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
No action?
On behalf of my gay daughter who will be able to marry who she wants to because of Democrats, I just want to say [REDACTED SO I WON'T GET BANNED]. And on behalf of my son, who is trans, [THESE WORDS WOULD ALSO GET ME BANNED].
Come to think of it, I have Democrats to thank for a return to sane pandemic policies, and Democrats to thank for the Inflation Reduction Act, the most impactful environmental legislation in thirty years. So you can take your "no action" and [NOPE, NOT GONNA SAY IT].
I'm under no illusion that Democrats are perfect, but they've been as effective as possible, given the situation with literal Russian assets on the other side of the aisle, trying as hard as possible to destroy America.
Democratic legislators won't protect her marriage by codifying Obergefell, just like they refused to codify Roe when they had the chance. Democratic legislators spent decades on half-measures and it had to be decided by the Supreme Court instead. Now that sort of incrementalism is a dead end. SCOTUS works against the people.
What part of the last two decades had a filibuster-proof Democratic supermajority in the Senate? I'll tell you: A two-week span under Obama, during which Ted Kennedy was busily dying in a hospital.
And what part of the last two decades had sufficient Democratic votes to eliminate or reform the filibuster? I'll tell you that, too: None.
Perfect is the enemy of the good. Democrats have been good for my daughter. Republicans are guaranteed, 100%, to be much, much worse. Stop trying to sabotage her future.
When the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell, what's Democrats' plan to get her rights back? We gave them the necessary majorities to codify both Roe and Obergefell, and they did neither. And I'm not seeing any concrete plans to move the needle back on Roe. Do you suppose there are any for Obergefell?
When it happens, will you also make excuses for how the party squandered majorities that we gave them?
When? When exactly did we give them those "necessary majorities?" The last time Democrats held a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate was a two-week stretch during the Obama presidency, while Ted Kennedy was dying in a hospital bed.
And do you think denying Democrats Senate seats in the future will help my kids more somehow? Spell out how carrying water for Republicans is going to help them.
Any time in which Democrats had at least 50 was sufficient to kill the filibuster forever. We gave them necessary majorities and they squandered them.
Did I say that? I can criticize Democrats when they're useless (which is virtually always) without wanting fewer of them in the Senate.
My apologies. I've been getting inundated by people who purport to believe that dividing the left up is a winning strategy, and mistakenly clumped you in with them.
No worries. I'm used to it.
Thanks. And for the record, I agree with you that it's 100% fair to criticize Democrats when they don't live up to their promises.
On behalf of your daughter who's marriage may be under threat because of the Respect for Marriage act from Democrats she may be no better off then before 2012 depending where she lives. What protections have Dems provided for your son other than lip service in the face of republicans passing over 500 anti-trans bills the last several years? The DNC claims to have their backs while denying them affordable housing, livable wages, access to affordable health and mental care. Nothing but lip service from them.
The first 2 months of US bombs in Gaza had the same environmental impact as burning 150k tons of coal. That war has been going on for nearly 12 months. Out of one side of their mouth they talk about mitigating environmental damage. But their actions tell a different story.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
If SCOTUS strikes down Obergefell or Loving it allows states to refuse licenses to same sex and/or interracial couples.
Ok? That's on SCOTUS.
Then the entire argument has nothing to do with democrats and you "people" are giving Dems, who are mostly anti gay marriage, way, way too much credit.
Oh cute, a 1 day old account spouting nonsense.
Or surprised to see this right wing nonsense outside of reddit and facebook. It's genuinely amazing that you people are smart enough to leave the mainstream internet.
If Russia was as half as powerful as you people give it credit for you'd be speaking russian already.
Blyat
Actually, you say a LOT more russian words than other posters in this community. That's very suspicious...
Maybe you can tell everyone what the word "Blyat" means, you know, so the Mods can find out what it means when you say it.
Oh, we know. Swearing is fine so long as it's not directed at other users.
All this time I thought he was just imitating a sound or something, and I thought it was such a bizarre thing to do in replies to people. Then I looked it up...and was like, ohhhhh.... lol
I don't know what that means.
Exactly!
You seem to think a lot of people here are working for Putin!
You don't get to speak on behalf of my daughter or my son when you're working as hard as you possibly can to elect the Republicans who want to destroy their futures.
Why you are supporting someone that won't protect them
The game you're playing: "Democrats are imperfect! They haven't done everything possible to protect your kids! Please pay no attention to the fact that they've been hamstrung by the filibuster in the Senate for decades, and a Supreme Court that's been stacked due to the electoral college giving Republicans two popular-vote losers as president in the span of 16 years. Ignore all that and fight like hell to keep Democrats out of office!"
You're fucking transparent, and again, someone fighting to get Republicans elected doesn't get to speak on behalf of my children.
It takes a simple plurality to eliminate the filibuster. They use it as a weapon to prevent legislation they have no intention of passing, just like their rotating villains
3 of those conservative sitting SCOTUS justices are there because of direct action from Democrats, they HELPED Republicans stack the court
Thank you. With that one sentence, you've made it clear I never have to take any of your assertions seriously.
It takes a majority to invoke the "nuclear option" and override Senate Rule XXII, not a plurality. Given the makeup and structure of the Senate, a plurality that is not also the majority on any given vote is for all intents and purposes impossible.
The "nuclear option" for overcoming the filibuster and changing its rules didn't even exist until Harry Reid came up with the idea in 2013. Before that, it was just a given that the only way to overcome a filibuster was by reaching 60 votes in favor of cloture.
Since that time, the Senate has only been either in Republican hands, or in razor-thin majority Democratic hands. There are several Democratic senators from conservative states who are on record since 2013 as opposing ending the filibuster for legislation.
That means any attempt to do so for the last ten years would have been a non-starter. And the only way to change that is to elect more Democrats, not fewer. Which you oppose.
So like I said, I'm done making the mistake of taking you seriously.
Nothing but excuses and carrying water for right wing authoritarians.
Like I said: Not serious.
We're done. Bye.
I'm sure you would be sticking around if I contributed to your echo chamber