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.
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
view the rest of the comments
Keeping the filibuster is pretty important. Without it, Republicans would simply have un-codified Roe in 2016.
Followed by repealing the Voting Rights Act and Medicaid, privatizing Social Security and the Post Office, enacting a regressive flat tax, etc.
...for blocking progress. Republicans don't have to put any work into blocking progress since Democrats do it for them.
It also blocks Republicans from repealing any progress.
And Democrats from implementing any. Popular progress would make Republicans very unpopular indeed if they repealed it. Just look what happened when they finally caught that car they'd been chasing for decades and killed Roe.
Imagine if they had to undo the law first and then get the Supreme Court to strike down Roe. They would have taken the same popularity hit twice. Imagine if the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed instead of being stopped in its tracks by the filibuster. All the fuckery Republicans are trying to pull at the state level would have to get through a popular civil rights law first. But no. The filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era, and holds back civil rights to this day. And that's how centrists like it.
Since it provides Democrats a way to pretend their hands are tied, they prioritize its preservation over the civil rights of their constituents.
Of course, this also means they have limited accomplishments to run on. Which is why the only message right now is "not trump".
Yes, what happened after Republicans killed Roe? Kate Cox had to flee her state to get an abortion, that's what. Republicans are doubling down, not backing down.
I'd rather have small, permanent progress than constantly watch Republicans take away what we gained.
By the way, state legislatures don't have filibusters. Having seen what they are doing, I don't want more of the same at the federal level.
You'd rather have no progress.
I'd rather not have the equivalent of the Florida or Texas legislature running the country. That's worse than no progress.
Same. Unfortunately, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was less important than centrists' adherence to the Jim Crow Filibuster.
Floridians had rights, until suddenly they didn't.
Rights aren't so important when they can easily taken away.
Rights aren't important to you at all. As long as Democrats get to keep their stupid procedural excuse for inaction, everything else is secondary.
And yet they are taking action where they can, like in Ohio, Kansas, etc.
You are willing to risk everything for short term again, most of us aren't.
Great. Could have codified Roe, but you're happy with Texas' law as long as your precious Jim Crow filibuster keeps progress from ever happening on the national level.
Your real nightmare scenario isn't Florida's abortion laws. It's Washington's minimum wage, universal vote by mail, and legal cannabis.
Codified Roe = short term gain. The only way to codify it is to plant the seeds for its destruction. Along with the destruction of other laws you should care about.
You prefer no gain at all ever. Congratulations on getting it.
I prefer incremental gains that are not easily reversed. Like the ACA and the latest climate change legislation.
You like the filibuster because you like your losses to be untempered by gains.
You're trying to coast on the ACA from 15 years ago, when the only thing you liked about it was how the filibuster prevented the public option from happening.
I like the filibuster because without it the ACA wouldn't have lasted 15 years.
If Republicans were willing to simply undo anything that Democrats put into place, why haven't they?
They could have ended the filibuster with a simple majority and done whatever they wanted any time they had a majority in the Senate. They won't, and it's not because of some non-existent worship of decorum. It's because they know that repealing popular legislation would be so unpopular that it would sink them.
Democrats just don't want to end the filibuster. It gives them a flimsy excuse to let Republicans dictate the limits of policy regardless of who has the majority.
Republicans don't want to end the filibuster for the same reason as Democrats: they are afraid Democrats will undo whatever they manage to pass.
And it's laughable to suggest that they are worried about unpopularity, they pass unpopular laws all the time. Literally book banning is unpopular. Six week abortion bans are unpopular. Tax cuts for the wealthy are unpopular. Republicans don't care, they only have to do things that are popular among conservatives.
Sounds good. Maybe we should undo whatever Republicans pass. You don't want to do that either, of course.
Republicans already have their mechanism for undoing things Democrats like: the courts and red states. You'll happily let all of it go forever as long as Democrats have the only thing they care about: the Jim Crow Filibuster.
We've been going around in circles for some time now. You're determined to support a stupid racist policy that serves almost exclusively to prevent civil rights legislation from passing. I'm done with this conversation. Thanks for the confirmation that the Dixiecrats never completely left the party.
And you want to undo decades of progress, because you weren't alive before those laws were passed and you're clueless about what life would be like without them. "Sounds good, burn it all down" is something only a privileged person would say.
It's a shame you're so obsessed with instant gratification. People are willing to work for enduring change, not the temporary quick-fix you're selling.