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
19148 readers
3046 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
When we have the seats, we find the no votes.
They need 50 and the VP.
But they only had at most 48 and the VP because Manchin and Sinema torpedoed the discussion before it could be put to vote.
I am speaking as a general statement on the requirements, not rehashing what happened with those two turds in the past.
👍
And which party did they belong to?
At the time in 2021? ... they were both members of the Democratic party. Sinema registered as Independent in 2022 and Manchin only did so at the end of May this year.
Correct. They were Democrats, and they were acting like Democrats.