652
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
652 points (98.2% liked)
politics
18852 readers
4207 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.
- 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.
- 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 1 year 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.
Holy fucking shit, I wish I shared your generalized optimism
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.
Roe v Wade looked secure in 2008. It's only in hindsight that we can say "coulda woulda shoulda".
I’m not disagreeing with you. Things that important should be codified instead of being left to the whim of the courts.
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.
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
If they have all of those things (again) and still don't give us Medicare for all (again) I'm fucking done.
I was at the beginning of my voting age when Obama came around with his "Yes we can" campaign. Turns out, no we couldn't. The corruption is too entrenched for any lasting progress to withstand the types of legalized bribery we have now. Biden is more of the same. Everyone knows it and is pissed off on both sides! The right has been hijacked by grifters and fascists. The left is desperately trying to squeeze out a few more good years. Yet the underlying problem of corruption remains steadfast. It would be nice to unify both sides and cut down those that are selling our country out.
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.
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.
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.
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!