That's literally it. At least when they teach who has the longest filibuster record, they won't mention Thurmond anymore. I don't remember exactly, but I feel like when I learned that tidbit in school, they left out the part where he was filibustering the civil rights act. They just focused on the feat and the fact that he "cared so deeply about his cause"

[–] edge@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

At least when they teach who has the longest filibuster record, they won't mention Thurmond anymore.

But that's a perfect lesson for what the filibuster is and why it continues to exist.

It's a tool for the worst people in government to stop progress even without a majority.

I honestly hope the record isn't broken.

they left out the part where he was filibustering the civil rights act

Although yeah, it's important to include that part.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's a tool for the worst people in government to stop progress even without a majority.

It's just a tool. If we actually had a single principled anti-imperialist senator they'd filibuster each bill granting Israel military aid by reading off names of Palestinians who were killed. Obviously in a proper democratic system this garbage wouldn't exist, but you wouldn't need to go to such extremes for democracy to work in a proper democratic system.

[–] edge@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

If we actually had a single principled anti-imperialist senator they'd filibuster each bill granting Israel military aid by reading off names of Palestinians who were killed.

lol they would immediately end the filibuster if that happened. Or come up with some excuse for why they could end that specific filibuster.

Though really, there would easily be 60 votes to break it anyway.

[–] OldSoulHippie@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago

I get where you're coming from, but it would be lost on eighth graders