So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try? This type of attitude leads directly to voter apathy and the election of fascists like Trump.
As for traitors like Sinema, I’m old enough to remember a time when legislative holdouts would be pressured by the national party. The president should call her out by name and run rallies in her district. Cut off her funding, strain her ties with her donors, make her a pariah in the party.
It is so sad how the Democrat party has calcified this “rotating villain” logic into its foundation. It’s something that needs to be purged from the party if we want a party that’s actually controlled by the voters and not by corporate interests.
So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try?
They literally did try; I just presented you with evidence that they tried: the Freedom to Vote Act. It had enough cosponsors to pass the House and the Senate; it died due to the filibuster.
So go ahead and tell me what your plan would’ve been; I’m listening, because you forgot to express one. And if it involves removing the filibuster, 1) that legislation is in the exact same territory as the Voting Rights Act (legally for what the SCOTUS is allowed to do to it; in terms of judicial precedent, it’s far worse-off, because holy shit, we’re talking about the fucking VRA here), and 2) I dare you to imagine what a 53–47 Senate, a 217–212 House, and Trump could do without the filibuster. I will tell you it’s unfathomably worse than what’s already happening, and I will also tell you that “well it totally wouldn’t have happened with better voting rights!!” is just 1) credulously assuming it wouldn’t have already been struck down and 2) not a solid assumption even if not.
Is your plan to delete the filibuster before absolutely flooding the zone with voting rights legislation in hopes they can’t strike it all down and fuck voting rights precedent even worse? Good thinking, Mr. Brannigan; SCOTUS-bots have a pre-programmed judicial review limit, after all. (They do not.)
The only reason either party has to maintain the filibuster is precedent, to restrain the other party the next time the other party wins. If the filibuster is the only thing standing between the Republicans and a dictatorship where they will never lose power again, then what’s stopping them from getting rid of it themselves, right now even?
No the issue is Republicans/their voters have been consistent in their shitty behavior. It builds up and gets things done for them
Every two years Democrats go to the polls, maybe, and then throw up their hands when everything isn’t fixed, demand new politicians and continue to argue amongst themselves as the left has always done because it’s not about fixing things, it’s about being the more correct liberal/socialist/whatever else you wanna be. And the cycle repeats.
It matters because the left wants representation, but the Dems have never allowed them to even have a scrap. Just look at how not a single one came out in support of Mamdani till the literal last second when they figured they could maybe get a few lefty brownie points cause they figured we wouldn’t notice. Even a centrist like Sanders had the entire party work against him so the right winger Hillary could take the nomination.
So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try? This type of attitude leads directly to voter apathy and the election of fascists like Trump.
As for traitors like Sinema, I’m old enough to remember a time when legislative holdouts would be pressured by the national party. The president should call her out by name and run rallies in her district. Cut off her funding, strain her ties with her donors, make her a pariah in the party.
It is so sad how the Democrat party has calcified this “rotating villain” logic into its foundation. It’s something that needs to be purged from the party if we want a party that’s actually controlled by the voters and not by corporate interests.
That doesn’t work, that was a straight cash grab she was never expecting to win reelection just grab as much corporate favor as she could.
They literally did try; I just presented you with evidence that they tried: the Freedom to Vote Act. It had enough cosponsors to pass the House and the Senate; it died due to the filibuster.
So go ahead and tell me what your plan would’ve been; I’m listening, because you forgot to express one. And if it involves removing the filibuster, 1) that legislation is in the exact same territory as the Voting Rights Act (legally for what the SCOTUS is allowed to do to it; in terms of judicial precedent, it’s far worse-off, because holy shit, we’re talking about the fucking VRA here), and 2) I dare you to imagine what a 53–47 Senate, a 217–212 House, and Trump could do without the filibuster. I will tell you it’s unfathomably worse than what’s already happening, and I will also tell you that “well it totally wouldn’t have happened with better voting rights!!” is just 1) credulously assuming it wouldn’t have already been struck down and 2) not a solid assumption even if not.
Is your plan to delete the filibuster before absolutely flooding the zone with voting rights legislation in hopes they can’t strike it all down and fuck voting rights precedent even worse? Good thinking, Mr. Brannigan; SCOTUS-bots have a pre-programmed judicial review limit, after all. (They do not.)
The filibuster is one of their rotating villains. They dont try to change the system because they benefit to much from it.
Without it they would have passed a anti voter bill that would guarantee they never lose this year.
So why don’t the Republicans get rid of it then?
The only reason either party has to maintain the filibuster is precedent, to restrain the other party the next time the other party wins. If the filibuster is the only thing standing between the Republicans and a dictatorship where they will never lose power again, then what’s stopping them from getting rid of it themselves, right now even?
No the issue is Republicans/their voters have been consistent in their shitty behavior. It builds up and gets things done for them
Every two years Democrats go to the polls, maybe, and then throw up their hands when everything isn’t fixed, demand new politicians and continue to argue amongst themselves as the left has always done because it’s not about fixing things, it’s about being the more correct liberal/socialist/whatever else you wanna be. And the cycle repeats.
When was the last time any leftist had power in the Dem party?
Uhh? What? Literally irrelevant to what I’m saying.
Republican voters consistently turn out and vote for the same stuff, consistently. This isn’t the case for Democrats.
Why does it matter who is in power? Lmfao
It matters because the left wants representation, but the Dems have never allowed them to even have a scrap. Just look at how not a single one came out in support of Mamdani till the literal last second when they figured they could maybe get a few lefty brownie points cause they figured we wouldn’t notice. Even a centrist like Sanders had the entire party work against him so the right winger Hillary could take the nomination.
Democrats.don’t represent left wing voters. Democrat s ensure left wing voters have no representation