Try the political quiz
+

24 Replies

 @BC8C6WT from California  disagreed…3mos3MO

No, the Filibuster has been an essential piece of how our government has worked all these years, if you give it to simple majority it could lead to radical and unpredictable changes in our government.

 @BCJKCCV from Texas  disagreed…3mos3MO

No. There should be road blocks to corruption and the US Senate must have the power to block unconstitutional power grabs and unethical legislation.

 @BCT6BXW from New York  disagreed…2mos2MO

such a precedent would inevitably destroy the legislative filibuster entirely, removing the Senate’s unique role as a cooling chamber and accelerating legislative volatility.

 @BCL82Z9 from Illinois  disagreed…3mos3MO

The Senate's filibuster is an essential part of our democracy that ensures that all forms of legislation have to go through rigorous debate, compromise, and restructuring. Altering it or abolishing it could mean that the party in power has much more power to push their agenda, polarizing us further.

 @BCTHT67 from Tennessee  disagreed…2mos2MO

Allowing a simple majority to pass laws is a really bad idea as some laws that shouldn't get passed, would get passed

 @BCXTL9G from California  disagreed…2mos2MO

There are too many important topics that fall outside of thise categories that we cant properly predict will fall under these boundaries.

 @BCX888X from Florida  disagreed…2mos2MO

Senates should be able to filibuster whatever they want because it demonstrates that a cause is worth arguing for or that a law shouldn't be passed to the point that someone is willing to talk about it for hours.

 @BCV9HHY from Virginia  disagreed…2mos2MO

Filibusters are way for Senators who feel strongly about a subject to plead their case to change the minds of the majority, and in the past, has been used to demonstrate the determination of some Senators.

 @BCS7X8V from Pennsylvania  disagreed…2mos2MO

Filibusters should always be allowed, they simply protect minority rights, and why would we willingly take away from that?

 @BCP75ZSRepublican  from Wisconsin  disagreed…2mos2MO

NO! in the constitution, it described EXACTLY how the government should run and if you bypass that, then you are disrespecting the constitution.

 @BCNX2T8 from Texas  disagreed…2mos2MO

No, the Filibuster has been an essential piece of how our government has worked all these years, if you give it to simple majority it could lead to radical and unpredictable changes in our government.

 @BCNLF4C from Texas  disagreed…2mos2MO

There should always be a way for a minority to debate as equally as possible against a political majority in the Senate. It equalizes the odds in all situations.

 @BCN32XK from Kentucky  disagreed…2mos2MO

In our constitution, we are told to treat one another equally, and not allowing Senate filibusters on only certain topics would cause there to be unfair treatment in the government.

 @BCKJ2XL from Texas  disagreed…3mos3MO

The filibuster should be usable for all matters as it allows the user to give his point of view and attempt to stop it from passing for a reason.

 @BCKFDZN from Connecticut  disagreed…3mos3MO

Even a narrow exception undermines the checks and balances. Once you allow the filibuster to be bypassed for “important” issues like voting rights, future majorities can expand that definition, turning the Senate into simple majority rule and making laws less stable over time.

 @BC5SXCL from Georgia  disagreed…3mos3MO

That the fillbuster should still be used because it makes it harder for laws and bills to be passed.

 @BC48K72Socialist from Washington  disagreed…3mos3MO

Yes, the Filibuster should exist; however, it should apply to everything, not just voting rights or constitutional matters.

 @BC3D8HZfrom Virgin Islands  disagreed…3mos3MO

Preserving the filibuster ensures minority rights and forces bipartisan compromise on all legislation, preventing majority overreach

 @BBZZZJV from Missouri  disagreed…3mos3MO

The filibuster should exist, but it shouldn’t be used to block essential laws like voting rights or amendments to the Constitution

 @BCS4LH8 from Texas  disagreed…2mos2MO

One side loves it till it doesn't have it, and the other side is the exact same. We need Filibusters in the case of something not being agreed upon or realized; someone went through the effort of using the Filibuster to stop it.

 @BCHLXQB from Maryland  disagreed…3mos3MO

The filibuster should be usable for all matters as it allows the user to give his point of view and attempt to stop it from passing for a reason.

 @BCDLYGT from Kentucky  disagreed…3mos3MO

I feel that all arguments should be able to have opposing views due to the general ideology that America is a country built on civil discourse.

 @BC86694 from Georgia  disagreed…3mos3MO

Removing the filibuster could lead to laws which, in all reality, shouldn't be passed. Its a system for a reason.

 @BC4XXQC  from Florida  disagreed…3mos3MO

It shouldn’t be banned period it would be un American and undemocratic. It’s for minority voices to be heard.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...