politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I mean, that's how protests work in general. On top of that, Machaela Cavanaugh did almost the same thing and she was hailed for it because of what she was protesting.
My personal opinion is that single person protests should not affect the function of the Senate.
Otherwise, you can have one senator who protests something that literally nobody else agrees with. Like, if instead of military paying for travel expenses for abortions, he was protesting that military people are allowed to wear pants, we'd still have the same problem.
So you say that some people are praised for doing this but it depends on the issue? It's ridiculous. If it's such an important issue, then there should be more support. Make it so that the same limits apply as for filibuster, for example. That's the way everything else works. It shouldn't be just one or two people.
This unanimous consent procedure is the wrong way of doing military promotions. We need to take away this ridiculous power for any Senator to unilaterally hold up promotions.
I disagree. I think the filibuster is an awesome tool, BUT it needs to be real. None of this "just declare it and that's it" bullshit. If you truly believe something and are willing to stand and talk for it, that's awesome.
I didn't say that I thought the filibuster was good.
That's what a filibuster is. I disagree with you, single person protests should be an option.
That is absolutely not what a filibuster is. A filibuster is immediately ended when 60 Senators vote to end it. So a filibuster requires 2/5 of the Senate to choose not to stop it.
If the military promotions had the same standard, all of these promotions would already have been granted.
Single person protests should be an option, but as I said, without more support in the Senate, a single person protest shouldn't affect the functioning of the Senate as a whole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
I'm using the word as defined
I am the one who brought up the term filibuster, and I was clearly specifically talking about the version we have in the US Senate, which works as I stated. A single senator cannot continue to filibuster if a cloture vote passes with 60 votes. I use the term "filibuster" because that is what it is called. It is called "filibuster" even if that is somehow not correct according to whatever other definition you find for the term. Any other version of filibuster would be off-topic.
I hope that this clears up any misunderstanding. If there was no misunderstanding, and your point was simple pedantry, you'll discover to your dismay that I'm well-versed in arguing pedantics.
I thought she was the one that filibustered to try and prevent anti trans legislation from going through? I don't see how they are "almost the same thing". The only similarity i see is the stalling.
That's my point. A single person was holding up a government function, and was widely supported for it. Personally, I thought it was awesome that she did that. And I think what tuberville is protesting is disgusting.
I just wanted to comment about how protesting often effects unrelated things or people. That's why they are effective. In this case, don't hate the game, hate the player.
Nebraska passing laws is different from the US Army running itself. Compare and contrast. Yes they are both protests, and roughly similar. The effects are very, very different.
Factor in the Moscow-Mitch-refusing-to-hear-Merrick-Garland-to-steal-a-SCOTUS-seat that Tuberville's apparently doing and it's WAY different. Treasonous, even. Is a protest to demand bodily autonomy for all women different from what Tuberville is doing? Fuck yes. That's why she's hailed for it and he's an asshole.
I was simply pointing out that sometimes, depending on what a single person is holding the government up for, it's a good thing. The right to protest effectively isn't the problem, the problem is the asshole who is protesting an objectively bad thing.