3 ms·

> 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 pluralit

by xp84 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
51 votes can get rid of the filibuster. You don't need 60.
- xp84 5mo ago
  Democrats don’t have 51 either, because they don’t believe in persuading voters anymore, just performing for their most dedicated fans.
  - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
    It flips back and forth. We'll what happens in a few months. Could go either way.