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
The fact that the Democrats want to keep the filibuster to keep progressives in check just makes their cave-in even worse.
Also, by acknowledging that this was the reason for their submission, it makes it first what we suspected: despite his denials, this move was orchestrated by Schumer, and the "defectors" were specifically chosen because they were either retiring or not up for re-election for so long that other "good deeds" for the manufactured to give them cover when they are up for re-election.
At this point, I'm only staying with the Democrats so I can pull them as far to the left in the primaries, after that they're on their own.
I'm not sure where you got the idea they "acknowledged" this as their reason. It's a wholly unsupported theory based on nothing but some random opinion in the NYT (although I do love the notion that this opinion somehow "got lost amid the excitement" as opposed to simply being uninteresting).
It doesn't even make sense. You don't need an opposition filibuster unless the majority of the party is "fringe" (straining the meaning of fringe). There are plenty of other ways to bury a bill or -- worst case -- excuse a couple defectors.
The writers at Jacobin want it to be true, because they need a reason why progressives aren't in power that involves conspiracies.