385
Republicans Boost Jill Stein as Potential Harris Spoiler
(www.wsj.com)
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 21 Sep 2024
385 points (93.1% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1975 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
Why you are supporting someone that won't protect them
The game you're playing: "Democrats are imperfect! They haven't done everything possible to protect your kids! Please pay no attention to the fact that they've been hamstrung by the filibuster in the Senate for decades, and a Supreme Court that's been stacked due to the electoral college giving Republicans two popular-vote losers as president in the span of 16 years. Ignore all that and fight like hell to keep Democrats out of office!"
You're fucking transparent, and again, someone fighting to get Republicans elected doesn't get to speak on behalf of my children.
It takes a simple plurality to eliminate the filibuster. They use it as a weapon to prevent legislation they have no intention of passing, just like their rotating villains
3 of those conservative sitting SCOTUS justices are there because of direct action from Democrats, they HELPED Republicans stack the court
Thank you. With that one sentence, you've made it clear I never have to take any of your assertions seriously.
It takes a majority to invoke the "nuclear option" and override Senate Rule XXII, not a plurality. Given the makeup and structure of the Senate, a plurality that is not also the majority on any given vote is for all intents and purposes impossible.
The "nuclear option" for overcoming the filibuster and changing its rules didn't even exist until Harry Reid came up with the idea in 2013. Before that, it was just a given that the only way to overcome a filibuster was by reaching 60 votes in favor of cloture.
Since that time, the Senate has only been either in Republican hands, or in razor-thin majority Democratic hands. There are several Democratic senators from conservative states who are on record since 2013 as opposing ending the filibuster for legislation.
That means any attempt to do so for the last ten years would have been a non-starter. And the only way to change that is to elect more Democrats, not fewer. Which you oppose.
So like I said, I'm done making the mistake of taking you seriously.
Nothing but excuses and carrying water for right wing authoritarians.
Like I said: Not serious.
We're done. Bye.
I'm sure you would be sticking around if I contributed to your echo chamber