Remember when Senate Democrats were content letting their entire agenda rot on the shelf for decades by refusing to deploy the nuclear option because they claimed doing so would give Republicans a pass to do the same?

Edit: Apparently it's not about the filibuster

[–] NephewAlphaBravo@hexbear.net 66 points 1 month ago

wow, good thing the dems never did this or the gop would have done this

[–] Llituro@hexbear.net 37 points 1 month ago

charlie-kirk look who gets to be useful as cover one last time

[–] Sickos@hexbear.net 31 points 1 month ago

Political power flows from the barrel of a continuing resolution

[–] prole@hexbear.net 22 points 1 month ago

They didn't get rid of the filibuster completely or anything. Republicans did the same thing during Trump's first term when they stacked SCOTUS and I think Dems did it during Obama's second term.

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 20 points 1 month ago

Damn, Cory Booker will have to stand in the street in a sandwich board every few months if he wants to be the Dem presidential nominee now I guess.

[–] into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 month ago

when they go low, we go high!

[–] Grownbravy@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

Boy this would be embarrassing if the filibuster was your thing like a year ago

[+] mudpuppy@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Sphere@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It doesn't, but the media is too uncreative to come up with a new moniker for allowing batch action on nominees, so they reused "nuclear option" even though that was previously about the filibuster.

[–] Orcocracy@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago

When you think about it for a second, saying “nuclear option” to discuss the actions of the government in charge of the worlds largest arsenal of planet-ending nuclear weapons is a hell of a phrase to just use casually like this.

[–] StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago

It's was also about appointments, happened in 2016 when repubs were refusing to confirm Obama's cebtrist judges

[–] WrongOnTheInternet@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The nuclear option is changing senate rules by simple majority, as opposed to the three fifths majority usually required by the senate rules

Usually discussed in relation to the theoretical filibuster (I don't think half of them would survive trying to actually filibuster something), but not exclusively

[–] blunder@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What the hell is a theoretical filibuster

[–] Llituro@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you know how filibustering is giving a long speech to slow down congress? for a long time now, they've considered the threat "i'm going to filibuster" to be equivalent to actually doing so, and thus cloture, the vote to end discussion, which requires 60 votes, became a sort of theoretical filibuster. instead of an actual filibustering tactic, it became "you need 60 votes now" without the actual speaking. liberals, man.

[–] blunder@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

These ghouls would drop like flies if they actually had to stand and speak for that long. Let alone have to actually hold an idea to be able to speak to it

[–] roux@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As long as Corey Booker can still talk for 25 hours for no reason, we should still be good.

[–] RandomUserName123@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, he can't anymore now, that's the point of nuking the filibuster.

[–] blunder@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

how will anyone top the record now????

[–] OttoboyEmpire@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

what are they seeking to pass?

[–] ProgAimerGirl@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the dems have been stonewalling a bunch of trump appointments. the post is a link to an nbc news article, more details there

[–] OttoboyEmpire@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

ah, didn't see it was a link.

ty.

[–] abc@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

yay!