There's a movement/belief that (pure) democracies are anti-liberty, because they allow people to vote for things that would restrict other people's freedoms. Throughout US history, people have voted for representatives and politicians that have eroded property rights, privacy rights, gun rights, etc. People talk about the "tyranny of the majority" and make statements like "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." Voting in general asserts that as long as a majority agree on something they can force their will on a minority.
Not saying that those are necessarily my beliefs, just explaining one way that OP may genuinely hold those opinions.
Also most people aren't very educated on politics, the government, the economy etc., so trusting them fully for every decision isn't the smartest move. I believe this is why the US is a Democratic Republic and not a true democracy, because the founding fathers didn't want the majority in the few city states to dominate the voting of the entire country.
Yeah, a completely uneducated vote is worth just as much as an extremely well informed vote. The Founding Fathers created a system where only white, Christian, land owning males could vote. That feels reprehensible to our modern sensibilities, but it established that they didn't necessarily believe in universal suffrage.
Obviously it's wrong to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex, but one could argue that a land owner has more skin in the game than someone who doesn't own land, especially in a scenario where the land owner is paying property taxes and voting on how their tax money gets used. If we're going to have things like income tax and property tax, shouldn't only the people paying taxes get a vote on how the money gets spent, instead of the people paying nothing but still reaping a reward?
There's a quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Similarly, in a modern family say you have two parents with jobs and three kids without jobs. Who gets to make the financial decisions? The parents who contribute, or do the kids all get votes equal to the parents?
It depends, there are two accounts, this once included, that post nonstop. If you learn to avoid the posts from these accounts then you can learn to avoid most of the low effort crap that might populate it
Exactly! He just gave along speech about nothing. It wasn’t to block or filibuster any legislation. Just another staged nothing burger the left does to pander to their base.
He has literally bitched about how filibustering shouldn't be allowed because it was used to put black people down, and then he does it😂 he accomplished nothing even if it is challenging to talk for 25 hours straight
I can respect that conviction even if I disagree with his general politics.
I might agree with you if he was trying to block legislation he strongly agreed with or something, but he wasn't. Yeah that's some endurance, but what was the point? At least the democrat's filibuster blocking the civil rights act is no longer the record holder I guess.
It being him speaking for 25 and breaking the record, yes. Modern American politics is unfortunately heavily dependent on theater and getting people attention. The more people talk about you, the better. The less they talk about you, the worse. It’s the game all politicians play
Even if it was just performative and symbolic, it's still more than 99.999% of politicians are willing to do. He actually did something that inconvenienced himself for a cause he feels is worth it. When's the last time a politician did that?
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not impressed by people who do things for the sake of doing things. OK so 99.999% of politicians won't drive themselves to exaustion speaking for 24 hours straight. So what?
I'm the kind of person that cringes when he hears, "at least they are doing something." That's how we end up with a lot of really bad law. Politicians reacting to something that happened with no idea what do about it, coming out with some piece legislation that doesn't solve anything because of the "at least they are doing something" attitude. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something for the sake of doing something.
Anyways obviously it impresses some people, so I guess.
I honestly don't understand "the fillibuster". Ok, so Corey Booker just stood up and talked for 25 hours. Some people call it fillibustering, other people state this is not fullibustering, and then you pipe up saying a vote can overrride a fillibuster. So we just have a 60-40 vote on this and his speech is nullified?
Are you not listening? Why does the filibuster fucking matter?
Every single other country on the planet does fine without them. Every single one. It's a uniquely US thing. Present an argument for it. Not against it. I'm against it.
You said filibusters is a good thing, immediately contradicted yourself by proposing something better and more sensible. Which is that all bills should require 60+%
I agreed and highlighted this means the filibuster isn't a good thing. The system that requires it at all is bad.
You said filibusters don't work on 60%+ vote ratios. Which nobody at any point contested
Do you think the senate was going to do anything meaningful otherwise? And it’s not like they’re paid hourly. Not a Booker fan but his constituents were begging him to do something and this is pretty much all he can do.
Is the sub being raided by some liberal sub? What's with all the downvotes on critical comments and upvotes on positive comments? Feels like I'm on r slash conservative.
Apparently so. Seemed to me that this sub usually has decent takes, so a politician who would raise your taxes to pay for all his hobbyhorses and confiscate all your guns in a heartbeat being praised for talking for a long time seems silly to me. Might just be because I'm not American but this shit just comes across as cringy rather than heroic or impressive to me.
This is so silly. Yes it was a performance. But it wasn't as much of a performance as most filibusters.
He was talking about his legitimate concerns the whole time. It wasn't a children's book or news clippings. He was talking about his real opinions and some of them were supported by facts.
He performed a demonstration of what a joke the trump administration is.
Because it was a giant waste of us tax payer dollars. He can go outside in the mall and stand on a soap box and talk for 25 hours. Instead, he stalled government and wasted a day of pay for how many hundreds of tax paid employees.
Is this about tax dollars being wasted. Are you kidding me? A lot of his performance was discussing how the Trump Administration's current actions are causing the largest tax hike in decades and nobody is doing anything about it.
He's brought noticeable attention to the issues that are continuously being ignored. Those issues are causing SIGNIFICANT tax increases that would otherwise just be increased more. He's literally trying to save the American people from paying unreasonable unnecessary taxes. And you're mad because he's wasting tax money.
Even the homeless guy takes a bathroom break. This guy didn't. Don't love Booker's politics, but props to him for personally seeing it through. He was also at least on a topic and didn't devolve in to un-intelligible addled nonsense. He also prepared ahead of time for it. Not a lot of Congress-critters doing that anymore either.
It was just for political theater. Democrats have absolutely no power right now, all they can do is perform publicly stunts. Not much they can do when republicans control the House, Senate, and Executive and have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Kinda suprising that republicans are not doing more and are relying almost exclusively on Executive orders.
I really wonder if any of the people disparaging him even listened to what he had to say during this. Sure, there were obviously some theatrics by him and his counterparts, but there were also many solid points of discussion brought up and the overall tone of the day was clearly of legitimate concern and sincerity. Whether you agree with his political position or not, I would be more inclined to trust someone who is empathetic and compassionate over the politicians who scoff at us and treat us like fools.
Honestly the news covered it in depth for me, they played the last 10 seconds, twice... so It's pretty clear that Inhave an in depth understanding of what he was talking about
BBRodriguezonthemoon@reddit
Real cool user name OP /s
I hope the rest of y'all are smart enough to see through Russia's major freaking psyop
polygamizing@reddit
Would you mind explaining your username, OP? Is that a libertarian value? Voting isn’t a right? What is and isn’t?
Swimming-Formal-5541@reddit
some believe voting isn't a right. like imagine the following scenario
we live in a society where people can vote on whatever they want, and immediately that is law
the law can and will be enforced violently
thus, my whole neighbourhood can get together and say "we want a communal vegetable patch" or something but whose house should that go on?
some genius points at a random person, who just happens to be me, and says "take his house and bulldoze it so we can have the space"
everyone votes to bulldoze my house because they don't want theirs to be bulldozed. despite the fact that i should own my own house.
this is clearly like an extreme example of democracy but in essence that's why its bad. because it tramples individual rights.
polygamizing@reddit
Interesting. Very much appreciate the response! And while hyperbolic, I see what you’re saying.
What would be an alternative?
CigaretteTrees@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE
Mountain_Man_88@reddit
There's a movement/belief that (pure) democracies are anti-liberty, because they allow people to vote for things that would restrict other people's freedoms. Throughout US history, people have voted for representatives and politicians that have eroded property rights, privacy rights, gun rights, etc. People talk about the "tyranny of the majority" and make statements like "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." Voting in general asserts that as long as a majority agree on something they can force their will on a minority.
Not saying that those are necessarily my beliefs, just explaining one way that OP may genuinely hold those opinions.
XenoX101@reddit
Also most people aren't very educated on politics, the government, the economy etc., so trusting them fully for every decision isn't the smartest move. I believe this is why the US is a Democratic Republic and not a true democracy, because the founding fathers didn't want the majority in the few city states to dominate the voting of the entire country.
Mountain_Man_88@reddit
Yeah, a completely uneducated vote is worth just as much as an extremely well informed vote. The Founding Fathers created a system where only white, Christian, land owning males could vote. That feels reprehensible to our modern sensibilities, but it established that they didn't necessarily believe in universal suffrage.
Obviously it's wrong to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex, but one could argue that a land owner has more skin in the game than someone who doesn't own land, especially in a scenario where the land owner is paying property taxes and voting on how their tax money gets used. If we're going to have things like income tax and property tax, shouldn't only the people paying taxes get a vote on how the money gets spent, instead of the people paying nothing but still reaping a reward?
There's a quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
Similarly, in a modern family say you have two parents with jobs and three kids without jobs. Who gets to make the financial decisions? The parents who contribute, or do the kids all get votes equal to the parents?
tonyjoker@reddit
Might be a starship trooper reference
Drupain@reddit
Dudes just trolling. I think he’s maga, he seems to hate on just the dems in here.
dreadheadtrenchnxgro@reddit
ancap
neutrumocorum@reddit
Do yall ever say intelligent things in this sub?
illicitandcomlicit@reddit
It depends, there are two accounts, this once included, that post nonstop. If you learn to avoid the posts from these accounts then you can learn to avoid most of the low effort crap that might populate it
Swimming-Formal-5541@reddit
the other one is the one with the ancap flag pfp that keeps posting links right?
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
You know what? I'll give it to him.
I disagree with his politics but he didn't just press the filibuster button. He got up there and spent almost 25 hours for something he believes in.
I can respect that conviction even if I disagree with his politics.
Which-Supermarket-69@reddit
What was he filibustering exactly?
BP-arker@reddit
Exactly! He just gave along speech about nothing. It wasn’t to block or filibuster any legislation. Just another staged nothing burger the left does to pander to their base.
SippinOnHatorade@reddit
It was a Senate floor speech, any one of them can do it when given the floor
teachwar@reddit
Nothing, there was no vote being held, he did it to do it. That is why it's so stupid.
adamgundy@reddit
When a politician essentially hogs the “talking stick”.
Eels37@reddit
He has literally bitched about how filibustering shouldn't be allowed because it was used to put black people down, and then he does it😂 he accomplished nothing even if it is challenging to talk for 25 hours straight
SippinOnHatorade@reddit
I mean part of him doing it was to beat the record held by known racist Strom Thurmond
paperrug12@reddit
he was not filibustering.
Eels37@reddit
Okay, he was talking for 25 hours, call it what you will
not_today_thank@reddit
I might agree with you if he was trying to block legislation he strongly agreed with or something, but he wasn't. Yeah that's some endurance, but what was the point? At least the democrat's filibuster blocking the civil rights act is no longer the record holder I guess.
LoveVnecks@reddit
The purpose was to get people to talk about it, which is what we’re doing right now
not_today_thank@reddit
What is "it"? The purpose was to get people talking about Cory Booker setting the filibuster record? So like a narcissism play?
LoveVnecks@reddit
It being him speaking for 25 and breaking the record, yes. Modern American politics is unfortunately heavily dependent on theater and getting people attention. The more people talk about you, the better. The less they talk about you, the worse. It’s the game all politicians play
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Even if it was just performative and symbolic, it's still more than 99.999% of politicians are willing to do. He actually did something that inconvenienced himself for a cause he feels is worth it. When's the last time a politician did that?
I can respect that.
not_today_thank@reddit
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not impressed by people who do things for the sake of doing things. OK so 99.999% of politicians won't drive themselves to exaustion speaking for 24 hours straight. So what?
I'm the kind of person that cringes when he hears, "at least they are doing something." That's how we end up with a lot of really bad law. Politicians reacting to something that happened with no idea what do about it, coming out with some piece legislation that doesn't solve anything because of the "at least they are doing something" attitude. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something for the sake of doing something.
Anyways obviously it impresses some people, so I guess.
Which-Supermarket-69@reddit
Self grandiosity
swettm@reddit
they love to go to bat for the 10 on 90/10 issues. It's mindboggling
Crimsonak-@reddit
It raises a whole bunch of other questions though.
Why is this even a thing? It's pageantry at best that any sort of filibustering is allowed. Whether it's self catering or not.
It's a waste of everyone's money and time. It's nonsense. It's not to be praised even if you agree with the person and respect the effort.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
The filibuster is a good thing. Honestly all bills should need 60 votes to pass. 50%+1 is a terrible system
Crimsonak-@reddit
You just said the filibuster is a good thing, and then immediately presented a way more sensible way to have an alternative.
???
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Do you not know the filibuster can be overridden by a 60-40 vote?
FluffyPuffkin@reddit
I honestly don't understand "the fillibuster". Ok, so Corey Booker just stood up and talked for 25 hours. Some people call it fillibustering, other people state this is not fullibustering, and then you pipe up saying a vote can overrride a fillibuster. So we just have a 60-40 vote on this and his speech is nullified?
Huh.? This whole thing is as silly as a goose.
Crimsonak-@reddit
Are you not listening? Why does the filibuster fucking matter?
Every single other country on the planet does fine without them. Every single one. It's a uniquely US thing. Present an argument for it. Not against it. I'm against it.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
I just did, jackass. It makes you get 60 votes to override it, and prevents 50%+1, which you just said was a good idea.
Go troll somewhere else.
Which-Supermarket-69@reddit
Why don’t they just get rid of the idiotic filibuster and make 60 votes always necessary?
Crimsonak-@reddit
That's not me trolling. It's you not reading.
ArbitraryUsernames@reddit
Huh? Not saying it is good, but other countries absolutely have filibusters.
Significant-Push-232@reddit
Right, it's the cover your ears lalala I can't hear you defence.
KarmaSilencesYou@reddit
Good for you to acknowledge an achievement, even if you don’t approve of the message! We need more of you!
unmotivatedbacklight@reddit
Booker did it without soiling himself. Can't say that about the homeless guy on the corner.
illicitandcomlicit@reddit
For real, my homeless guy requires at least alcohol or shooting up some drugs to go on a 25 hr tirade
Wookieman222@reddit
I remember when Dems wanted to get rid of the fillibuster.
jalepenocheesecake@reddit
I member
jalepenocheesecake@reddit
And guess what — he voted to continue bombing Palestine. Guys a fucking simp, dollar store Obama
pussibilities@reddit
Do you think the senate was going to do anything meaningful otherwise? And it’s not like they’re paid hourly. Not a Booker fan but his constituents were begging him to do something and this is pretty much all he can do.
Psychological_Air_90@reddit
Can speak for that long but not be bothered to read through a big pile of bills. If only he could read with his mouth.
MoistSoros@reddit
Is the sub being raided by some liberal sub? What's with all the downvotes on critical comments and upvotes on positive comments? Feels like I'm on r slash conservative.
Vlongranter@reddit
You forget that there are quite a few “libertarians” on this libertarian subreddit.
MoistSoros@reddit
Apparently so. Seemed to me that this sub usually has decent takes, so a politician who would raise your taxes to pay for all his hobbyhorses and confiscate all your guns in a heartbeat being praised for talking for a long time seems silly to me. Might just be because I'm not American but this shit just comes across as cringy rather than heroic or impressive to me.
zach010@reddit
This is so silly. Yes it was a performance. But it wasn't as much of a performance as most filibusters.
He was talking about his legitimate concerns the whole time. It wasn't a children's book or news clippings. He was talking about his real opinions and some of them were supported by facts.
He performed a demonstration of what a joke the trump administration is.
Why is it bad that it was a performance?
PyroMedic1080@reddit
Because it was a giant waste of us tax payer dollars. He can go outside in the mall and stand on a soap box and talk for 25 hours. Instead, he stalled government and wasted a day of pay for how many hundreds of tax paid employees.
zach010@reddit
Is this about tax dollars being wasted. Are you kidding me? A lot of his performance was discussing how the Trump Administration's current actions are causing the largest tax hike in decades and nobody is doing anything about it.
He's brought noticeable attention to the issues that are continuously being ignored. Those issues are causing SIGNIFICANT tax increases that would otherwise just be increased more. He's literally trying to save the American people from paying unreasonable unnecessary taxes. And you're mad because he's wasting tax money.
You're Spending dollars to save pennies.
Charles07v@reddit
I wish the government did nothing rather than all the things it's currently doing.
staXxis@reddit
Let’s be real, would they have done any real work had he not been talking?
Which-Supermarket-69@reddit
25 hours.
Corrosive_salts@reddit
These guys are funded by the tax payers just to LARP all night, nice.
Snoo_17731@reddit
Exactly.
Corrosive_salts@reddit
Lmao we’re getting downvoted by the bootlickers who idolize fraudulent politicians.
csbassplayer2003@reddit
Even the homeless guy takes a bathroom break. This guy didn't. Don't love Booker's politics, but props to him for personally seeing it through. He was also at least on a topic and didn't devolve in to un-intelligible addled nonsense. He also prepared ahead of time for it. Not a lot of Congress-critters doing that anymore either.
existentialpro@reddit
You’re supposed to take it up the ass not the vagina, you fucking pussy. That’s what the homeless guy in Baltimore told me. Now you know.
CornPop71T@reddit
The homeless guy probably makes more sense.
RouletteVeteran@reddit
So… what did it accomplish though?
ChknParmasean@reddit
It was just for political theater. Democrats have absolutely no power right now, all they can do is perform publicly stunts. Not much they can do when republicans control the House, Senate, and Executive and have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Kinda suprising that republicans are not doing more and are relying almost exclusively on Executive orders.
JimmyTheIntern@reddit
Anyone who stops the government from doing anything has my support for the duration of that effort
FatBlueLines@reddit
It’s sickening how the media portrays this situation waste of time nonsense as heroic. It’s nothing but downright idiotic no matter who does it.
carbonatedcoffee@reddit
I really wonder if any of the people disparaging him even listened to what he had to say during this. Sure, there were obviously some theatrics by him and his counterparts, but there were also many solid points of discussion brought up and the overall tone of the day was clearly of legitimate concern and sincerity. Whether you agree with his political position or not, I would be more inclined to trust someone who is empathetic and compassionate over the politicians who scoff at us and treat us like fools.
runningvicuna@reddit
Booker is an idiot.
MadCannabist@reddit
So are you
CCWaterBug@reddit
Honestly the news covered it in depth for me, they played the last 10 seconds, twice... so It's pretty clear that Inhave an in depth understanding of what he was talking about
PuzzleheadedBug4250@reddit
"Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."
FeedtheFatRabbit@reddit
Shakespeare?
jam3sdub@reddit
Albert Einstein.
MCE85@reddit
What's a matter, smartass? Don't know any Shakespeare?
tuccified@reddit
I’m sure nobody here was nutting when Rand Paul did this a few years ago…
Dollar_Bills@reddit
I nutted twice during it
runningvicuna@reddit
Jordan is fine
r0ttedAngel@reddit
Knew a couple tweaker back in the old days that would put this guy to shame.
Get em on a good one, and they'd go on forever
Obi_1_Kenobee@reddit
He wants to be the next Obama so bad. Shame he’s more like the next Hakeem Jeffries.
kindofamediumdeal@reddit
Reading this gave me a papercut.