Someone else who didn't read the act...

The Filibuster worked as it should for a long time then they instituted the lazy buster. They need to kill the lazy buster.

Can somebody explain the filibuster and talking filibuster? I vaguely remember the filibuster being a method to delay a vote by basically running your mouth ad nauseum. And if it delays a vote how would that help pass the SAVE act?

(03-18-2026 06:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Someone else who didn't read the act...

Actually have, good sir. What portion gets under your skin, good sir? Or is the above just a rapid knee jerk response?

(03-18-2026 07:59 AM)b2b Wrote:  Can somebody explain the filibuster and talking filibuster? I vaguely remember the filibuster being a method to delay a vote by basically running your mouth ad nauseum. And if it delays a vote how would that help pass the SAVE act?

The 60 votes is not a Filibuster, it is Cloture to stop the filibuster and proceed to vote. Prior to 1917 the Senate only needed 50+1, and that year it changed to 2/3 to end the debate and proceed to vote. In 1975 that rule was changed to 3/5s to end the filibuster.

(03-18-2026 08:41 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-18-2026 07:59 AM)b2b Wrote:  Can somebody explain the filibuster and talking filibuster? I vaguely remember the filibuster being a method to delay a vote by basically running your mouth ad nauseum. And if it delays a vote how would that help pass the SAVE act?

The 60 votes is not a Filibuster, it is Cloture to stop the filibuster and proceed to vote. Prior to 1917 the Senate only needed 50+1, and that year it changed to 2/3 to end the debate and proceed to vote. In 1975 that rule was changed to 3/5s to end the filibuster.

Also, if I remember correctly, each member as a part of the filibuster can speak as long as they like, up to two times. So there is an end. 100 days would about be the max they could filibuster before the old geezers trying to pull this off dropped dead on the floor from exhaustion.

And then that forces a vote, which they dont want. A chunk of senators absolutely do not want to go on record going against this else they will lose their election. Dems are especially vulnerable where they are in red states. (ie the 2 in Georgia)

(03-18-2026 08:41 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-18-2026 07:59 AM)b2b Wrote:  Can somebody explain the filibuster and talking filibuster? I vaguely remember the filibuster being a method to delay a vote by basically running your mouth ad nauseum. And if it delays a vote how would that help pass the SAVE act?

The 60 votes is not a Filibuster, it is Cloture to stop the filibuster and proceed to vote. Prior to 1917 the Senate only needed 50+1, and that year it changed to 2/3 to end the debate and proceed to vote. In 1975 that rule was changed to 3/5s to end the filibuster.

So basically you take a vote to stop the filibuster (ie, basically wasting everybody's time). So what's the point? To make people just give in?

I said on here the day the bill passed in the house that this was dead on arrival. Nothing has changed.

This system sucks.

(03-18-2026 09:03 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-18-2026 08:41 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-18-2026 07:59 AM)b2b Wrote:  Can somebody explain the filibuster and talking filibuster? I vaguely remember the filibuster being a method to delay a vote by basically running your mouth ad nauseum. And if it delays a vote how would that help pass the SAVE act?

The 60 votes is not a Filibuster, it is Cloture to stop the filibuster and proceed to vote. Prior to 1917 the Senate only needed 50+1, and that year it changed to 2/3 to end the debate and proceed to vote. In 1975 that rule was changed to 3/5s to end the filibuster.

So basically you take a vote to stop the filibuster (ie, basically wasting everybody's time). So what's the point? To make people just give in?

Yes. It keeps the "Elected Representatives" from having to suffer. They basically created a way to keep themselves from earning their keep.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/03...e-america/

Quote:Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) is now openly calling for Republicans to ram the SAVE America Act through reconciliation, a legislative maneuver that would allow passage with just 50 votes plus the Vice President.

Budget reconciliation is a special parliamentary process in the U.S. Senate that allows for the expedited passage of legislation regarding spending, revenue, or the debt limit, requiring only a simple majority (51 votes or 50 + Vice President) rather than the 60 votes usually needed to overcome a filibuster.

Created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this process is limited to budget-related matters and cannot be used for general policy changes.

Although under the “Byrd Rule,” provisions must have a direct impact on the budget. “Extraneous” items that do not significantly impact spending or revenue are forbidden and can be stripped out.

Kennedy’s remarks come as frustration boils over among conservatives who have watched the critical election integrity bill stall despite growing national concern over voter confidence and election security.

Kennedy laid out the battle plan in crystal-clear terms:

Sen. Kennedy:
“I think we are, Mr. President—I know you are—we need to try to pass this legislation through reconciliation.

Now, you know how reconciliation works, Mr. President. It means we can pass this bill with 50 Republican votes and the Vice President to break the tie. That’s how we passed the one big, beautiful bill. I would hope to get some of my Democratic friends to support us, but we don’t have to have them.

That’s harder than I described because, as you know, Mr. President, there are parameters on reconciliation.

Anything you propose through reconciliation has to be paid for. We can find the money to pay for it. And anything you pass through reconciliation has to conform with the contours of the Budget Control Act. We call that giving a provision a “birdbath.”

And our parliamentarian decides what passes muster under the Budget Control Act and what doesn’t.

Now, we’ve got a lot of smart lawyers in the United States Senate. Every single one of them thinks they’re ‘Oliver Wendell Scalia.’

But we’ve got a lot of other smart lawyers in America. Here’s what I’m getting at: we have yet to try going to these smart lawyers—some in the Senate and some, believe it or not, not in the Senate—and saying, “Craft us a SAVE Act that will pass muster under the Budget Control Act and can be blessed by the parliamentarian.”

And some of my colleagues—those ‘Oliver Wendell Scalia types’—they say, “Kennedy, you know you’ll never be able to do that.”

They don’t know. I’ve been here 10 years. I’ve seen things pass muster—survive a birdbath—that I didn’t think had a hope in hell. And I’ve seen provisions fail the parliamentarian’s judgment under a birdbath that I thought were slam dunks.

You don’t know until you try, and we haven’t tried. And if this bill is as important as everybody says it is—and I think it is—because we’re not just talking about voting, we’re talking about the confidence, the trust of the American people in our elections— If this bill is as important as we say it is, we should try it through reconciliation.”

To date, I think this is a failure of leadership, namely Thune, to figure out a way to get this passed.

(03-18-2026 09:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I said on here the day the bill passed in the house that this was dead on arrival. Nothing has changed.

This system sucks.

I disagree. This system is the best (The US Constitution). We the people are idiots and vote in a bunch of self-centered, egotistical, dumb asses.

(03-19-2026 08:51 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-18-2026 09:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I said on here the day the bill passed in the house that this was dead on arrival. Nothing has changed.

This system sucks.

I disagree. This system is the best (The US Constitution). We the people are idiots and vote in a bunch of self-centered, egotistical, dumb asses.

yeppers, Schemer was chanting, "No, to Jim Crow 2.0" not caring that Jim Crow was a Demonicrat invention. Demonicratic voters are stupid.

(03-19-2026 08:51 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-18-2026 09:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I said on here the day the bill passed in the house that this was dead on arrival. Nothing has changed.

This system sucks.

I disagree. This system is the best (The US Constitution). We the people are idiots and vote in a bunch of self-centered, egotistical, dumb asses.

That's the system.

(03-19-2026 08:51 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-18-2026 09:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I said on here the day the bill passed in the house that this was dead on arrival. Nothing has changed.

This system sucks.

I disagree. This system is the best (The US Constitution). We the people are idiots and vote in a bunch of self-centered, egotistical, dumb asses.

The constitution is the best, but the filibuster isnt in the constitution.

The filibuster is in place simply to allow the minority to block anything it doesn't like. Both parties want to keep it.

Which IMO goes against the will of the voters. Nothing serious ever passes.

(03-19-2026 10:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  The filibuster is in place simply to allow the minority to block anything it doesn't like. Both parties want to keep it.

Which IMO goes against the will of the voters. Nothing serious ever passes.

When the Democrats are back in power we'll appreciate that the filibuster is still in place. Government is meant to move slowly. It moved too fast under Obama, the Republicans are swinging the pendulum back. Hopefully after Trump is done we get back to moving slowly on all these social issues.

When the democrats get the senate, they will crater the filibuster. They've been saying it for several years.

(03-19-2026 11:03 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  When the democrats get the senate, they will crater the filibuster. They've been saying it for several years.

which is why Thune is a pos…

goes all the way back to the point in post #1

(03-19-2026 11:03 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  When the democrats get the senate, they will crater the filibuster. They've been saying it for several years.

In that case the whiplash that we are about to enter into is going to ruin this country. You can't keep swinging back and forth and have a realistic long term business plan. You'll have a 2 year plan with no long term strategy because all assumptions will be null and void after every presidential election and every midterm.