"Citizens United" needs to be repealed, that's where we start. And maybe we can approach the Glass-Steagall act, and the Patriot Act.
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
381 points (98.5% liked)
politics
22768 readers
3815 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
From the CNN article:
The speech is not a filibuster because Booker is not blocking legislation or a nomination. The Democratic senator’s speech will keep the Senate floor open – and floor staff working as well US Capitol police members detailed to the chamber – for as long as he continues speaking, but lawmakers had concluded voting on Monday before he began his remarks.
So purely performative. Not a filibuster.
I mean if it's a first step and others follow, then good. But why not filibuster a nomination you disapprove? (I have no clue if filibuster applies to a cloture vote. These fucking stooges and their silly made up rules of decorum...)
Yeah, you don't even need to do the actual talking to do a filibuster, you just essentially need to say you're filibustering. However, there's carveouts for the filibuster for nominations and budget reconciliation (and a bunch of other stuff, conveniently all stuff Republicans like).
Yeah, reading about the cloture rules now. Seems like the motion for cloture happened a couple days ago (temporarily ending debate) and it "ripened" today prompting a cloture vote, itself not apparently subject to filibuster. But simple majority is all that's needed on most nominations, and filibuster is limited to 2 hours before the final vote.
Even that will be performative.
So what happens if the Senate wants to schedule a vote right now? He's not preventing a specific bill, but they can't really do anything until he gives up the floor. It's not nothing.
Yeah, the Senate doesn't seem to publish plans in advance, so it's not really possible to do more than wonder.
I've had the livestream running since I got up today and it's good to hear the words from the senators "asking questions".
And there's a whopping 11,437 people watching it on YouTube, so I'll be one of almost no one that hears more than a few sound bytes.
FWIW I think the counts are spread out by channels.
Coey's channel has 68K viewers. AP CNN and others I'm sure have other viewers
Yeah, I see that now. Just us nerds over here watching PBS.
I've been watching on C-SPAN. Senate.gov I think has a live stream too?
AP sitting at 79k right now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So purely performative. Not a filibuster.
i mean yeah, it's a speech.
load more comments
(11 replies)
He was just reading letter after letter after letter from American seniors who are scared about what the administration might do to Social Security. Really helps bring home that these are real people who are affected.
Edit: 15 hours now and he's still going strong. He just gave a fiery speech about how his colleagues need to do more.
Edit: 25 hours. He beat the record. At least it won't be held by a racist anymore.
4 and a half hours now. Might be symbolic, but there are a lot of angry GOP senators who probably have to stay there.
18.5 hours. I hope he breaks the record.
Wait, Cory Booker has some pepper?
That’s Great!
Still going on after 13 hours
17 Hours now. And story after story of American's being hurt, Americans asking their lawmakers to help.
23hr and counting.
good job, just keep it up for 3.7 years
Hell yuh. I have had misgivings about Booker at times in the past but I have to say, good on him, this is the time for such things.
A man stood and spoke for over 24 hours straight and so many are dismissing it as nothing more than "performative"
This is what it looks like to fight. It's not perfect, it's not easy, it's not even clear if it will do anything. But it's something. It's someone standing up and forcing people to listen to the voices of the unheard.
That's what it looks like to fight. It's an ideological war for the soul and future of the nation - did you really think it would be simple, or easy? That we would have natural heroes and great victories?
Fight in whatever way you can. Yell from whatever rooftop you can find, including the senate floor. Kick and scream, even if it feels pointless. But don't stand around doing nothing but questioning the contributions of others. We need solidarity.
load more comments
(7 replies)
You can watch live on the official stream. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/floor_activity_pail.htm
Thank you
I'm not trying to be a nay-sayer, but what does this actually achieve?
He's not disrupting a vote. He's only talking. While I'm all for the Democrats doing something this doesn't actually achieve much. Chick Schumer had a chance to actually disrupt this administration but he didn't.
So I am genuinely asking, if the Democrats are not preventing the Trump administration from pushing bills through e.g if this were a fillibuster,, how does this help?
Hopefully messing with the apathy in the US. The mainstream media is talking about it. And even though it isn’t a filibuster. Strom Thurmond filibustered bs rhetoric against civil rights in the 50’s for a little over 24 hours and people are talking about that so he is kind of making some history. Am basically hoping he is causing more momentum. The system needs fucking changing but we need to come together for that to happen.
It makes it look like democrats are willing to use the filibuster, while not actually blocking anything that might upset their donors.
Only if the Republicans in Congress weren’t too chickenshit to actually put their names on these actions. Trump is doing everything by executive order.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Just a couple more minutes to beat Storm Thurmond's record!
Thank you, Senator Booker!
Does the Trump administration need the senate? Seems they’re doing whatever they want regardless of any checks or balances, so who is this actually disrupting?
Get outta here with that negativity. It's the first sign of life from Senate Democrats, and taking a moral stance against Trump is still important. We need more of this, not less.
They’re doing plenty more than this, but they’re not self-promoting enough for people to notice. Democrats voted and spoke out against Trump’s cabinet nominations, forced a 15-day vote against Trump’s executive order, confirmed Biden’s pending judicial appointments when Republican attendance is low, and are the ones bringing these cases to the courts.
This is to obstruct fast-tracked appointments by Trump according to C-SPAN. Other than that, you’re right.
The Democrats forced a 15-day vote against Trump’s emergency executive order, and Republicans redefined the entire congressional calendar as a single day, just to avoid holding the vote.
Every last Republican in Congress is complicit.
Booker, not Brooks? Autocorrect?
Thanks, I did not notice that mistake.
Nice.
view more: next ›