Life is full of choices. What do you want for dinner? What car should I buy next? Ginger or Mary Ann? Well, thanks to the Left, we now have another choice.
We can have a filibuster in the US Senate, or we can have democracy.
This choice came about due to Leftists attempting to push through voting reforms, but ran into a little snag called Senate rules. To sway public opinion, Leftists are now saying we cannot preserve both democracy and the filibuster in the Senate.
Of course, there’s a bit more to the story. And by a bit, I mean a whole fucking lot.
democracy or the filibuster
What the Left thinks it means – the decision between making it easier for people to vote and retaining a Senate rule that doesn’t make sense
What it really means – a false choice between something we don’t have and something the Left doesn’t like right now
Let’s deal with the elephant in the room first: we are not a democracy and never have been. We are a constitutional republic. Granted, we’ve been using democracy and republic interchangeably, but there are clear differences that prevent the two from being synonyms. First, they’re spelled differently. Second, and probably more important, a democracy doesn’t require electing officials because the people have the power to decide the outcome of matters. A republic does.
Granted, Leftists are going to say this is a semantic difference, but it’s really not. It’s like saying a chihuahua and an elephant are the same because they’re both four-legged animals. But, as anyone who has tried to housebreak an elephant will tell you, they’re not the same. Regardless, the fact remains we don’t have a democracy, thus half of the choice is false on its face. You know, like Nancy Pelosi’s face?
The other half of the decision is a lot less technical, but no less important to understand and appreciate. The best way to describe it is a higher threshold than a simple majority and it’s usually reserved for matters of high importance. That way a crackpot majority can’t ram through self-serving laws merely by having a few more crackpots than the opposition. It’s a useful tool for the minority party in the Senate because the mere threat of one is often enough to take a piece of legislation back to the negotiating table.
Of course, that happening these days is rarer than how Dracula takes his steak. Neither major party has been able to count on having the minimum 60 votes to overcome a filibuster threat for several years now, but instead of trying to craft actual bipartisan legislation, they dig in deeper and get nothing done.
Which is fine by me, by the way.
But it’s not fine by Leftists. They have big plans to turn America into the socialist shithole like they’ve always wanted. Due to the current makeup of the Senate, Democrats have 48 seats and Republicans have 50 seats, with two Independent Senators caucusing with the Democrats. To force a tie, every Democrat and the two Independents have to vote in a bloc, thus allowing the President of the Senate (Vice President Kamala Harris in this case) to cast the deciding vote.
Enter Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, two Democrats who have gotten the ire of Leftists for…not wanting to get rid of the filibuster. Just remember, Leftists are free thinkers. Just ask them. But, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. In this case, even free is too expensive.
Behind the rhetoric, there is some serious deception going on and the Left hopes you’ll forget all about it and support making the filibuster as obsolete as Ralph Northam’s future with the NAACP. For this next section, we’re going to assume the Left is correct about America being a democracy.
The first Senate filibuster in American history occurred in 1837, which means it has been in existence for 185 years. Also, Senate Democrats used or threatened a filibuster over 300 times under President Donald Trump. And it’s only become a threat to democracy now? Sorry, but I’m throwing the brown bullshit flag on this one. The only reason the Left wants us to think it’s a problem now is because they don’t get to use it like they did when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate.
It’s almost as if the Left aren’t trying to protect democracy so much as they’re trying to protect Democrat-acy.
Now that we’ve entertained the Left’s “America is a democracy” fantasy, we must go back and deal with the real world. One of the reasons the Left is hellbent for leather to get rid of the filibuster is because they claim Republicans will get rid of it when they’re in the majority. Even though…they didn’t. In fact, Mitch “Old Age Mutant Senator Turtle” McConnell bucked President Trump when the latter wanted the Senate to do away with it. And to date, Republicans have not attempted to eliminate the filibuster, although they did render it toothless when it came to judicial nominees. Still, a weakened filibuster under certain conditions isn’t the same as eliminating it altogether, which is what the Left wants now.
But as many a Leftist has yet to fully understand, political power is always in flux. Democrats may control the Senate now, but they may not after Election Day. The very thing they want to eliminate will become another tool to use when they’re out of power. Then, I guarantee Leftists will sing a totally different tune. How can I be so sure?
Because New York Senator Chuck “Amy’s Funnier Relative” Schumer sang that tune a few years ago when he defended the filibuster. If you doubt me, look up Senator Tom Cotton’s recent speech in the Senate where he quoted Sen. Schumer directly. The only thing consistent about the Left is their inconsistency, that’s for sure.
Although I see a need to reform the filibuster, it’s not the existential threat the Left makes it out to be. It’s a safeguard against bad decisions, of which there are plenty in Washington, DC, like the effort to get rid of it. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
There is no choice between democracy and the filibuster to be had. Since we don’t have the former, we can keep the latter with no issues.
Except for Leftists, who don’t have issues so much as subscriptions.
Tag: chuck schumer
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To say the Left took the recent election results badly is an understatement of proportions so immense it makes Rosie O’Donnell look like Kate Moss on a meth binge. One of the more stunning results came from New Jersey, where Republican Edward Durr unseated Democrat state Senate President Steve Sweeney after running a primary campaign that cost around $150 and a total expenditure of around $2200. Talk about bang for the buck!
Well, the Left has decided Durr is unfit to serve in the public sector because of an answer he gave during an interview recently. When asked what he would do as Senate leader, he said he didn’t know. That got Leftist and self-professed expert Tom Nichols to lament about how the lack of experience in politics is a bad thing.
But what does the Left mean by experience? Good question, since I got nothing else for a Lexicon entry.
experience
What the Left thinks it means – the basic information necessary to speak intelligently on a topic
What it really means – the Left’s excuse for dumb people making poor decisions and to discredit smart people making astute observations
I know I’ve talked about appeals to authority before, but for the new people reading this, an appeal to authority is the rhetorical equivalent of “because an expert said so.” Although this does work with some subjects (i.e. talking to a cardiologist about heart issues), it doesn’t always bear good fruit (i.e. talking to a YouTube creator about, well, just about anything). Even people we think would have the credentials to give good advice can be wrong or deceiving. I’m looking right at you, Dr. Fauci. So, it’s important we show a reasonable amount of skepticism when we see someone appealing to authority.
Especially when that authority is derived from whether an expert has a college degree. The Left loves to deflect criticism of the Socialist Socialite’s dumb ideas about economics because she has an economics degree. I ran into this recently on Facebook when a Leftist posting on a thread by The Atlas Society mocked the Socialist Socialite’s lack of knowledge of economics. The meme they posted was of a tiny handbag with the caption “AOC carrying around everything she knows about economics.” Funny, yet accurate!
Ah, but a Leftist took exception to it by suggesting the Socialist Socialite was smarter than Ayn Rand on economics because the former had a degree in the subject and Rand didn’t. Never mind the fact Rand lived through what the Socialist Socialite thinks would make America great and realized it absolutely sucks, it was the degree that tipped the scale in the Leftist’s mind.
That’s when I dropped the metaphorical hammer and pointed out Ronald Reagan also had an economics degree.
The Left seem to be impressed with college degrees, mainly because they’re often the result of Leftist indoctrina…I mean teaching. But the degree itself is just a piece of paper signifying that the recipient has completed the necessary coursework to graduate and, thus, can start paying back the student loans they’ve amassed. Yes, nothing says you’re an adult like crippling debt! Between grade inflation and meaningless majors, the value of a college degree is quickly becoming as valuable as an expired K-Mart coupon without imparting the most important reason to go to college.
Partying.
Seriously, the most important reason to go to college is to develop the ability to process and apply knowledge. And that’s where the Left and to some extent the Right fail. If I have to sit through another video of clueless Congresscritters trying to get a representative from a social media executive to explain how Twitter works, I’m liable to send a tersely-worded email that some low level intern is going to have to respond to with a stock answer ensuring me my elected official “cares about your opinion.” And we don’t want that, do we?
Although there is some merit to the notion public officials should have experience in politics to hold office, sometimes it’s the experts who are the problem in the first place. But the Left never thinks Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or Maxine Waters (who have all been in office for at least half of my life, by the way) are the problem. Instead, it’s people like Chuck Grassley, who has been in office for, well, most of my life, who are the real troublemakers. You see, the Left loves experience via age when it’s coming from a fellow Leftist. If it’s anyone else, it’s “Get out of the way of progress!” Yet, in my experience with the aforementioned politicians, I would take Grassley over Schumer, Pelosi, and Waters not because he’s one of my Senators. It’s because he knows what he’s doing most of the time, and he knows when he’s out of his depth.
That’s what real experience does for a person. It’s knowing what you know and what you don’t know. For all of the talk of Grassley being a “dumb farmer” (as a former Democrat Senate candidate said and later regretted after being stomped like a narc at a drug deal), he has a deeper understanding of issues that matter to people, not because he has a fancy degree on his resume, but because he actually does the legwork to talk to people. I swear he’s in Iowa more often than I am, and I live here!
However, a lack of experience isn’t a deal-breaker when it comes to politics. After working in Corporate America for a number of decades, sometimes the best ideas come from people who are just starting a job because their minds haven’t been infected with “the way we’ve always done it.” Either that or their souls haven’t been crushed…
Anyway, a new perspective may be what is needed to solve problems. By definition, a desire for change is liberal, but liberals aren’t the same as Leftists. Leftists call for change without actually meaning it. Remember Flint’s water problem? Still there, but Leftists aren’t. You’re more likely to find Bigfoot working on a screenplay at a Starbucks than find any of the Leftists who trumpeted how Flint’s water problems are because of Republicans (if you discount all the Democrats who were and are in charge, of course.) Here’s an idea, Flintites. Next time there’s an election, why not…you know…vote for someone other than the Leftists who screwed up the city in the first place? It’s not like Republicans are going to make the water any worse, right?
To Nichols’ point (aside from the one on his head), dismissing someone because of a lack of experience only serves to maintain the status quo, which by definition is what a conservative wants. He does have a good point that the Right doesn’t tend to support new left-leaning officials, but he botched the reasons why. First off, Leftists do the same thing with new right-leaning officials like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, albeit with more claims they’re insane. (In the spirit of bipartisanship, I’m willing to concede the point about MTG.) Second, it’s not a lack of experience the Right objects to with the Socialist Socialite; it’s the fact she’s an empty pant-suit, as demonstrated throughout her tenure as a Representative. I wouldn’t trust her to run my car though a car wash, let alone run any significant office in America. And if you’ve tried to run an office through a car wash, you know what I mean.
While Edward Durr may not have any real experience in governing, he’s admitted he’s willing to learn the ropes. That bit of refreshing honesty makes me a fan of his and I look forward to seeing what he’s able to do.
That, and the fact the only reason he ran for office is because of government bureaucracy and duplicity around New Jersey’s concealed carry permits. Thanks Leftists!