5
Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib declines to endorse Kamala Harris
(www.theguardian.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 02 Nov 2024
5 points (51.9% liked)
politics
19249 readers
1750 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
They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days. Why wouldn't SCOTUS have overturned their law when they struck Roe? Matters of health and wellness tend to be the purview of the states. Where does Congress get the power? Interstate Commerce Clause?
And SCOTUS wouldn't gut it just like they already gutted the voting rights act already? They didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, so how were they getting it through the Senate...you know, where it failed?
No they couldn't. None of these things would get through a Republican controlled house, nor would they have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.
This is what bothers me constantly. The Dems try to do things, Republicans block them, and then idiots say the Dems don't do anything. Republicans currently control the house and the Dems don't have 60 votes in the Senate. They only have a majority due to Independents caucusing with them. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster.
Congress only has the powers expressly given to them, all others are the purview of the states. It is ludicrous to think SCOTUS doesn't overturn these laws that could have been passed in Congress.
During which time the sun was in their eyes and the dog ate their homework. They could have killed the filibuster forever with only 50 votes. If they had wanted to protect Roe.
If they don't have the power, they shouldn't have run on it. They shouldn't have lied and said they did. Or they weren't lying and you're just making excuses.
The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one "they don't have 60" excuse. If the Jim Crow Filibuster is more important to Democrats than all the shit they won't do for their voters, then the only reason we give them majorities is to slow the slide into fascism. Not to reverse it. That would, as you are delighted to point out, require 60 votes. And when they have the opportunity to slow the train, well shucky dern, that lil' ol' filibuster is there to save them from having to do jack shit.
We gave them the seats needed to do this. If you don't demand lockstep from those we elect, don't you dare demand it from voters.
You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works, yet you steadfastly blame the party not responsible. There is literally no point in talking to you.
50 is enough to end the filibuster forever. You don't want it to happen.
Since 2012, the Democrats haven't held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you're uninformed. In fact, so much so that you're a Dunning Kruger wet dream.
When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats and vote with them more reliably than actual registered party members, there are 50 seats. Your excuses are shit, and you know it.
So it's the Democrats fault that people who aren't Democrats don't support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you're ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you're right. That's pathetic.