Reply #48: No, what I'm saying is

[charlyvi]

if a party wants to filibuster, if they think a piece of legislation is so egregious as to be detrimental to the public as a whole, they should actually filibuster. Meaning they should obstruct by halting a vote until one of three things happens: 1) the majority has enough votes to invoke cloture, 2) the legislation is withdrawn, or 3) the filibustering Senator or Senators stop filibustering thus allowing the vote to continue.

The nuclear option is when Senate rules are changed to allow a simple majority vote to end a filibuster, rendering the procedure meaningless.

Now who is mischaracterizing whose post?