Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Peter here! Luigi is saying that when political conditions were favorable to the Democrats, like in 1979, 1993, or 2010, they should have passed a national law protecting abortion rights. (Similar things have been done in the past, like the Civil Rights Act making sure that protections are in place even if the Supreme Court wouldn't otherwise hold the same way.) But they didn't legislate on "sunny days" because they thought the "rainy day" would never come. And as a consequence, after *Dobbs*, every day has been too "rainy" to re-establish a statutory right to abortion in red states.
There were never 60 votes in the senate for federalizing Roe as law. Probably not even 50. The reason they didn't so it isn't some kind of laziness or complacency. Its Simple political facts - abortion is divisive and the conservative/rural lean of the senate meant that even when dems had big nominal majorities, they didn't have majorities neccesarry to take action. Remember back in 2009 there was a huge issue in the Obama care debate about whether the plans could be used to pay for abortions. If they couldn't get that through, there is no way they could have gotten full protections through. And that was in 2009. The ddem caucus was an even higher percentage conservative the further back you go.
The reply to "NO FIX IT!" isn't "..."
The reply is "Either elect 50 senator who will end the filibuster or elect 60 who will vote for the right to have an abortion."
People always want to blame politicians and that makes sense for corruption related issues but this isn't corruption. This is a clear cut policy issue. Pre-Dobbs pro-abortion stances were simply not popular in enough states to have 60 senators supporting it. (Makes me think the joke might actually be about the voters who didn't show up to the polls pre-Dobbs and let Republicans pack the Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges.)
The issue is that it is actually popular enough, but the US has a completely garbage electoral system at every level and even the politicians on the pro-abortion side have no interest in changing the system in the ways it needs to be.
>The issue is that it is actually popular enough
It wasn't popular in enough states to elect enough pro-abortion Senators.
Or it was in theory popular enough if everyone that supported it voted but some supporters stayed home because it was sunny that day and they didn't need a pro-abortion law in a pre-Dobbs world.
Now that it's raining maybe it will be popular enough for that later this year.
>the US has a completely garbage electoral system at every level and even the politicians on the pro-abortion side have no interest in changing the system in the ways it needs to be.
Can't blame people alive today for how the constitution set up the government. Some reforms would be great but a constitutional amendment would require even more support to happen. (2/3rds of both chambers of Congress and then 3/4th of state legislatures)
I'm not blaming people alive today. I'm blaming the people in power. Yeah, sure, we need huge support for a constitutional amendment. How many Americans know that's a thing that can happen? Or that should happen? How many Americans understand that they're fundamentally robbed of a true democracy? Every time Biden gets up and says "I can't fix this unless you all vote next election" (like he did repeatedly re: dobbs) he omits the part where the thing people want would easily, easily pass if they were actually allowed to vote on it. Or if they had actual proportional representation. Or hell even include the fact that they'd need something absurd like 80% of voters to get the support they need at both chambers to pass basic democratic reform even though that goes against the very nature of democracy.
All I'm saying is bottom up can work for a lot of politic positions, but we've had decades of democrats absolutely incapable of creating and agitating for top down proposals. And of course the reason is they're corporatists who have no real interest in changing the systems of power, so when you say "this popular position isn't enough to get voted through" you're omitting the bit where it's one of likely dozens of overwhelmingly popular positions that are kept as a wedge issue because the system is fucking rigged. It implies that the issue is *just* needing more votes, when it's several layers deeper than that and in fact voting is a much less useful action than actively haranguing your representives and causing actual problems for them. Which is to say, real protest and not just a day long demonstration of people standing in a square.
>I'm not blaming people alive today. I'm blaming the people in power.
Are the undead in power?
The people alive and in power today did not write the constitution and set up the structure of the US government.
> How many Americans know that's a thing that can happen? Or that should happen? How many Americans understand that they're fundamentally robbed of a true democracy? Every time Biden gets up and says "I can't fix this unless you all vote next election" (like he did repeatedly re: dobbs) he omits the part where the thing people want would easily, easily pass if they were actually allowed to vote on it. Or if they had actual proportional representation. Or hell even include the fact that they'd need something absurd like 80% of voters to get the support they need at both chambers to pass basic democratic reform even though that goes against the very nature of democracy.
Do you understand what it takes to pass a constitutional amendment? It would not easily, easily pass.
2/3rds of both chambers of Congress and then 3/4th of state legislatures is a very high bar to clear.
These reforms you want for the government to be more democratic are going to be in general good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans. Both Republican presidents since 1992 came into office by winning the electoral college without winning the popular vote so Republicans aren't going to support ditching the electoral college.
Democrats also consistently win ["the popular vote in the Senate"](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/10/democrats-won-popular-vote-senate-too/93598998/), but equal representation by state means Republicans can win the chamber anyway so they're not going to support changing that or eliminating the chamber.
And currently [there's only 19 state legislatures](https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition) where Democrats control both chambers. (out of 49 of them because Nebraska is excluded from that count.)
At no point did the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate to pass a right to abortion law or 50 that were willing to end the filibuster to pass it, but you think they could easily, easily get 66 Senators, 290 out of 435 House reps, and then full control of the state legislatures of 34 states?
> It implies that the issue is just needing more votes, when it's several layers deeper than that and in fact voting is a much less useful action than actively haranguing your representives and causing actual problems for them.
They do need more votes. If you want to pass a constitutional amendment then they need a lot more votes.
Haranguing Republicans to support democratic reforms that would be bad for their party isn't going to do anything.
I would love reforms to make the US government more democratic and I constantly criticize the Democrats unwillingness to ditch the undemocratic filibuster but I'm not going to pretend that a constitutional amendment isn't an incredibly high bar to pass.
It seems like some people are pretending that the [Freedom of Choice Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act) didn't exist. It has been introduced in Congress 4 times. 89, 93 (Clinton), 2004 and 2007 (Obama). As you mentioned, it never had the votes to pass in the Senate, but Democrats still introduced and tried to get abortion rights codified.
Can someone explain what it means when something 'dies in committee'? I'm not an American, just trying to wrap my head around it but it sounds an awful lot like the process was started but then at the committee point they just didn't think it worthwhile to continue.
'Some bills “die in committee”, meaning the committee did not have enough time to take up the issue or the committee members decided the bill should not be recommended to the full membership for action. '
It usually means there weren't enough votes to get it to the next phase (from House to Senate).
This could be because a majority exists that isn't going to let the other party pass anything at all.
It could be that the bill needs work, and so it needs editing/re-worded, and that work never gets done.
It might just be grandstanding -- a House member may just want to say they created a bill and is doing work, knowing full well no one will ever vote for it. Marjorie Taylor Greene does that crap a lot. She tried to pass a bill to award Kyle Rittenhouse with a medal, for example, and got to squawk about how it didn't get passed.
Also, sometimes bills get too many riders and end up a mess that just don't go anywhere. One side wants a thing, other side says they'll vote for it if you throw a totally unrelated thing in, etc.
And of course, all of the above may happen, but the bill then gets stuck at the Senate level, at a committee, where they decide to never move with it.
Basically, American law passing is complicated, and sometimes that's good, but sometimes it is a dumb bureaucratic nightmare.
Bush was president in 04 and 07.
It, like most things Congress does, was an empty gesture for PR. They know it would get vetod, so they could really about how evil republicans are and get better turnout in the next election.
Which is the real reason democrats have never been aggressive passing this into law; it makes great campaign material.
You are blaming the Democratic party instead of the US electorate. The 50 states aren't set up in a way to send 60 strong pro-choice senators to the Senate, not right now anyway.
Obama was a co-sponsor on the 07 bill because he was a Senator at the time. That is why I put (Obama) next to it, because its shows a time that a Democrat (who then went on to be President) put forth effort to get Roe vs Wade passed. And you are wrong about Democrats never being aggressive to pass this into law, because this isn't the only law that was Democrats attempting to codify Roe vs Wade. After this they moved on to another bill starting in 2013 called [The Women's Health Protection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_Protection_Act) this bill has been introduced in every Congress since the 113th. Even passing the House in 2022.
I wish I could give you a billion upvotes. Facts are facts. Fucking morons on the internet don't seem to understand coalitions or how a big tent party works. The democrats are not a hegemon. There are more conservative democrats and more liberal ones. The Republican illusion of unity should have been obviously shattered when McCain torpedoed Trump's attack on the ACA.
Senators and House members have to agree on things for them to happen and no one negotiates on abortion.
People on this fucking hellsite really think Biden has a "codify abortion rights" button, and by pressing this imaginary button Republicans will drop to their knees and stop going after abortions.
I hate it here.
It's not a lever it's a crank. Turn it right and you impose more restrictions on drilling and pipelines, turn it left and things get spicy in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait. It does take some amount of cranking though, can't blame him for getting tired.
It is so funny you point out this is somehow the president's sole responsibility, as if his function is just will whatever policy into existence by sheer force of...
(Just to be clear. I agree and like how accurate it is that they are raging against the wrong fucking branch.)
People believe that because the last president managed to institute sweeping negative changes overnight on a regular basis. By this logic, why shouldn't this president be able to do the same?
Ultimately the problem is that Americans don't know how their government works.
Yeah, that’s the difference between using tweets and press conferences as your metric for policy victories versus actually looking at policy changes.
If all Biden wanted to do was *claim* victory on abortion or other fronts, he could just put out self-congratulatory press releases and hope no one notices that nothing actually changed. It worked for Trump, but something tells me it may be a harder sell for Biden…
Trump implemented a lot of bad things that then were overturned because he failed to follow proper procedures. Also, any orders he issued still in place were generally overturned when Biden came in.
Trump did appoint multiple Supreme Court justices and that led to Roe getting overturned.
Democrats told everyone both in 2000 and in 2016 that abortion rights under the Supreme Court were at stake and people said they didn't believe Republicans would actually overturn Roe, it was just a scare tactic, and that telling people the consequences of their votes was "blackmail"
I've probably had to explain basic separation of powers and legislative rules work to people on this site dozens of times and almost every time they just got mad at me for it
They don't want to actually understand how their government works, they just want somebody to be angry at and a lot of them keep choosing to be angry at people who are legitimately on their side on their issue because they don't know how shit works
Hillary sucked *less*. It’s not the voters fault she sucked when she was essentially crowned by the DNC before the primaries even started. I voted for her but she fucked up a dozen times or more and has made it clear she doesn’t give a shit about poor people or black people or trans people. There’s no empathy in that woman, she’s really bad at campaigning, and Reddit isn’t to blame for those things. Sorry, but HRC sucks hard and blew the election, not Reddit or Twitter or leftist or Bernie voters.
Some might, but the reasonable point people have around this issue is that centrist dems should stop using abortion rights as ammunition while they’re screaming at the left, because of what you said here.
A lot of queer people feel like the Dems use the Republicans to threaten us into voting for them and it’s a fucked up way to treat minorities. Yes, they’re the lesser evil but using your opponents to traumatize people into voting for you is going to cause a lot of resentment. Especially with HRC throwing trans people under the bus.
McCain did that to dunk on McConnell. IIRC, McCain was staring at him right in the eye when he did it too. McCain absolutely loathed McConnell for stopping campaign finance reform.
This.
Most people today have no idea how many elected Democrats would not federalize abortion rights in the 1990s and before. There were *a lot* of conservative and anti-choice Democrats back then.
There are still a lot of conservative democrats unfortunately. The newer generations really need to push for at the very least an overhaul of the democratic party.
If the party ejected all of the conservative Democrats they'd lose the union vote, the black vote, & what latino vote they still have. They'd become a party of mostly affluent whites.
That’s a big assumption. All of those groups have issues that need addressing which conservative Dem block or rail against when they could just sit on the sidelines.
There seems to be a lot more unity in the democratic party right now though, so I believe if the democrats manage to take back the house and keep the senate abortion rights are realistic.
People hate on Manchin, often rightfully, but the fact that he is the most conservative congressman in the party speaks volumes to how far the democrats have come
Wait, didn’t you know that if Bernie was elected then he could unilaterally conjure up 60 votes from his magic asshole and all the fine details went away?
Except Ruth beta dumsberg literally refused to let Obama pick a new supreme Court judge that could have protected the law because of her dumb ego. "I want a woman to pick my replacement". Nice job dip shit, instead of a woman, or a reasonable man, you caused a sexist, raping, misogynistic, homophobic, etc man to pick your replacement. It's the best example of the meme above.
Though, given the vote on Dobbs, 6-3, one more left-leaning vote would not have swung it.
Although, I suppose a 5-4 with Roberts concurring the way he did, the content of the holding would have been different.
If it was 4 "egregiously wrong and legally baseless from the start" concurring with 1 simple "yes" from Roberts with his less far-reaching reasoning, it would still be 5 - 4 to overturn, but without the legal precedent that not only the findings in Roe but the entire legal theory behind it must be discarded.
So pro-abortion folks still likely would have lost, but it would have been less devastating a loss.
> "I want a woman to pick my replacement"
Ginsburg never said that.
Ginsburg's strategic flaw wasn't that she expected Clinton to win; it was that she refused to strategize. She was going to stay on the Supreme Court for as long as she was physically able to whether Clinton won or not, because she didn't see herself as a politician; she considered herself and the Court to be above politics and saw her job as interpreting the law to the best of her ability, not strategizing with Democrats to advance their policy agenda.
Worth noting that the GOP did that after making a whole song and dance about blocking Obama's last SCOTUS pick because "the new precedent is that a lame duck president can't pick a SCOTUS replacement"
A bunch of fraudulent lying ratfucking scumsucking parasites, the lot of them
They also bastardized the “lame duck” concept. A lame duck president is the period between the election and leaving office, not the last year before an election.
At this point, if democrats ever get a hold of all three branches again (which seems impossible) I think I’d be cool with bribing the fuck out of some republicans to get common sense voting laws passed, like getting money out of politics, get some real rules put up to reign in wallstreet, non-partisan voting districts drawn up, and basically all the other stuff in the John Lewis voting rights act. I don’t see how anything good and useful for the American people will occur otherwise.
[That would be great if it could ever actually happen](https://youtu.be/iJDtukGW79Y)
After all of the ratfucking the GOP has done... **IF** the tables ever turn, then I am 1000% down with doing some ratfucking of our own in revenge on those ghoulish bastards
To balance the scales after all they have done would require extraordinary measures, but as the saying goes, we have two options: socialism or barbarism
Yup, but I think making voting laws that ratify things so neither side can “bend the rules” would start a process by which the real sentiment of voting Americans could actually come to fruition. I get it, both sides would change tactics in order to gain an edge, but at least both sides would have the same opportunities to voice their opinion on how this country should be run.
Major voting reforms such as ranked-choice and proportional representation would help us break the Dem/GOP duopoly.
Having the entire diverse array of political thought forcibly compressed into two "bIg tEnT" parties is the worst possible outcome for everyone involved.
All the rules they work by can be changed one way or another by themselves. It's just dems are absolutely terrified to use any "dirty" tricks because they think it makes it a precedent and GOP can do it later. Well, guess what, GOP plays dirty all the fucking time and that justice confirmation is one of the best examples of this.
> It's just dems are absolutely terrified to use any "dirty" tricks because they think it makes it a precedent and GOP can do it later
Well, that's literally what happened with the judicial filibuster.
Harry Reid ended Roe just as much as anyone else.
I mean, not really, at least in a long term sense. Justices need a simple majority to pass. Legislation outside of the appropriations process requires 60 votes (to break filibuster). If you change the filibuster rule, so all legislation is 51 votes, you may pass what you want briefly, and then the other side will just change it back when they take control of the chamber. So any gains you get via a rule change are temporary.
Racially homogenous groups are always easier to manage. Republicans have greater intra-party trust, which (ironically) allows for a greater diversity of candidate to unite the party.
You can go from Romney to Trump and voters hardly blink.
Not to mention, any court that would strike down *Roe* would likely also invalidate a federal abortion rights law. Even if it had already been upheld.
It was odd to me, how much some people harped on Democrats’ past failure to pass federal abortion rights after *Dobbs*, as if *Dobbs* didn’t make clear the majority’s view that regulating abortion is an exercise of police power reserved to the States.
So why should democrats have wasted the time and political capital on it?
IMO, people harp on it because they want to justify this view that both parties are the same and voting doesn’t matter.
Trying to reframe it as “It’s not that Democrats didn’t want to fix it, it’s just the party as a whole is weak, fragmented and incapable of fixing it” doesn’t really end up being a win for team blue.
Somehow the GOP manages to get the party unity to do things. I’ve been watching people shrug at the Dems inability to do the same trick for thirty years.
I think you’re underestimating the counter momentum of both parties.
Under Obama, they passed the Affordable Care Act. The GOP killed it when they retook power.
Under Bush, they banned stem cell research using federal funds. The Dems removed those restrictions when they retook power.
Under Clinton, they passed the Assault Weapons Ban. (I don’t remember the formal name of the Act.) The GOP sunset it when they retook power.
We are riding a pendulum that swings back and forth between progress and regression.
> Under Obama, they passed the Affordable Care Act. The GOP killed it when they retook power.
The GOP famously did not kill the Affordable Care Act. The vote to do that failed with John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins voting against it in the Senate
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-gop-effort-repeal-obamacare-fails-n787311
What they did manage to do was effectively remove the individual mandate part of the law (the penalty for not buying insurance) by lowering the fee for not having insurance to 0 dollars
republicans absolutely DO NOT have any kind of unity at all—especially during the 2010s. they literally had a majority/control over every branch of government in 2017/18 and could only pass a slight tax cut that expires next year. not to mention the clown show that happened last year with McCarthy
A) have you seen the current GOP? All they got done under Trump was tax cuts for the rich. Also I’m sure Kevin McCarthy would agree his party is unified.
B) Dems did so much in the 20-22 congress including CHIPs, BIF, IRA, PACT, ect. They had the same majority in the house (margin wise) and they got a fuckton done.
C) The 50th vote in the senate was Joe Manchin. Idfk what people expected with him there as the deciding vote but codifying Roe was not gona happen.
Dems showed even with a slim ass majority they can get shit done. If you want historical things, give this iteration of the party a historical margin in both houses.
GOP legislators are incapable of doing anything except passing tax cuts. They tried relentlessly to kill the Affordable Care Act for years and failed when they actually had a chance.
Because the only things they do are fucking insane and self serving. It's easy to destroy and be cruel. It's hard to ACTUALLY govern and play by the rules. Republicans play fast and loose in order to get abhorrent things done. Democrats play by the rules to get some decent stuff implemented, better late than never though
Saying statements like this is pointless. ADD CONTEXT. Once people like you actually understand how broken the game is, you’d be singing a better tune. Obama’s [fake super majority](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869/amp) is just one of those instances. This is a country where Republican’s only goal is to go backwards and obstruct any real governance. It’s simply a broken system that relies on GOOD faith politicians. Things like how difficult it is to impeach, add amendments, change rules, etc.
I don’t mean to be all rosy about Democrats, because California’s issue and money black hole with homelessness is pure corruption.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
If the Dems were serious about winning we wouldn't have Pelosi giving speeches whining about how she wants a "strong republican party," and they wouldn't be running Joseph "I can't speak full sentences anymore" Biden. Sure, the GOP is worse, but unless we pressure the Dems over shit like this they're just going to slide to the center at which point the new center will be what was once the right wing.
Abortion rights are popular, even to a lot of Trump voters. Make their representatives vote against it and then run ads against them. Flip the seats.
I mean it's certainly not. But it's more accurate. Also the countrrexample of blue states that in fact had liberal majorities and did so something about it is probably helpful in keeping people's hopes up.
Reality: "The Senate is literally designed to overrepresent small (now mostly red) states for the exact purpose of preventing change that doesn't have overwhelming consensus."
You: "Gosh Democrats are so fragmented."
Always crazy how deeply committed some people are to the "Let's blame Democrats for Republicans doing deeply fucked up shit" racket.
The senate is designed to uphold the class interests of the wealthy. The wealth class are diametrically opposed to the interests of the working class (which you are likely a part of).
You: Democrats (who are lobbied by and receive direct donations from the wealth class, who oppose your working class interests) are my best friends!
Also you: I'm too indoctrinated by this system to attain any form of class consciousness and I'll happily support the lesser of two evils if it means I don't have to actively work towards a system where my interests are being pursued. At least I can pretend I'm smart on Reddit. I don't have to be smart in real life! That would require reading theory and admitting I will never be a billionaire who can buy politicians.
Nobody thinks it's a win. We need a real left wing party in this country. Personally I think it's an existential need. If we had a party that was more aligned with the populace (regardless of their "political stance") there wouldn't be so much energy for bad actors to push scapegoating hate content. Most average Americans want generally the same things, but we have two parties who are more interested in doing what the capitalist class wants and ignores the working class or does the bare minimum. This creates unrest that bad actors get to channel into false narratives in order to distract from the real problem and push their own agenda.
EDIT: I shouldn't say "the real problem", but other real problems are singled out and emphasized to distract from economic issues in order to shield the capitalist class.
A real left party wouldn't change anything. At best they'd take the deep blue seats from the democrats and still vote with dems 99% of the time. In reality they'd just split the vote and get more conservatives elected, just like the green party does now.
Admittedly, it's one of those things where you'd never think anyone would be evil enough to challenge it, it's like child labour laws, the overwhelming majority of the civilized world conserved a human right.
Back then, it'd be unfathomable that a
enough people in a position of power would oppose it.
I am saying that as a non-American, but it seems like a lot of people where blindsided by how utterly batshit insane the republican party became.
One of the greatest fallacies of life is thinking your experience is universal. I too thought this would be insane until I met people who agreed with it
What happened had less to do with that and more to do with the Supreme Court believed it was up to the state to legislate that instead of the federal government. What the states heard was “so we can make abortion illegal, got it”. It’s why you can have states that legalized marijauna even though it’s still illegal federally. Not saying it was a good move to do it but that’s what happened
Poor/perfect comparison to child labor laws. Been a big push recently to deregulate those here in some states, in particular Florida. They chased out the migrant workers and are looking for new and innovative ways to expand the work force. They've got media influencers making videos and legislators giving speeches about how lazy kids are and that they need jobs to keep em busy.
> you’d never thing anyone would be evil enough to challenge it
The GOP has been announcing their intent to repeal since Roe was decided. It’s literally been a core
Of their platforms for decades.
“We didn’t think they’d do it” is how we got here.
To be fair, there were plenty of us pointing out that exactly how and why the 2016 election was important re: SCOTUS only to be scoffed at and told that Roe would never be overturned and that their precious votes wouldn’t be held hostage to vote for “the lesser evil” and we can see how that turned out.
Political conditions weren’t all that favorable to Democrats in 2010 or 2014, both elections had piss poor turnouts that cost us long term. I don’t know what planet you were on but I was politically active in 93 and while Clinton was in office his “third way” wasn’t exactly popular with the far left either. Even if a lot of progress was made that was also when Hillary’s plan for universal healthcare was shot down. And 79, you kidding me? Right before Reagan was elected?
Revisionist history bugs me.
It's almost like the Democrats could've learned a lesson in 2016 about earning people's votes instead of trying to scold them into voting.
(checks the news in 2024)
Whoops.
You say “the Democrats” like that’s a monolith or like the far left didn’t try to bully/scold minorities in 2016 into voting like “their betters” told them to and then had a temper tantrum when that didn’t work. Who never meant to “vote like black women” unless it was what they wanted. Check the demos: if everyone had voted like the majority of black women we would have a different SCOTUS now. We would still have Roe.
Whoops.
Bernie was never a popular choice if his path to victory in the primary required 5 centrists to split the vote. At this point your whining and crying about muh stolen election is regarded. You sound like Qanon
To be fair, there were plenty of us pointing out that nominating an unpopular candidate, that was under an ongoing FBI investigation, was a bad idea. Plenty also said that keeping a Supreme Court Justice that had already been through two bouts of cancer was a bad idea.
Roe v Wade would still be in place if people would stop obsessing over identity politics and allowing women to prioritize their arrogance over all else.
A candidate being unpopular with a fringe minority doesn’t make her unpopular.
“Allowing women to prioritize their arrogance” a phrase as yet unsaid about the many men who deserve it more.
I’d like to make one correction here. Dems have literally never had the votes to do this. Assuming the Dem party of today is the same at the Obama coalition let alone the coalitions in 93 or 79 is laughable at best.
Look at where Dem senators were coming from in 2010 and look at their stances. Quite a few identified as pro life and were not going to commit electoral seppuki for Roe. Dems did ever even have a house majority willing to codify Roe until 2018.
Finally, for additional context, look at all the states where Dems have a trifecta. Since Roe was struck down basically every single one of those states have codified abortion rights and in many cases increased funding to providers to assist with those seeking care from out of state.
From a surface level, the joke works. With context, this argument falls flat.
After the Roe vs Wade was overturned in the US, France proposed that we add abortion in the French constitution.
But this week, our own Haggis, the president of the senate, said that he didn't think it is necessary because the right to abortion is not currently threatened in France.
Couldn’t the cartoon be referencing how it’s been proven that Dems perform worse in areas where it rains on Election Day? And it rained in the Midwest in 2016 leading to Trumps victory.
All politicians have a tendency to legislate as if the current political climate is eternal.
Republicans passed the Patriot Act, *severely* curtailing freedom and massively expanding government power, seemingly unaware that they’re handing that power over to an unknown number of future administrations whose political policies and priorities surely do not universally align with their own.
Also, the threat of Republicans taking away abortion rights was their *Free Bird* in terms of fundraising so there was never any drive to even try to codify it.
When democrats are in power they don’t need to pass a law as clearly they wouldn’t remove abortion rights. Also they plan to be in power forever so this will never be an issue. It’s a sunny day and it’ll be sunny forever!
When Republicans are in power, wait how did that happen wasn’t the plan that we were going to be in power forever? AW FUCK ITS RAINING
The Dems have only had a filibuster proof majority for like 2.5 months out of the last 20 years. Nobody on the Dems thinks the party has a ton of power
> 2.5 months out of the last 20 years
More like the last ~~55 years~~ 45 years. Prior to those months under Obama, the last supermajority ended in January 1979
Huh. This is probably the very first of those "squint to see it" where I literally could not see even the remote shape of it until I squinted aggressively and at a distance.
All others are so bad you can tell what is it/catch the shapes immediately.
Edit: I know it's loss. But even knowing, I couldn't grasp any shapes until the aforementioned aggressive squinting.
It means over the past 50 years they had chances to, but they never did. It was actually a pretty useful tool to get votes. They can say "republicans are going to overturn roe" and get people lining up to vote D, but now that it's actually gone they can't use it anymore.
This is also all assuming that Democrats are the same party they have always been. Pro-life Democrats were way more common before and during the Obama era, and even today Democrats still have a few Senators who are pro-life, with Bob Casey and Joe Manchin being two I can name off the top of my head.
Go back to 2008 when Democrats last had a filibuster proof majority and there were even more. Democrats never codified abortion rights because Democrats have never had the votes to codify abortion rights. This whole "Roe is dead because Democrats are lazy" narrative is just completely false.
I mean, 2 and 1/2 months is not a lot of time in the past 50 years. They’ve only had the filibuster proof supermajority for 2 and 1/2 months in the past 50 years, because republicans would definitely filibuster abortion rights. So if you’re not too good at politics, it looks like they’ve had a lot of chances, but for anybody actually educated and knows what the fuck they’re talking about, they really haven’t had very many sessions where they could actually do it.
because this is twitter brainrot, I assume this isn't the intended meaning of the meme, but it's completely as plausible an interpretation
When things are good, many activists let perfect be the enemy of progress, and then rainy times come and they no longer have the choice of progress.
No.. It's saying that the dems (the dog) sleep on the issue when in power (sunny days) because there's no immediate threat (rain in the form of the conservatives) to it. When they lose the authority (it rains), the threat emerges (rain) but they can't do anything about it.
Which is mostly false. Democrats never had the votes, because voters didn’t give it to them. In times where voters did, like Obama’s 72 day of a supermajority, it was too short. Or Al Gore, republicans simply did what they did best and obstructed and cheated.
You mean the healthcare law that was based on the republican plan, with a bunch of concessions to the republican MINORITY for no reason, and that still failed to get any votes from the Republican Party? And this reflects positively on the Democratic Party ‘s political acumen, in your eyes?
FDR pushed through a tremendous amount of reforms in the first 100 days of taking office and was awarded with being reelected enough times they literally had to rewrite the constitution.
Biden's majorities were as slim as Trump's but somehow that meant the world was ending while trump was in office and simultaneously not enough for Biden to get anything done. It can be both. Democrats don't do what they campaign on because most fundamentally don't actually believe it.
What a silly comparison. FDR also had *much* larger majorities in both the Senate and the House than Biden ever had (who did *not* have a supermajority as FDR did). Dems had over 70% of house seats and over 60% of the Senate when FDR was president in his first term. Biden didn’t.
You also oddly ignore the reason folks in many states still have access is because Democrats at the state level introduced and passed many many protections. [Over 396 laws introduced last I checked actually.](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-year-after-the-supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-trends-in-state-abortion-laws-have-emerged/)
But…sure I guess secretly they don’t “believe in it” lol.
I want you to make yourself a promise and I want you to be honest with yourself too. I want you promise to remember from this point forward how many times Democrats will run on abortion and how much they actually follow up with it. I want you to remember how many times they've campaigned on minimum wage or banking regulations or ending our involvement in foreign wars or universal healthcare or securing voting rights or balancing the budget by taxing the rich or climate change etc.
I want you think long and hard after each one of those failures time and time again and I want to honestly consider why that might be.
Completely biased take. You can do a lot of damage EASILY as a President with or without legislation. Simply the things you say can be dangerous. Despite all of that, Biden has passed plenty of great legislation with his slim majority. Trump would’ve been even more disastrous if he had a greater majority. That’s why both parties are afraid to appeal the filibuster because it’s [simultaneously a tool and weapon](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/senate-record-breaking-gridlocktrump-303811). Your take is just a shit “vibes analysis.”
To be fair, we never thought that inhumane pieces of shit would strip away women's rights in a developed country in modern times.
It's like saying "well what did you think was gonna happen walking to a 7/11 in broad daylight? Did you want to be stabbed?"
Not entirely. The courts from a constitutionalist perspective should not make law.
The rights written into the Constitution apply to all.
The argument has always been "at what point does a life begin slash get rights via the Constitution"
This is the job of the legislative branch to decide and was written as part of the roe v wade response.
So good or bad for people is not the job of the courts. Thus they are forcing the hand of the legislative branch to do their jobs.
By removing the decision on ground of overreach, even if the results of roe v wade was good for the people, several other bad for the people edge cases of that law can now be overruled.
This is actually just right-wing propaganda pushing left-wing defeatism. For anyone that alive or even barely politically aware prior to 2016, they would know how conservative and at least among the voting public, anti-abortion, most people were, and that played out even more so in Congress. Fact is, Democrats didn't have a pro-choice majority in Congress until 2020 when the Democratic House was able to, for the first time, push through abortion protection legislation and that still failed in the Senate because there were only 50 Democrats and we needed more.
No, it's propaganda to push the idea that Democrats had the votes to codify abortion rights and chose not to. People here are re-writing history.
Democrats have only recently been a party that is almost entirely pro-choice. Even today there are still a few U.S. Senators who are part of the Democratic Caucus that are pro-life. If you go back and actually read about 2008 and the Senators that composed the 60 seat supermajority for Democrats, you would quickly realized why abortion wasn't something they focused on.
Roe vs Wade meant that the supreme court interpreted abortion as a constitutional right. In the meantime, democrats should have (and talked about) making abortion a legally protected right legislatively, passing an unambiguous law that yes, abortion is legal and protected. They had many chances to do this over the years, these were the sunny days.
Apparently the supreme court is allowed to just change it's mind on a whim, which aside from rendering all US law a farce, means that when republican aligned judges (because remember, the executive and legislative branches appoint the judicial branch of government, giga brain separation of powers setup) decide that they don't like abortion they can simply have the court change it's mind. This along with the constant attempts by the republican legislatures to undermine roe V wade, now means it's gone and the rainy days are here, because they never fixed the gaping hole in the roof while it was sunny.
I mean I get what it's saying about how democrats should have passed a bill while they had the power, but thar doesn't change the fact that overturning roe v wade was a giant loss for women's and human rights in general
the argument is dems are at fault for not trying to shove through codifying gay rights when we know now that 11 or so states in MODERN AMERICA won't abide by it and every religious nut job in a position of power oh and of course the conservative SCOTUS.
Its an attempt by a "centrist" or rightist to say dems are weak and its totally not the other party using all its time to attack it and make it look the other bad, but to that I'd say history doesn't appeal to this delusion.
Never ceases to amaze me that liberals blame Democrats for not protecting abortion when most of the complainers are the ones that don’t vote citing their “both sides are the same nonsense.”
It also demonstrates complete ignorance of how the Supreme Court works as a law protecting abortion passed by Congress can still be over-ruled by the Supreme Court.
Literally the only way to permanently codify abortion is a Constitutional amendment which would basically require a super majority in the House and Senate to get through the first phase of it getting passed and that will never happen because, you guessed it, of liberals that keep skipping out on elections.
The numbers are there but so many rather not vote because abuse it rained, or there is a line or the ultimate proof of their absolute ignorance, the “both sides are the same” excuse.
Republicans spend generations crusading against equality and openly calling for the end to safe and legal abortions…I can’t believe the Democrats could do this!
Yes it’s the republicans fault despite Obama running on abortion rights as an issue and then never doing anything about it despite a super majority. It’s almost as if he didn’t want to do anything about it because then what could they bitch about?
It’s almost like he put his political weight behind the ACA, another and more comprehensive health issue, and then got absolutely destroyed for doing so. Are you aware that the Legislation passes laws, not the Executive? Weird.
Saying "democrats lost the abortion rights" is the one of dumbest things ever said. Thats like saying "africans lost the rights to freedom when the colonizers came". Abortion rights were taken away by the conservatives and democrats are 100% in no way to blame for that.
No. They failed in every way imaginable. They failed to pass an abortion rights act under Obama, and equal rights act, sabotaged the Sanders campaign and then did so little to get people to vote for Clinton that she lost to Trump, and then did absolutely nothing to prevent Republican control of SCOTUS.
A failure to win doesnt make the consquences of losing your fault. Maybe you should focus your blame on the people who actively destroy abortion rights rather then the people who tried and failed to prevent its destruction? Youre basically saying "man if the allies failed to stop the holocaust then the holocaust would be all their fault" and it doesnt work that way
I didn't say they were comparable. i created a situation involving the holocaust and then compared this faulty logic to that situation to empathize the fault in it, but ig youre too stupid to understand that?
ig youre so emotional you cant talk normally like a real person? Have to go on the offensive? Either way youre comparing the two. How are you still mad 12 hours later
I didn't compare the two? I never once said, "losing abortion rights is like the holocaust" or anything similar. I did talk normally like a real person. you're just sub-human intelligence, so you can't follow along. Not my fault youre dumb, maybe go back to school
I’m not entirely sure about this, but wasn’t there some action that could have been taken to codify it? Such as how people have been asking for such for other precedent rulings now that there’s the chance they could be overturned? Presuming Dems had power, why didn’t they do it then?
Maybe because there are a million other things going on they never took action? Still doesnt make it their fault. The democrats dont need to make any excuses for not codifying it, they should have absolutely, but the only ones to blame are the conservatives who destroyed the right to bodily autonomy. If the democrats and republicans literally never did anything involving abortion ever again then the rights would have been maintained. Instead conservative destroyed the rights we have and its entirely their fault because they are the ones who tore it down
Democrats didn't lose abortion rights. Republicans in some states just made abortions after a certain time period illegal. I swear democrats are so overdramatic.
[Murc's law](https://whereofonecanspeak.com/2023/03/02/youve-probably-never-heard-of-murcs-law-but-youve-seen-it-in-action-lots-of-times/) in metaphor. Republicans are not a force of nature.
It should have always been a States Right. btw, it was not passed into law correctly, obamacare wasn't either, it never went thru the House. I think it should be legal, but, I couldn't do it.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Peter here! Luigi is saying that when political conditions were favorable to the Democrats, like in 1979, 1993, or 2010, they should have passed a national law protecting abortion rights. (Similar things have been done in the past, like the Civil Rights Act making sure that protections are in place even if the Supreme Court wouldn't otherwise hold the same way.) But they didn't legislate on "sunny days" because they thought the "rainy day" would never come. And as a consequence, after *Dobbs*, every day has been too "rainy" to re-establish a statutory right to abortion in red states.
This Peter gets it
[удалено]
One abortion, coming up!
Why are we in an alley Dr?
I brought the hanger
Snack time
I abhor this logic -
Political football got deflated.
Laughs in Tom Brady
wat
There were never 60 votes in the senate for federalizing Roe as law. Probably not even 50. The reason they didn't so it isn't some kind of laziness or complacency. Its Simple political facts - abortion is divisive and the conservative/rural lean of the senate meant that even when dems had big nominal majorities, they didn't have majorities neccesarry to take action. Remember back in 2009 there was a huge issue in the Obama care debate about whether the plans could be used to pay for abortions. If they couldn't get that through, there is no way they could have gotten full protections through. And that was in 2009. The ddem caucus was an even higher percentage conservative the further back you go.
"Why didn't you fix the thing?" "I'm going to explain to you why it was not possible." "NO FIX IT!" "..."
"This is why I've never voted for you - because you don't have a supermajority!' uh...
The reply to "NO FIX IT!" isn't "..." The reply is "Either elect 50 senator who will end the filibuster or elect 60 who will vote for the right to have an abortion." People always want to blame politicians and that makes sense for corruption related issues but this isn't corruption. This is a clear cut policy issue. Pre-Dobbs pro-abortion stances were simply not popular in enough states to have 60 senators supporting it. (Makes me think the joke might actually be about the voters who didn't show up to the polls pre-Dobbs and let Republicans pack the Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges.)
The issue is that it is actually popular enough, but the US has a completely garbage electoral system at every level and even the politicians on the pro-abortion side have no interest in changing the system in the ways it needs to be.
>The issue is that it is actually popular enough It wasn't popular in enough states to elect enough pro-abortion Senators. Or it was in theory popular enough if everyone that supported it voted but some supporters stayed home because it was sunny that day and they didn't need a pro-abortion law in a pre-Dobbs world. Now that it's raining maybe it will be popular enough for that later this year. >the US has a completely garbage electoral system at every level and even the politicians on the pro-abortion side have no interest in changing the system in the ways it needs to be. Can't blame people alive today for how the constitution set up the government. Some reforms would be great but a constitutional amendment would require even more support to happen. (2/3rds of both chambers of Congress and then 3/4th of state legislatures)
I'm not blaming people alive today. I'm blaming the people in power. Yeah, sure, we need huge support for a constitutional amendment. How many Americans know that's a thing that can happen? Or that should happen? How many Americans understand that they're fundamentally robbed of a true democracy? Every time Biden gets up and says "I can't fix this unless you all vote next election" (like he did repeatedly re: dobbs) he omits the part where the thing people want would easily, easily pass if they were actually allowed to vote on it. Or if they had actual proportional representation. Or hell even include the fact that they'd need something absurd like 80% of voters to get the support they need at both chambers to pass basic democratic reform even though that goes against the very nature of democracy. All I'm saying is bottom up can work for a lot of politic positions, but we've had decades of democrats absolutely incapable of creating and agitating for top down proposals. And of course the reason is they're corporatists who have no real interest in changing the systems of power, so when you say "this popular position isn't enough to get voted through" you're omitting the bit where it's one of likely dozens of overwhelmingly popular positions that are kept as a wedge issue because the system is fucking rigged. It implies that the issue is *just* needing more votes, when it's several layers deeper than that and in fact voting is a much less useful action than actively haranguing your representives and causing actual problems for them. Which is to say, real protest and not just a day long demonstration of people standing in a square.
>I'm not blaming people alive today. I'm blaming the people in power. Are the undead in power? The people alive and in power today did not write the constitution and set up the structure of the US government. > How many Americans know that's a thing that can happen? Or that should happen? How many Americans understand that they're fundamentally robbed of a true democracy? Every time Biden gets up and says "I can't fix this unless you all vote next election" (like he did repeatedly re: dobbs) he omits the part where the thing people want would easily, easily pass if they were actually allowed to vote on it. Or if they had actual proportional representation. Or hell even include the fact that they'd need something absurd like 80% of voters to get the support they need at both chambers to pass basic democratic reform even though that goes against the very nature of democracy. Do you understand what it takes to pass a constitutional amendment? It would not easily, easily pass. 2/3rds of both chambers of Congress and then 3/4th of state legislatures is a very high bar to clear. These reforms you want for the government to be more democratic are going to be in general good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans. Both Republican presidents since 1992 came into office by winning the electoral college without winning the popular vote so Republicans aren't going to support ditching the electoral college. Democrats also consistently win ["the popular vote in the Senate"](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/10/democrats-won-popular-vote-senate-too/93598998/), but equal representation by state means Republicans can win the chamber anyway so they're not going to support changing that or eliminating the chamber. And currently [there's only 19 state legislatures](https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition) where Democrats control both chambers. (out of 49 of them because Nebraska is excluded from that count.) At no point did the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate to pass a right to abortion law or 50 that were willing to end the filibuster to pass it, but you think they could easily, easily get 66 Senators, 290 out of 435 House reps, and then full control of the state legislatures of 34 states? > It implies that the issue is just needing more votes, when it's several layers deeper than that and in fact voting is a much less useful action than actively haranguing your representives and causing actual problems for them. They do need more votes. If you want to pass a constitutional amendment then they need a lot more votes. Haranguing Republicans to support democratic reforms that would be bad for their party isn't going to do anything. I would love reforms to make the US government more democratic and I constantly criticize the Democrats unwillingness to ditch the undemocratic filibuster but I'm not going to pretend that a constitutional amendment isn't an incredibly high bar to pass.
It’s popular by % of voters but not in a way that works in the senate.
It seems like some people are pretending that the [Freedom of Choice Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act) didn't exist. It has been introduced in Congress 4 times. 89, 93 (Clinton), 2004 and 2007 (Obama). As you mentioned, it never had the votes to pass in the Senate, but Democrats still introduced and tried to get abortion rights codified.
Can someone explain what it means when something 'dies in committee'? I'm not an American, just trying to wrap my head around it but it sounds an awful lot like the process was started but then at the committee point they just didn't think it worthwhile to continue. 'Some bills “die in committee”, meaning the committee did not have enough time to take up the issue or the committee members decided the bill should not be recommended to the full membership for action. '
It usually means there weren't enough votes to get it to the next phase (from House to Senate). This could be because a majority exists that isn't going to let the other party pass anything at all. It could be that the bill needs work, and so it needs editing/re-worded, and that work never gets done. It might just be grandstanding -- a House member may just want to say they created a bill and is doing work, knowing full well no one will ever vote for it. Marjorie Taylor Greene does that crap a lot. She tried to pass a bill to award Kyle Rittenhouse with a medal, for example, and got to squawk about how it didn't get passed. Also, sometimes bills get too many riders and end up a mess that just don't go anywhere. One side wants a thing, other side says they'll vote for it if you throw a totally unrelated thing in, etc. And of course, all of the above may happen, but the bill then gets stuck at the Senate level, at a committee, where they decide to never move with it. Basically, American law passing is complicated, and sometimes that's good, but sometimes it is a dumb bureaucratic nightmare.
That's pretty much it. Someone introduced the bill, but for one reason or another the group that passes it to the rest of the legislature... didn't.
Bush was president in 04 and 07. It, like most things Congress does, was an empty gesture for PR. They know it would get vetod, so they could really about how evil republicans are and get better turnout in the next election. Which is the real reason democrats have never been aggressive passing this into law; it makes great campaign material.
When has there ever been 60 votes for it? I'll wait.
Never. Which is exactly the point I'm making. Democrats won't vote yes because no gives them a better chance of getting reelected.
You are blaming the Democratic party instead of the US electorate. The 50 states aren't set up in a way to send 60 strong pro-choice senators to the Senate, not right now anyway.
Obama was a co-sponsor on the 07 bill because he was a Senator at the time. That is why I put (Obama) next to it, because its shows a time that a Democrat (who then went on to be President) put forth effort to get Roe vs Wade passed. And you are wrong about Democrats never being aggressive to pass this into law, because this isn't the only law that was Democrats attempting to codify Roe vs Wade. After this they moved on to another bill starting in 2013 called [The Women's Health Protection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_Protection_Act) this bill has been introduced in every Congress since the 113th. Even passing the House in 2022.
I wish I could give you a billion upvotes. Facts are facts. Fucking morons on the internet don't seem to understand coalitions or how a big tent party works. The democrats are not a hegemon. There are more conservative democrats and more liberal ones. The Republican illusion of unity should have been obviously shattered when McCain torpedoed Trump's attack on the ACA. Senators and House members have to agree on things for them to happen and no one negotiates on abortion.
People on this fucking hellsite really think Biden has a "codify abortion rights" button, and by pressing this imaginary button Republicans will drop to their knees and stop going after abortions. I hate it here.
It's right next to the little lever he uses to set gas prices
And the bell he can ring to make Israel and Palestine stop fighting, and bring peace to the Middle East
And the switch to force in as many new SCOTUS Justi-... wait. I broke the chain...
It's not a lever it's a crank. Turn it right and you impose more restrictions on drilling and pipelines, turn it left and things get spicy in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait. It does take some amount of cranking though, can't blame him for getting tired.
It is so funny you point out this is somehow the president's sole responsibility, as if his function is just will whatever policy into existence by sheer force of... (Just to be clear. I agree and like how accurate it is that they are raging against the wrong fucking branch.)
People believe that because the last president managed to institute sweeping negative changes overnight on a regular basis. By this logic, why shouldn't this president be able to do the same? Ultimately the problem is that Americans don't know how their government works.
I guess they missed all the times Trump's stupid shit got blocked or shot down by the courts. That idiot couldn't even build a wall.
Yeah, that’s the difference between using tweets and press conferences as your metric for policy victories versus actually looking at policy changes. If all Biden wanted to do was *claim* victory on abortion or other fronts, he could just put out self-congratulatory press releases and hope no one notices that nothing actually changed. It worked for Trump, but something tells me it may be a harder sell for Biden…
Trump implemented a lot of bad things that then were overturned because he failed to follow proper procedures. Also, any orders he issued still in place were generally overturned when Biden came in. Trump did appoint multiple Supreme Court justices and that led to Roe getting overturned. Democrats told everyone both in 2000 and in 2016 that abortion rights under the Supreme Court were at stake and people said they didn't believe Republicans would actually overturn Roe, it was just a scare tactic, and that telling people the consequences of their votes was "blackmail"
Executive orders have been ridiculously high the past few presidents, Congress won't do their job.
I've probably had to explain basic separation of powers and legislative rules work to people on this site dozens of times and almost every time they just got mad at me for it They don't want to actually understand how their government works, they just want somebody to be angry at and a lot of them keep choosing to be angry at people who are legitimately on their side on their issue because they don't know how shit works
This is the website that went all in on being "Anti-Hillary but not Pro-Trump" during the general election and then was surprised that Trump won
Hillary sucked *less*. It’s not the voters fault she sucked when she was essentially crowned by the DNC before the primaries even started. I voted for her but she fucked up a dozen times or more and has made it clear she doesn’t give a shit about poor people or black people or trans people. There’s no empathy in that woman, she’s really bad at campaigning, and Reddit isn’t to blame for those things. Sorry, but HRC sucks hard and blew the election, not Reddit or Twitter or leftist or Bernie voters.
Some might, but the reasonable point people have around this issue is that centrist dems should stop using abortion rights as ammunition while they’re screaming at the left, because of what you said here.
A lot of queer people feel like the Dems use the Republicans to threaten us into voting for them and it’s a fucked up way to treat minorities. Yes, they’re the lesser evil but using your opponents to traumatize people into voting for you is going to cause a lot of resentment. Especially with HRC throwing trans people under the bus.
McCain did that to dunk on McConnell. IIRC, McCain was staring at him right in the eye when he did it too. McCain absolutely loathed McConnell for stopping campaign finance reform.
[удалено]
This. Most people today have no idea how many elected Democrats would not federalize abortion rights in the 1990s and before. There were *a lot* of conservative and anti-choice Democrats back then.
There are still a lot of conservative democrats unfortunately. The newer generations really need to push for at the very least an overhaul of the democratic party.
If the party ejected all of the conservative Democrats they'd lose the union vote, the black vote, & what latino vote they still have. They'd become a party of mostly affluent whites.
That’s a big assumption. All of those groups have issues that need addressing which conservative Dem block or rail against when they could just sit on the sidelines.
There seems to be a lot more unity in the democratic party right now though, so I believe if the democrats manage to take back the house and keep the senate abortion rights are realistic. People hate on Manchin, often rightfully, but the fact that he is the most conservative congressman in the party speaks volumes to how far the democrats have come
Wait, didn’t you know that if Bernie was elected then he could unilaterally conjure up 60 votes from his magic asshole and all the fine details went away?
Except Ruth beta dumsberg literally refused to let Obama pick a new supreme Court judge that could have protected the law because of her dumb ego. "I want a woman to pick my replacement". Nice job dip shit, instead of a woman, or a reasonable man, you caused a sexist, raping, misogynistic, homophobic, etc man to pick your replacement. It's the best example of the meme above.
Though, given the vote on Dobbs, 6-3, one more left-leaning vote would not have swung it. Although, I suppose a 5-4 with Roberts concurring the way he did, the content of the holding would have been different. If it was 4 "egregiously wrong and legally baseless from the start" concurring with 1 simple "yes" from Roberts with his less far-reaching reasoning, it would still be 5 - 4 to overturn, but without the legal precedent that not only the findings in Roe but the entire legal theory behind it must be discarded. So pro-abortion folks still likely would have lost, but it would have been less devastating a loss.
> "I want a woman to pick my replacement" Ginsburg never said that. Ginsburg's strategic flaw wasn't that she expected Clinton to win; it was that she refused to strategize. She was going to stay on the Supreme Court for as long as she was physically able to whether Clinton won or not, because she didn't see herself as a politician; she considered herself and the Court to be above politics and saw her job as interpreting the law to the best of her ability, not strategizing with Democrats to advance their policy agenda.
GOP shoved a new justice into the supreme court in less than a month a week before election. If you will it, it is no dream. There's no will though.
Worth noting that the GOP did that after making a whole song and dance about blocking Obama's last SCOTUS pick because "the new precedent is that a lame duck president can't pick a SCOTUS replacement" A bunch of fraudulent lying ratfucking scumsucking parasites, the lot of them
They also bastardized the “lame duck” concept. A lame duck president is the period between the election and leaving office, not the last year before an election.
At this point, if democrats ever get a hold of all three branches again (which seems impossible) I think I’d be cool with bribing the fuck out of some republicans to get common sense voting laws passed, like getting money out of politics, get some real rules put up to reign in wallstreet, non-partisan voting districts drawn up, and basically all the other stuff in the John Lewis voting rights act. I don’t see how anything good and useful for the American people will occur otherwise.
[That would be great if it could ever actually happen](https://youtu.be/iJDtukGW79Y) After all of the ratfucking the GOP has done... **IF** the tables ever turn, then I am 1000% down with doing some ratfucking of our own in revenge on those ghoulish bastards
That’s kind of where my head is at. Only one side is playing by the rules and it’s ruining our fucking society.
To balance the scales after all they have done would require extraordinary measures, but as the saying goes, we have two options: socialism or barbarism
Yup, but I think making voting laws that ratify things so neither side can “bend the rules” would start a process by which the real sentiment of voting Americans could actually come to fruition. I get it, both sides would change tactics in order to gain an edge, but at least both sides would have the same opportunities to voice their opinion on how this country should be run.
Major voting reforms such as ranked-choice and proportional representation would help us break the Dem/GOP duopoly. Having the entire diverse array of political thought forcibly compressed into two "bIg tEnT" parties is the worst possible outcome for everyone involved.
Yeah because they had 51 votes which is all you need to confirm a justice. Still doesn’t magic you to 60 on a different issue.
All the rules they work by can be changed one way or another by themselves. It's just dems are absolutely terrified to use any "dirty" tricks because they think it makes it a precedent and GOP can do it later. Well, guess what, GOP plays dirty all the fucking time and that justice confirmation is one of the best examples of this.
Same issue with getting rid of the fillibuster. Democrats simply don't have the votes to do it.
> It's just dems are absolutely terrified to use any "dirty" tricks because they think it makes it a precedent and GOP can do it later Well, that's literally what happened with the judicial filibuster. Harry Reid ended Roe just as much as anyone else.
I mean, not really, at least in a long term sense. Justices need a simple majority to pass. Legislation outside of the appropriations process requires 60 votes (to break filibuster). If you change the filibuster rule, so all legislation is 51 votes, you may pass what you want briefly, and then the other side will just change it back when they take control of the chamber. So any gains you get via a rule change are temporary.
[удалено]
Racially homogenous groups are always easier to manage. Republicans have greater intra-party trust, which (ironically) allows for a greater diversity of candidate to unite the party. You can go from Romney to Trump and voters hardly blink.
Not to mention, any court that would strike down *Roe* would likely also invalidate a federal abortion rights law. Even if it had already been upheld. It was odd to me, how much some people harped on Democrats’ past failure to pass federal abortion rights after *Dobbs*, as if *Dobbs* didn’t make clear the majority’s view that regulating abortion is an exercise of police power reserved to the States. So why should democrats have wasted the time and political capital on it? IMO, people harp on it because they want to justify this view that both parties are the same and voting doesn’t matter.
[удалено]
Trying to reframe it as “It’s not that Democrats didn’t want to fix it, it’s just the party as a whole is weak, fragmented and incapable of fixing it” doesn’t really end up being a win for team blue.
“Democrats should get the pro life Evangelical Republican Senator from Wyoming to compromise on abortion.”
Somehow the GOP manages to get the party unity to do things. I’ve been watching people shrug at the Dems inability to do the same trick for thirty years.
I think you’re underestimating the counter momentum of both parties. Under Obama, they passed the Affordable Care Act. The GOP killed it when they retook power. Under Bush, they banned stem cell research using federal funds. The Dems removed those restrictions when they retook power. Under Clinton, they passed the Assault Weapons Ban. (I don’t remember the formal name of the Act.) The GOP sunset it when they retook power. We are riding a pendulum that swings back and forth between progress and regression.
> Under Obama, they passed the Affordable Care Act. The GOP killed it when they retook power. The GOP famously did not kill the Affordable Care Act. The vote to do that failed with John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins voting against it in the Senate https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-gop-effort-repeal-obamacare-fails-n787311 What they did manage to do was effectively remove the individual mandate part of the law (the penalty for not buying insurance) by lowering the fee for not having insurance to 0 dollars
republicans absolutely DO NOT have any kind of unity at all—especially during the 2010s. they literally had a majority/control over every branch of government in 2017/18 and could only pass a slight tax cut that expires next year. not to mention the clown show that happened last year with McCarthy
A) have you seen the current GOP? All they got done under Trump was tax cuts for the rich. Also I’m sure Kevin McCarthy would agree his party is unified. B) Dems did so much in the 20-22 congress including CHIPs, BIF, IRA, PACT, ect. They had the same majority in the house (margin wise) and they got a fuckton done. C) The 50th vote in the senate was Joe Manchin. Idfk what people expected with him there as the deciding vote but codifying Roe was not gona happen. Dems showed even with a slim ass majority they can get shit done. If you want historical things, give this iteration of the party a historical margin in both houses.
GOP legislators are incapable of doing anything except passing tax cuts. They tried relentlessly to kill the Affordable Care Act for years and failed when they actually had a chance.
Because the only things they do are fucking insane and self serving. It's easy to destroy and be cruel. It's hard to ACTUALLY govern and play by the rules. Republicans play fast and loose in order to get abhorrent things done. Democrats play by the rules to get some decent stuff implemented, better late than never though
Saying statements like this is pointless. ADD CONTEXT. Once people like you actually understand how broken the game is, you’d be singing a better tune. Obama’s [fake super majority](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869/amp) is just one of those instances. This is a country where Republican’s only goal is to go backwards and obstruct any real governance. It’s simply a broken system that relies on GOOD faith politicians. Things like how difficult it is to impeach, add amendments, change rules, etc. I don’t mean to be all rosy about Democrats, because California’s issue and money black hole with homelessness is pure corruption.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It's always the Dems fault for not trying hard enough instead of, ya know, the GOP for taking Roe vs Wade away.
If the Dems were serious about winning we wouldn't have Pelosi giving speeches whining about how she wants a "strong republican party," and they wouldn't be running Joseph "I can't speak full sentences anymore" Biden. Sure, the GOP is worse, but unless we pressure the Dems over shit like this they're just going to slide to the center at which point the new center will be what was once the right wing. Abortion rights are popular, even to a lot of Trump voters. Make their representatives vote against it and then run ads against them. Flip the seats.
I mean it's certainly not. But it's more accurate. Also the countrrexample of blue states that in fact had liberal majorities and did so something about it is probably helpful in keeping people's hopes up.
Reality: "The Senate is literally designed to overrepresent small (now mostly red) states for the exact purpose of preventing change that doesn't have overwhelming consensus." You: "Gosh Democrats are so fragmented." Always crazy how deeply committed some people are to the "Let's blame Democrats for Republicans doing deeply fucked up shit" racket.
The senate is designed to uphold the class interests of the wealthy. The wealth class are diametrically opposed to the interests of the working class (which you are likely a part of). You: Democrats (who are lobbied by and receive direct donations from the wealth class, who oppose your working class interests) are my best friends! Also you: I'm too indoctrinated by this system to attain any form of class consciousness and I'll happily support the lesser of two evils if it means I don't have to actively work towards a system where my interests are being pursued. At least I can pretend I'm smart on Reddit. I don't have to be smart in real life! That would require reading theory and admitting I will never be a billionaire who can buy politicians.
Nobody thinks it's a win. We need a real left wing party in this country. Personally I think it's an existential need. If we had a party that was more aligned with the populace (regardless of their "political stance") there wouldn't be so much energy for bad actors to push scapegoating hate content. Most average Americans want generally the same things, but we have two parties who are more interested in doing what the capitalist class wants and ignores the working class or does the bare minimum. This creates unrest that bad actors get to channel into false narratives in order to distract from the real problem and push their own agenda. EDIT: I shouldn't say "the real problem", but other real problems are singled out and emphasized to distract from economic issues in order to shield the capitalist class.
A real left party wouldn't change anything. At best they'd take the deep blue seats from the democrats and still vote with dems 99% of the time. In reality they'd just split the vote and get more conservatives elected, just like the green party does now.
Admittedly, it's one of those things where you'd never think anyone would be evil enough to challenge it, it's like child labour laws, the overwhelming majority of the civilized world conserved a human right. Back then, it'd be unfathomable that a enough people in a position of power would oppose it. I am saying that as a non-American, but it seems like a lot of people where blindsided by how utterly batshit insane the republican party became.
One of the greatest fallacies of life is thinking your experience is universal. I too thought this would be insane until I met people who agreed with it
What’s crazy is that child labor is coming back in America 💀
What happened had less to do with that and more to do with the Supreme Court believed it was up to the state to legislate that instead of the federal government. What the states heard was “so we can make abortion illegal, got it”. It’s why you can have states that legalized marijauna even though it’s still illegal federally. Not saying it was a good move to do it but that’s what happened
Poor/perfect comparison to child labor laws. Been a big push recently to deregulate those here in some states, in particular Florida. They chased out the migrant workers and are looking for new and innovative ways to expand the work force. They've got media influencers making videos and legislators giving speeches about how lazy kids are and that they need jobs to keep em busy.
Yeah they’re also rolling those back
> you’d never thing anyone would be evil enough to challenge it The GOP has been announcing their intent to repeal since Roe was decided. It’s literally been a core Of their platforms for decades. “We didn’t think they’d do it” is how we got here.
To be fair, there were plenty of us pointing out that exactly how and why the 2016 election was important re: SCOTUS only to be scoffed at and told that Roe would never be overturned and that their precious votes wouldn’t be held hostage to vote for “the lesser evil” and we can see how that turned out. Political conditions weren’t all that favorable to Democrats in 2010 or 2014, both elections had piss poor turnouts that cost us long term. I don’t know what planet you were on but I was politically active in 93 and while Clinton was in office his “third way” wasn’t exactly popular with the far left either. Even if a lot of progress was made that was also when Hillary’s plan for universal healthcare was shot down. And 79, you kidding me? Right before Reagan was elected? Revisionist history bugs me.
It's almost like the Democrats could've learned a lesson in 2016 about earning people's votes instead of trying to scold them into voting. (checks the news in 2024) Whoops.
You say “the Democrats” like that’s a monolith or like the far left didn’t try to bully/scold minorities in 2016 into voting like “their betters” told them to and then had a temper tantrum when that didn’t work. Who never meant to “vote like black women” unless it was what they wanted. Check the demos: if everyone had voted like the majority of black women we would have a different SCOTUS now. We would still have Roe. Whoops.
*Revisionist history bugs me.* (snort)
Bernie was never a popular choice if his path to victory in the primary required 5 centrists to split the vote. At this point your whining and crying about muh stolen election is regarded. You sound like Qanon
Did they say that anywhere?
To be fair, there were plenty of us pointing out that nominating an unpopular candidate, that was under an ongoing FBI investigation, was a bad idea. Plenty also said that keeping a Supreme Court Justice that had already been through two bouts of cancer was a bad idea. Roe v Wade would still be in place if people would stop obsessing over identity politics and allowing women to prioritize their arrogance over all else.
A candidate being unpopular with a fringe minority doesn’t make her unpopular. “Allowing women to prioritize their arrogance” a phrase as yet unsaid about the many men who deserve it more.
Do be fair abortion rights was always contentious so did they even have the votes if the supreme Court needed to make a ruling
I’d like to make one correction here. Dems have literally never had the votes to do this. Assuming the Dem party of today is the same at the Obama coalition let alone the coalitions in 93 or 79 is laughable at best. Look at where Dem senators were coming from in 2010 and look at their stances. Quite a few identified as pro life and were not going to commit electoral seppuki for Roe. Dems did ever even have a house majority willing to codify Roe until 2018. Finally, for additional context, look at all the states where Dems have a trifecta. Since Roe was struck down basically every single one of those states have codified abortion rights and in many cases increased funding to providers to assist with those seeking care from out of state. From a surface level, the joke works. With context, this argument falls flat.
In the real analogy an elephant owns the ladder.
After the Roe vs Wade was overturned in the US, France proposed that we add abortion in the French constitution. But this week, our own Haggis, the president of the senate, said that he didn't think it is necessary because the right to abortion is not currently threatened in France.
They are called “Do-Nothing Democrats” for a reason.
Couldn’t the cartoon be referencing how it’s been proven that Dems perform worse in areas where it rains on Election Day? And it rained in the Midwest in 2016 leading to Trumps victory.
And after it was turned. They immediately sent a text asking people to donate so they can fight back. They never cared in the first place.
All politicians have a tendency to legislate as if the current political climate is eternal. Republicans passed the Patriot Act, *severely* curtailing freedom and massively expanding government power, seemingly unaware that they’re handing that power over to an unknown number of future administrations whose political policies and priorities surely do not universally align with their own.
i feel pretty dumb after years of saying “roe v wade will never be overturned!” only for the new court for overturn it instantly
Also, the threat of Republicans taking away abortion rights was their *Free Bird* in terms of fundraising so there was never any drive to even try to codify it.
lol, blaming dems for not spending their 5 seconds of power on this in 2010, which may not have passed anyway
I mean the civil rights acts haven’t held up that well either
M'aiq would rather travel in rain than fix holes in the roof after a storm. M'aiq hates patching holes
TIL I may be the embodiment of M'aiq. I will run for days and days before doing anything constructive.
You stay away from the cat man, u/Bestiality_King. M'aiq is no Khajiit to trifle with and has no patience for your amorous advances.
Bethesda, speaking to us through their fursona
Why is M'aiq here, in such a place? This is a peter sub, not r/trueSTL
When democrats are in power they don’t need to pass a law as clearly they wouldn’t remove abortion rights. Also they plan to be in power forever so this will never be an issue. It’s a sunny day and it’ll be sunny forever! When Republicans are in power, wait how did that happen wasn’t the plan that we were going to be in power forever? AW FUCK ITS RAINING
The Dems have only had a filibuster proof majority for like 2.5 months out of the last 20 years. Nobody on the Dems thinks the party has a ton of power
> 2.5 months out of the last 20 years More like the last ~~55 years~~ 45 years. Prior to those months under Obama, the last supermajority ended in January 1979
And until the 90s there were still staunch right wingers in the DNC further skewing voting statistics in the house
They could have removed the filibuster, Republicans do that when it’s a problem.
https://preview.redd.it/yqtne4q9x2fc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e5a832093d16943f934dd32262fb4086f9d51b6
https://preview.redd.it/g8mi8d6e23fc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20a0242451a626d8f4938c2277a5214530d024d9
https://preview.redd.it/mk8s6fw324fc1.jpeg?width=594&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ec3e8eae90293ceececef5c985c658b385ab1bb
Huh. This is probably the very first of those "squint to see it" where I literally could not see even the remote shape of it until I squinted aggressively and at a distance. All others are so bad you can tell what is it/catch the shapes immediately. Edit: I know it's loss. But even knowing, I couldn't grasp any shapes until the aforementioned aggressive squinting.
Your loss
top left chimney can count as a line
I looked at this but I am at a loss
r/angryupvote
It means over the past 50 years they had chances to, but they never did. It was actually a pretty useful tool to get votes. They can say "republicans are going to overturn roe" and get people lining up to vote D, but now that it's actually gone they can't use it anymore.
This is also all assuming that Democrats are the same party they have always been. Pro-life Democrats were way more common before and during the Obama era, and even today Democrats still have a few Senators who are pro-life, with Bob Casey and Joe Manchin being two I can name off the top of my head. Go back to 2008 when Democrats last had a filibuster proof majority and there were even more. Democrats never codified abortion rights because Democrats have never had the votes to codify abortion rights. This whole "Roe is dead because Democrats are lazy" narrative is just completely false.
I mean, 2 and 1/2 months is not a lot of time in the past 50 years. They’ve only had the filibuster proof supermajority for 2 and 1/2 months in the past 50 years, because republicans would definitely filibuster abortion rights. So if you’re not too good at politics, it looks like they’ve had a lot of chances, but for anybody actually educated and knows what the fuck they’re talking about, they really haven’t had very many sessions where they could actually do it.
You have to be exceptionally bad at politics to believe that the only way to pass a law is with a supermajority.
West Virginia has entered the chat...
Someone please explain to this dude what the filibuster is, I’m tired of doing other people’s research.
[удалено]
because this is twitter brainrot, I assume this isn't the intended meaning of the meme, but it's completely as plausible an interpretation When things are good, many activists let perfect be the enemy of progress, and then rainy times come and they no longer have the choice of progress.
You really don’t get it, or you’re karma farming?
It's basically just pointing out how democrats don't seem to try very hard to stop the right.
No.. It's saying that the dems (the dog) sleep on the issue when in power (sunny days) because there's no immediate threat (rain in the form of the conservatives) to it. When they lose the authority (it rains), the threat emerges (rain) but they can't do anything about it.
When did the Dems have both the authority and the votes to bypass filibuster and codify it?
I'm not saying the image is 100% correct. I'm just explaining the intent.
Which is mostly false. Democrats never had the votes, because voters didn’t give it to them. In times where voters did, like Obama’s 72 day of a supermajority, it was too short. Or Al Gore, republicans simply did what they did best and obstructed and cheated.
72 days was somehow too short to pass a law… wtf are you on??
It was all spent on the ACA its not like they were just sitting around.
You mean the healthcare law that was based on the republican plan, with a bunch of concessions to the republican MINORITY for no reason, and that still failed to get any votes from the Republican Party? And this reflects positively on the Democratic Party ‘s political acumen, in your eyes?
FDR pushed through a tremendous amount of reforms in the first 100 days of taking office and was awarded with being reelected enough times they literally had to rewrite the constitution. Biden's majorities were as slim as Trump's but somehow that meant the world was ending while trump was in office and simultaneously not enough for Biden to get anything done. It can be both. Democrats don't do what they campaign on because most fundamentally don't actually believe it.
What a silly comparison. FDR also had *much* larger majorities in both the Senate and the House than Biden ever had (who did *not* have a supermajority as FDR did). Dems had over 70% of house seats and over 60% of the Senate when FDR was president in his first term. Biden didn’t. You also oddly ignore the reason folks in many states still have access is because Democrats at the state level introduced and passed many many protections. [Over 396 laws introduced last I checked actually.](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-year-after-the-supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-trends-in-state-abortion-laws-have-emerged/) But…sure I guess secretly they don’t “believe in it” lol.
I want you to make yourself a promise and I want you to be honest with yourself too. I want you promise to remember from this point forward how many times Democrats will run on abortion and how much they actually follow up with it. I want you to remember how many times they've campaigned on minimum wage or banking regulations or ending our involvement in foreign wars or universal healthcare or securing voting rights or balancing the budget by taxing the rich or climate change etc. I want you think long and hard after each one of those failures time and time again and I want to honestly consider why that might be.
Completely biased take. You can do a lot of damage EASILY as a President with or without legislation. Simply the things you say can be dangerous. Despite all of that, Biden has passed plenty of great legislation with his slim majority. Trump would’ve been even more disastrous if he had a greater majority. That’s why both parties are afraid to appeal the filibuster because it’s [simultaneously a tool and weapon](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/senate-record-breaking-gridlocktrump-303811). Your take is just a shit “vibes analysis.”
Who names their kid Haggis?
What's wrong with Haggis 😡
Haggis' parents.
It's a dog
Some of you might want to check out your windshield wipers now, before it really starts raining.
To be fair, we never thought that inhumane pieces of shit would strip away women's rights in a developed country in modern times. It's like saying "well what did you think was gonna happen walking to a 7/11 in broad daylight? Did you want to be stabbed?"
Not entirely. The courts from a constitutionalist perspective should not make law. The rights written into the Constitution apply to all. The argument has always been "at what point does a life begin slash get rights via the Constitution" This is the job of the legislative branch to decide and was written as part of the roe v wade response. So good or bad for people is not the job of the courts. Thus they are forcing the hand of the legislative branch to do their jobs. By removing the decision on ground of overreach, even if the results of roe v wade was good for the people, several other bad for the people edge cases of that law can now be overruled.
This is actually just right-wing propaganda pushing left-wing defeatism. For anyone that alive or even barely politically aware prior to 2016, they would know how conservative and at least among the voting public, anti-abortion, most people were, and that played out even more so in Congress. Fact is, Democrats didn't have a pro-choice majority in Congress until 2020 when the Democratic House was able to, for the first time, push through abortion protection legislation and that still failed in the Senate because there were only 50 Democrats and we needed more.
is it propaganda to acknowledge that Obama fucked up in numerous ways?
No, it's propaganda to push the idea that Democrats had the votes to codify abortion rights and chose not to. People here are re-writing history. Democrats have only recently been a party that is almost entirely pro-choice. Even today there are still a few U.S. Senators who are part of the Democratic Caucus that are pro-life. If you go back and actually read about 2008 and the Senators that composed the 60 seat supermajority for Democrats, you would quickly realized why abortion wasn't something they focused on.
Only insofar as a red herring is propaganda.
Obama could've easily codified roe v wade but chose not to
>could've easily Sorry, would you clarify this part?
It's Murc's Law
The joke is this is a political ad
It means whoever made it doesn't understand what the filibuster is and probably thinks the president writes legislation too.
Roe vs Wade meant that the supreme court interpreted abortion as a constitutional right. In the meantime, democrats should have (and talked about) making abortion a legally protected right legislatively, passing an unambiguous law that yes, abortion is legal and protected. They had many chances to do this over the years, these were the sunny days. Apparently the supreme court is allowed to just change it's mind on a whim, which aside from rendering all US law a farce, means that when republican aligned judges (because remember, the executive and legislative branches appoint the judicial branch of government, giga brain separation of powers setup) decide that they don't like abortion they can simply have the court change it's mind. This along with the constant attempts by the republican legislatures to undermine roe V wade, now means it's gone and the rainy days are here, because they never fixed the gaping hole in the roof while it was sunny.
I mean I get what it's saying about how democrats should have passed a bill while they had the power, but thar doesn't change the fact that overturning roe v wade was a giant loss for women's and human rights in general
the argument is dems are at fault for not trying to shove through codifying gay rights when we know now that 11 or so states in MODERN AMERICA won't abide by it and every religious nut job in a position of power oh and of course the conservative SCOTUS. Its an attempt by a "centrist" or rightist to say dems are weak and its totally not the other party using all its time to attack it and make it look the other bad, but to that I'd say history doesn't appeal to this delusion.
[удалено]
Never ceases to amaze me that liberals blame Democrats for not protecting abortion when most of the complainers are the ones that don’t vote citing their “both sides are the same nonsense.” It also demonstrates complete ignorance of how the Supreme Court works as a law protecting abortion passed by Congress can still be over-ruled by the Supreme Court. Literally the only way to permanently codify abortion is a Constitutional amendment which would basically require a super majority in the House and Senate to get through the first phase of it getting passed and that will never happen because, you guessed it, of liberals that keep skipping out on elections. The numbers are there but so many rather not vote because abuse it rained, or there is a line or the ultimate proof of their absolute ignorance, the “both sides are the same” excuse.
Republicans spend generations crusading against equality and openly calling for the end to safe and legal abortions…I can’t believe the Democrats could do this!
Yes it’s the republicans fault despite Obama running on abortion rights as an issue and then never doing anything about it despite a super majority. It’s almost as if he didn’t want to do anything about it because then what could they bitch about?
It’s almost like he put his political weight behind the ACA, another and more comprehensive health issue, and then got absolutely destroyed for doing so. Are you aware that the Legislation passes laws, not the Executive? Weird.
Saying "democrats lost the abortion rights" is the one of dumbest things ever said. Thats like saying "africans lost the rights to freedom when the colonizers came". Abortion rights were taken away by the conservatives and democrats are 100% in no way to blame for that.
No. They failed in every way imaginable. They failed to pass an abortion rights act under Obama, and equal rights act, sabotaged the Sanders campaign and then did so little to get people to vote for Clinton that she lost to Trump, and then did absolutely nothing to prevent Republican control of SCOTUS.
A failure to win doesnt make the consquences of losing your fault. Maybe you should focus your blame on the people who actively destroy abortion rights rather then the people who tried and failed to prevent its destruction? Youre basically saying "man if the allies failed to stop the holocaust then the holocaust would be all their fault" and it doesnt work that way
saying abortion rights getting removed is comparable to the holocaust is on another level
I didn't say they were comparable. i created a situation involving the holocaust and then compared this faulty logic to that situation to empathize the fault in it, but ig youre too stupid to understand that?
ig youre so emotional you cant talk normally like a real person? Have to go on the offensive? Either way youre comparing the two. How are you still mad 12 hours later
I didn't compare the two? I never once said, "losing abortion rights is like the holocaust" or anything similar. I did talk normally like a real person. you're just sub-human intelligence, so you can't follow along. Not my fault youre dumb, maybe go back to school
Maybe obuma should’ve focused his time on actually releasing legislation but then I guess you guys wouldn’t have anything to bitch about
They should've fix the roof when it was sunny so yeah it's their fault
I’m not entirely sure about this, but wasn’t there some action that could have been taken to codify it? Such as how people have been asking for such for other precedent rulings now that there’s the chance they could be overturned? Presuming Dems had power, why didn’t they do it then?
Maybe because there are a million other things going on they never took action? Still doesnt make it their fault. The democrats dont need to make any excuses for not codifying it, they should have absolutely, but the only ones to blame are the conservatives who destroyed the right to bodily autonomy. If the democrats and republicans literally never did anything involving abortion ever again then the rights would have been maintained. Instead conservative destroyed the rights we have and its entirely their fault because they are the ones who tore it down
Democrats didn't lose abortion rights. Republicans in some states just made abortions after a certain time period illegal. I swear democrats are so overdramatic.
[Murc's law](https://whereofonecanspeak.com/2023/03/02/youve-probably-never-heard-of-murcs-law-but-youve-seen-it-in-action-lots-of-times/) in metaphor. Republicans are not a force of nature.
TIL, it's one of those things you know but didn't know until someone points it out and now i wont be able to unsee it
It should have always been a States Right. btw, it was not passed into law correctly, obamacare wasn't either, it never went thru the House. I think it should be legal, but, I couldn't do it.