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
"Sinema represents all Democrats" is the most braindead take I've read all day, but it's still early.
I said she demonstrated what Democrats are all about and I meant it. When Democrats have a chance to do something for poor people that they don't want to do, they find an excuse and find enough votes to go along with that excuse.
There were eight Democrats who voted that workers in this country aren't worth one penny more than $7.25/hr. So let's say some Republican who agrees with those 8 filibusters. In order to get to the 60 needed for cloture, Democrats would need 68 seats in the Senate. Do you think "shut up, be happy, vote harder" is gonna get us to 68?
And let's say by some fucking miracle we increase the majority by a whopping 18 senators. Only one of them needs to be a Sinema-style centrist to vote against workers and we'll be back to "Oh well, Guess we didn't have enough senators lol. Now let's throw half a trillion at the military to celebrate!"
Democrats will not increase the minimum wage. Too few of them want to.
She's not even a Democrat anymore. I personally think democrats need to just tank the filibuster at some point. Some democrats fear what would happen at some future hypothetical Republican senate without a filibuster, but I personally think that's silly, as Republicans will probably just get rid of it whenever they feel it's advantageous to them.
Democrats are clearly better than the alternative party (and the third party candidates haven't exactly been stellar), but we also need to be active in the primary elections and keep getting more progressives in there and boot people like Sinema out.
They should have done so already. They won't. They love their procedural excuse for inaction.
I don't buy that one bit. Politicians want to be re elected, and it's far easier to run on a record of having done something. A lot of people voting hardly even know what a filibuster is or why it would have prevented something from happening. In one Monmouth survey linked below, only 19% of people called themselves very familiar with a filibuster. It's not exactly going to help them to get re elected by failing to do anything then appealing to a vague parliamentary procedure most people are hardly aware of. Do you seriously see campaign ads going, oh look at the good things I was going to do but didn't but it's okay cause parliamentary procedure made it hard, vote for me again. Theory makes no sense.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/filibuster-polls-analysis/index.html
And again if you want the filibuster elimated, you're best bet is on the democrats. They almost managed it for the voting rights bill, with 48 democrats for making a filibuster exception, only 2 against, and every single republican against.
No, I see them being like "our opponents are fascists and you have no choice" with heavy overtones of "shut up and be happy, peasant."