politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If voters want changes, they should go to the polls, and stop electing idiots like Trump who nominate garbage.
"If voters want change, they should go to the polls" doesn't work anymore. I don't know if it is the Democrats' spinelessness or the fact that the GOP is doing everything that they can to gerrymander and rig elections, or when that fails, just try to overthrow the damn government. We really need a plan B, though.
It's really not the Democrats' fault.
Democrats have not had true, fillibuster-proof control of Congress since the late 1970s.
For about seven months in 2009-10 they had something pretty close to that if you count the independents who caucused with them, but they also had the traitor, Joe Lieberman who ruined Democrats' one chance to get a public option for healthcare.
I love how apologists for Democrats' spinelessness never mention that the party could have done away with the filibuster forever with just 50 votes, and always pretend that Lieberman didn't have Ben Nelson's help in killing the public option.
They don't want to get rid of the filibuster because then they might actually have to pass substantive bills instead of giveaways to insurance companies and measly tax credits
What you seem mad about here are a small number of Democrats who refuse to get on board for big progressive bills.
What you're missing is that those Democrats aren't spineless, but rather they disagree. Their voters disagree with other Democrats and so pressure their representative to take stances other Democrats oppose.
This happens because the Democrat party is a coalition party. They don't move in lockstep as Republicans do, about anything.
You and I would likely vote for Democrats, given the alternative, and I assure you that we have very different politics. For instance, you see removing the fillibuster as a good way to pass reforms and I see it as a good way to get trans people killed the next time a Republicans commands both gavels.
If they're so scared of doing the right thing that they won't, that's spinelessness. If they don't want to do the right thing and will fight against it, I am under no obligation to support them.
uh...
And you oppose reform.
They're not going to let the filibuster stop them from doing it if they actually want to do it. They're not going to find just enough turncoats to keep the filibuster just to defend trans people. This is what I mean about spinelessness. You're so scared about what Republicans might do in the future that you're willing to preserve the filibuster, keeping badly needed reforms from happening. If you wanted to have protections for trans people, you would support ending the filibuster so we could put some in place. Republicans are gonna do what they're gonna do in either case. You'd rather gain nothing first. The more reforms we pass, the more popular policy Republicans will have to muster the political capital to undo before they can make things worse than they are today.
You're using a vulnerable minority as a rhetorical shield to defend a procedural nonsense that has been used to hold back human rights from minorities since Jim Crow. A proud tradition for what both you and Joe McCarthy call the Democrat Party.
In genuinely surprised that you put all this effort into a response and zero effort into processing what I said.
You skip over my actual points and just... ramble
And here we come to the part where a centrist can't address what a progressive has said and condescendingly dismisses it instead.
Concession accepted.
You literally know nothing about me. I explained how reality functions and you threw some weird tantrum over a one-line example.
Grow up.
I already accepted your concession.
You don't have do be more condescending just because you can't address what I wrote.
Thanks for the confirmation that you cannot clear the bar even when it is left on the ground.
What can I say. I'm not as good at limbo as you are.
Only 37% to 62% of eligible voters actually turn out for elections.
Any reason to think that will improve?
Yeah, that would have been a great strategy had we started it 30 years ago.
As it is the only way to repair this court in our lifetime is an overwhelming democratic sweep of the Senate, (and winning the presidency) and then massively restructuring the court to add enough new seats to get control back into the hands of the majority of Americans, and our of the hands of those corrupt, bigoted theocrats.
43 years ago... fucking Regan is responsible for a fuckton of this bullshit.
The party of ratfuckers would never let something like "the constituents' interest in political representation" keep them from winning elections.
We'll have to wait for them to die, too. With modern medical technology ACB could live to be 200. Then what?
That'll go well
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/biden-federal-judgeship-kentucky-conservative-anti-abortion-lawyer/index.html