politics
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
view the rest of the comments
They treat it the same as Republicans did, a talking point to rally around. That is, until the Republicans actually did something and stacked the Supreme Court. They could have codified roe when Obama was president, but I don't think they even tried or considered the possibility that roe would be overturned.
Now that roe has been killed, women have shifted significantly blue. Why the hell would they actually fix the issue when they can campaign on it for the next decade at least?
Or when Clinton was President in '92 or when Biden was President in '21. Multiple opportunities, but they all meant staking a position as a party and not being 300 little local independent influencers, trying to soak up as much campaign cash as they can before the next wave year tosses them out.
You need 50 Dem senators willing to overturn the filibuster or 60 in favor of abortion. Unfortunately, we've never had those numbers.
It's much more of a problem that we can't find even 10 Republican senators who are willing to enshrine abortion in some fashion.
Which they have had on repeated occasions.
When?
1993, 2007, 2021...
Hell, Bill Frist offered to blow up the Filibuster with the Nuclear Option back in 2003. A minority of Dems could have simply let him, rather than caving on Judicial nominees.
There were not 50 willing to kill the filibuster in 2021. Manchin and Sinema were against it.
There was never a vote for or against removing the Filibuster. The rules decision was one more sloppy rush job by a mismanaged Senate.
You're presupposing then that if there was a vote, they'd have gotten rid of it
I'm not presupposing anything. I'm observing the failure of the Senate leadership to hold open the vote.
Your argument then is that the Senate could have held a vote to overturn the filibuster, but not that it would necessarily pass. And that would be true for every year and every day, the Senate could have voted on that during every presidential administration.
Right. They failed to hold a vote, which is the first necessary step to winning a vote.
Fair enough I suppose.