Thanks for explaining my own position
@Lacius, without your help I wouldn't know what *I* think.
Why are you acting like I was explaining your position to you?
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!"
The filibuster could be used to block good legislation. Thanks, Captain Obvious. It can also be used to block bad legislation. Your point is utterly irrelevant.
As an aside, the modern filibuster pretty much exists in use today because racist politicians wanted to use it to block anti-lynching legislation and keep Jim Crow laws on the books.
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.
My point was never that undemocratic aspects of the system, if in place, should never ever be used. My point is they shouldn't exist, and a democratic system is the fairest system. Prioritizing your team winning over democracy is authoritarian, whether you like it or not. You've effectively admitted that you'd be arguing on my side if it benefited your team, which is unprincipled and arbitrary.
@tabzer immediately understood what my point was, meanwhile you're just trying (and failing) to pull weird gotchas instead of addressing the point.
I've addressed the point. You just seem to be missing mine.
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".
The filibuster needs to be eliminated. While I'd prefer for that to happen while the Democrats are in control of the Senate, it doesn't matter to me when it happens as long as it happens. If it could only happen while the Republicans were in power, I'd support that. I can be against a system while acknowledging that the system can sometimes benefit my side, but that's irrelevant to whether or not the system should be eliminated.
In other words, if I were a Senator, I would vote to eliminate the filibuster, but if the filibuster survived, I might use it to block a majorly bad piece of legislation. That's not an inconsistent position.
Obama vs. Obama is almost as good as Lacius vs. Lacius.
Yeah, I'm the one making up false gotchas.
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.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. That's not a reason to keep the filibuster.
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.
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.
You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care how democratic a system is as long as your team wins: That's authoritarian. You literally said that people shouldn't have principles until after they win. I'm sorry if your views are in conflict with other views you hold, but that's not my problem.
You've effectively condoned corrupt autocracies as long as your people win and your policies are enacted.
@
realtimesave:
