Chucky shitmer is worried about "voting rights"...after not worrying for 23 yrs!! He says to "protect" democracy mind you...

How could he be worried about election integirty when the left says...2020 was the most secure electionin history?? This idiot is going to vote on ending the filibuster on MLK day...how symbolic!! He knows unless the federal gumment doesn't get control of the elections he and his party are FUCKED in 2022!! This fucking nonsense has no fucking chance of passing just like BBBoondoogle, without Manchin and Sinema ol' Chucky's fucked... He has old dingy Harry to thank for that..

Senate to vote on filibuster change on voting bill, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says
4029tv.com · 4h
Schumer: Senate to take up filibuster changes by MLK Day if voting rights bill is blocked

Schumer announces vote to change filibuster rules but ...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/03/politics/schumer...
Jan 03, 2022 · Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Monday that the chamber will take a vote on whether to change the Senate's legislative filibuster rules by Martin Luther King Jr. Day on January 17.

Sen. Chuck Schumer vows Senate will vote on filibuster ...
https://nypost.com/2022/01/03/sen-chuck-schumer...
4 hours ago · The letter marked Schumer’s strongest call to change the 60-vote legislative filibuster rule despite some reservations within the party.

Schumer: Senate to Vote on Filibuster Change on Voting ...
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/schumer-senate...
6 hours ago · Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote on filibuster rules changes to advance stalled voting legislation that Democrats say is needed to protect democracy.

Schumer: Senate to vote on filibuster change on voting bill
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Schumer-Senate...
6 hours ago · WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote on filibuster rules changes to advance stalled ...

U.S. Senate's Schumer eyes change to filibuster to …
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-vote...
6 hours ago · Schumer said the narrowly Democratic-controlled chamber needed to consider a change to its filibuster rule after a wave of Republican-led states last …

Schumer Threatens to Nuke Filibuster If GOP Stands …
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/schumer...
2 hours ago · Chuck Schumer announced Monday that the chamber would debate eliminating the filibuster if Republicans refuse to join Democrats in passing sweeping voting legislation.

Schumer: Senate to vote on filibuster change on voting ...
https://www.2news.com/news/national/schumer-senate...
6 hours ago · WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote on filibuster rules changes to advance stalled voting legislation that Democrats say is needed to protect democracy.. In a letter Monday to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate “must evolve” …

Schumer Threatens Vote On Filibuster Changes Over …
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teakvetenadze/2022/01/...
4 hours ago · Topline. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced the Senate will debate and then vote on changing the filibuster rules …

Senate to vote on filibuster change on voting bill ...
https://www.kcci.com/article/senate-...on-voting-bill...
2 hours ago · Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote on filibuster rules changes to advance stalled voting legislation that ...

Chuck Schumer To Trigger Move On The Filibuster In Effort ...
https://www.politicususa.com/2022/01/03/chuck...
8 hours ago · Schumer will begin talking about the path forward on voting rights and the filibuster today. Schumer will push the Freedom to Vote Act, which is …

What's amusing is that everyone (Chuckie) is all wound up over absolutely everything except:

Are you registered?
Can you walk into the polls on voting day?

Seriously, only exceptions needed are a mail in for out of townees and disabled.
We do not need to allow a million other excuses.

Preach brotha

I hear ya'

Don't know about what's behind the headline because, you know.

But the headline on this thread has earned one gold star.

Well done sir!

... Not sure WHAT the liberals are so afraid-of...

... Every liberal knows there was no WIDESPREAD voter fraud!!!

#### Salty

YR is worried about stars on a thread and comments on what he can't see...
Typical of the uninformed...but he does get his post count up

... Not sure WHAT the liberals are so afraid-of...

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

They need the criminal aliens and the criminal incarcerated to vote: the former to get their $450,000 check and the later to get out of prison.

Absolutely hold the vote and let's get on the record which Democrats are for doing away with the filibuster rule ahead of the 2022 mid terms. Yes President Biden, it's 2022 not 2020.


Then each Democrat will be asked why they engaged in filibuster so many times against Trump if it was so "undemocratic" to do so and watch while they babble about how Democrats are good and Republicans are bad.

... Oh, the Places the Investigations Will Go.

... Next year.

### Salty

Absolutely hold the vote and let's get on the record which Democrats are for doing away with the filibuster rule ahead of the 2022 mid terms. Yes President Biden, it's 2022 not 2020.


Then each Democrat will be asked why they engaged in filibuster so many times against Trump if it was so "undemocratic" to do so and watch while they babble about how Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

speaking of those racist filibusters, here's the racist former president defending its use.


https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obam...n-2005-1578985


Barack Obama Video Defending Filibuster Goes Viral after Declaring it 'Jim Crow Relic'

https://twitter.com/Schneider_CM/sta...n-2005-1578985



Video has emerged showing Barack Obama defending the filibuster in 2005 prior to describing it as a "Jim Crow relic" as the issue on the practice was brought up in President Joe Biden's first press conference.

In 2005, then-Illinois senator Obama argued against ending the filibuster, saying the American people do not expect political parties to "change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.


"If the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to Democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse," Obama said.


Obama's viewpoint on the filibuster, which allows senators to speak for as long as they wish unless three-fifths of the body vote to move on, later changed. In July 2020, Obama gave a eulogy for the late civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis in which he suggested the practice should be scrapped.


"And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that's what we should do," he said.


It is not only Obama who has flip-flopped over the filibuster. Biden himself argued in 2005 that ending it would be a mistake during what he called "one of the most important speeches for historical purposes that I will have given" in the 32 years since he had been in the Senate.


"It is not only a bad idea, it upsets the Constitutional design and it services the country," Biden said. "No longer would the Senate be that 'different kind of legislative body' that the Founders intended. No longer would the Senate be the 'saucer' to cool the passions of the immediate majority."


He added: "Without the filibuster, more than 40 Senators would lack the means by which to encourage compromise in the process of appointing judges. Without the filibuster, the majority would transform this body into nothing more than a rubber stamp for every judicial nomination."


During Biden's first official White House news conference, the president stopped short of suggesting that the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, should be eliminated but modified as "it's being abused in a gigantic way."


"It used to be, you had to stand there and talk and talk and talk and talk until you collapsed. And guess what? People got tired of talking and tired of collapsing," he said.


"So I strongly support moving in that direction, in addition to having an open mind about dealing with certain things that are just elemental to the functioning of our democracy, like the right to vote."


Biden added that "if there's complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster, then we will have to go beyond what I'm talking about."


Biden told reporters on Thursday that he agreed with Obama's remarks that the filibuster was a relic of the Jim Crow era.


When asked why it should therefore not be abolished, Biden replied: "Successful electoral politics is the art of the possible. Let's figure out how we can get this done and move in the direction of significantly changing the abuse of even the filibuster rule first.


"It's been abused from the time it came into being by an extreme way in the last 20 years. Let's deal with the abuse first."


Discussing the 2005 Obama clip on the Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox News commentator and former Rep. Trey Gowdy asked: "If it is a racist relic, and when did that happen? Obama supported it, Senator Biden supported it — when did it become racist?"


since it was Barry's beloved Democratic party that implemented Jim Crow in the first place (and founded the KKK) i guess that makes Barry a closet member of the KKK (his white half)



BAHHHAAAAAA

Whenever I see a Schumer article, this is what crosses my mind:

Don't know about what's behind the headline because, you know.

But the headline on this thread has earned one gold star.

Well done sir! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

looks like some mail-in votes have made it 4 stars


BAAHHAAAAAAA

If upchuck takes a vote on this it will do his party more harm then good...LET'S GO CHUCKY!!

Opinion: Barack Obama's filibuster hypocrisy

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...sy/3353317001/


In April of 2005, Sen. Barack Obama took to the floor of the United States Senate and passionately spoke out against Republican efforts to end the filibuster. Then a rising star in the Democratic Party, Obama noted that despite the pressure partisans might feel, it was imperative to "rise above an 'ends justify the means' mentality because we're here to answer to the people — all of the people — not just the ones wearing our party label."


Obama recently made precisely the opposite argument during John Lewis' funeral, contending that eliminating a vital check on partisan power was justified as long as Democrats got the policies they desired.


After offering a shamefully dishonest comparison between George Wallace, Bull Connor and contemporary Republicans, Obama argued that passing a "voting rights" bill was worth stripping away countermajoritarian norms. "If all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American," Obama told the congregants, "then that's what we should do."


And by "we," of course, Obama means 51% of Washington should dictate the legislative agenda to the entire country. Why is it a bad idea? Let's turn to Barack Obama of 2005, who explained that while the American people expected rigorous debate in Congress:


"What they don't expect is for one party — be it Republican or Democrat -- to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster — if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate — then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse."


One wonders why Obama felt comfortable using a "relic of Jim Crow" — numerous times, in fact — when it suited his political purposes? Why did the senator claim that allegedly racist institution was an indispensable check on power and a bulwark against assaults on open debate? Was this former professor of constitutional law unaware of the filibuster's history?


Again in 2006, Obama told ABC News that he supported a filibuster of Samuel Alito because he was not only "somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," but had not shown "himself willing" to temper executive power. Considering Obama's subsequent abuse of that very power, the statement reads especially hypocritically.


When it was expedient, Obama claimed to "regret" participating in the Alito filibuster. But even if we allow that President Obama changed his mind, why didn't citizen Obama call for the filibuster's end from 2016 to 2019? Because Obama wants Democrats, who believe they will win 2020, to govern without being encumbered by the minority. Obama can cloak arguments in grand moralistic terms, as is his wont, but he believes his party is on the cusp of an election victory. It is transparent and crass partisanship.


It's no coincidence the same politicos clamoring for more direct democracy are the ones who view the Constitution as the biggest impediment to their goals. Those pushing to undo the filibuster — a long-celebrated ideologically neutral procedure that goes back at least to Cato the Younger — exemplify the "ends justify the means."


The filibuster complements the constitutional checks and balances that have historically made American governance effective. A strong minority has always been a distinguishing feature of the upper house. Because when thin majorities ram through massive centralized federal laws that affect all states, as Democrats plan to do, it not only undermines political stability but self-governance as well. The blowback to the heavy-handed passage of Obamacare, an event that has a lot to do with the exceptionally frayed and acrimonious tone we see in Washington today, should have been instructive. The more divergent our views become, the more imperative it is to build consensus rather than rely on political domination.


Democrats increasingly favor centralized federal reforms on green energy and single-payer health care and so on. A minority gums up the works. It's that simple. When Harry Reid changed the rules on federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments, he didn't do it for any extraordinary reason, either. He did it for power. Democrats destroyed a norm so they could name some bureaucrats to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which wasn't even created until 2011) and the National Labor Relations Board. They seemed to think they would hold power in perpetuity — a conceit of many politicians and parties.


"One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority," Obama presciently warned back in 2005.


That warning still stands.


David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of the book "First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History With the Gun."

the reason why the filibuster was a relic of jim crow was because the filibuster abuse started in the late 1940's, early 1950's against the passage of the civil rights act. this is why dems considered it racist. it was them who were doing the filibustering back then. Strom & Byrd were active filibusterers during the 1940s 1950s & 1960s.

that said. the filibuster was never part of jim crow. it only became one when the segregationists used it.