which include Democrats using the filibuster to stop Republicans from doing terrible things. That's why they're reluctant to remove it. They have a point. Republicans could easily regain a majority in the Senate. Right now, it's evenly split. Just one seat could shift the majority back to the Republicans.

While I understand your frustration, you really have to look at this from a long view, as well.

The only real answer is to elect a solid majority in the Senate in 2022 and 2024. That will remove the problem. Until then, the Senate is split 50/50. We need to do better at getting out the vote. That's what is really needed.

Don't blame Feinstein or any of the Senators who have served for many terms. They remember what you do not, apparently.

Not so much more do you remember.

You don't remember Democrats using the filibuster to put a stop to some Republican hanky-panky? I do. I remember a lot of things that have happened in the Senate. I've been a political animal since 1962.

Think again.

DEMOCRATS DO NOT HAVE A MAJORITY IN THE SENATE! WE DO NOT! It is evenly divided, with the VP casting a vote in ties. That's all we have. We need more Democrats in the Senate. Until we get that, we are pretty much stuck with things as they are.

Think about it.

Bye. I'm done.

…in righteousness. Nonetheless, a person can still learn.

I’ll keep the DiFi issue short, because the last time I tried to lay it out cogently, the post I was responding to was gone before I was done.

My Senator is not an “untouchable darling of DU” as someone called her. She’s a woman who has spent her life in service to Democratic principles and to the people of California.

If she were an old-time Southern politician still able to breathe and vote, she’d be wheeled out onto the floor of the Senate until the age of 100, cherished by the voters who sent her there and by her fellow Southern politicians.

But not us Dems, oh no, because age and experience mean nothing to some of our cohort, even absent a little forgetfulness. The proof of that was the big push to get rid of Nancy Pelosi in favor of someone still wet behind the ears.

great attitude for a newcomer.

Why did Democrats flood the plain with positive ads during a pandemic in 2020? The only thing that can describe that laughingly stupid choice is that Democrats are too wedded to old habits are are unable to adapt to new conditions.

We seriously need new blood in the Democratic political leadership. I think Dem elected politicians are on average older than their goops counterparts, even though the Democratic party itself is younger.

Seniority rules and all

Last year Donna Shalala was in the House only 2 years, she was 79 in 2020.

A Florida colleague of hers, Darren Soto, is only 40 years old but is now in his third term in the House.

Shalala is older, Soto has seniority.

I've thought of the The Nation as a 'more left than thou' doubt machine critic of Democrats for years, with its worst-of-Bernie crankery that foments distrust in the party.

Thank you for your analysis.

your posts are full of such wisdom, I never stop learning new things reading your posts.

Are any experts actually projecting that Democrats will attain a 60 seat majority?

Also, do you think the current Republican Party would refrain from nuking the filibuster if they were to gain a one seat majority?

If not, it makes no sense to refrain from ending the filibuster now on the premise that Republican's wouldn't if given the opportunity when it's to their advantage.

The only other reasons for not ending the filibuster is a belief that it is good for our democracy, or that doing so would violate the intent of our nation's Founders. The latter is not factual, and giving the minority power to block the will of the majority is not a feature of any state government in the United States or any other functional democracy in the world -- because it's a bad idea and counter to the fundamental premise of democracy.

We have the first Ten Amendments, and others, to protect the rights of the minority.

We have two opportunities, one in 2022 and another in 2024. I know of no experts who are able to make predictions about those two election with any real accuracy. Furthermore, events and election efforts will affect both.

At the present time, the votes are not there to end the filibuster. That is clear. My two Senators would vote to do so. Those are the only ones I have even a possibility of influencing.

The Senate, as a legislative body has such a rule. Only that body can change it, short of a constitutional amendment. So, there it stands. I don't like it either. I can do nothing to change it.

So, I must rely on elections and try to influence them. If you have another path, please share it. If not, then I ask you to join me in trying to gain seats in the Senate.

from someone who heaped praise on Leningrad Lindsey Graham

Enforcement seems arbitrary.

I was admonished for stating that a particular activity by a prominent Democrat was same old behavior characterized as "the swamp."

'Enforcement' is based on someone deciding to report your post and then a small jury of other members deciding that your post 'breaks a forum rule'. I think the jury size is like 7 but I'm not entirely sure on the number but I'm pretty sure it's not like 100.

I'm also fairly certain that some people on juries only read the 'top line' of the rule ('Don't Bash Democrats' for example) and don't refresh their memory as to the 'letter of the law' that follows (the detailed description of the rule).

This process (and relatively small jury size) means that there's an arbitrary nature to post removal.

I like the idea but there are some big problems with it as well.

I was just responding to a post about it.

I just said the mechanism in place inherently means there's something of an arbitrary nature to the proceedings. This observation is a simple, statistically unassailable fact

I purposefully avoid discussing 'personal feelings about the sites administration' on regular forums because there's a rule about that too ... insofar as there's a specific forum for discussing such things, which is what the person who replied to you was hinting at.

I commented on someone else’s comment about it. Get over it. Or alert my post if you feel the need. I really don’t care.

Mr L don't alert on people over trifling shit, man, c'mon

Fact I've never alerted for anything other than spam or an obvious (new) interloper, ever.

They never respond to any!

Darling of DU and not a disparaging word was tolerated.

Times change

ETA- I gave up alerting on posts years ago after seeing everything from admonitions to vote FOR Republicans to direct threats pass juries. To be fair, it has been worse.

I sent a politely-worded email, asking about Samuel Alito, and received back a condescending reply that can be characterized as "Back off, sonny. I'm a Senator, therefore I know more than you do."

She's no longer my senator (I've moved to a state with the two best senators on the west coast), but she has only become more impressed with herself.

People here vary widely in how they interpret the rules, and it's kind of the luck of the draw how the jury rules.

Star members maintain a jury blacklist of up to 15 DUers who they think are biased in some way.

She is clearly experiencing some decline with her advanced age.

However she has earned the right to depart on her own terms, as so many of her colleagues in similar positions have over the years.

I wish folks here would hold their fire, but the time for quiet conversations and planning, has clearly come.

while she is down, then please proceed. But I think it is pretty shitty.

It’s so nice when you leave!

Thanks

That's why she can't/won't see it.

She's old; won't have to live very long under the impending fascist takeover.

Most of the rest of us will. I'm about twenty years younger than her, and would like to live out my golden years in America, not Amerikkka.

I also read journals and profiles.

This forum is not Reddit.

(in various incarnations) I feel pretty confident in saying I know a bit more about this particular subject than you, old man

When DU was founded in 2001, some were young and a whole lot of us were in what I like to think of as robust middle age. We’d lived through the 1960s in all its iterations. We’d been politically active all our adult lives. ……

That was 20 years ago, and a lot of the original group is still here. DU trends older. We’re not snot-nosed kids, so don’t bother talking to us as though we are.

with pretty much the same level of maturity you'd find at those places

I only offer my best wishes to you for your entire time on DU

Not an echo chamber and we are allowed to disagree even if we are in the minority.

If you check my history you will see I'm not here to win any popularly contests. I am more than willing to take the role of devil's advocate.

"Spare me your wisdom"- I missed the irony the first time through. Very clever

I have made many, many thousands of them. If there is a central theme to them, it is a focus on getting out the Democratic vote.

I don't believe you and I have discussed anything before you recently signed up at DU.

That's my answer.

I dropped a line to MIRT, as well as Alert.

This one nasty thread.

I'll take under.

She is weary of the prospect that Republicans would pass whatever they wanted by a simple majority if they were to regain both Branches again.

Is she on this planet?

Do you vote in California?

Who are your Senators?

The fact that the gun nuts don’t mind her so much now, should tell you all you need to know. They cheer that she is against the filibuster, which is the only thing standing between them and us expanding the court to get court decisions with the correct result; namely gun safety.

I don’t get her thinking at all on this. She wants gun safety; it can’t happen if this Supreme Court will rule against anything she helps get passed. Yet here we are, she is against getting rid of the filibuster.

And if she’s still not convinced, perhaps streets filled with protestors, perhaps surrounding her home or favourite restaurant, during the entire August recess…

how difficult and sad it was taking the car keys away from mom, and later dad. They were both amazing people who took down redlining, founded a museum. worked to save native plants and habitats, etc. in our town.

As we honor our elders, time moves on.

That is all

Our democracy was attacked on Jan. 6. by traitors.

RETIRE, FEINSTEIN!

AWFUL.

Why? She is good on gun control and women’s issues. Other than that, not so good. She is more of an economic conservative, rubber stamped George Bush’s judicial appointments, was gung ho to attack Iraq, even tho they had nothing to do with 9.11, then she and her husband made money on the war. Her husband was also making money on taking apart our post offices. On top of that she seems to be losing it mentally. I would like to see her gracefully retire and get someone young, smart, energetic, and truly liberal in her place.

so, she can live in a bubble.

She will be OK no matter what happens, so will her family. They are insulated from reality by the bubble that wealth gives one.

She might feel differently if she lived among us groundlings.

If she doesn't think the filibuster needs to go than perhaps she needs to go. B-bye Di ...

Oh yeah, those paragons over at The Nation are uniquely endowed with the ability to discern the politically corrupt. And guess what! It's exactly those politicians that don't wholeheartedly support The Nation's political agenda. What a coincidence.

All senators have the same salary. To say a senate seat is "more lucrative" is to say, exactly, that the senator is on the take. Diane Feinstein is not on the take. Fuck The Nation for so casually writing that as if we should all take it for granted that all senators (except for a pure few, of course!) are corrupt.

the correct answer at all.