Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   Arizona senator comes around to fixing the filibuster   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Giggity, shot  
•       •       •

5163 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jan 2022 at 12:50 PM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



108 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-01-19 10:12:42 AM  
Original Tweet:

 
2022-01-19 11:24:42 AM  
I knew this wouldn't be Sinema before I even clicked.  No way she'd support the nuclear option.  Her head's so far up her own ass she can fellate her tonsils.
 
2022-01-19 11:33:43 AM  

Psychopusher: I knew this wouldn't be Sinema before I even clicked.  No way she'd support the nuclear option.  Her head's so far up her own ass she can fellate her tonsils.


Wait until the next Republican POTUS nominates a SCOTUS judge. She'll be all over it.
 
2022-01-19 11:46:25 AM  
Kelly is up for re-election this year and doesn't want Sinema's stink to ruin his chances.
 
2022-01-19 12:53:45 PM  

Peki: Kelly is up for re-election this year and doesn't want Sinema's stink to ruin his chances.


Yep.  Came to rewrite this headline as "Arizona senator comes around to getting re-elected"
 
2022-01-19 12:56:19 PM  
Thought they resuscitated McCain

Zombie McCain votes!
Zombie McCain gropes hawt wife
Zombie McCain would eat TFG's brain but not much there.
 
2022-01-19 12:58:48 PM  
It is very brave of him to say maybe he is on board.Especially after knowing it doesn't matter because of the main two he has been hiding behind.
 
2022-01-19 12:59:35 PM  
Saw headline: "Well, that's news! Clicks on link: "Oh, FFS". Subby, you suck, but well-played.

But this this does continue a trend out there in D-land: The filibuster is all but dead to the Dems. Candidates are *running* on ending it. It's in their dang fund-raising emails. No Dem is gonna win a primary unless they commit to ending the filibuster. Even people running for local office.
 
2022-01-19 12:59:49 PM  
For a minute there I read 'nixing'.

Either way works, but let's fix it before we nix it.
 
2022-01-19 1:00:25 PM  

sinner4ever: It is very brave of him to say maybe he is on board.Especially after knowing it doesn't matter because of the main two he has been hiding behind.


Kelly is in a purple state. It actually is brave of him to say that.
 
2022-01-19 1:00:47 PM  

edmo: Psychopusher: I knew this wouldn't be Sinema before I even clicked.  No way she'd support the nuclear option.  Her head's so far up her own ass she can fellate her tonsils.

Wait until the next Republican POTUS nominates a SCOTUS judge. She'll be all over it.


Can #45 nominate himself to the Supreme Court while he is still President?
 
2022-01-19 1:01:20 PM  
This is actually something resembling news because Kelly is actually a fairly moderate Democrat, just not annoyingly so like his state's other Senator.
 
2022-01-19 1:01:34 PM  

WithinReason: edmo: Psychopusher: I knew this wouldn't be Sinema before I even clicked.  No way she'd support the nuclear option.  Her head's so far up her own ass she can fellate her tonsils.

Wait until the next Republican POTUS nominates a SCOTUS judge. She'll be all over it.

Can #45 nominate himself to the Supreme Court while he is still President?


Probably not, but who's going to stop him if he does? Exactly.
 
2022-01-19 1:03:49 PM  
Anyone who prefers Kawaii Kurtsie-poo Kyootie over a former astronaut is a damned fool.
 
2022-01-19 1:04:29 PM  

WithinReason: edmo: Psychopusher: I knew this wouldn't be Sinema before I even clicked.  No way she'd support the nuclear option.  Her head's so far up her own ass she can fellate her tonsils.

Wait until the next Republican POTUS nominates a SCOTUS judge. She'll be all over it.

Can #45 nominate himself to the Supreme Court while he is still President?


Article II says that he can whatever he wants as President.
 
2022-01-19 1:05:01 PM  
Good news, can't wait for someone to come in here and poop on it.
 
2022-01-19 1:06:27 PM  

Gin Buddy: sinner4ever: It is very brave of him to say maybe he is on board.Especially after knowing it doesn't matter because of the main two he has been hiding behind.

Kelly is in a purple state. It actually is brave of him to say that.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-19 1:08:18 PM  
Hang all farking traitors.
 
2022-01-19 1:09:40 PM  

Kittypie070: Anyone who prefers Kawaii Kurtsie-poo Kyootie over a former astronaut any sentient life form is a damned fool.


FIFY
 
2022-01-19 1:09:56 PM  

edmo: Psychopusher: I knew this wouldn't be Sinema before I even clicked.  No way she'd support the nuclear option.  Her head's so far up her own ass she can fellate her tonsils.

Wait until the next Republican POTUS nominates a SCOTUS judge. She'll be all over it.


Why allow the Repulicans to get a POTUS nominee?  Why Allow the Republicans to get a POTUS?
 
2022-01-19 1:11:50 PM  
Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.
 
2022-01-19 1:13:48 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


Such concern.
 
2022-01-19 1:14:16 PM  
Proud he is my Senator!

It's been A LONG DAMN TIME since I was able to write that.
 
2022-01-19 1:15:27 PM  
Mark Kelly is a good egg.
 
2022-01-19 1:15:39 PM  
Prove it, Senator.
 
2022-01-19 1:16:48 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


But, Dem's are going to win, Win, WIN big in 2024 - by then (HOPEFULLY!!!!), half the GOP will be dead from COVID, and the other half will be too sick to send in a mail-in-ballot.  Oh, wait, no mail-in-ballot for sickos?   Gotta stand in a seven hour line with your photo ID to vote.  No excuses?  Hmmm.

/hey - a girl gets to dream, right?
 
2022-01-19 1:16:52 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.



They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.
 
2022-01-19 1:17:30 PM  

LeoffDaGrate: Kittypie070: Anyone who prefers Kawaii Kurtsie-poo Kyootie over a former astronaut any sentient life form is a damned fool.

FIFY


I'm not sure sentience is the cutoff.

I've seen slime molds I'd take over Sinema, and those things kinda freak me out.
 
2022-01-19 1:19:01 PM  
I dont have a problem with the filibuster.   I DO have an issue with how 'ol Mitch changed the rules. See now all you need to do is send an email saying "filibuster" and it kills the debate and with no debate, no vote.   It should go back to the original rule.   Once the debate period on a bill is set, you can use the whole time taking nonsense or railing against it, but you have to be on the floor taking the whole time.  But once the debate period is over you still have to vote.   If you dont want to vote, then dont.  But Mitch knows that forcing folks to vote puts their name on notice for the next election cycle.
 
2022-01-19 1:19:39 PM  

Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.


Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?
 
2022-01-19 1:20:07 PM  
How big of a disaster is this for the Dems on a scale of 10 to 10?
 
2022-01-19 1:20:41 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


The filibuster has never been a means to stop legislation in it's tracks. It's, at best, a method to delay the legislation going for a vote in the vain hopes of changing enough Senators' minds that the legislation fails on the merits.

McConnell and the GOP perverted that process with their insistence that you can filibuster without doing any of the actual work and Democrats rolled over and let them have it. Having the filibuster operating properly means that as the minority or majority party, you acknowledge that you will become the majority or minority party at some point and you honor your role, knowing that the powers that be will change at some point in the next 10 years.

By forcing the filibuster to be dissolved, the GOP has all but openly said they have no intention of giving up the majority if they get it again.

A talking filibuster at least will force discussion on contentious issues and force those who defend it to defend it and those who oppose it the time to voice their reasons why they oppose the measure. Removing the filibuster entirely denies the minority their right to object and debate a measure. Keeping the filibuster in it's current form denies the majority it's ability to do their jobs and vote on legislation. A talking filibuster is the only real way of ensuring the minority has a right to object without entirely hampering the functions of the senate.
 
2022-01-19 1:21:36 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?


Voter ID has already been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. So there's that...
 
DVD
2022-01-19 1:21:58 PM  

lordjupiter: Hang all farking traitors.


________________________

So do we leave the celibate traitors be?
 
2022-01-19 1:22:36 PM  

tobcc: Once the debate period on a bill is set, you can use the whole time taking nonsense or railing against it, but you have to be on the floor taking the whole time.


I understand when you're on the side of righteousness and good, you want a weapon to block the bad stuff with... but the idea that I could stand up and blather nonsense to stall debate is abhorrent to me.  Make legitimate points or let the discussion move on to those who can.

If you still allow the verbal equivalent of lorem ipsum, philosophically there's not that much difference between actually doing it or simply announcing your intention to do it.
 
2022-01-19 1:22:41 PM  
Goldwater?!
 
2022-01-19 1:23:08 PM  

Peki: Kelly is up for re-election this year and doesn't want Sinema's stink to ruin his chances.


Kelly is up for re-election this year, and knows that if they don't un-fark all the Republican farkery, he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell, even if more voters actually vote for him...
 
2022-01-19 1:23:52 PM  

whidbey: Good news, can't wait for someone to come in here and poop on it.


I was trying to get here before some internet martyr talked trash and then tried to pretend they don't start a bunch of flame issues and aren't some odd reverse concern-troll.  "i'm just here to defend Democrats and events from being pooped on but you fauxgressives always say things!!!!!'
 
2022-01-19 1:24:05 PM  

Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?

Voter ID has already been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. So there's that...


What case?

Crawford v. Marion in 08 ruled photo ID to vote as constitutional.

Has there been a case since then?
 
2022-01-19 1:24:10 PM  

edmo: Psychopusher: I knew this wouldn't be Sinema before I even clicked.  No way she'd support the nuclear option.  Her head's so far up her own ass she can fellate her tonsils.

Wait until the next Republican POTUS nominates a SCOTUS judge. She'll be all over it.


She's actually doing this all so that she'll win the Presidency when she runs in 2024.

I wish I was joking about that. She's certifiable (and not just because she has the delusion of even coming close to winning a chance to run for President).
 
2022-01-19 1:25:34 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?


Right, make the browns and the poors do a poll tax.

Totally not Jim Crow lol.
 
2022-01-19 1:25:50 PM  

Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?

Voter ID has already been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. So there's that...


Quick wiki cite re: my previous post.

Crawford v. Marion SCOTUS wiki
 
2022-01-19 1:27:06 PM  
Democrats: we can't do X, Republicans will do Y!

Republicans: do Y anyway
 
2022-01-19 1:29:36 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?

Voter ID has already been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. So there's that...

Quick wiki cite re: my previous post.

Crawford v. Marion SCOTUS wiki



The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections

Any fee, including the fee required to get a state ID, is a poll tax.

In a 6 to 3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Harper. The Court noted that "a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."
 
2022-01-19 1:32:11 PM  

Psychopusher: I knew this wouldn't be Sinema before I even clicked.  No way she'd support the nuclear option.  Her head's so far up her own ass she can fellate her tonsils.


That's.... Well that's a door inside my brain you opened that I'd rather keep closed.
 
2022-01-19 1:33:40 PM  

Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?

Voter ID has already been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. So there's that...

Quick wiki cite re: my previous post.

Crawford v. Marion SCOTUS wiki


The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections

Any fee, including the fee required to get a state ID, is a poll tax.

In a 6 to 3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Harper. The Court noted that "a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."


Non-driver IDs have been free in every state I've lived in.

But to break it down, ID to vote has not been deemed unconstitutional, and in fact has explicitly been deemed constitutional, - you just want it to be.

Okay.jpg
 
2022-01-19 1:35:40 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?

Voter ID has already been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. So there's that...

Quick wiki cite re: my previous post.

Crawford v. Marion SCOTUS wiki


The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections

Any fee, including the fee required to get a state ID, is a poll tax.

In a 6 to 3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Harper. The Court noted that "a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."

Non-driver IDs have been free in every state I've lived in.

But to break it down, ID to vote has not been deemed unconstitutional, and in fact has explicitly been deemed constitutional, - you just want it to be.

Okay.jpg


Yeah ok, make black people prove they're citizens.

Sounds peachy.
 
2022-01-19 1:37:15 PM  

Ixnay on the ottenray: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.

But, Dem's are going to win, Win, WIN big in 2024 - by then (HOPEFULLY!!!!), half the GOP will be dead from COVID, and the other half will be too sick to send in a mail-in-ballot.  Oh, wait, no mail-in-ballot for sickos?   Gotta stand in a seven hour line with your photo ID to vote.  No excuses?  Hmmm.

/hey - a girl gets to dream, right?


Make vaccination mandatory to vote in person.

Republicans will get vaxxed in droves.

Let them taste what they're dishing out to others. Voter suppression works in many ways.

They're already in a frenzy over having to prove vaccination to dine in, go to concerts, etc. They boycotted voting by believing TFG, why not again? And those sick w/covid who won't be able to vote by mail anymore are going to be screaming they're oppressed.

Should be fun to watch if local authorities were to implement it in just the right spots.
 
2022-01-19 1:39:04 PM  

whidbey: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Gin Buddy: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Go ahead, end the filibuster.

See how you like it after the midterms; I'd suggest asking Harry Reid for direct insight - but, ya know.

Iron law of government - any policy you can use against the minority party will be used against you when you're the minority party.


They want to carve out an exception for Voting Rights. Just like Mitch did for SCOTUS nominations.

It wouldn't be eliminated entirely.

Then consider the opposite - a federal voter ID law.

Once you carve out the exception for voting laws, what stops the Rs from passing voter ID in 2 years by simple majority?

Voter ID has already been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. So there's that...

Quick wiki cite re: my previous post.

Crawford v. Marion SCOTUS wiki


The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections

Any fee, including the fee required to get a state ID, is a poll tax.

In a 6 to 3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Harper. The Court noted that "a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."

Non-driver IDs have been free in every state I've lived in.

But to break it down, ID to vote has not been deemed unconstitutional, and in fact has explicitly been deemed constitutional, - you just want it to be.

Okay.jpg

Yeah ok, make black people prove they're citizens.

Sounds peachy.


i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size


*yawn*, trite bait. Yap at someone else.
 
2022-01-19 1:39:26 PM  
Ronin.jpg

and the giggity tag sold it for me, subby
I hope your mother walks in on you masturbating
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.