https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2021/07/13/403091/vice-president-harris-hints-that-she-is-discussing-filibuster-changes-with-senators/amp/

She hasn’t quite worded her statements about the filibuster that strongly, but, she seems open to changes.

Someone censored me earlier for this meme on the grounds of spreading fake news! Does that seem right to you?

Yikes, some of the mods here sure are...moderate--no pun intended. Memes that point out flaws in the Democratic Party are welcome in the BasedLeft stream. imgflip.com/m/BasedLeft

Okay cool thanks. I don't even care that I got censored, but they were wrong and they lied.

Okay, but in the meantime we have a crippled system and if one party is using raw power to obstruct everything the other party is doing, then what good id that doing?

That would make a lot of states completely irrelevant when it comes to how they influence the nation's executive branch.

No thanks.

And yet it delays progress of the majority the filibuster is what will be the death of American politics

No it won't...

How is that different from the way it is now? I'll tell you, where I am from my vote doesn't matter. I vote anyway though just to voice my opinions and to be heard. Also, we are suppose to be the United States not certain states vs. the other states.

Well right now we have a House of Representatives that is balanced by relative population, a Senate balances solely by equality of statehood, and an Electoral College with an elector population equal to that of a state's reps and senators. The TOTAL power of a state in electing the President is still determined by population, because more House reps = more electors, but by limiting the number of electors it ensures the RELATIVE power of each state is kept in check.

Switch to a pure democracy and suddenly New York, California, Texas, and Florida control the White House. My state of Montana? Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, etc? Our opinions won't matter. We'll be forced to toe whatever line the Big 4 decide should be toed.

But in the meantime we have a crippled government, and a senator who represents a handful of people who is going to make the final decisions about what gets passed nationally. And so far it's nothing.

A senator represents a state, not people. West Virginia is telling the other states it's not happy with this bill.

Frankly I'm good with that. Democrats have gotten so lousy they can't even put the Hyde amendment in the current budget bill that's going to pass the House...if they can't even make that small concession to reason then they don't deserve cooperation.

Not every one can get everything they want all the time. West Virginia is saying it wants republican to play ball, but the republicans aren't playing right. The Hyde amendment seems it has a religious undertone witch I am against. I am a spiritual person and I think it's fine if christians are against abortion, they don't have to get any, but the government or the church shouldn't be telling people what to do or controling populations.

The Hyde amendment prevents tax dollars from funding abortion. It doesn't prevent abortion. By trying to take it away Democrats are saying, "Hey! We don't care that you oppose abortion because it destroys a human being and you don't want your tax dollars to fund what you see as the worst genocide in modern history. Suck it up snowflakes!"

No. If you don't have the decency to spare someone from paying for something they abhor so greatly then I genuinely don't know what to say. It's the smallest token of compromise.

Well ya know, I'm not saying this across the board,I can only speak from personal experience, but it seems like lots of people are against abortions, until they need one. "destroying a human being" is an emotional, objective statement. I'm not saying it's not a valid point of view, but not everyone sees it like that. Would you force them to have unwanted children to satisfy your own beliefs?

Nope, don't ask that red herring of a question. We're not talking about ending all abortion. We're talking about the Hyde Amendment, which is an entirely reasonable concession.

Why would you force everyone who opposes abortion to pay for what they see as murder? Do you actually think it's unreasonable to at least go, "Look, I understand abortion is more contentious than any other issue to you. We're not banning it entirely, but we will prevent its funding with Federal tax dollars. That way you aren't contributing to it."

How is that too much of an ask for you folks?

What does the government pay for an abortion for? I didn't even know they did that.

As of now it doesn't. That's the point. Currently Democrats are trying to push a bill through that would remove that protection and pay organizations like Planned Parenthood to perform abortions.

It's bullcrap. Planned Parenthood has plenty of money. They can pay for abortions and be just fine. The push to remove the Hyde Amendment is, plain and simple, hyperpartisan discrimination.

There are plenty of poor women who can't afford a medically necessary abortion.

So you oppose the police & military who kill lots of people?

Now that you mention it, Maybe there should be a way to direct where your tax dollars go. Like when you pay your taxes you can direct a portion of it away from things you don't like like abortions, and say direct it towards the military and utilities. I think the general public would have more of a say how their tax dollars are spent. I bet nobody would be checking the give the super rich all of our tax money box.

I generally think government has a right to decide where it spends its money. I don't really need farming subsidized or inner city education boosted, but those are INCREDIBLY useful things to those groups and I wouldn't necessarily want them short of money.

But for extremely controversial things, like healthcare, I wouldn't oppose extra "opt in" taxes where you can choose to help pay for things like a public option health plan. It's where we come to abortion, assisted suicide, etc that I draw a red line. Don't make me pay for the killing of someone else.

And yes, I doubt many people would want to fund the 1%.

That's a good point.