6 ms·

"Proffer a strongly worded capitulation" was probably too much for publication.

by _bypa 4mo ago

davidw 4mo ago
Or scientists know how to count and see that one number is larger than another; and understand that that's an important factor in many political systems.
- pasquinelli 4mo ago
  interesting how that logic only applies about half the time.
  - mrguyorama 4mo ago
    It doesn't. The republicans are able to stop things a lot of the time because Democrats don't have a strong majority in either house. They can barely scrape together a 50% plus 1 vote by bringing in people who are "Democrat" but for example refuse to allow public option healthcare or shut down of coal plants. Republicans have voters that understand your guy has to be in the seat before you want something to happen. They correctly understand that if you just vote for more guys, you get more of what you want to happen, and correctly identify that the solution to not getting what you want is to get more seats in the next election. I can never understand the shocking lack of civics education from people who get upset at democrats for not having power when the system describes in plain language that you need numbers for the power. When Mitch McConnell prevented the vote to appoint a new supreme court justice, it was because he had that power as senate majority leader. If Democrats had a senate majority at that time, he could not have prevented the vote.
pkulak 4mo ago
[flagged]
- dyauspitr 4mo ago
  The republicans can have 1 senator in the senate and they somehow shuck and jive to get their way. They never fucking lose in implementing their outright evil. Break some rules, use strategy, set up some game pieces. Do something, anything. The democrats couldn’t even get a Supreme Court justice seated with 6 months to go for the next election.
  - xp84 4mo ago
    > 1 senator… Oh, please, that’s not true. But yeah, you need 60 seats there in order to just ram things through. Right now Democrats don’t even have a plurality of the voting public so it’s not surprising that they are completely powerless. > Democrats couldn’t even get a SC Justice… On this one though I’ll fully agree with you, they were 100% ratfucked on Garland’s nomination. In no universe was that more than 0% ethically justified. That was a craven and cowardly scheme.
    - bruce511 4mo ago
      The Supreme Court displays Democrat in abilities in a nutshell. Republicans ignored ethics to not-seat Garland. But equally RBG decided not to retire when democrats held the presidency and senate, despite her age. She is not the first person to put personal ambition ahead of country. There are plenty other examples, on both sides of the isle.
    - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
      51 votes can get rid of the filibuster. You don't need 60.
      - xp84 4mo ago
        Democrats don’t have 51 either, because they don’t believe in persuading voters anymore, just performing for their most dedicated fans.
        4mo ago

"Proffer a strongly worded capitulation" was probably too much for publication.

by _bypa 4mo ago

"Proffer a strongly worded capitulation" was probably too much for publication.

Or scientists know how to count and see that one number is larger than another; and understand that that's an important factor in many political systems.

pasquinelli 4mo ago
interesting how that logic only applies about half the time.
- mrguyorama 4mo ago
  It doesn't. The republicans are able to stop things a lot of the time because Democrats don't have a strong majority in either house. They can barely scrape together a 50% plus 1 vote by bringing in people who are "Democrat" but for example refuse to allow public option healthcare or shut down of coal plants. Republicans have voters that understand your guy has to be in the seat before you want something to happen. They correctly understand that if you just vote for more guys, you get more of what you want to happen, and correctly identify that the solution to not getting what you want is to get more seats in the next election. I can never understand the shocking lack of civics education from people who get upset at democrats for not having power when the system describes in plain language that you need numbers for the power. When Mitch McConnell prevented the vote to appoint a new supreme court justice, it was because he had that power as senate majority leader. If Democrats had a senate majority at that time, he could not have prevented the vote.

pkulak 4mo ago

[flagged]

dyauspitr 4mo ago
The republicans can have 1 senator in the senate and they somehow shuck and jive to get their way. They never fucking lose in implementing their outright evil. Break some rules, use strategy, set up some game pieces. Do something, anything. The democrats couldn’t even get a Supreme Court justice seated with 6 months to go for the next election.
- xp84 4mo ago
  > 1 senator… Oh, please, that’s not true. But yeah, you need 60 seats there in order to just ram things through. Right now Democrats don’t even have a plurality of the voting public so it’s not surprising that they are completely powerless. > Democrats couldn’t even get a SC Justice… On this one though I’ll fully agree with you, they were 100% ratfucked on Garland’s nomination. In no universe was that more than 0% ethically justified. That was a craven and cowardly scheme.
  - bruce511 4mo ago
    The Supreme Court displays Democrat in abilities in a nutshell. Republicans ignored ethics to not-seat Garland. But equally RBG decided not to retire when democrats held the presidency and senate, despite her age. She is not the first person to put personal ambition ahead of country. There are plenty other examples, on both sides of the isle.
  - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
    51 votes can get rid of the filibuster. You don't need 60.
    - xp84 4mo ago
      Democrats don’t have 51 either, because they don’t believe in persuading voters anymore, just performing for their most dedicated fans.
      - 4mo ago