2 ms·
> Because I disagree that the filibuster has a substantial negative impact of building projects of ANY kind. Which was literally what my initial comment was. A
by throwawaygh 7y ago
> Because I disagree that the filibuster has a substantial negative impact of building projects of ANY kind. Which was literally what my initial comment was.
Again, who are you arguing against? Who is god's name do you think is saying that local building projects are stymied by the senate?
The article doesn't just not make that claim, it explicitly makes the opposite claim. And not just for housing, but also for infrastructure.
- WillPostForFood 7y agoYou have a reading comprehension issue my friend. You apparently neither understand the article ("Why we can’t build" point #1 filibuster) nor my comment. Good luck to you in life, but might want to slow down, read throughly, study vocabulary. The article doesn't just not make that claim, it explicitly makes the opposite claim. And not just for housing, but also for infrastructure. No it doesn't, never once. It suggest the filibuster is the first tier of the problem, and if it went away, there are additional tiers of vetos.