if you end the filibuster or expand the court the republicans will just kill you in the future. With no fillibuster, they could kill healthcare.
AOC acts like the Democrats will be in power forever.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Only took republicans 35 days to nominate and confirm a Justice for a lifetime appointment. 72 days? Why that’s basically forever
They didn't have 60 votes to codify Roe vs Wade. They had pro-life Democrats.
If they had all pro-choice candidates - they wouldn't have had 60 Democrats in the senate.
Its the same thing that is literally happening right now where they have a tiny majority but because 2 of them won't vote for some of their policies they can't enact them.
This seems to break people's brains. They either have Joe Manchin and have a small tiebreaker edge in the Senate or they don't have Joe Manchin and the Republicans have 51 seats and control the Senate.
Its the same as back then. They have anti-choice Democrats so they get 60 seats. If they make it so they only accept pro-choice Democrats - they don't have 60 seats. Either way you don't get what you want.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
Nothing brain breaking about it it’s just always fun to read the plethora of excuses for why democrats can’t accomplish anything while republicans, under the same system and rules, somehow manage to do as they please with less public support. Ah well at least abortion is on the ballot this November.
Get out there and vote harder guys, this is gonna be the time they finally actually do it for real.
Nothing brain breaking about it it’s just always fun to read the plethora of excuses for why democrats can’t accomplish anything while republicans, under the same system and rules, somehow manage to do as they please with less public support. Ah well at least abortion is on the ballot this November.
Get out there and vote harder guys, this is gonna be the time they finally actually do it for real.
I don't know what the Republicans actually got done except take over the supreme court, which was really more luck than anything.
The whole "Vote Harder" is becoming rather annoying. It seems to encourage apathy and lack of voting. Everyone has the right to vote who they like. If the Bernie supporters in the rust belt voted for Hillary instead of staying home or voting for Trump, we'd have a very liberal supreme court and abortion rights wouldn't be in danger. If the progressives think it was worth it to give up abortion rights and whatever other crazy crap this supreme court is going to do, then they are just as evil people or worse than Liz Cheney in my books.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
#2 - term limits for every level of government. Every level at 8 years. If you want to be a career politician. You have 8 years at President, 8 years at Governor, 8 years at Senate, 8 years at Congress... 8 years at State Senate, 8 years as a city Councillor, 8 years at Mayor... and so forth. NO CAMPING! Eliminate the consolidation of power. If a person runs out of time and position at the federal level, they have to take their expertise and go and make their home state or city a better place.
The downside I've read about this is that as it is lobbyists and people other than the elected official already have too much power as it is. The faster the turn around the more power they have since they're experienced while a newly elected Senator or whatever has to take a while to really learn how things work.
As it is legislation is too often designed by lobbyists or special interests, shorter terms will just promote that further. Just gain enough experience to be ushered out the door.
No point in learning how to make good legislation then, just focus even more on short term gains.
Plus you'd be forcing out any actually effective people once you found them.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I don't know what the Republicans actually got done except take over the supreme court, which was really more luck than anything.
The first part is mostly true IMO, they passed what one major piece of their agenda during Trump's tenure and having 2 years of controlling the Presidency, the House and the Senate? Their big tax cut for corporations.
The way things are neither party can really do anything significant that can't be passed via budget reconciliation.
But getting the SCOTUS was not just luck. Denying Obama's nomination was just taking what you want without shame.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
if you end the filibuster or expand the court the republicans will just kill you in the future. With no fillibuster, they could kill healthcare.
AOC acts like the Democrats will be in power forever.
The Republicans are killing them now though, so...?
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The whole "Vote Harder" is becoming rather annoying. It seems to encourage apathy and lack of voting.
It's actually the opposite of that. The message is that Democrats aren't coming to save you, so you need to get more involved. Voting alone isn't going to do jack ####.
Quote:
Everyone has the right to vote who they like. If the Bernie supporters in the rust belt voted for Hillary instead of staying home or voting for Trump, we'd have a very liberal supreme court and abortion rights wouldn't be in danger.
You mean the rust belt that Hillary didn't even bother to campaign in? Democrats seem to believe they're entitled to votes just because they aren't Republicans, instead of actually working to win voters over.
Its the same as back then. They have anti-choice Democrats so they get 60 seats. If they make it so they only accept pro-choice Democrats - they don't have 60 seats. Either way you don't get what you want.
So then why do the Democrats keep saying that "abortion is on the ballot box" every election when it clearly isn't?
It's actually the opposite of that. The message is that Democrats aren't coming to save you, so you need to get more involved. Voting alone isn't going to do jack ####.
You mean the rust belt that Hillary didn't even bother to campaign in? Democrats seem to believe they're entitled to votes just because they aren't Republicans, instead of actually working to win voters over.
But voting is still important and more important than ever at the state level
I am not going to defend Hillary. I don’t really care for her. Still people who cared about abortion rights should have voted for her and those who didn’t in competitive states share the blame.
The first part is mostly true IMO, they passed what one major piece of their agenda during Trump's tenure and having 2 years of controlling the Presidency, the House and the Senate? Their big tax cut for corporations.
The way things are neither party can really do anything significant that can't be passed via budget reconciliation.
But getting the SCOTUS was not just luck. Denying Obama's nomination was just taking what you want without shame.
Getting to 5-4 with Roberts as 5 is a result of McConnells sleezines. Getting the 6th was a monumental difference and was the result of an unfortunate series of events.
So then why do the Democrats keep saying that "abortion is on the ballot box" every election when it clearly isn't?
because it is, everything is on every ballot, abortion, gay rights, contraception it all always at risk, there is no way to protect it other than voting for which ever Democrat is on the local state and national ballot.
Something the right wing never ever forgets and the left casually disregards constantly
because it is, everything is on every ballot, abortion, gay rights, contraception it all always at risk, there is no way to protect it other than voting for which ever Democrat is on the local state and national ballot.
Something the right wing never ever forgets and the left casually disregards constantly
It wouldn't have to be on the ballot every election if Democrats would just do even a third of what they promise. But that doesn't fundraise nearly as well.
It pretty obviously was in 2016. And another year of rep control and Supreme Court control could well have outlawed abortion nationally.
PeteMoss gave the game away in his post. To get a super majority, the Dems have to run pro-life candidates. So even electing those candidates doesn't guarantee abortion protection, hence why "just vote harder" makes zero sense mathematically on this particular issue.
And that's if you believe the Dems truly want to protect abortion. I would wager that certain segments of the party don't want these issues settled because cultural wedge issues are the only things that fundamentally differentiate them from Republicans.
It wouldn't have to be on the ballot every election if Democrats would just do even a third of what they promise. But that doesn't fundraise nearly as well.
as a general rule of thumb the party that spends the most wins, that requires fundraising
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
if you end the filibuster or expand the court the republicans will just kill you in the future. With no fillibuster, they could kill healthcare.
AOC acts like the Democrats will be in power forever.
By that logic, you could make the case that nothing should ever pass unless 100% of the house and 100% of the senate agree with the president on something. The more checks & balances, the better?
Simply put, even without the filibuster, there are already plenty of checks & balances in the US government when it comes to passing legislation. The filibuster is an extra unnessesary one, which leads to virtually endless gridlock in Washington, frustration among the American people (feeling of "congress never gets anything done"), and for some reason only ever seems to serve republican interests. Can anyone point to me the last time the democrats used the filibuster to block any major republican-backed legislation? Hmmm... it only ever seems to serve one party's interests at the expense of the other... golly gee, I wonder why that is? It's almost like it was designed specifically as a mechanism for the minority to rule over the majority?
Time to get rid of this Jim Crow era relic and give the congress, elected by the American people, a chance to actually get some things done.
By that logic, you could make the case that nothing should ever pass unless 100% of the house and 100% of the senate agree with the president on something. The more checks & balances, the better?
Simply put, even without the filibuster, there are already plenty of checks & balances in the US government when it comes to passing legislation. The filibuster is an extra unnessesary one, which leads to virtually endless gridlock in Washington, frustration among the American people (feeling of "congress never gets anything done"), and for some reason only ever seems to serve republican interests. Can anyone point to me the last time the democrats used the filibuster to block any major republican-backed legislation? Hmmm... it only ever seems to serve one party's interests at the expense of the other... golly gee, I wonder why that is? It's almost like it was designed specifically as a mechanism for the minority to rule over the majority?
Time to get rid of this Jim Crow era relic and give the congress, elected by the American people, a chance to actually get some things done.
I don’t see too many downsides at this point. But you need to get manchin and sinima on board.
I actually preferred needing the 60 votes for the Supreme Court. 60 votes makes for more reasonable picks.
I don’t see too many downsides at this point. But you need to get manchin and sinima on board.
I actually preferred needing the 60 votes for the Supreme Court. 60 votes makes for more reasonable picks.
The 60 vote thing is why we got into this mess in the first place. Once again, the Democrats got high on the smell of their own farts and decided that "civil," bipartisan politics were more important than actually getting anything done. Then the GOP grabbed power and completely pantsed them.
