3 ms·
The parent comment was saying that there was too much partisanship, you are saying the way to solve this issue is by getting rid of the filibuster? Or that if t
by neaden 5y ago
The parent comment was saying that there was too much partisanship, you are saying the way to solve this issue is by getting rid of the filibuster? Or that if the democrats got rid of the filibuster it would prove they weren't partisan? That makes no sense whatsoever, it's essentially arguing that the democrats need to be more partisan.
- willcipriano 5y ago> you are saying the way to solve this issue is by getting rid of the filibuster? Yes. If the party that wins gets to drive then they will be responsible for the direction the country is headed in. After a few years, If people like that direction they will vote for them, if not they won't. The current system let's them blame the other guy every time they fail to do what they promised, the new one makes it clear that it just wasn't a priority for them. One way to limit partisanship is to work together, another way is to have one party win and be accountable, knowing that they will be replaced if they don't perform.
- mannykannot 5y ago> ...another way is to have one party win and be accountable, knowing that they will be replaced if they don't perform. Which brings us right back to TFA, with the govenor attempting to avoid accountability through what amounts to barefaced lies. If tactics like this are successful - and they seem to be unreasonably effective - then your alternative here will not come to pass.