this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
5 points (51.9% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2609 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh, which one is taking us further away from fascism? Because I'm not seeing one that is. I see one that's hurtling headlong toward fascism and another that is coasting towards it.

I get that you want to pretend that the Democratic Party is making strides away from fascism, but they're just fucking not.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

What actions by Dems do you see as "coasting towards" fascism?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans' attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.

Not to mention actually accelerating under power toward the same destination with Gaza and the border.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days. Why wouldn't SCOTUS have overturned their law when they struck Roe? Matters of health and wellness tend to be the purview of the states. Where does Congress get the power? Interstate Commerce Clause?

They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans' attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

And SCOTUS wouldn't gut it just like they already gutted the voting rights act already? They didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, so how were they getting it through the Senate...you know, where it failed?

Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.

No they couldn't. None of these things would get through a Republican controlled house, nor would they have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.

This is what bothers me constantly. The Dems try to do things, Republicans block them, and then idiots say the Dems don't do anything. Republicans currently control the house and the Dems don't have 60 votes in the Senate. They only have a majority due to Independents caucusing with them. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster.

Congress only has the powers expressly given to them, all others are the purview of the states. It is ludicrous to think SCOTUS doesn't overturn these laws that could have been passed in Congress.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the "times, places, and manner of holding elections". Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days.

During which time the sun was in their eyes and the dog ate their homework. They could have killed the filibuster forever with only 50 votes. If they had wanted to protect Roe.

Where does Congress get the power?

If they don't have the power, they shouldn't have run on it. They shouldn't have lied and said they did. Or they weren't lying and you're just making excuses.

The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one "they don't have 60" excuse. If the Jim Crow Filibuster is more important to Democrats than all the shit they won't do for their voters, then the only reason we give them majorities is to slow the slide into fascism. Not to reverse it. That would, as you are delighted to point out, require 60 votes. And when they have the opportunity to slow the train, well shucky dern, that lil' ol' filibuster is there to save them from having to do jack shit.

We gave them the seats needed to do this. If you don't demand lockstep from those we elect, don't you dare demand it from voters.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one "they don't have 60" excuse.

You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works, yet you steadfastly blame the party not responsible. There is literally no point in talking to you.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works

50 is enough to end the filibuster forever. You don't want it to happen.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Since 2012, the Democrats haven't held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you're uninformed. In fact, so much so that you're a Dunning Kruger wet dream.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats and vote with them more reliably than actual registered party members, there are 50 seats. Your excuses are shit, and you know it.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats...

So it's the Democrats fault that people who aren't Democrats don't support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you're ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you're right. That's pathetic.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean they've been ignoring their constituents and instead pandering to Republicans while supporting their pet country's genocide even as it leads the Middle East closer to another large scale war. There's only one answer at the end of the democrats' right wing shift and that's fascism.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Dems haven't shifted right. They advocate and vote for rights for LGBTQ, worker's rights, and a myriad of other causes. The Democrats attempt to pass favorable laws, they are blocked procedurally by the Republicans, and then idiots say that the Democrats don't do anything. It's a tired refrain.

I would love to see Democrats take a harder line against Israel, but if they had how would this election season be going?? How much money has AIPAC spent? Does it make sense to take a hard line against Israel, and then lose the presidential election, lose the house, and lose the Senate? What do you think happens in Israel and Palestine with a republican supermajority and control of the White House?

Take time to understand situations before commenting on them. The Democrats largely haven't had the ability to pass laws through the house and the Senate without the Republicans obstructing it. Only for about 70 days in the last few decades.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I admittedly don't keep up with the nitty gritty of American politics, but Harris is campaigning on fracking and Republican-style border control. If this doesn't sound like a rightward shift I don't know what is.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

No, you don't understand! It hasn't become politically expedient to throw trans people under the bus yet like Democrats did with the undocumented! As long as there is at least one vulnerable population they haven't yet chucked under the wheels for the sheer joy of hearing the thumping sounds, they're the good party!

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago