384
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
384 points (93.6% liked)
politics
19086 readers
4075 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Biden could have put massive pressure on his party to pass the Equality Act to safeguard the rights of people of any sexuality or gender. He could have done so fiercely and publicly, and campaigned in the home states of those like Manchin and Sinema to threaten their seats if they did not comply.
Dems, who just love their identity politics, could have been actual allies during the first 2 years of Biden’s presidency while they held the supermajority and passed this, but chose not to. Are you really surprised? For the second time in as many decades, they also chose not to codify Roe v Wade, and this time it cost us women’s bodily autonomy.
Somehow I don't think "be mean to them!" would've made them suddenly fall in line. I find so often that arguments get distilled down to this, that Biden just needs to say the right words and then everyone will agree with him.
That's not how it works. If it was, Sanders would be president with a House and Senate that were 100% progressive. The uncomfortable fact is that there is no malicious self sabotage here -- it just wasn't possible.
Regarding Roe, there have never been 60 Democrat senators in favor of codifying Roe, or 50 Democrat senators willing to overturn the filibuster to codify it. Progressive senators needed to be elected, and weren't. If everyone who wanted abortion to be an unalienable right went out and voted for a progressive senator in 2016, 2020, or 2022, it could've easily been passed. But people didn't bother.
Perhaps those Senate candidates should've fiercely campaigned and denigrated pro abortion voters who refused to come out and vote? After all, you claim it's a magic cure all strategy to get people to do what you want.
I honestly could not disagree with your assessment more.
There’s literally a term for this “being mean to them” - it’s called using the bully pulpit, and in our finest moments of federal progressive activism it has proven incredibly effective. Read into how FDR managed to deal with the obstructionist Dixiecrats to learn more about this tactic.
Quite conversely, Senator Sanders is widely regarded as too nice. He wasn’t willing to fully commit to attacking establishment democrats for their corrupt ways, and many consider this to be the real reason he didn’t capture the nomination.
Speaking of establishment corruption - Dems had the 60 seats during Obama’s first term and chose not to pursue Roe codification. They had months to do so before Kennedy died, and I assure you that legislation has been drafted and ready to go for decades. They just needed to vote on it, but chose not to in order to continue fear mongering and fund raising over abortion rights. More recently during Biden’s first term, they could have abolished the filibuster to pass it once the Supreme Court’s motivations became clear via the leaked memo, but again chose to do nothing. That’s the establishment DNC for you.
Lastly, bullying voters is a losing strategy Dems have employed since at least 2016.it didn’t work then, and it isn’t working now. Consider demanding leadership with conviction instead.