640
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
640 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19378 readers
2702 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
"if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House."
You should have done that years ago when you had the opportunity and everyone was telling you, begging you, to do it.
Now it's too late.
It's not too late but they're not getting credit until they actually fucking do it and they deserve credit for just saying they want to do it without doing it.
(Edit: And to be clear the credit they're going to get would be credit for doing the bare minimum, long after they promised to do it, long after they had multiple opportunities to do it.)
Even if they agree to get rid of the filibuster on this one issue, it won't do any good with the House under Republican control.
With the receeding of GOP support on this issue alone, there is no fucking way way they are keeping the Senate or House. Every dipshit political analyst out there who has not been paying attention for the last 1.5 years needs a swift kick in the head over their awful projection maps (looking at you, Nate). They've consistently been wrong, and calling all these flips in support "SURPRISES!".
It's not surprising that women and reasonable people are making this their single issue to vote on, and against normal party lines. It will carry to November, and until this bullshit is ended. Watch.
I want to believe! ;)
Whether this winds up being true or not, you’ve made my day just a bit better with your optimism. Thanks my dude.
Was 538 wrong or do people just not understand statistics?
538 is wrong most of the time. Nate Silver has gone back to claiming none of his work is designed to predict outcomes, he's "just running stats" now 🙄
Whatever you think of him, know his models didn't get a thing right with regard to elections after the Roe v Wade issue came back to light. The cycle goes like this: his data is wrong, he tells everyone it's correct, then he writes some bullshit explaining how everyone else is stupid for reading his own published data wrong, but it was actually right in the end.
Just take everything with a handful of salt unless there's an obvious change affecting the numbers.
They've only had a filibuster-proof majority once since 1980. They used it to pass the ACA (which should have included codifying Roe v Wade, among other things). It's not too late if we can elect enough willing Congress members.
This is a story about suspending the filibuster. Which they should have done in Obama's term instead of letting Lieberman dictate terms for the insurance industry.
I'm aware of that. They need 51 votes to do it. They talked about suspending the filibuster in 2020 but Manchin and Sinema shut that down.
You don't need a filibuster proof majority to suspend the filibuster, so there's no relevance to how rarely they've had that.
Talking about the Democratic party's history with the filibuster isn't related to a current Democratic Senator's comments on the filibuster?
No? Why would it be. You don't need a filibuster proof margin to eliminate the filibuster. If your point had been "a filibuster proof majority is so incredibly rare it makes governing essentially impossible" that would be relevant, but just pointing out we only had one once so that's why Roe wasn't codified is not.
Senator Warren's comments, and this post about them, aren't just about the filibuster. It's also about codifying Roe v Wade. And I was replying to someone who said they should have done something about when they could have. The only times they could have are when they either suspended the filibuster or when they had a filibuster-proof majority. And my reply related to the last time the Democratic party could have reasonably done anything about Roe v Wade, which just so happens to have been the last time the only time they had a filibuster-proof majority.
I don't know why you're gatekeeping so hard here. The votes on my comments indicate everyone else thinks I'm making positive contributions to the discussion. So maybe just relax a little and let people converse on the topic.
LOL.
my point with that was simply that you seem to be the only one who thinks I'm offtopic.
We didn't have the votes to get it done in 2020 as the person you responded to pointed out. No, we didn't need a filibuster proof majority, but we needed a voting majority to suspend the filibuster, which we didn't have with Sinema and Manchin. Outside of Obama and the ACA, there hasn't been an opportunity to get anything through both chambers that didn't have Republican support.
So it is a valid excuse for why it's not been codified without a filibuster proof majority.
Roe v Wade looked secure in 2008. It's only in hindsight that we can say "coulda woulda shoulda".
All it takes is 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster.
Just for fun, I looked at the last 50 years to see WHEN they could have codified Roe. There were only 4 periods with dem trifectas:
-1977-81 senate majority 6
-1993-95 senate majorty 4
-2009-11 senate majority 9 (10 for a month)
-2021-23 senate majority 1
The senate majority is the number of senators you could loose who didn't want to get rid of the filibuster on this topic OR who were pro life (like Harry Reid, the senate majority leader from 2005 to 2017, though in the senate from 1987-2017)
The problem is the Dems have TWO conservative senators who refused to codify Roe. Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema both refused to suspend the filibuster.
So we did NOT have a filibuster-proof majority 2021-2023.
So ONLY 4 times when there was absolutely nothing standing in their way except themselves?
That they don't do what they promised on the rare occasions where they DO get the magic majorities they ask to get first isn't exactly a good argument in their favor..
We got the ACA in the last one, and in the most recent one two Democrat senators defected to oppose it so it couldn't go forward.
Which they negotiated into a giant giveaway to insurance companies with no price controls or other ways to limit profiteering. WITHOUT any Republicans forcing them to or even voting for the bill.
Yeah, there's always a rotating villain or two who acts as a roadblock and scapegoat. So very convenient for a party that votes for legislation that their rich owner donors want much more often than legislation that the people at large want.
Especially since the rotating villains are always heavily promoted by party leadership and paid more party funds for their campaigns than most other candidates.
The ACA, while not perfect, literally saved my life. It prohibits lifetime maximums and eliminated the idea of pre-existing conditions.
Without that, I'd be dead.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
This place is full of people who want to turn an aircraft carrier on a dime. They'll never be happy with anything and it explains why their big ideas will never happen.
They turn everyone off and discourage everyone because nothing is ever good enough. It would be one thing to be happy but not satisfied but even that isn't enough.
I'm glad it saved your life and I am aware that it was an improvement over the former status quo.
That being said, though, it's inadequacies HAVE lead to the deaths of many, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of thousands, from not being able to afford treatment before it's too late.
Dems had a unique opportunity to save as many lives as possible, and they negotiated themselves down to a tiny step in the right direction and then pretended that it's the best anyone could possibly do.
It's been over a decade and a half since they took that tiny step and they're still resting on their laurels and vehemently opposing anyone who suggests that improvements are needed or even possible.
I'm so fucking tired of that lame argument for complacency.
Incrementalism isn't good. Taking a tiny step in the right direction and then declaring victory as the other party predictably makes it worse than it originally was as both parties gradually turn further and further right isn't good.
It's throwing rare scraps to the starving masses from the banquets they throw for their owner donors, including the health insurance industry leeches that the ACA massively enriches.
Politics is about incremental progress, which is not sexy enough for you guys. If you want the revolution, go start it. Shit or get off the can. All this moral grandstanding is vacuous and meaningless
Because that's what the powerful have decided for you, NOT because it's the best way.
"If you don't like my favorite band, make better music yourself" 🙄
Yeah, expressing dissent should be for those with the power to change things themselves only. What a great idea! 🙄
Just my opinion, but this is not expressing dissent: This is nihilistic apathy. Expressing dissent typically comes with a call to action or a plan. Being politically active is not the equivalent of starting your own band and the fact that that's what you took from it is very telling. Again, if you've resigned yourself to what has been charted out by the powerful either shit or get off the can. This is just political apathy disguised as voicing dissent for edgy points.
Yeah, but less people died than they would have if there was no ACA.
Its terrible that people die in the country every day from healthcare issues that are taken care of by every other first world country on the planet.
but god damn, sitting here saying shit like you are screams of nothing but impotent anti-ACA troll flailing.
the ACA needs to have its holes patched, yes, but don't sit here and pretend its not saving a fuckton of lives.
the flaws in the ACA only exist cause follow up bills to patch the holes that came up after rollout couldnt be passed due to, you guessed it, republicans.
cause republicans are against anything and everything that benefits the 99.9%
Having a pro-lifer as the majority leader is a big stumbling block. Don't know much about the first two post-roe trifectas, but I do know there was a particular democratic house member that voted to amend the constitution to overturn Roe
Which they put there themselves. Like with most of the barriers they blame their feckless inaction on.
And they awarded him by making him a senator, then VP and then president.
If they have all of those things (again) and still don't give us Medicare for all (again) I'm fucking done.
You're not allowed to be done, that makes you a Russian bot who wants fascism!
When elected into a supermajority with a clear mandate: “well, sorry sweetie, we just have other priorities.”
When facing a landslide defeat this election season: “trust us voters, we will do the right thing this time and totally not let you down!”
When they're in power: Reach across the aisle! Government is about compromise!
When they're at risk of losing power: Vote for us because we're not as bad as the Other Guys!
You mean in the couple months that the democrats controlled all three branches of government in the past 20 years? During that time we got the ACA. Vote blue across the board in November to have a chance at getting all three branches blue again to actually accomplish something.
How about 2021 to 2022 when we had the majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and the White House.
Previously, Manchin and Sinema opposed ending the filibuster. Manchin opposed codifying Roe v Wade.
I think Machinema opposed it then. Though if she says she's got 50 now, it requires at least one of them. They should have done this all in Obama's first term though.
Damn, I thought they'd actually grown a pair for once.
The USSC would just say that it’s unconstitutional at this point, even if they codify it into law.
Hell, they’d probably declare it unconstitutional even if it was a literal constitutional amendment, simply because it wasn’t one of the original amendments laid out in the bill of rights, thus also laying out the legal precedent for challenging literally any of the constitutional amendments that weren’t in the bill of rights.