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
Party spent decades not codifying it...
Didn't fight for Obama's SC seat, just accepted that the next president would pick it to try and help Clinton...
Took no actions since Roe was overturned...
But we're supposed to believe next term it'll be fixed?
They haven't even held a vote yet so voters will know what Dems are going to vote against it.
Why would anyone take Bidens word on this? Isn't the safe bet to assume the same thing will happen as the last campaign promises? Meaning as soon as he assumes office Biden will either "look into it" or he'll say there's not enough D votes so he can't try.
And the voters still won't know if their representatives would actually support party platform.
Please identify the Congressional term that had a pro-choice majority that could have passed federal abortion protections but did not. Do beware of the caveat that up until quite recently, the Democrats had a substantial minority faction of anti-abortion politicians from the south.
No one who's complained about the Dems apparently just deciding to miss what would be one of their greatest political victories for shits and giggles has ever been able to identify when this would have actually passed, but hey, maybe you'll be the first one.
The Dems had 2 months of a senate supermajority in the 2008-2010 Senate, with a majority in the House, then still had a majority for the rest of the term in both houses and as president. This was their first trifecta for almost 20 years and didn't deliver on any of their selling points from the 90s.
By 2008, Democrats were very, very, very deep on the "vote for us, we're saving abortion" side.
Republicans are objectively worse, but let's not pretend that the Democrats even make at attempt here.
Democrats are so useless as a collective in Congress that Biden appears left leaning.
And several of those Senators in that supermajority were against abortion rights. I can name them if you actually care.
Mate, I literally warned you against this. Two of those Senators were from god damned Arkansas, one from Indiana, and one from Louisiana. This was not the Democratic Party of the 2020s. Several of them voted for a federal ban on late-term abortions and bans for the use of any federal funding for abortions. Our good friend Joe Manchin was also in that majority.
Please though, do try again. You seemed very confident that this pro-abortion majority definitely existed, so I'll wait.
Two things.
One: even removing those listed senators from the supermajority, that still leaves a majority.
Two: their original comment lamented that the Democrats never even held a vote when they had control with the intent of putting their votes on the record, so that voters would know who actually supports their rights.
The party shouldn't try to sell itself as the party saving abortion.
They aren't entirely bad for failing to deliver on saving abortion given the limitations. They're bad for claiming to be able to solve all these problems while actively maintaining/campaigning for people that prevent fixing these issues.
That said, the Republicans are worse and third-party votes are a shit-show in the US, so it's not like there's really any other good option.
Oooh!
You've got more than feelings right? and can demonstrate some kind of political understanding (far beyond ours) on how the Dems will codify abortion?
Cuz from what you've said so far you've only proved that the Dems can't, even with a supermajority. (But not a real one lol)
What's unsaid by you is that Dems would need a supermajority in both houses and that those Dems would also have to be pro-abortion right? If you show me your worth we can talk about that next.
Can you tell me, with your knowledge, how we'll get there? how that will go? How Bidens promise to "make it his top priority" in a year will work? I don't know much, but i feel like he should have started already. Can we focus on how i should believe him?
I think that will be very hard. Because he can't, or won't. What i mean by "won't" is "Won't do enough to make it happen." What they will do is have an excuse when they fail. An excuse just like yours.
But you're here to tell me this is different, right? Cuz to me it just seems like a cynical, open-ended promise to "try", from a party specializing in "sorry, we tried".
I don't understand why you're so proud of this argument in that case, one that provides more ammunition for those who believe the Democrats will never codify abortion.
Can you tell me why you're making it?
Because his argument has understanding of the situation, and isn't a pithy tantrum.
If you want abortion, you have to vote for it. There are primaries coming up. Go vote for every pro-choice Republican and Democrat you can find. Let me know if you elect 60 of them to the Senate and 218 to Congress. Then you'll absolutely get your codified abortion rights.
Or maybe your whining about Dems will fix the problem.
Your big win is that for two months, during which Congress was scrambling to deal with a recession so bad we still feel its effects and Dems fought and lost a fight to get the public option in healthcare, they could have easily just codified the right to abortion. You're either a troll or an idiot. Either way, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Man if only there was some other piece of legislation they got passed during that 2 months... Maybe the largest healthcare overhaul in generations?
The one that said it was illegal to not buy health insurance? The "compromise" that turned it into a huge win for the insurance industry? And it still sounds like people are going bankrupt because of medical issues or having treatments blocked because some insurance asshole disagrees with their doctor.
Yes, the one that was neutered completely by republicans which was somehow Obama's fault for doing something instead of nothing, the very thing being condemned in this thread
Weren't we talking about a period of time when the Dems controlled the presidency, house and senate?
That wasn't the case when the aca was created
"Controlled". If having a monolithic voting bloc is your number one issue, then go vote Republican. By the way, they're not any better at passing legislation, so don't get your hopes up.
I have no vote in that race, just watching the dumpster fire from my own dumpster that itself is smoldering a bit.
Oh I remember, that’s the one that the Republicans literally created as RomneyCare
Democrats, assisting fascists since the invention of liberalism
I love how the guy you're responding to brought up the ACA, clearly unaware of all the sabotage the Democratic party did to it before they allowed the broken husk to pass. There were at least half a dozen Democrats involved, but don't forget what really brings the joke home, the Dems even had a ~~fall guy~~ intransigent senator to blame with a D by his name!! The man single- handedly destroyed the public option. Gosh, they were so close to 60 votes too!!
Fuck me, they accidentally provided the perfect example of how the Democrats "win" when they have power.
Lieberman was an independent at the time. For fuck's sake, if you're going to turf, at least get some of facts right.
Hmm? Lieberman wasnt who i was talking about my good man. Cmon, which Democrat, who was previously an insurance executive, blocked the public option? This info should be enough for you to Google their names.
I know this because i was there! See, back then i believed in, voted for, and even donated to the DNC! I have been watching a long time!
(Or i have been studying in a special putin camp where they teach 'turfers to know the history of your country's politics b/c i am a Russia astroturfer)
Or maybe, I'm a good ol American who is actually a trumpet in disguise! Maybe i really love trump but unlike most magats im kinda good at talking so they made me a liason to trick only the dumbest democrats! Only the dumbest of course, because the smartest of you guys immediately smell out any dissidents and call them 'turfers.
We Magats didn't make a very smart plan in that case, but what do you expect? We are dumb haha.
Which of the two am i? Definitely i am not who i have consistently said i am.
Definitely i am not an embittered ex-democrat who went hard for bernie and watched my own party crush him (oops thats a different 'turfers job, sorry Vladmir)
Definitely im not a real person trying to figure out what to do in a country i feel doesn't listen to me, or really any of us... definitely not losing hope some days.... Definitely i don't think to myself some days about the dichotomy of feeling when i post:
how much i want you to believe this is happening so i can have an ally, maybe one more person to see what it happening, vs. how little i want you to believe my message. Since even if i convinced you, id feel bad about the stress and pain you were about to go thru (the same i have been in since my realization). How little i wish that feeling of powelessness on anyone! I hate this feeling! I have no answers, only the black void of reality to share with you... Im fine that you don't believe, especially since i have no answers on what we should do next. If what im saying is true, you'll figure it out on your own time anyway.
If i were you, id rather believe i was a turfer too. See yah around comrade
Fucking breadcrumbs. Banks and insurance companies benefited more from Obama's presidency than the American people.
"Before you criticise our dear leaders, take into account the anti-choice people who the leadership actively supported and promoted!"
Every time a conservative democrat runs against a progressive or even a further left liberal, DNC leadership supports the conservative.
The last anti-choice Dem representative, Henry Cuellar, was losing to pro-choice progressive Jessica Cisneros until Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn endorsed him and personally showed up to speak at his rallies.
If they are that bad at governing they have no business getting reelected.
Maybe this is not a message for people who vote D, after all what you gonna do, vote for the R lunatics?. Maybe it is for moderate republicans, specially women, that got fucked and now may be looking for an alternative, so Biden spelling it out may give enough incentive for some to vote D.
What good would codifying Roe have done?
Edit: perhaps I should be more specific: what good would attempting to codify Roe have done?
The attempt would have allowed the voting base to identify who voted "nay," and vote them out. Even if the bill fails, if people scream the names of the representatives and senators that prevented it from passing, well those people would be primaried. That's why they won't even hold a vote on something that should be as simple as:
US statute XXXX: All people in the US have the right to reproductive healthcare. No medically approved procedure, treatment, or medicine shall be banned.
Done.
They won't because so much of the country is sick and fucking tired of this ~~issue~~ red herring that anyone that votes against it is very likely to be primaried.
I've seen similar arguments for other cases. If Dems do it and not all Dems vote for it, the anti-Dem left says "all Dems are at fault and they're doing nothing". If Dems are united behind it but Republicans block it, then it's "Dems knew the GOP would block it, and they're doing nothing". If Dems do it and it passes, but then the courts block it, then it's "they knew the courts would block it and they're still doing nothing". If the Dems do it and it passes, then it's "that wasn't important compared to 15 other issues, and they're still doing nothing".
It's a Hobson's Choice.
If what you want is a list of names, then you can do that without them calling a vote. Go to your representative's town hall events and ask them their position. If you don't like their answer, find a primary opponent. Doubly so if you live in a gerrymandered district where Dems will always win (the mathematics of gerrymandering is that you give your opponent safe districts, but fewer than your side has). The Tea Party figured out this formula and it's one thing the left ought to learn from them.
Codify would have meant drawing it up and adding it to the constitution as a human right. An amendment. The Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional, but if it is in the amendment, it is what the SC would rule as acceptable. (Not saying it always appears that way these days)
You should look into what it takes to add an amendment to the constitution. Barring civil war, aliens landing on the whitehouse lawn, or similar galvanizing incident, I'm doubtful the US will be unified enough to be capable of passing an amendment to the constitution on ANY topic for ANY purpose during the lifetime of anyone reading this comment, and I'm doubtful we could have done so within at least the past 20 years.
To add to that, even amendments that only affect the overall structure of government, with no particular favor to any political party, are almost impossible to pass. For example, the last amendment ratified was the 27th, and all it did was prevent Congress from passing its own salary increase and having it take affect before the next election. Simple nuts and bolts stuff. It was proposed in 1789 and wasn't ratified until 1992.
For an abortion amendment that would be so obviously divisive? Forget it. Waste of everyone's time.
Don’t forget that when an amendment does get ratified, you’ve got to really nail it or else people will still be fighting over the verbiage.
You’d think “keep it simple stupid” would suffice, but look at how we interpret this:
IANAL, but I see a few things as I read it:
Should I be able to buy a nuke? An ICBM? A tank? Live grenades? Where is the line drawn? When does it transition from “civilian hunting and defense” to “military fetishism” to “para-military/militia” to “military”. Because it must be somewhere. And I feel like there’s one group of those four that’s really being a stick in the mud over it.
United States v. Miller did interpret the Second Amendment along those lines. It was a challenge against the NFA's ban on short barreled shotguns. Ruling was that because a short barreled shotgun isn't something a militia would use, the government could ban it.
That leads to an interpretation nobody likes. You can ban short barreled shotguns, but not stuff a militia would use. Stuff like fully automatic weapons or rocket propelled grenades.
Yeah the fucking ERA failed.
I do think there’s a chance for an explicit right to privacy as an amendment but it needs to be really campaigned on as it’d give the democrats most of what they want socially
That would never pass.
Not currently no. I agree. I was just answering what codify was likely said to mean in that context
Codify means laws, generally not amendments.
If it were just made a law then it would be ruled unconstitutional according to the SC, thats why I said amendment. No way 2/3rds support on both the senate and congress will happen anytime soonq. I agree with your definition though
Could be, but given that the argument that they used to overturn RvW was, :it's not our job to write the laws, the states and Congress have that job:. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that even the current SCOTUS isn't that blatantly hypocritical.