hawklost

The point the person above is making is that the Dems used the fillibuster 300 times in 2 years. That means that the Dems decided to 'obstruct' the process about once every other day for 2 years straight.

Now, you might consider that a good thing because you support the Dems and that is fine, but then you shouldn't consider it a bad thing just because 'the other side' uses it too

Removing the fillibuster would mean that the Reps would have gotten that many more legislation pieces pushed through in their 2 years of majority since the Dems obstructed them so much during that time.

Removing the fillibuster doesn't just hurt the Reps, it hurts the Dems in the long run too. So unless it is deemed worth it (only they can make that call), then it isn't just something they can toss. And trying to remove it now, only to demand it back in place later once removed, would be the height of foolishness for either party.

You know, I find it amusing you say 'pass off bullshit misinformation' and then go on to claim what is easily proven to be misinformation.

No, based on the cloture records of congress, the Republicans did not try to block every single piece of legislation under Obama. And looking at the data, it doesn't appear that the GOP do significantly different.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm

Of course, this doesn't show exact fillibusters, but at all years, there is about 10-20% of motions filed that do not get votes for cloture.

Combined with this, shows that way more legislation was voted on then filibustered.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

Computers and servers are a thing, they are capable of keeping real time tracking of your odds. So you claiming that they are 'too complex' and there 'isn't a consistent way to convey them' sounds extremely scummy.

You realize you didn't add anything by saying 'its being processed by whom'. As it literally does nothing if they aren't actually collecting the information intentionally but understand that incidental information might get collected and they are covering their asses by saying it might get collected. As multiple people have stated is the likely case because you have yet to give evidence proving contrary.

Edit: reporting and getting a post banned, just to quote only parts of it to argue your point is quite childish. What didn't you like about my post above? The fact that it contradicted your claim or that you couldn't dispute facts?

So you realize that means companies aren't inclined to try it.

If there is a chance it will not work well for the company (and yes, there is such a chance) then why would a company attempt it with the assumption they Cannot remove it no matter how harmful it is?