600
Democratic senator’s anti-Trump floor speech ends after nearly 23 hours
(www.theguardian.com)
Feel kinda dumb for not knowing already, but do they get to take a piss break during this?
No, Booker said he fasted for days and stopped drinking water 24 hours before his speech to not leave the floor. Strom Thurmond famously had a bucket placed close enough to keep one foot in the room while he relieved himself.
Modern day, these are all recorded right? Thinking a pee face compilation (hard to believe no diapers) would be a great addition to 2025.
Go full LBJ and just whip it out mid speech in full view. I doubt cspan would be quick to censor.
That man was insane, but sometimes I fantasize about that high pressure shower he supposedly has installed.
LBJ was a specific style of batshit that comes from not giving an iota of a fuck about social cues and I aspire to such capabilities.
The article I read said that Booker, Andy Kim, and a few other Dems would occasionally ask him "extended questions" to give him a break. Dunno if he's allowed to leave the floor or not, but I imagine the "extended questions" are just them doing nonsense filibuster bullshit for a few mins
They have condom catheters for urine bags. Anyone know if those are "against the rule"?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Assert dominance, drink all the water you want and piss yourself. Keep the floor for weeks.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Without wanting to being a dick, and believing that is an astonishing achievement for a politician, especially of his age, i think that is a nice gesture,
but if the Democrats wont call people on the Streets, nothing will change. SPD did the same tactic against Nazis back in 1930s and you know the results. Ofc they cant do that because that will be as betraying the corp interests.
That's my senator! I think I would have passed out after an hour.
23 hours and nobody heard it.
They will never learn that performative politics is meaningless.
Who have you shot at this week?
So then all modern politics are meaningless?
68 years old and 23 hours, wow!
Grand gesture!
But… he hasn’t said anything we didn’t already know, and now that he’s done, it’s back to “business as usual.” So what exactly was gained?
When you have no power to enact change, you speak truth to the ones who do.
He is a senator talking to other senators. And it isn't like any of the republicans are going to change their mind based off what some rando from Oregon said. And it also isn't like the news media is going to at all play any of that.
I want to say I like the sentiment and I think I do... if only from a "if we have to suffer, so will you". But this is about as effective for change as a bunch of Democrats bopping their head to the soundtrack from Hamilton in solidarity.
Hell, if anything it adds fuel to the "Democrats are holding the government hostage" narrative because... they kinda were. It isn't like the senate is going to vote on an amended bill any time soon but they actively can't while this kind of stuff is going on.
So he should have just sat down and shut up?
That doesn't address the question. The senator could have done nothing, instead he he protested on the floor. Perhaps it was just performative and won't change anything, but it was at least something. Would it have been better to do nothing?
load more comments
(2 replies)
But most of this speech was to empty room. Nothing requires his opponents to listen to even be in the room to hear him.
load more comments
(2 replies)
So what exactly was gained?
At the very least, we're talking about what was said and that it happened. The message got to a wider audience than it would have if the statements were just inserted into the record.
Also, on the plus side, this was a senator saying this stuff in public for the entire world to hear, so others may be emboldened to speak these things in other places as established fact as well, instead of continuing to whisper it only behind closed doors.
Not sure why the original question was so heavily downvoted though, unless people thought the answer was painfully obvious. To me, the public record bit is important, but that could have been done elsewhere as well.
Maybe you aren't the audience. There's a lot of people who actively try to avoid anything their brain identifies as politics.
load more comments
(1 replies)
ok
These sort of antics always seemed pretty stupid. Why not just have a set limit for any one speaker
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
600 points (100.0% liked)
politics
26718 readers
2583 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS