4 ms·

No, we lost Roe v. Wade because the democrat party is so useless at representing our interests they failed to ever pass any law granting the right to abortion.

No, we lost Roe v. Wade because the democrat party is so useless at representing our interests they failed to ever pass any law granting the right to abortion. Republicans didn't sit on their hands complacently for 40 years like democrats they followed a systematic approach to overturning it. Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L

JohnMakin 2y ago
> Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L I agree with you, except to me it's far more insidious - they used the threat of things like roe v wade being overturned and reproductive rights being taken away to drive donations and voter turnout, thus incentivizing themselves to never actually deal with that looming problem.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  Good point! I'm just so frustrated by it because while I don't agree with their positions on basically anything, the republican party appears to do a good job furthering the interests of their voters. I know they're less diverse etc. etc. but it just sucks to see
  - mindslight 2y ago
    As a libertarian, analyzing the information flow of the political parties in reverse of how it's normally assumed is illuminating - how good is each party at building support for the policies that their sponsors have bought? In this sense on the national stage, the republican party does a much better job convincing its members that the party's policies are their own interests. Whereas democrats are more likely to begrudgingly but pragmatically vote for their party's candidates while actually disliking their policies. See also the quick about-face dynamic of "I never thought the leopard would eat MY face" when the larger cognitive dissonance ends up collapsing in a very personal way.
michaelmrose 2y ago
The filibuster makes this basically impossible to do without some degree of Republican support. Overturning the filibuster is problematic because Democrats either haven't had the votes to do so or it would have required the votes of moderates who want to use it for cover. The senate is so constructed that the senators voting can represent 2/3 of the population and not even have 50% of the votes in the senate. In the last 24 years the Democrats have had more than a bare majority in both house and senate while holding the presidency exactly 2 years between 2009–2011. The backlash for daring to do anything at all lost them both and they haven't had this since.
seadan83 2y ago
Did Democrats have a filibuster proof majority since 1970? IIRC that has not been the case since at least 2000 (perhaps going back even further). Passing such a law would require a filibuster proof majority. I agree to the sentiment of uselessness, but some fairness should be payed. Congress is kinda dysfunctional with any serious legislation requiring a super majority in congress and the presidency.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  Yes, twice. 95th Congress in 1977-1979 there were 61 Democrat Senators And briefly in 2009-10 at the beginning of Obama's first term.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Ah, I forgot the 2009 period - thank you for looking that up! I personally feel the Democrats were not moving to pass that legislation in 2009 because it "felt" that Roe was solid after having been challenged so many times. Therefore the legislation would have been unnecessary and (arguably) bad politics. I don't mean to shift goal posts. This is where I agree with the sentiment expressed and (as pointed out) there was opportunity. It is quite damning, the democratic party has the problem of not playing hardball.
redundantly 2y ago
This downplays the GOP’s role. Their decades-long plan, including stacking the courts, reveals just how hateful and ruthless they are in pursuing their agenda. While Democrats could have done more, obstacles like the filibuster and narrow majorities made passing protections difficult. The bigger issue is the GOP’s deliberate and depraved effort to strip away rights. Don’t give them a pass on it by blaming others.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Ruthless? Sure. Hateful? No. Kindly stop furthering the societal division in our country.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - redundantly 2y ago
    Yes, hateful. Restricting human rights oppresses, controls, and dehumanizes people.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  I'm sorry but this is such a loser take. You're mad at your opponents for playing the game? I would hate to be on your team in any kind of competition
  - Krssst 2y ago
    It's fine to be mad at an opponent whose goal is making people miserable.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - redundantly 2y ago
    When playing a game, I wouldn't want to be on a team with someone who views the struggle for basic human rights as a game.
EasyMark 2y ago
There was 1 time in the past 50 years when that might have happened during Obama’s term for a couple of months, as opposed to republicans polices that want to send women back to the 1850’s for going on decades now. I’ll be fine with blaming dems 1% vs 99% of the repressive efforts of the GOP

JohnMakin 2y ago

> Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L I agree with you, except to me it's far more insidious - they used the threat of things like roe v wade being overturned and reproductive rights being taken away to drive donations and voter turnout, thus incentivizing themselves to never actually deal with that looming problem.

snapcaster 2y ago
Good point! I'm just so frustrated by it because while I don't agree with their positions on basically anything, the republican party appears to do a good job furthering the interests of their voters. I know they're less diverse etc. etc. but it just sucks to see
- mindslight 2y ago
  As a libertarian, analyzing the information flow of the political parties in reverse of how it's normally assumed is illuminating - how good is each party at building support for the policies that their sponsors have bought? In this sense on the national stage, the republican party does a much better job convincing its members that the party's policies are their own interests. Whereas democrats are more likely to begrudgingly but pragmatically vote for their party's candidates while actually disliking their policies. See also the quick about-face dynamic of "I never thought the leopard would eat MY face" when the larger cognitive dissonance ends up collapsing in a very personal way.

michaelmrose 2y ago

The filibuster makes this basically impossible to do without some degree of Republican support. Overturning the filibuster is problematic because Democrats either haven't had the votes to do so or it would have required the votes of moderates who want to use it for cover. The senate is so constructed that the senators voting can represent 2/3 of the population and not even have 50% of the votes in the senate. In the last 24 years the Democrats have had more than a bare majority in both house and senate while holding the presidency exactly 2 years between 2009–2011. The backlash for daring to do anything at all lost them both and they haven't had this since.

seadan83 2y ago

Did Democrats have a filibuster proof majority since 1970? IIRC that has not been the case since at least 2000 (perhaps going back even further). Passing such a law would require a filibuster proof majority. I agree to the sentiment of uselessness, but some fairness should be payed. Congress is kinda dysfunctional with any serious legislation requiring a super majority in congress and the presidency.

WillPostForFood 2y ago
Yes, twice. 95th Congress in 1977-1979 there were 61 Democrat Senators And briefly in 2009-10 at the beginning of Obama's first term.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Ah, I forgot the 2009 period - thank you for looking that up! I personally feel the Democrats were not moving to pass that legislation in 2009 because it "felt" that Roe was solid after having been challenged so many times. Therefore the legislation would have been unnecessary and (arguably) bad politics. I don't mean to shift goal posts. This is where I agree with the sentiment expressed and (as pointed out) there was opportunity. It is quite damning, the democratic party has the problem of not playing hardball.

redundantly 2y ago

This downplays the GOP’s role. Their decades-long plan, including stacking the courts, reveals just how hateful and ruthless they are in pursuing their agenda. While Democrats could have done more, obstacles like the filibuster and narrow majorities made passing protections difficult. The bigger issue is the GOP’s deliberate and depraved effort to strip away rights. Don’t give them a pass on it by blaming others.

Dalewyn 2y ago
Ruthless? Sure. Hateful? No. Kindly stop furthering the societal division in our country.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  [flagged]
- redundantly 2y ago
  Yes, hateful. Restricting human rights oppresses, controls, and dehumanizes people.
snapcaster 2y ago
I'm sorry but this is such a loser take. You're mad at your opponents for playing the game? I would hate to be on your team in any kind of competition
- Krssst 2y ago
  It's fine to be mad at an opponent whose goal is making people miserable.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- redundantly 2y ago
  When playing a game, I wouldn't want to be on a team with someone who views the struggle for basic human rights as a game.

EasyMark 2y ago

There was 1 time in the past 50 years when that might have happened during Obama’s term for a couple of months, as opposed to republicans polices that want to send women back to the 1850’s for going on decades now. I’ll be fine with blaming dems 1% vs 99% of the repressive efforts of the GOP