"Let the Dems pass whatever they want, then when the GOP comes back into power, let them repeal whatever they want and pass what they want. Then when the Dems return, it would be their turn."

I think this is, exactly how its designed. The senate can do exactly that! The constitution was quite clear about what a majority is and it can be a majority of 1 or more to do the job. The party in power (majority) gets to do what they damned well want. So, to stop the Dems the GOP gets to call filibuster. My main objection to that is that it used to be that you didn't just get to claim it you DID IT! I have seen one guy stand up and just do it until he couldn't any longer. I have always thought that it was a one man sort of thing. Apparently that's not the case but I'm not sure. Anyway, apparently this is how its always been but, now, nobody has to stand up and do it as they have made it a 'rule'. I am also not really sure just how rules come to pass and who sets them. The whole system seem pretty complex.

The difference between legislation and Executive Orders is that one comes from the president and doesn't have the bump that legislation, signed by the president, has. They can also be backed out by another president and legislation is the law of the land and Executive Orders don't (I assume). The first thing is the rule that changed the filibuster from what it was (standing up and making the point as long as you could) to just claiming its all happened and has stopped it all. My other problem is the 'debate' thing. I am not sure that there are actual debates where two sides stand up and 'debate'. We used to have a governor who later because a senator. He said he wanted to join the place where the great debates took place. After one term he quit - said there were no debates and was disappointed. As far as I can tell there are still no debates. As far as I can tell no Democratic Senator has stood up and even bothered to explain their 800 page legislation! Same with the GOP folk! I am not really sure what the Senate actually does but it sure as hell is not debate as I know it. Its also, I suspect, not what the founders had designed. Rules have changed. Now, for instance, one side can stand up, lie their heads off and nobody even calls them out and shuts them down!

Debate - my ass! Somehow, as far as I can tell, we now have legislative bodies that run their mouths about whatever but I don't think its debate - in either house. What really happens, now, is that one side isn't so interested in doing what we think they should but, instead, spend all their time 'winning' and my problem with that is that winning is about power to beat up the other side and little else.

Basically, again as far as I can tell, we depend on our legislative bodies to decide, AS A GROUP, how we are to be governed, safe and free. Does anybody here believe that's really the case? Hell, does anybody here believe that anybody has actually even read all 800 pages of "For The People" legislation? I sincerely doubt it.