Weekly Debate Thread

[BumblebeeCody*]

Ok, i've been reading up more on what happened, and I am still very confused. I'm trying to understand, at least. I think it's the phrasing. I know that a woman stood up and spoke for women's rights so long that someone had to put a back brace on her. I know she was interrupted close to the end in hopes that she would stop speaking long enough to cancel her filibuster.

I wasn't referring to that case alone, just filibusters in general.

Should filibuster threats that aren't followed through be penalised(as they often scare the other party and shut down a bill) ?

Are you referring to ones that never occur, or ones that begin but don't finish, or ones that are interrupted?

What I'm referring to is that often, political parties say "we're going to filibuster this bill, so there's not much point keeping it alive." This often leads to the tabling party backing down because of how time consuming filibusters are for very little result. However, the first party never actually intended to filibuster and therefore use the threat of it as a tactic to kill a bill.
Many people see that as undemocratic. Others are annoyed because a filibuster should only be used if you're passionate enough to stand and talk without even leaning for 14 hours.

Which is an interesting point and question you asked. What if I was passionate about being marriage only being between a man and a woman?