3 ms·

Senators are not beholden to their party leadership like for example representatives in the house of commons are. Biden had a trifecta and wanted to remove the

Senators are not beholden to their party leadership like for example representatives in the house of commons are. Biden had a trifecta and wanted to remove the filibuster but manchin and sinema refused. At that point there was nothing he could do.

lapcat 3y ago
> Senators are not beholden to their party leadership That's because the Senate is an incumbent reelection support group. Party leadership doesn't want to put pressure on its members. > like for example representatives in the house of commons are The House of Commons is the UK. The House of Representatives is the US. > Biden had a trifecta and wanted to remove the filibuster False. Biden has supported a small number of limited exceptions to the filibuster for specific purposes. He has opposed eliminating the filibuster. > manchin and sinema refused Manchin and Sinema were not in the Senate during the first terms of the Obama or Clinton administrations. What about then? > At that point there was nothing he could do. Nothing the President of the United States can do...
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  > Manchin and Sinema were not in the Senate during the first terms of the Obama or Clinton administrations. What about then? Joe Lieberman refused. I don't really get this conspiracy narrative. No, Biden isn't a king, he can't pass laws without 50 senators. He didn't have that because he can't remove senators who vote against his policy like they do in the UK. Dems are not a monolith, leadership supporting a bill doesn't mean the politicians will vote for it.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Joe Lieberman refused. At one point in the Obama administration, Democrats had 60 Senators, and again, only 51 are required to abolish the filibuster. So you can't blame 1 person. Democrats are the greatest at coming up with excuses for why Democrats can't do anything. There's always an excuse, always a scapegoat. > I don't really get this conspiracy narrative. It's not a conspiracy, it's just typical politics. > No, Biden isn't a king, he can't pass laws without 50 senators. There's a lot more to politics than just voting. The President is the party leader and one of the most famous people in the country. POTUS can make a case publicly to the American people, lobby behind the scenes, twist arms, threaten, fundraise or refuse to fundraise, etc. Legal authority aside, POTUS has more political tools available than anyone. But again, Biden has never wanted to abolish the filibuster. Carving out tiny exceptions is actually a dumb idea. Get rid of the damn thing. (Moreover, Biden himself was pro-life personally and only came to support abortion rights because he had to as a Democrat. His heart has never been in it.) Let me come back to this though: you say Manchin and Sinema and Lieberman "refused", but show me their votes. When did the Senate vote to end the filibuster? Making politicians vote on the public record is a form of pressure. Politicians have to run on their votes and defend them. They don't have to defend nonexistent votes. That's part of the Congressional incumbent protection service: not forcing members of Congress to make votes that would be personally problematic for them.

lapcat 3y ago

> Senators are not beholden to their party leadership That's because the Senate is an incumbent reelection support group. Party leadership doesn't want to put pressure on its members. > like for example representatives in the house of commons are The House of Commons is the UK. The House of Representatives is the US. > Biden had a trifecta and wanted to remove the filibuster False. Biden has supported a small number of limited exceptions to the filibuster for specific purposes. He has opposed eliminating the filibuster. > manchin and sinema refused Manchin and Sinema were not in the Senate during the first terms of the Obama or Clinton administrations. What about then? > At that point there was nothing he could do. Nothing the President of the United States can do...

HDThoreaun 3y ago
> Manchin and Sinema were not in the Senate during the first terms of the Obama or Clinton administrations. What about then? Joe Lieberman refused. I don't really get this conspiracy narrative. No, Biden isn't a king, he can't pass laws without 50 senators. He didn't have that because he can't remove senators who vote against his policy like they do in the UK. Dems are not a monolith, leadership supporting a bill doesn't mean the politicians will vote for it.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Joe Lieberman refused. At one point in the Obama administration, Democrats had 60 Senators, and again, only 51 are required to abolish the filibuster. So you can't blame 1 person. Democrats are the greatest at coming up with excuses for why Democrats can't do anything. There's always an excuse, always a scapegoat. > I don't really get this conspiracy narrative. It's not a conspiracy, it's just typical politics. > No, Biden isn't a king, he can't pass laws without 50 senators. There's a lot more to politics than just voting. The President is the party leader and one of the most famous people in the country. POTUS can make a case publicly to the American people, lobby behind the scenes, twist arms, threaten, fundraise or refuse to fundraise, etc. Legal authority aside, POTUS has more political tools available than anyone. But again, Biden has never wanted to abolish the filibuster. Carving out tiny exceptions is actually a dumb idea. Get rid of the damn thing. (Moreover, Biden himself was pro-life personally and only came to support abortion rights because he had to as a Democrat. His heart has never been in it.) Let me come back to this though: you say Manchin and Sinema and Lieberman "refused", but show me their votes. When did the Senate vote to end the filibuster? Making politicians vote on the public record is a form of pressure. Politicians have to run on their votes and defend them. They don't have to defend nonexistent votes. That's part of the Congressional incumbent protection service: not forcing members of Congress to make votes that would be personally problematic for them.