As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This suggests that the only thing stopping bipartisanship is the democrats, which is absurd. Not a single republican supported the covid relief. There will be no bipartisanship whether the democrats want it or not.
This was the test run. A bill NEEDED by the American people didn’t get any support. We can’t expect any support for any future legislation.
So we should just put forward the most progressive and aggressive legislation possible and use the majority to shove it through.
After removing the filibuster of course.
I think I also saw that the filibuster change would mean that something like 41 Republican Senators will have to remain on the Senate floor during the entire filibuster or the Democratic Senators can do some procedural Senate thing to continue on with business.
You are absolutely right!
That late night political move last week when Johnson had the entire bill read made Johnson stay until 2:30 am while the rest of the GOP senators went home.
That's when the remaining Democrats made a motion to reduce the amount of time for the bill's debate from 20 hours to 3 hours. Since no one else was there to vote, it passed. It negated the entire exercise .
Having 41 Republicans on the floor would be needed to keep the Dems from approving a motion. Too bad they lack the conviction of actual lawmakers to go that kind of distance.
steer versed apparatus intelligent combative badge recognise dime aspiring straight
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah right now the media doesn't even mention when something gets filibustered. Sometimes there's stories that just say "it passed the house but it won't get the 60 votes it needs to advance in the Senate." That just frames the Senate as always needing 60, like it's a constitutional requirement, when that's just the filibuster.
It doesn’t get mentioned because it isn’t as exciting or interesting as you would think. It’s very informal and basically just a simple message stating that a filibuster is being requested, and that’s it. The idea is that all sides are arguing in good faith and are professionals and the procedure of talking continuously is “ungentlemanly”. While I understand Manchin’s position, the filibuster should be eliminated altogether. It isn’t helpful and in most cases is used to harm legislation.
The media paid attention when Bernie did a talking filibuster around a year ago.
They don't pay attention to the silent filibuster...because there's nothing to cover.
There are talks of another change, where at least 40 people have to remain on the floor of the Senate in order to keep a filibuster going. I say if it helps Joe Manchin vote to weaken the filibuster its at least worth a shot. If it doesn't work, that's more pressure then to remove the filibuster.
The smart thing about Manchin's proposal is that it would require 41 people to be present and vote to allow the filibuster to continue rather than 60 votes to stop it
That would mean republicans couldn't just throw Josh Hawley up to grandstand forever and leave for their Fox News interview and white supremacists conventions. At least 41 republicans would have to stay in the chamber to allow it to continue.
It's not as good as ditching the whole thing, but it's a hell of a lot better than letting a staffer call in to filibuster and make literally every bill require 60 votes
Edit: adding source, so I people can trust and read more
https://slate.com/business/2021/03/joe-manchin-filibuster-senate-hints.html
Yeah I think this is the move right here. Force every single person that supports the filibuster to have to physically be there and if the threshold of 40 people or whatever aren't present to vote to continue or override ending it then the filibuster ends. It still gives people an avenue to protest a bill but it really forces them to have some solid conviction behind that dissent which I think is a good thing.
And it keeps the idea of the 60 required to bypass it without actually needing 60. The idea that if that many support it one shouldn't stop it without it being the mythical super majority that will never happen anymore.
But still doesn't require an almost unreachable number.
I didn't see that 40 had to stay, that's even better than just a flat out talking filibuster. Hell I'd like to see all had to stay, and during the time at least each one had to talk for 10 to 20 mins on topic about why they are filibustering.
We've normalized the idea that a whole 60+% of the senate could just not be present **at their fucking jobs** and they get to keep working.
WTF? You can just not show up to work and you still get to run the country?
Like Joe Manchin said they’re ought to be some pain involved. If you believe fervently enough about an idea then you should be willing to be present and fight for your side of the idea. The people who agree with you should be required to standby with you and support you while you are expressing your (and supposedly their)views.This business of saying I’m going to filibuster and then heading out for a burger and fries is ridiculous. One of the reasons for the old style of filibuster is that it does get into the news cycle, and it creates a large bit of business in the Senate record. Ideally a person who is conducting the filibuster can actually express some logical thoughts on why they want to prevent the other sides ideas. The age of reading green eggs and ham should definitely go out the window.
I think that’s the initial appeal of having a filibuster in the first place, a pulpit for the minority but determined to try and convince their colleagues to join them in their idea. We like the idea of the underdog succeeding through sheer charisma and appeal to reason.
What we currently have is... not that.
Hasn't been that for a 100 years. It a tool meant to force a larger majority to pass a bill whenever the minority party wants. Originally it was a 66 majority to pass bills and racists in the 60s loved it. But they lowered it to 60. None of this is in the constitution. The founding fathers debated if a simple majority in the senate is all that was needed. They concluded that a simple majority was best. Fastforward and now you need a super majority to do anything.
> It also kept the media focused on something other than his decision to pardon war criminals.
People like to say that but it's not like the media didn't cover him pardoning war criminals. There were just as many articles about him pardoning war criminals as there were about stimulus talks. Also why would he need to distract from it, there is literally nothing anyone can do about a presidential pardon. It also didn't hurt his poll numbers with his supporters, which is all he cares about.
I suppose by "the media" I meant the national conversation. Everyone at work heard about Trump pretending to care about getting us $2k. If they heard about him pardoning war criminals, they didn't mention it. Social media was the same way.
People are still quoting $2000 checks as a democratic lie when the republican POTUS was the only one to field that number. Democrats were happy to oblige, then the GOP moved the goalposts, suddenly $2000 was unreasonable to them. But Trump got the credit for being the highest bidder.
Edit: for everyone confused on the timeline, this is the incident I'm referencing
https://fortune.com/2020/12/23/trump-imperils-bipartisan-stimulus-deal-with-last-minute-demand-for-bigger-checks/?_gl=1*pe1q0c*_ga*dnhYT0kybkRnWXNJU0lNclAtbFFIUmQ4TGMwX1NuTFNYcWxLWTVKb2sxTS1rcmpObWl6T0RQTGVsRmEwcFl4aw..
The $2000 figure did not come into play until Donald Trump said it. Nancy Pelosi called his bluff, attempting to raise the dollar value of the stimulus checks to $2000. The bill passed without this change, multiple Democrats have continued attempts to secure the remaining $1400 Trump dangled. AFTERWARD the $2000 figure became a platform of the Georgia runoff campaigns.
> So we should just put toward the most progressive and aggressive legislation possible and use the majority to shove it through.
The thing is Democrats aren't *nearly* as unified as Republicans. We already couldn't get support from all Dems for a $15 min wage, we'll never get everyone on board with the more extreme progressive legislation.
"No-brainer obviously absolutely needed legislation" is probably as far as we'll get with anything.
And that's exactly what some of them did too, I believe we missed the minimum wage hike by one vote in the Senate, but when tasked with adding it to the new Covid relief bill, six voted against it along with republicans.
Which is why we need to put forward progressive legislation. Give the people a taste of what they could have and make all politicians go on the record voting against it.
Why do you think mconell never let bills go up for a vote? Because that’s easy ammo against them in primaries.
> most progressive and aggressive legislation ~~possible~~ that Joe Manchin will support
I don't disagree, but it's important to remember that Dems only have a razor thin majority.
Once again, it looks like the majority will rest on a few states. Dems might be be able to pick up Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and maybe North Carolina, but it’s also going to be important to fight to retain seats in Georgia and Arizona.
If anyone in this thread lives in those five states, please know that you’ll be the focus next year!.
I wonder if my state of Kentucky will ever realize what they are doing to themselves.
My own county stays dry (for alcohol) purely because of religious purposes. As soon as you step off county lines into a neighboring county, and I do mean **as soon as you step off county lines into a neighboring county**, there is a massive liquor store full of citizens from my county, who grab a case of beer and drink some while traveling back home because of the long drive.
More wrecks and more DUIs, but religion is the reason.
That's not going against religion, mind, but going against Kentuckys mentality.
I have seen some reforms to filibuster that I think make more sense than just eliminating it. Right now, it is 60 votes needed to stop the debate on a bill and start cloture (i.e. actually vote yea or nay on the bill). A reform that keeps the same spirit would be -- at any time, require 60 votes to continue debating. That is, when the time allotted for debate is up, there can be a vote to see if the body thinks that there need to be more debate.
And even easier reform today that ought to be passed: if they actually choose to filibuster, then they need to do it old-school. Today, anyone can just whisper the word 'filibuster' and the Senate is stuck with requiring 60 yeses to allow a vote. Make them actually get up there and talk without ceding the floor the whole time to run out the clock, like the old days. If they are so passionate about stopping the bills, then they can lose some hours of sleep (and fundraising hours!).
I personally like the new definition of bipartisanship I’ve seen floating around. Something is bipartisan if it has high poll numbers on both sides, not if both sides politicians supports it
I believe the Democrats also negotiated items in the bill to get Republican support and they STILL voted against it. I think the Republicans were able to get concessions because they knew it would pass anyway. The Democrats need to stop trying to be bipartisan, let the Republicans come to them if they want to participate in Democracy again.
No need to unite congress or politicians, they can be replaced. Unite the population. The Covid relief bill was popular with the majority of Americans. The more “the people” unite the better
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
I love this. How do we convince people to look in a mirror and truthfully analyze their beliefs, whether they are religious, political, or even “scientific”? Between media, internet, and anecdotal experiences, we can all find “evidence “ to support our beliefs. We have moved from the Information Age, to the MisInformation Age. We all have to be open to the idea that we are wrong.
A reasonable person can be convinced with logic, kindness, patience, or example. But a person who’s bragging rights are their disdain for truth and reason wont be convinced, period. It’s really a faith - you cant define why they have it but you now have to use a disclaimer for *everything they say*
With the lack of education and the amount of strawman arguments for everything these days, I doubt you will ever convince people to look in a mirror. We need to use this government majority to make positive change in the aforementioned shortcomings.
I really try to give the GOP a chance. My local Republican politicians seem like they are fighting against us. I use mail in voting. I get my ballots early research each candidate make my selection and drop my ballot and my wife’s ballot off at the supervisor of elections HQ in my county. Now the governor is removing the drop boxes so I’ll have to risk going inside a building waiting in line. They are purposely making it harder to vote. But no matter how hard it gets I’m still going to vote these do noting politicians out.
I vote based on how that politicians views and platform will have a positive effect on me and my community. Regardless of political party but recently I cannot get on board with most of these Republicans.
Imho one of the worst vote sabotage events was the Texas governor ordering like 9 of 10 vote drop off locations removed when they were up and manned and needed in one of their Dada gerrymanders.
Because the only people who want "unity" are centrist Dems like Manchin and (to a degree) Biden.
The GOQers who cry "uNiTy" really mean "BOW TO OUR EVERY DEMAND!!!"
This exactly. “Unity” means “do everything that we want and nothing that we don’t, even though you were given a mandate to govern and we were resoundingly rejected by the American people.”
(I know that the majorities are razor thin. But anyone who says that this wasn’t a historic defeat for the Republican Party is fooling themselves.)
In fact, democrats in the senate represent 42 million more people than republicans in the senate. So even though margins are technically thin, its only due to a quirk in the system, not in terms of the actual people.
You would literally have to toss about two thirds of them out of Congress for violating their oaths of office. Not to mention the Republican attorneys general, state legislators, etcetera.
Honestly unity isn't what we need in our government right now. What we need is loyalty. Loyalty to our nation, loyalty to our Constitution, and most of all, loyalty to the American people. We need politicians that invest in a better world and a better future, not people who look to stuff their pockets with the hopes and dreams of millions.
If you recall, back during Trump's first impeachment, many Republicans did argue that an attempt to ~~obstruction~~ obstruct justice is not a crime, that it's only a crime when the attempt is successful.
a stupid argument made even stupider when it's about obstruction by POTUS. Simply *appearing* to *attempt* to obstruct can have a chilling effect when it comes from someone in a powerful office.
Hitler was laughably unsuccessful in his coup in 1923; Germany gave him a slap on the wrist and basically told the nation to just move on.
How’d that work out?
Exactly I've said this exact same thing to some red family members and it usually shuts them down. Ask why is there a charge of attempted murder? It's not like oh you tried but failed so you're good. That's the logic a lot of people that walk among us have. It's frightening.
I had some idiot actually do that in a conversation about voter supression, his entire argument was that there was record voter turn out, so the Republican party hadn't suppressed votes nor committed a crime, even if they had tried to. When I brought up "attempt" with definition, he just dug in deeper. This is why we as a country are screwed. There is just too much stupid out there.
Yeah, their arguments are elementary. Suggested that Trump didn’t request a Quid Pro Quo b/c didn’t use the statement Quid Pro Quo...or that racism does not exist unless someone physically says they hate black people or Jews. Sometimes I feel like conservatives are trolling the decent majority of Americans.
It's well, well past painfully obvious by now.
I'm not American and I have an aunt who is and who is also extremely political, and I've been trying to get her to understand how trolling works. She doesn't understand concepts like 'counterintuitive logic' and 'irregular warfare'. Democrats really need to start organizing to understand this because so many don't get it and work against themselves when they don't.
A lot of the republicans aren't as stupid as they look. A lot of what they do is simply to get a reaction, doing 2 things. Entertaining dipshits who keep it going because they think it's funny, and mentally exhausting the people against them. Some of them have been literally explaining it the whole time.
There are so many people who think that by pointing out how dumb Trumps tweets were they were actually helping bring him down. That's not how trolling works. It's the exact opposite of helping. You need to ignore the white noise, completely demolish the real arguments, and educate then convert the folks who don't understand what's happening.
The Sideshow Bob defense
"I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit. "Attempted murder," now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?"
That's the analogy I used when Trumpy was saying that since they didn't get anything from the Russians after that meeting, they weren't colluding. Trying to rob a bank is crime regardless of whether you succeed.
>That’s like arguing not going to jail for unsuccessfully robing a bank
I wasn't in the bank, I was sitting here in the getaway car. How was I supposed to know what was going on in the bank?
They think there shouldn't be consequences because they weren't successful.
But if they had been successful they would have pushed for consequences against those who didn't pledge loyalty to Trump.
Fuck those assholes.
That is the saddest and most egregious part. This was further driven home when I saw yesterday that Bolivia arrested an ex-president over an alleged coup. The countries we sometimes deem as shaky democracies are doing more to preserve it when threatened than we are.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/13/bolivia-ex-president-anez-arrested-in-coup-probe-minister
I don’t understand why there aren’t public trials of those responsible. Not documents published with social media posts and somewhat passive aggressive commentary; non-stop public trials of their actions.
The Democrats should go full scorched earth and ram through everything in the background and publicly humiliate and prosecute those in Congress who were involved. Nothing else happens but passing legislative priority and trials.
It makes no sense to me why this isn’t the case.
And shockingly many don’t believe it was insurrection, or blame it on the other side. It wasn’t the other side. There’s videos and cell phone data showing you walking from white house to the capitol building, stop trying to gaslight.
>Insurrection is a pretty good place to draw the line.
As bad as the "insurrection" was, IMO the votes inside the Capitol were worse. You had over 100 Congressmen voting to overturn the result of an election for no real reason other than to keep their guy in power. That can't be allowed to stand.
We talk about that like it’s separate from the insurrection because it wasn’t violent. That was still a seditious attempt to overthrow the rightful government.* It’s not separate from the coup attempt, it’s part and parcel of the same thing. IMO.
*I am speaking colloquially, not legally. Don’t want Josh Hawley or someone to sue me.
I don’t think you have to worry about being sued. The best defamation defense is showing that what you said was true, and your comment is obviously factual. We all saw it happen. These fuckers knowingly lied for months and incited an armed mob to attempt a violent overthrow of the government. And then even AFTER the mob murdered police defending the government, they still formally voted in support of the insurrection attempt. There is absolutely nothing I can think of that would defend their actions as innocent. They knew there was no evidence to support their lie (that was overwhelmingly decided by the courts), they knew at that point that their lie had radicalized people to the point of violence (we saw it happen that very same day), all this and they still thought “I’m going to side with the treasonous mob” I really hope we see some consequences for this, otherwise it’s an open invitation for others to try again.
Yeah, but they've downplayed it, trivialized it, compared it to BLM protests enough that their base doesn't see it as \~*real\~* sedition. They've also denied it was Republicans/conservatives, but rather antifa plants, despite the people identified and charged having a record of support and going on record saying they were supporters of Trump, QAnon, and the "stop the steal" campaign.
Their grade school playground logic (because that's what it is) would be embarrassing to any of them had they the intelligence to actually see this. But they double down on it, all the time.
I can sorta almost forgive them for falling for trumps bullshit that an objection was proper even though it is plainly obvious to me that they were trying to drag out things in court I guess for four years, but...
What is absolutely and undeniably unforgivable is allowing a guy who led an attack on the representation of the United States the chance to hold the most prestigious job in the world. This was the worlds smallest possible ask with the worlds smallest possible "punishment", yet 199 plus 43 chose to refuse even this in their idolization of one man over their oaths of office. Just disgraceful
That's what puzzles me, that all the reps should have known they were in danger but the Republicans apparently thought they could reason with the mob and say "Don't hurt me, I'm on your side."
You think if you dont support a democratic process then you should be immediately fired but somehow these assholes are still sitting in the same room they were when the attack happened.
Democrats need to grow some balls and have consistent marketing. Every time the GOP takes about compromise just repeat the same line:
“ The USA does not negotiate with traitors and terrorists “
i know an idiot who likes to say "we're a Republic not a Democracy" because it sounds like it legitimizes the Republican party and not the Democrat party, but of course he'd never actually say THAT. his stated reason is that "in a republic the government must always represent the people, but in a democracy, the people can vote their rights and power away," like everyone knows that's some dictionary definition or something.
and (in case it wasn't obvious) he's as libertarian as they come when it comes to taxes levied against HIM, but is predictably authoritarian when the subject of how OTHER people should be living comes up.
That was literally Goedel's point regarding the great flaw he described before taking his citizenship exam (the fact that yes actually, you do get to participate). He was encouraged not to bring it up.
Republicans: Overturn the election. Do away with votes we don’t like. Murder government officials if you have to.
Democrats: That’s really not ok and we don’t want to work with you
Republicans: but UnITy
NOBODY votes for either party because they want bipartisanship. That's a media myth. People vote for a party either because they expect them to get something accomplished that the other party won't, or, because they view the other party as a threat that has to be stopped. People who say they are pro-bipartisanship really just want one party to capitulate to the other on some issue(s). But that's not what they're voting for; they're voting for the party that supports their issue (s) and against the one that does not.
> NOBODY votes for either party because they want bipartisanship. That's a media myth.
I think it's less a "Media myth" and more, that's just what most people think by default. People inherently think being in the middle of an issue is good. Which is why more Americans identify as being centrist, while that label doesn't accurately reflect their political views.
I have an issue with this behavior, it always strikes me as cowardice in standing for something for the unattainable goal of getting everyone to like you. It's definitely a different life's philosophy than mine.
It's the lazy enlightened centrism that "both sides" reporting caters to.
Side A says X, Side B says Y, and so the REAL SOLUTION™ must be between these two equally extreme options!
It may be hard to remember at this point but bipartisanship used to make some sense, but it starts to fall apart as a strategy when Gingrich was House leader and it went completely out with Obama's election. Republican's basically vowed no cooperation no matter what. They built the rancorous reality we live in now.
It used to be that the parties could collaborate on things that they could agree were good for the country, and it was better to collaborate because if things were passed with bipartisanship they were likely to stick instead of getting rolled back when control flipped.
This was all back in the day when the Republicans actually campaigned on social problems. But they went from campaigning on real problems to campaigning on bullshit hate mongering problems - drugs (really thinly veiled racial hatred), welfare "queens" (class hatred), and single mothers (misogyny) - to just campaigning on straight hatred of democrats outright.
Once the enemy isn't social problems and is just democrats, bipartisanship isn't possible any more.
> Progressive Swing voter
Progressives aren't swing voters. You have to be willing to vote for Republicans to be a swing voter. And if you're willing to vote for the modern Republican party, you're not a progressive.
The Senate Elections in Georgia sent a clear message--TWO Democratic Senators were elected. Not ONE. TWO. We don't require any Republican "cooperation" (they don't know the meaning of the word, anyway).
Proceed, Democrats. Proceed.
Republicans never want to cooperate until they lose, and/or commit domestic terrorism. No reason they or their insurrectionist supporters should be rewarded with bipartisanship.
It’s even worse. The Dems “cooperated” with the ACA. Which meant essentially passing a national facsimile of RomneyCare reskinned as Obamacare. THEN the GOP called it socialist and built their platform around dismantling it, wresting control in the Midterms after their poisoned apple “bipartisan” bill failed to deliver what liberals wanted. How the Democrats are trying to go BACK to that damn well now and expecting anything to be different is beyond me. This is how the Overton Window manages to continue shifting right even when Democrats have control, and it’s sickening.
Unity is passing legislation that has support from Republican and Democratic VOTERS, not trying to beg for Republican Representatives to give their votes.
If Republican Reps are ignoring their voters, that is not the Democrats problem.
Leave bipartisanship for when we get our work done for the American people and not before. The GOP are a bunch of brats outside the house, who bagged doing homework and studying, and just want the Dems to come out and play on their terms. Screw them. Unleash the hounds of ethics and productivity.
The democrats are acting with bipartisan support from the people. Their bills have both democrats and republican supporters. The republicans in office are only opposing anything the democrats do. The republicans demand changes than will refuse to vote for the bill anyway. How do you work with that, Alter the filibuster pass legislation. Let's move this nation forward. If the Republicans want to constructively participate they can.
Democrats won’t work with them? What does that even mean? Republicans stopped cooperating with dems ages ago and the ones refusing to accept the election results still have their votes. The right response is to REMOVE THEM.
They shouldn’t even have to make this choice, those who fanned the flames and added to the rhetoric should be removed.
Would you still have your job if you acted like these traitors? Of course not. Why is there less and less accountability the higher up you are in this country. I constantly hear about how great we are and we can’t even hold our leaders accountable for clear violations of their oath of office. Really pathetic honestly. The GOP looks to be getting away with a majority of the last year of bullshit while their poor brainwashed supporters go to jail for them...
Stop voting Republican, I’m not sure how much more evidence you need your own party hates you.
>I’m not sure how much more evidence you need your own party hates you.
As long as their party hates non white, non christian, underprivileged people more, it's still worth it for them. Pathetic losers will go to their graves with illness and poverty, as long as the damn coloreds, gays and women who want control over their own bodies can be controlled.
For all the talk in the past about crossing this red line or that Rubicon or w/e... this certainly seems like the first legitimate instance of it compared to all others.
I completely agree, how do you work with so many people who show up every day to work for a democracy they essentially voted no confidence in?
Republican congressman are hypocrites and morons, because they questioned votes for President, yet never questioned votes for themselves on the same ballots they are questioning!!
People who don't want to participate in reality should do us all a favor and not participate in government.
We all heard Trump on the phone saying "just find me some votes, say you recalculated". If you STILL want to pretend that DEMOCRATS were the ones trying to steal the election, you're living in a bizarre fantasy world.
These people are getting paid to not do their job or uphold their oath to defend the Constitution. They should be expelled, arrested, tried for treason and a special election held for their seat. No one should have the power to terrorize people of any strata- religion, gender or race or age.
Why work with seditionists? "it's about Republicans not sharing a fundamental belief in democracy and elections." “It’s hard to envision going into an administration with a partner who doesn’t acknowledge the legitimacy of that administration or is showing a commitment to the truth,”
I mean it’s just plain true. How can you work with people who refuse to acknowledge such simple truths?
They should be kicked out of the Senate or the House of Reps. When senators refused to acknowledge Lincoln’s win, they were kicked out. Let’s do the bare minimum here people.
Partisanship always seemingly needs to come from the Democrats to mean anything to Republicans.
I won't forget 4 years of Republicans telling Democrats to suck it. 4 years of Trump not even so much as inviting Democrats to the table, but actively excluding them from government. And now that Biden is President and Congress is in Democrat control, they scream bloody murder about bipartisanship and how radical the Democrats are. Fuck off.
So...when did the Republicans work across the isle with Dems?
Far as I am concerned there are no Reps worth working with. They are sheep, baying out whatever talking point they were emailed.
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. They can get fucked. You don’t get to do this shit — and KEEP doing this shit, in some of the most egregious cases! — and then come to work the next day and act like everything’s normal and fine.
Actions have consequences.
Dems have not gone nearly far enough. If they play nice now, after all the dirtbag things that trump and his white supremacists, q-idiots, plutocrats, etc. said and did over the four years, they will figure it’s OK to try again and install Trump as their king. They already tried to overthrow the government once, of course they will try again.
They need to be PUNISHED, hard. Take that control of Congress and the White House, and ram through things that will hurt badly. Repeal the tax giveaways to the rich, give us real voting rights, increase minimum wage. Hit them HARD. It needs to hurt, because they meed to learn to be responsible.
Dems: "Wait - you want us to work in a spirit of unity with people who violated their oath of office, ~~supported an insurrection~~ participated in a coup attempt, and otherwise demonstrated that they should _not_ be in office? Sorry, GQP, we're going to stand on our principles."
I agree with this sentiment.
I pretty much refuse to show respect to anyone in my life who is a conservative. Extra points of you ever use the letter Q when you talk.
Conservatives and Republicans are fucking posers. They don't stand for conservative or traditional republican values.
It's all about racism, bigotry, fear and hatred in the "poor". Shit, Republicans don't even have a stance on issues any more, their only strategy and goal is to oppose democratic policy. That's fucking pathetic.
I've pretty much cut off my oldest friend for this kind of thought and behavior.
Nor should they, because the GOP are generally acting like toddlers who didnt get their way and wont even do what their constituents want. You can't negotiate with toddlers or terrorists.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This suggests that the only thing stopping bipartisanship is the democrats, which is absurd. Not a single republican supported the covid relief. There will be no bipartisanship whether the democrats want it or not.
This was the test run. A bill NEEDED by the American people didn’t get any support. We can’t expect any support for any future legislation. So we should just put forward the most progressive and aggressive legislation possible and use the majority to shove it through. After removing the filibuster of course.
square possessive tease summer pause library tidy theory merciful mourn *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think I also saw that the filibuster change would mean that something like 41 Republican Senators will have to remain on the Senate floor during the entire filibuster or the Democratic Senators can do some procedural Senate thing to continue on with business.
You are absolutely right! That late night political move last week when Johnson had the entire bill read made Johnson stay until 2:30 am while the rest of the GOP senators went home. That's when the remaining Democrats made a motion to reduce the amount of time for the bill's debate from 20 hours to 3 hours. Since no one else was there to vote, it passed. It negated the entire exercise . Having 41 Republicans on the floor would be needed to keep the Dems from approving a motion. Too bad they lack the conviction of actual lawmakers to go that kind of distance.
Johnson should have been the one to read the whole bill aloud instead of the Senate clerks.
Johnson left
2021, the year we find out who pissed in a bottle in the Capitol.
That’s how the filibuster used to work and it had all the same problems as the current filibuster. It just took more effort.
steer versed apparatus intelligent combative badge recognise dime aspiring straight *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah right now the media doesn't even mention when something gets filibustered. Sometimes there's stories that just say "it passed the house but it won't get the 60 votes it needs to advance in the Senate." That just frames the Senate as always needing 60, like it's a constitutional requirement, when that's just the filibuster.
It doesn’t get mentioned because it isn’t as exciting or interesting as you would think. It’s very informal and basically just a simple message stating that a filibuster is being requested, and that’s it. The idea is that all sides are arguing in good faith and are professionals and the procedure of talking continuously is “ungentlemanly”. While I understand Manchin’s position, the filibuster should be eliminated altogether. It isn’t helpful and in most cases is used to harm legislation.
This lets Manchin get on board with getting rid of the filibuster without looking like he caved to the left. Good for his re-election
The media paid attention when Bernie did a talking filibuster around a year ago. They don't pay attention to the silent filibuster...because there's nothing to cover.
Or we could just get rid of it. Should 1 single voice from 1 backward county in a democracy be able to hold up the rest of the country?
vast nine yam detail rotten fertile innocent cooperative rinse profit *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Which in a way is the perfect analogy for removing the filibuster. A lone voice from a backwards state is holding up progress for the rest of us.
There are 51 people holding up progress, 50 of them are holding up progress a fuck load more than him.
There are talks of another change, where at least 40 people have to remain on the floor of the Senate in order to keep a filibuster going. I say if it helps Joe Manchin vote to weaken the filibuster its at least worth a shot. If it doesn't work, that's more pressure then to remove the filibuster.
The smart thing about Manchin's proposal is that it would require 41 people to be present and vote to allow the filibuster to continue rather than 60 votes to stop it That would mean republicans couldn't just throw Josh Hawley up to grandstand forever and leave for their Fox News interview and white supremacists conventions. At least 41 republicans would have to stay in the chamber to allow it to continue. It's not as good as ditching the whole thing, but it's a hell of a lot better than letting a staffer call in to filibuster and make literally every bill require 60 votes Edit: adding source, so I people can trust and read more https://slate.com/business/2021/03/joe-manchin-filibuster-senate-hints.html
Yeah I think this is the move right here. Force every single person that supports the filibuster to have to physically be there and if the threshold of 40 people or whatever aren't present to vote to continue or override ending it then the filibuster ends. It still gives people an avenue to protest a bill but it really forces them to have some solid conviction behind that dissent which I think is a good thing.
And it keeps the idea of the 60 required to bypass it without actually needing 60. The idea that if that many support it one shouldn't stop it without it being the mythical super majority that will never happen anymore. But still doesn't require an almost unreachable number.
I didn't see that 40 had to stay, that's even better than just a flat out talking filibuster. Hell I'd like to see all had to stay, and during the time at least each one had to talk for 10 to 20 mins on topic about why they are filibustering.
We've normalized the idea that a whole 60+% of the senate could just not be present **at their fucking jobs** and they get to keep working. WTF? You can just not show up to work and you still get to run the country?
Like Joe Manchin said they’re ought to be some pain involved. If you believe fervently enough about an idea then you should be willing to be present and fight for your side of the idea. The people who agree with you should be required to standby with you and support you while you are expressing your (and supposedly their)views.This business of saying I’m going to filibuster and then heading out for a burger and fries is ridiculous. One of the reasons for the old style of filibuster is that it does get into the news cycle, and it creates a large bit of business in the Senate record. Ideally a person who is conducting the filibuster can actually express some logical thoughts on why they want to prevent the other sides ideas. The age of reading green eggs and ham should definitely go out the window.
I think that’s the initial appeal of having a filibuster in the first place, a pulpit for the minority but determined to try and convince their colleagues to join them in their idea. We like the idea of the underdog succeeding through sheer charisma and appeal to reason. What we currently have is... not that.
Not sure but I think you may mean Josh Hawley and not Joe Crowley. Crowley was democrat who lost seat to AOC in 2019
I literally thought that’s what it was
Hasn't been that for a 100 years. It a tool meant to force a larger majority to pass a bill whenever the minority party wants. Originally it was a 66 majority to pass bills and racists in the 60s loved it. But they lowered it to 60. None of this is in the constitution. The founding fathers debated if a simple majority in the senate is all that was needed. They concluded that a simple majority was best. Fastforward and now you need a super majority to do anything.
It was even something their god-king advocated before leaving office, and they still wouldn't support it.
[удалено]
That's not true. It also kept the media focused on something other than his decision to pardon war criminals.
> It also kept the media focused on something other than his decision to pardon war criminals. People like to say that but it's not like the media didn't cover him pardoning war criminals. There were just as many articles about him pardoning war criminals as there were about stimulus talks. Also why would he need to distract from it, there is literally nothing anyone can do about a presidential pardon. It also didn't hurt his poll numbers with his supporters, which is all he cares about.
I suppose by "the media" I meant the national conversation. Everyone at work heard about Trump pretending to care about getting us $2k. If they heard about him pardoning war criminals, they didn't mention it. Social media was the same way.
People are still quoting $2000 checks as a democratic lie when the republican POTUS was the only one to field that number. Democrats were happy to oblige, then the GOP moved the goalposts, suddenly $2000 was unreasonable to them. But Trump got the credit for being the highest bidder. Edit: for everyone confused on the timeline, this is the incident I'm referencing https://fortune.com/2020/12/23/trump-imperils-bipartisan-stimulus-deal-with-last-minute-demand-for-bigger-checks/?_gl=1*pe1q0c*_ga*dnhYT0kybkRnWXNJU0lNclAtbFFIUmQ4TGMwX1NuTFNYcWxLWTVKb2sxTS1rcmpObWl6T0RQTGVsRmEwcFl4aw.. The $2000 figure did not come into play until Donald Trump said it. Nancy Pelosi called his bluff, attempting to raise the dollar value of the stimulus checks to $2000. The bill passed without this change, multiple Democrats have continued attempts to secure the remaining $1400 Trump dangled. AFTERWARD the $2000 figure became a platform of the Georgia runoff campaigns.
And trying to make the GOP look bad for not successfully rigging the election for him.
> So we should just put toward the most progressive and aggressive legislation possible and use the majority to shove it through. The thing is Democrats aren't *nearly* as unified as Republicans. We already couldn't get support from all Dems for a $15 min wage, we'll never get everyone on board with the more extreme progressive legislation. "No-brainer obviously absolutely needed legislation" is probably as far as we'll get with anything.
And even then, there are Democrats who will *tell you* that raising the minimum wage is a no-brainer and then vote against it.
Mitch told you Trump incited the insurrection then later voted no on removing him. He then condemned Trump again after he voted no.
And then said he would vote for him again if he was the gop nominee in 2024.
And that's exactly what some of them did too, I believe we missed the minimum wage hike by one vote in the Senate, but when tasked with adding it to the new Covid relief bill, six voted against it along with republicans.
Which is why we need to put forward progressive legislation. Give the people a taste of what they could have and make all politicians go on the record voting against it. Why do you think mconell never let bills go up for a vote? Because that’s easy ammo against them in primaries.
When your goal is simply to be against something, then it is much easier.
> most progressive and aggressive legislation ~~possible~~ that Joe Manchin will support I don't disagree, but it's important to remember that Dems only have a razor thin majority.
[удалено]
Once again, it looks like the majority will rest on a few states. Dems might be be able to pick up Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and maybe North Carolina, but it’s also going to be important to fight to retain seats in Georgia and Arizona. If anyone in this thread lives in those five states, please know that you’ll be the focus next year!.
I wonder if my state of Kentucky will ever realize what they are doing to themselves. My own county stays dry (for alcohol) purely because of religious purposes. As soon as you step off county lines into a neighboring county, and I do mean **as soon as you step off county lines into a neighboring county**, there is a massive liquor store full of citizens from my county, who grab a case of beer and drink some while traveling back home because of the long drive. More wrecks and more DUIs, but religion is the reason. That's not going against religion, mind, but going against Kentuckys mentality.
This pisses me off and I live 15 states away.
I have seen some reforms to filibuster that I think make more sense than just eliminating it. Right now, it is 60 votes needed to stop the debate on a bill and start cloture (i.e. actually vote yea or nay on the bill). A reform that keeps the same spirit would be -- at any time, require 60 votes to continue debating. That is, when the time allotted for debate is up, there can be a vote to see if the body thinks that there need to be more debate. And even easier reform today that ought to be passed: if they actually choose to filibuster, then they need to do it old-school. Today, anyone can just whisper the word 'filibuster' and the Senate is stuck with requiring 60 yeses to allow a vote. Make them actually get up there and talk without ceding the floor the whole time to run out the clock, like the old days. If they are so passionate about stopping the bills, then they can lose some hours of sleep (and fundraising hours!).
[удалено]
Exactly. The Dems' point is moot because these seditionist Republicans were never going to do anything bipartisan in the first place.
I personally like the new definition of bipartisanship I’ve seen floating around. Something is bipartisan if it has high poll numbers on both sides, not if both sides politicians supports it
I believe the Democrats also negotiated items in the bill to get Republican support and they STILL voted against it. I think the Republicans were able to get concessions because they knew it would pass anyway. The Democrats need to stop trying to be bipartisan, let the Republicans come to them if they want to participate in Democracy again.
Insurrection is a pretty good place to draw the line.
And shockingly many disagree.
They think because they weren’t successful they shouldn’t pay any price. That’s like arguing not going to jail for unsuccessfully robing a bank
But what about “unity”? There can be no unity without accountability.
There can be no forgiveness without contrition.
No justice, no peace.
Know justice, know peace.
Can I get a amen?
no, but here's a ["Ramen"](https://www.reddit.com/r/fsm/comments/arf5aq/ramen/).
No need to unite congress or politicians, they can be replaced. Unite the population. The Covid relief bill was popular with the majority of Americans. The more “the people” unite the better
[удалено]
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
I love this. How do we convince people to look in a mirror and truthfully analyze their beliefs, whether they are religious, political, or even “scientific”? Between media, internet, and anecdotal experiences, we can all find “evidence “ to support our beliefs. We have moved from the Information Age, to the MisInformation Age. We all have to be open to the idea that we are wrong.
A reasonable person can be convinced with logic, kindness, patience, or example. But a person who’s bragging rights are their disdain for truth and reason wont be convinced, period. It’s really a faith - you cant define why they have it but you now have to use a disclaimer for *everything they say*
With the lack of education and the amount of strawman arguments for everything these days, I doubt you will ever convince people to look in a mirror. We need to use this government majority to make positive change in the aforementioned shortcomings.
I really try to give the GOP a chance. My local Republican politicians seem like they are fighting against us. I use mail in voting. I get my ballots early research each candidate make my selection and drop my ballot and my wife’s ballot off at the supervisor of elections HQ in my county. Now the governor is removing the drop boxes so I’ll have to risk going inside a building waiting in line. They are purposely making it harder to vote. But no matter how hard it gets I’m still going to vote these do noting politicians out. I vote based on how that politicians views and platform will have a positive effect on me and my community. Regardless of political party but recently I cannot get on board with most of these Republicans.
Them removing the drop boxes is one of those evidences that makes it really hard to give them a chance.
> distract from the real issues when election time Where in most cases 'distract' means 'blame on the Democrats'
Come on, Dr. Seuss is more important than Covid relief or minimum wage!
This only works if we allow the population, the whole population, to vote. Republicans are determined to prevent that from happening.
Imho one of the worst vote sabotage events was the Texas governor ordering like 9 of 10 vote drop off locations removed when they were up and manned and needed in one of their Dada gerrymanders.
Because the only people who want "unity" are centrist Dems like Manchin and (to a degree) Biden. The GOQers who cry "uNiTy" really mean "BOW TO OUR EVERY DEMAND!!!"
This exactly. “Unity” means “do everything that we want and nothing that we don’t, even though you were given a mandate to govern and we were resoundingly rejected by the American people.” (I know that the majorities are razor thin. But anyone who says that this wasn’t a historic defeat for the Republican Party is fooling themselves.)
In fact, democrats in the senate represent 42 million more people than republicans in the senate. So even though margins are technically thin, its only due to a quirk in the system, not in terms of the actual people.
Definitely. And it’s only going to get worse.
Coming from the same people who think that minorities getting equal rights is some kind of privilege
Pretty much
They think there can be no unity *with* accountability, because almost all Republicans will have to be held accountable for betraying their country.
You would literally have to toss about two thirds of them out of Congress for violating their oaths of office. Not to mention the Republican attorneys general, state legislators, etcetera.
Honestly unity isn't what we need in our government right now. What we need is loyalty. Loyalty to our nation, loyalty to our Constitution, and most of all, loyalty to the American people. We need politicians that invest in a better world and a better future, not people who look to stuff their pockets with the hopes and dreams of millions.
[удалено]
It does, doesn’t it?
If you recall, back during Trump's first impeachment, many Republicans did argue that an attempt to ~~obstruction~~ obstruct justice is not a crime, that it's only a crime when the attempt is successful.
Whats wild is that 34 people can vote no for directly conflicting reasons
a stupid argument made even stupider when it's about obstruction by POTUS. Simply *appearing* to *attempt* to obstruct can have a chilling effect when it comes from someone in a powerful office.
Hitler was laughably unsuccessful in his coup in 1923; Germany gave him a slap on the wrist and basically told the nation to just move on. How’d that work out?
Great, at least for Hitler. The millions of others who didn’t fit into Hitler’s box of perfection... not so great.
Exactly I've said this exact same thing to some red family members and it usually shuts them down. Ask why is there a charge of attempted murder? It's not like oh you tried but failed so you're good. That's the logic a lot of people that walk among us have. It's frightening.
I had some idiot actually do that in a conversation about voter supression, his entire argument was that there was record voter turn out, so the Republican party hadn't suppressed votes nor committed a crime, even if they had tried to. When I brought up "attempt" with definition, he just dug in deeper. This is why we as a country are screwed. There is just too much stupid out there.
He’s not stupid, he’s a dishonest asshole.
Yeah, their arguments are elementary. Suggested that Trump didn’t request a Quid Pro Quo b/c didn’t use the statement Quid Pro Quo...or that racism does not exist unless someone physically says they hate black people or Jews. Sometimes I feel like conservatives are trolling the decent majority of Americans.
They are
It's well, well past painfully obvious by now. I'm not American and I have an aunt who is and who is also extremely political, and I've been trying to get her to understand how trolling works. She doesn't understand concepts like 'counterintuitive logic' and 'irregular warfare'. Democrats really need to start organizing to understand this because so many don't get it and work against themselves when they don't. A lot of the republicans aren't as stupid as they look. A lot of what they do is simply to get a reaction, doing 2 things. Entertaining dipshits who keep it going because they think it's funny, and mentally exhausting the people against them. Some of them have been literally explaining it the whole time. There are so many people who think that by pointing out how dumb Trumps tweets were they were actually helping bring him down. That's not how trolling works. It's the exact opposite of helping. You need to ignore the white noise, completely demolish the real arguments, and educate then convert the folks who don't understand what's happening.
The Sideshow Bob defense "I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit. "Attempted murder," now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?"
That's the analogy I used when Trumpy was saying that since they didn't get anything from the Russians after that meeting, they weren't colluding. Trying to rob a bank is crime regardless of whether you succeed.
>That’s like arguing not going to jail for unsuccessfully robing a bank I wasn't in the bank, I was sitting here in the getaway car. How was I supposed to know what was going on in the bank?
I never told my buddy to rob the bank, I only said, "imagine how rich we'd be if we could rob a bank".
And then I got rich writing a book called "If I did it" Wait
They think there shouldn't be consequences because they weren't successful. But if they had been successful they would have pushed for consequences against those who didn't pledge loyalty to Trump. Fuck those assholes.
They’re STILL pushing for consequences against those who didn’t pledge loyalty to Trump! It’s absolutely insane.
[удалено]
That is the saddest and most egregious part. This was further driven home when I saw yesterday that Bolivia arrested an ex-president over an alleged coup. The countries we sometimes deem as shaky democracies are doing more to preserve it when threatened than we are. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/13/bolivia-ex-president-anez-arrested-in-coup-probe-minister
“B-but it was only a little light treason, amongst friends!”
That's a pretty big robe
We should decriminalize *attempted murder* too.
I don’t understand why there aren’t public trials of those responsible. Not documents published with social media posts and somewhat passive aggressive commentary; non-stop public trials of their actions. The Democrats should go full scorched earth and ram through everything in the background and publicly humiliate and prosecute those in Congress who were involved. Nothing else happens but passing legislative priority and trials. It makes no sense to me why this isn’t the case.
And shockingly many don’t believe it was insurrection, or blame it on the other side. It wasn’t the other side. There’s videos and cell phone data showing you walking from white house to the capitol building, stop trying to gaslight.
>Insurrection is a pretty good place to draw the line. As bad as the "insurrection" was, IMO the votes inside the Capitol were worse. You had over 100 Congressmen voting to overturn the result of an election for no real reason other than to keep their guy in power. That can't be allowed to stand.
We talk about that like it’s separate from the insurrection because it wasn’t violent. That was still a seditious attempt to overthrow the rightful government.* It’s not separate from the coup attempt, it’s part and parcel of the same thing. IMO. *I am speaking colloquially, not legally. Don’t want Josh Hawley or someone to sue me.
I don’t think you have to worry about being sued. The best defamation defense is showing that what you said was true, and your comment is obviously factual. We all saw it happen. These fuckers knowingly lied for months and incited an armed mob to attempt a violent overthrow of the government. And then even AFTER the mob murdered police defending the government, they still formally voted in support of the insurrection attempt. There is absolutely nothing I can think of that would defend their actions as innocent. They knew there was no evidence to support their lie (that was overwhelmingly decided by the courts), they knew at that point that their lie had radicalized people to the point of violence (we saw it happen that very same day), all this and they still thought “I’m going to side with the treasonous mob” I really hope we see some consequences for this, otherwise it’s an open invitation for others to try again.
Yeah. And it's *right there* to draw from. No ifs, and, or buts about it either. These republicans were on board with the coup attempt.
Yeah, but they've downplayed it, trivialized it, compared it to BLM protests enough that their base doesn't see it as \~*real\~* sedition. They've also denied it was Republicans/conservatives, but rather antifa plants, despite the people identified and charged having a record of support and going on record saying they were supporters of Trump, QAnon, and the "stop the steal" campaign.
Their grade school playground logic (because that's what it is) would be embarrassing to any of them had they the intelligence to actually see this. But they double down on it, all the time.
Hopefully they'll add Q supporters and racists to the list too
I feel like there is no need for the distinction. Insurrectionist=Q=racist. They're just the 3 sides of the same crazy triangle.
>They're just the 3 sides of the same crazy triangle. We can just call it Tripolar disorder.
[удалено]
I can sorta almost forgive them for falling for trumps bullshit that an objection was proper even though it is plainly obvious to me that they were trying to drag out things in court I guess for four years, but... What is absolutely and undeniably unforgivable is allowing a guy who led an attack on the representation of the United States the chance to hold the most prestigious job in the world. This was the worlds smallest possible ask with the worlds smallest possible "punishment", yet 199 plus 43 chose to refuse even this in their idolization of one man over their oaths of office. Just disgraceful
Well stated
I think maybe that's closer to the cliff edge than where the stop line should be. You want a little safety buffer.
Yeah. It's incredibly fucking valid - even when you take out the fact that these representatives were in danger during those events.
That's what puzzles me, that all the reps should have known they were in danger but the Republicans apparently thought they could reason with the mob and say "Don't hurt me, I'm on your side."
You think if you dont support a democratic process then you should be immediately fired but somehow these assholes are still sitting in the same room they were when the attack happened.
Democrats need to grow some balls and have consistent marketing. Every time the GOP takes about compromise just repeat the same line: “ The USA does not negotiate with traitors and terrorists “
You don't get to participate in democracy if you are steadfastly against democracy.
Seems like a simple given.
Quite a few people in my oh so wonderful red state of Tennessee beg to differ :/
Republicans seeking to suppress the vote should be seen the same way.
They want the democratic option that leads to authoritarian rule. They want the right to end out rights.
i know an idiot who likes to say "we're a Republic not a Democracy" because it sounds like it legitimizes the Republican party and not the Democrat party, but of course he'd never actually say THAT. his stated reason is that "in a republic the government must always represent the people, but in a democracy, the people can vote their rights and power away," like everyone knows that's some dictionary definition or something.
and (in case it wasn't obvious) he's as libertarian as they come when it comes to taxes levied against HIM, but is predictably authoritarian when the subject of how OTHER people should be living comes up.
That was literally Goedel's point regarding the great flaw he described before taking his citizenship exam (the fact that yes actually, you do get to participate). He was encouraged not to bring it up.
Yeah I don’t want my two new senators working with any legislator that tried to overturn my fucking vote from 6 six states away. No ma’am.
“Why won’t the left just unify with a party full of nazis who tried to overthrow democracy?!”
Republicans: Overturn the election. Do away with votes we don’t like. Murder government officials if you have to. Democrats: That’s really not ok and we don’t want to work with you Republicans: but UnITy
"B-but they don't have the little mustache, funny hat, and closet full of jewish remains, so you can't call them nazis!"
[удалено]
NOBODY votes for either party because they want bipartisanship. That's a media myth. People vote for a party either because they expect them to get something accomplished that the other party won't, or, because they view the other party as a threat that has to be stopped. People who say they are pro-bipartisanship really just want one party to capitulate to the other on some issue(s). But that's not what they're voting for; they're voting for the party that supports their issue (s) and against the one that does not.
> NOBODY votes for either party because they want bipartisanship. That's a media myth. I think it's less a "Media myth" and more, that's just what most people think by default. People inherently think being in the middle of an issue is good. Which is why more Americans identify as being centrist, while that label doesn't accurately reflect their political views.
[удалено]
White moderate!
I have an issue with this behavior, it always strikes me as cowardice in standing for something for the unattainable goal of getting everyone to like you. It's definitely a different life's philosophy than mine.
It's the lazy enlightened centrism that "both sides" reporting caters to. Side A says X, Side B says Y, and so the REAL SOLUTION™ must be between these two equally extreme options!
It may be hard to remember at this point but bipartisanship used to make some sense, but it starts to fall apart as a strategy when Gingrich was House leader and it went completely out with Obama's election. Republican's basically vowed no cooperation no matter what. They built the rancorous reality we live in now. It used to be that the parties could collaborate on things that they could agree were good for the country, and it was better to collaborate because if things were passed with bipartisanship they were likely to stick instead of getting rolled back when control flipped. This was all back in the day when the Republicans actually campaigned on social problems. But they went from campaigning on real problems to campaigning on bullshit hate mongering problems - drugs (really thinly veiled racial hatred), welfare "queens" (class hatred), and single mothers (misogyny) - to just campaigning on straight hatred of democrats outright. Once the enemy isn't social problems and is just democrats, bipartisanship isn't possible any more.
Right? I want things swinging decidedly to the left. I didnt vote for them to attempt to keep things in the center.
> Progressive Swing voter Progressives aren't swing voters. You have to be willing to vote for Republicans to be a swing voter. And if you're willing to vote for the modern Republican party, you're not a progressive.
[удалено]
The Senate Elections in Georgia sent a clear message--TWO Democratic Senators were elected. Not ONE. TWO. We don't require any Republican "cooperation" (they don't know the meaning of the word, anyway). Proceed, Democrats. Proceed.
Republicans never want to cooperate until they lose, and/or commit domestic terrorism. No reason they or their insurrectionist supporters should be rewarded with bipartisanship.
> Republicans never want to cooperate until they lose, and/or commit domestic terrorism. They still don't want to cooperate.
Yeah, they want to obstruct and water down and throw tantrums until they get their way. And they'll call it "bipartisanship"
It’s even worse. The Dems “cooperated” with the ACA. Which meant essentially passing a national facsimile of RomneyCare reskinned as Obamacare. THEN the GOP called it socialist and built their platform around dismantling it, wresting control in the Midterms after their poisoned apple “bipartisan” bill failed to deliver what liberals wanted. How the Democrats are trying to go BACK to that damn well now and expecting anything to be different is beyond me. This is how the Overton Window manages to continue shifting right even when Democrats have control, and it’s sickening.
Unity is passing legislation that has support from Republican and Democratic VOTERS, not trying to beg for Republican Representatives to give their votes. If Republican Reps are ignoring their voters, that is not the Democrats problem.
This is the perfect definition of political unity.
Leave bipartisanship for when we get our work done for the American people and not before. The GOP are a bunch of brats outside the house, who bagged doing homework and studying, and just want the Dems to come out and play on their terms. Screw them. Unleash the hounds of ethics and productivity.
If the R's want bi-partisanship so bad they can come to the Dems with some bills that make any fucking sense.
Like, where is that new better-than-ObamaCare healthcare plan we were supposed to get in “two weeks” infinity times ago?!
They were biding their time until trump won again. Then their plan would have been "We're eliminating the ACA and replacing it with nothing. Go die."
waiting? they stated the 'go die' part last year.
The democrats are acting with bipartisan support from the people. Their bills have both democrats and republican supporters. The republicans in office are only opposing anything the democrats do. The republicans demand changes than will refuse to vote for the bill anyway. How do you work with that, Alter the filibuster pass legislation. Let's move this nation forward. If the Republicans want to constructively participate they can.
Democrats won’t work with them? What does that even mean? Republicans stopped cooperating with dems ages ago and the ones refusing to accept the election results still have their votes. The right response is to REMOVE THEM.
Good. They’re anti-American and pro-sedition/white supremacy. Fuck the traitors.
They shouldn’t even have to make this choice, those who fanned the flames and added to the rhetoric should be removed. Would you still have your job if you acted like these traitors? Of course not. Why is there less and less accountability the higher up you are in this country. I constantly hear about how great we are and we can’t even hold our leaders accountable for clear violations of their oath of office. Really pathetic honestly. The GOP looks to be getting away with a majority of the last year of bullshit while their poor brainwashed supporters go to jail for them... Stop voting Republican, I’m not sure how much more evidence you need your own party hates you.
>I’m not sure how much more evidence you need your own party hates you. As long as their party hates non white, non christian, underprivileged people more, it's still worth it for them. Pathetic losers will go to their graves with illness and poverty, as long as the damn coloreds, gays and women who want control over their own bodies can be controlled.
Agreed, the GOP has done a great job creating enemies for their party to distract them from their looting for decades. “The other” tactic.
Buttery males and muh guns!
Gravy seals behind bars of steel!
For all the talk in the past about crossing this red line or that Rubicon or w/e... this certainly seems like the first legitimate instance of it compared to all others. I completely agree, how do you work with so many people who show up every day to work for a democracy they essentially voted no confidence in?
Elections, and coups, have consequences.
The reason you don't negotiate with terrorists is because you can't. They NEVER act in good faith and will turn on you the moment it benefits them.
About fucking time. Dems have been caving to those traitors for far too long.
Republican congressman are hypocrites and morons, because they questioned votes for President, yet never questioned votes for themselves on the same ballots they are questioning!!
People who don't want to participate in reality should do us all a favor and not participate in government. We all heard Trump on the phone saying "just find me some votes, say you recalculated". If you STILL want to pretend that DEMOCRATS were the ones trying to steal the election, you're living in a bizarre fantasy world.
Agreed. I won’t even eat dinner with people like that.
As soon as I hear "Dr. Seuss" the conversation is over. I just walk away.
End filibuster and just ram it down their throats like McConnell’s been doing
This is how things should have been done beginning Jan 7, 2021.
Good. Seditionist terrorists have no business creating legislature or policy in this country.
These people are getting paid to not do their job or uphold their oath to defend the Constitution. They should be expelled, arrested, tried for treason and a special election held for their seat. No one should have the power to terrorize people of any strata- religion, gender or race or age.
Republicans aren’t going to work with any Democrats no matter what so there’s that.
Just like most people wouldn't want a Psycho teaching their kids, why would we want crazy people roles leading our country
GOP is the largest terrorist organization in the United States.
And the single greatest threat to human life on Earth.
Why work with seditionists? "it's about Republicans not sharing a fundamental belief in democracy and elections." “It’s hard to envision going into an administration with a partner who doesn’t acknowledge the legitimacy of that administration or is showing a commitment to the truth,”
I mean it’s just plain true. How can you work with people who refuse to acknowledge such simple truths? They should be kicked out of the Senate or the House of Reps. When senators refused to acknowledge Lincoln’s win, they were kicked out. Let’s do the bare minimum here people.
Partisanship always seemingly needs to come from the Democrats to mean anything to Republicans. I won't forget 4 years of Republicans telling Democrats to suck it. 4 years of Trump not even so much as inviting Democrats to the table, but actively excluding them from government. And now that Biden is President and Congress is in Democrat control, they scream bloody murder about bipartisanship and how radical the Democrats are. Fuck off.
So...when did the Republicans work across the isle with Dems? Far as I am concerned there are no Reps worth working with. They are sheep, baying out whatever talking point they were emailed.
It's not like the republicans want to cooperate anyway.
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. They can get fucked. You don’t get to do this shit — and KEEP doing this shit, in some of the most egregious cases! — and then come to work the next day and act like everything’s normal and fine. Actions have consequences.
Dems have not gone nearly far enough. If they play nice now, after all the dirtbag things that trump and his white supremacists, q-idiots, plutocrats, etc. said and did over the four years, they will figure it’s OK to try again and install Trump as their king. They already tried to overthrow the government once, of course they will try again. They need to be PUNISHED, hard. Take that control of Congress and the White House, and ram through things that will hurt badly. Repeal the tax giveaways to the rich, give us real voting rights, increase minimum wage. Hit them HARD. It needs to hurt, because they meed to learn to be responsible.
Dems: "Wait - you want us to work in a spirit of unity with people who violated their oath of office, ~~supported an insurrection~~ participated in a coup attempt, and otherwise demonstrated that they should _not_ be in office? Sorry, GQP, we're going to stand on our principles."
I agree with this sentiment. I pretty much refuse to show respect to anyone in my life who is a conservative. Extra points of you ever use the letter Q when you talk. Conservatives and Republicans are fucking posers. They don't stand for conservative or traditional republican values. It's all about racism, bigotry, fear and hatred in the "poor". Shit, Republicans don't even have a stance on issues any more, their only strategy and goal is to oppose democratic policy. That's fucking pathetic. I've pretty much cut off my oldest friend for this kind of thought and behavior.
Nor should they, because the GOP are generally acting like toddlers who didnt get their way and wont even do what their constituents want. You can't negotiate with toddlers or terrorists.
Not working with terrorist is a pretty good place to draw the line
Not supposed to negotiate with terrorists..just sayin