[kemayo]

Originally, yes. These days a "talking filibuster" like that is almost never used, apart from occasionally when someone wants to be dramatic about it.

There's a thing called a vote for cloture, meaning a vote you take about whether to stop debate and vote on the issue. In the US Senate, a cloture vote requires 60 votes (out of 100) to pass. So there's a "procedural filibuster", whereby one side will announce that they're not going to vote for cloture, but the other side won't force them to actually keep talking so the chamber can move on and do other things.

This used to be quite uncommon, and things would regularly become law with a bare 50%+1 majority, but nowadays -- basically since ~2008 -- there's a de-facto "nothing that can't get 60% support in the Senate can become law" rule in effect. With a specific carve-out for a few things that're not allowed to be filibustered, mostly around passing a budget, that are just barely keeping the government functioning.

Personally, I intensely dislike this, and feel like the shift to default-filibuster-everything is a major cause of the growing dissatisfaction with the system that ultimately gave us Trump.

[llamaimperative]

Around 2008 you say? Like when we elected a black man to the Presidency? What a coincidence.