Thanks for explaining my own position
@Lacius, without your help I wouldn't know what *I* think.
I can see it now - the hypothetical scenario of a President Lacius (God, spare us all).
Alternative America, present day. A bill to fully legalise slavery has just passed due to the Senate's inaction. President Lacius addresses the nation:
"Dear slaves. I know that your new predicament is surprising and unfortunate, your emancipation is my priority. As President, I have advocated against the bill that put you in servitude, however... we couldn't really stop it without using the filibuster, and using it just wouldn't sit right with me - it's undemocratic. Fair is fair - the majority has decided, and no amendment is absolute. I hope proponents of abolition elect me again so we can try to undo this. Until then, hang in there, kitties!"
Get outta here.
If it's there, use it to achieve your goals. If you don't use it, you shouldn't be in office - you don't have what it takes. The public gave you a vote of confidence and you let your own personal feeling stand in the way of doing your job. If that's your idea of governance, spare the people the disappointment - don't run for office. Politics take grit, if you don't have grit, you're just a guy with "principles" and no courage or power to change anything.
@tabzer immediately understood what my point was, meanwhile you're just trying (and failing) to pull weird gotchas instead of addressing the point.
Given the opportunity, you *would* use whatever systems were available to you to achieve your goals, or you'd be a fool. If you're against using the system to achieve your goals, which may or may not include changing said system, you're supporting the wrong party - the Democrats are on record praising the filibuster *and* the Electoral College when the two behooved them. President Obama himself praised it in 2005, now that he's *not* a Senator and the tool is no longer useful it's a "Jim Crow relic".
Obama vs. Obama is almost as good as Lacius vs. Lacius.
Can't break the rules to change the rules. The majority doesn't want to hear what others have to say, even if it's the rule. You might own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. He said it, not me.
I also won't bother commenting much in regards to any and all accusations of "authoritarian tendencies" - I'm the guy who clearly stated that the government should be limited in scope and size, unintrusive and ideally in a state of near-constant stalemate so that only broadly supported policy slips through. You might not know this, but libertarians? They're not big fans of the government. Shocking, I know. If that's your definition of what an authoritarian government looks like, it's incongruent with the actual definition of the word.
Authoritarian
adjective
Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
I want the government out of people's business, and their pockets. I've made that abundantly clear, and I'll always stand for personal freedoms, using any and all tools available to protect them, or advocate for them.