with more than 60 votes.  All of Biden's cabinet nominees (save one) were confirmed with supermajorities in the Senate, as have most of his judicial nominees.  This Senate has passed, with huge bipartisan majorities, new federal hate crime legislation, an extension of the PPP program, and the largest industrial technology bill in American history.  

If the GOP was truly only a party of obstruction, none of this would have come to pass.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

Sorry, but this is utterly and plainly myopic. Sinema's hopes will rest on demographics, her approval ratings, national environment, her brand, etc, much, much more than anything that follows from a voting rights bill not being passed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

If D's retain the H  218/217 and a 52/48 Green Jobs, HR 1 and Statehood will pass, the 304 blue wall has zero Voter Suppression, we have 500 days til the Election, the Election isn't a white make Election, we have females, Arabs, Jews Latinos and Blacks, to sure you the D base, let's not get hasty, if D's loose in 2022, then we can criticize


But, Biden should have put Harris up to overturn the Parliamentary on Minimum wage, and overturned the decision, this allowed Sinema to stick to her position and Biden needs to start prosecuting Trump and stop defending him

[AGA]

While I like her politics, Sinema seems like she's just trying to rile people up with all this moderate-heroing.

[lfromnj]

While I like her politics, Sinema seems like she's just trying to rile people up with all this moderate-heroing.

I mean the media keeps asking if they will bust the filibuster so blame the media.

https://twitter.com/JulieNBCNews/status/1407462057939718144

This is like the 1000th time this question has been asked.

[7,052,770]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

Sorry, but this is utterly and plainly myopic. Sinema's hopes will rest on demographics, her approval ratings, national environment, her brand, etc, much, much more than anything that follows from a voting rights bill not being passed.

Those factors will determine who the people of Arizona want as their senator, but who actually wins will depend on who the Arizona legislature allows to vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

Sorry, but this is utterly and plainly myopic. Sinema's hopes will rest on demographics, her approval ratings, national environment, her brand, etc, much, much more than anything that follows from a voting rights bill not being passed.

Those factors will determine who the people of Arizona want as their senator, but who actually wins will depend on who the Arizona legislature allows to vote.

I think you are overestimating how much power the AZ state legislature has to decide the electorate in an AZ US senate election.
Vote registration regulations and voter ID laws are extremely ineffective at actually stopping people from voting (research has shown this), in part because of strong activism and organizations involved in GOTV.
Even the GA state law passed earlier this year is unlikely to change the electorate of GA all that much. Black orgs will just adjust and turn out their voters in line with the newest regs.
Do you believe AZ can just pass a law saying that "if you can speak Spanish you can't vote"?
Because something like that won't pass legal scrutiny and backfire massively, likely turbocharging Latino turnout. No way AZ GOPers do something so plainly suicidal.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

While I like her politics, Sinema seems like she's just trying to rile people up with all this moderate-heroing.

I mean the media keeps asking if they will bust the filibuster so blame the media.

https://twitter.com/JulieNBCNews/status/1407462057939718144
This is like the 1000th time this question has been asked.

The obvious follow up question being why he values the ability of Mitch McConnell to paralyze legislation over the ability of Americans to vote was, I assume, unasked.
And just what he finds so damn assuming.

 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Good opinion article by the Queen.

Opinion: Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster

My support for retaining the 60-vote threshold is not based on the importance of any particular policy. It is based on what is best for our democracy. The filibuster compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles.

To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?

Good point.

Good-faith arguments have been made both criticizing and defending the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I share the belief expressed in 2017 by 31 Senate Democrats opposing elimination of the filibuster — a belief shared by President Biden. While I am confident that several senators in my party still share that belief, the Senate has not held a debate on the matter.

And here she highlights the hypocrisy of Democrats. Democrats love to lie about how bad filibuster is for the democracy or how it hurts them much more than GOP, because "muh ackchyually GOP doesn't have any agenda, but obstructionism and judges". Yet, when Trump wanted to get rid of filibuster, Dems defended it.

[John Dule]

why does atlas keep saying it hates christian cinema so much. Ben-hur is a classic

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's an ongoing media saga, the D's can certainly win in 2022, the Rs haven't won the NPVI since 2016 and Kevin McCarthy polls have cratered in Cali since the recall, the D's need to worry about infrastructure and Other issues instead of blaming Sinema. After 2022/ if D's win we will negate Sinema with adding more seats