If I were advising democrats:

[sandtown]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

What the Dems should do the next time they control Congress is . .

early in the session enact M4A, get it up and running,

and then dare the GOPPERS to repeal it two years later.

But I am saddened to report that the corporatist Dems will likely not do this.

[sandtown]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

I'm opposed to the filibuster, too. I do fear, however, a 51 vote Republican majority, as many fear a 51 vote dem majority.

The first thing we need to

No, the first thing we need is for you to admit that you were wrong in your post about the filibuster above.

[David G]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

Volunteer? When? I work 60 hours a week. Last time . . . no, every fu24ing time I got involved, I ended up doing most of the work, I ended up watching everyone else making it a social event, rather than doing work.

Yeah, I'll keep voting for the less evil . . . . ffffffffu34 . . .

We all have to make our own priorities. There have been periods of my life where activism faded to a trickle in the face of other urgencies: family commitments, building a business, etc.

BUT, do remember that Plato WAS right, and remains so --

[Too Little Time]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

The facts, however, appear that democrats believe a woman should have control of her body.

The facts suggest that the Democrats had control over the issue during the Obama and Biden administrations. They did nothing to demonstrate your belief.

[sandtown]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

The facts suggest that the Democrats had control over the issue during the Obama and Biden administrations. They did nothing to demonstrate your belief.

True, but what did the GOPPERS do ??

[Art Haberland]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

The facts suggest that the Democrats had control over the issue during the Obama and Biden administrations. They did nothing to demonstrate your belief.

Obama had Democratic majorities in both houses for a grand total of 4 months. The Dems have control of the Senate, but not the house. Exactly how is Biden supposed to get anything past the Republicans, who are dead set on not passing anything he or any other moderate wants. Considering they are now blocking any votes at all by holding a temper tantrum over the Debt Ceiling, I do not see that changing before the next election.

[WI-Tom]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

With the current list of 9 declared republican contenders and possibly more to come and ONE Aging Democrat, whose poll numbers are flat below 50% approval. Does anyone se the Deja Vu all over again. Trump has a huge lead and he will dismantle all of them and derive more power from their defeat just like 2016 and faced with an aging Biden there could be a replete of 2016. I would not put it past him.

THIS IS WHY he should have been impeached the second time.

Ahem... He was impeached the second time. The only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

Exactly right. It would only take 51 Senators, or 50 plus the VP to eliminate the filibuster entirely. We can debate whether it would be a good idea or not (I think it would), but it would only take 51 votes.

I'd like to see the filibuster either removed, or reinstated as an actual talking filibuster.

Why don't Dems do it?

Well, a rational fear of escalation and unintended consequences, maybe. I can see that (although why on earth do Dems think Republicans need any excuse to continue their attack on the rule of law and precedent?).

But I worry that the real reason is, Dems don't actually want to stand for anything. If they took power, they'd have to do something with that power. And they seem afraid that whatever they did, they would displease some people.

So instead of actually committing to an ideology, they commit to "playing it safe." How well they have trained their voters!

Rather than understanding that the progressive wing of the party appeals to voters precisely because of their willingness to stand for an actual set of beliefs and principles, "ideologicaly purity" is seen as a childish and destructive force in politics, and "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is the rallying cry. (Translation: Don't expect us to actually do anything significant, because then some people might not vote for us--instead, everyone should vote for us in full confidence, knowing that we won't do anything but maintain the status quo).

Now, the status quo under Democrats is FAR better than anything under today's Republicans. That's a no-brainer.

But Democrats have a long history of disappointing the very people whose votes they need, and then insisting that those people vote for them again and again.

They could:

1. End the filibuster
2. Enlarge the Supreme Court
3. Pass legislation without a single Republican vote

But, they aren't doing those things. Isn't that curious?


Tom

[Too Little Time]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

Obama had Democratic majorities in both houses for a grand total of 4 months. The Dems have control of the Senate, but not the house. Exactly how is Biden supposed to get anything past the Republicans, who are dead set on not passing anything he or any other moderate wants. Considering they are now blocking any votes at all by holding a temper tantrum over the Debt Ceiling, I do not see that changing before the next election.

I guess we can agree that Obama had 4 months and did nothing on this issue or many other issues. Last Congressional term Biden did nothing when the Democrats had control. Preferring to wait until the new Congress took office.

I and others have said the Democrats need to have legislation written and ready for a vote just in case they get control of the government. They just don't seem interested.

[John Smith]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

Ahem... He was impeached the second time. The only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice.

Tom

I wonder: if McConnell had it to do over again would Trump have been convicted in the senate?

[John Smith]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

I'd like to see the filibuster either removed, or reinstated as an actual talking filibuster.

Why don't Dems do it?

Well, a rational fear of escalation and unintended consequences, maybe. I can see that (although why on earth do Dems think Republicans need any excuse to continue their attack on the rule of law and precedent?).

But I worry that the real reason is, Dems don't actually want to stand for anything. If they took power, they'd have to do something with that power. And they seem afraid that whatever they did, they would displease some people.

So instead of actually committing to an ideology, they commit to "playing it safe." How well they have trained their voters!

Rather than understanding that the progressive wing of the party appeals to voters precisely because of their willingness to stand for an actual set of beliefs and principles, "ideologicaly purity" is seen as a childish and destructive force in politics, and "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is the rallying cry. (Translation: Don't expect us to actually do anything significant, because then some people might not vote for us--instead, everyone should vote for us in full confidence, knowing that we won't do anything but maintain the status quo).

Now, the status quo under Democrats is FAR better than anything under today's Republicans. That's a no-brainer.

But Democrats have a long history of disappointing the very people whose votes they need, and then insisting that those people vote for them again and again.

They could:

1. End the filibuster
2. Enlarge the Supreme Court
3. Pass legislation without a single Republican vote

But, they aren't doing those things. Isn't that curious?


Tom

How do you pass a bill without a vote from the GOP when you don't have enough dems?

Expanding the court only works if you are in power to fill the new seats.

Dems did pass the ACA, and had they more votes, it would have been a better bill.

Dems support a woman's right to choose, oppose laws opposing gay, trans,etc.

The do stand for stuff. However, it takes votes to get things done, and too many people either don't vote, or vote for Republicans.

Let us not forget when Hillary was working on healthcare. GOP blasted her for working 'behind closed doors' in spite of the FACT that it would have to be debated on the floor of both chambers before becoming law. Those who blasted her had no problem with Cheney developing an energy policy behind closed doors that would NOT be debated in the house or senate.

[John Smith]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

I guess we can agree that Obama had 4 months and did nothing on this issue or many other issues. Last Congressional term Biden did nothing when the Democrats had control. Preferring to wait until the new Congress took office.

I and others have said the Democrats need to have legislation written and ready for a vote just in case they get control of the government. They just don't seem interested.

"Control" is an interesting word. One needs 60 senators to have control, no?

[WI-Tom]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

"Control" is an interesting word. One needs 60 senators to have control, no?

No. This has been pointed out to you before, multiple times. A simple majority suffices.

Tom

[Too Little Time]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

"Control" is an interesting word. One needs 60 senators to have control, no?

I believe you hold some to a high standard of truth. Yet, you don't recognize it.

Perhaps the first thing the Democrats need to do is make voters (including those who vote in Congress) understand the rules and the process to change them.

[sandtown]

Re: If I were advising democrats:

"Control" is an interesting word. One needs 60 senators to have control, no?

NOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!

Jeebus !!