• orcrist
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 minutes ago

    Well this is a no-brainer, isn’t it. As a tool, the filibuster has always been hogwash. If the rules are that you need 60 votes, then make that the official rules. Or don’t, but don’t leave it like it is. She’s probably just talking the talk, but it’s something worth saying and maybe she means it.

    • Gigasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Tbf, she says she supports ending the filibuster. Whether or not she can do it or convince enough senators to do so is another thing entirely.

        • FlaminGoku@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          35 minutes ago

          Exactly. The old filibuster rule actually required some true effort. This, sending an email bullshit is not at all what the filibuster entails.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 minutes ago

            I’d rather they eliminate it.

            • They aren’t having actual discussions anyways. Just vote already.

            • Grueling filibusters are ableist; I don’t want physical endurance to be a factor in who wins votes.

      • TachyonTele
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        That’s true. We’ve heard it before though, and it’s been dropped a few times. To me it just sounds like a campaign promise.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          The filibuster makes a big difference when the president, the speaker of the house, a majority of the House, and between 50-59 senators all support something.

          If you don’t have all of those others lined up, the filibuster isn’t the only hurdle.

          For example, Biden hasn’t been president during a Democratic-controlled House, so everything he’s accomplished legislatively has been with the support of either Kevin McCarthy or Mike Johnson, who have been the critical veto point while he has been president.

          Plus with only 51 Senators in the Democratic caucus (and 50 in the last Congress), getting 50 votes through Manchin and Sinema has been a challenge sometimes, too.

          The last time the filibuster has mattered for a Democratic president in actual legislation was the 111th Congress, when Democrats last held a trifecta. The Democrats did abolish the filibuster for presidential appointments, which don’t go through the House, during the 113th Congress, when they controlled the White House and the Senate.

          I think it’s pretty obvious that the filibuster is gone the next time it matters, the next time there’s same party control of all 3. It’s just that it’s better if it’s Democrats in control.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Democrats are just as capable of whipping a vote as republicans when they feel like it.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I’m excited to see people screaming “Presidents don’t have the power to do that, idiot!” when some far left Trump loving Tankie brings up this promise in another six months.

      • TachyonTele
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        I don’t understand what you mean. I’m saying prove it as in do what you’re promising.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          13 hours ago

          She won’t. And when it comes time to talk about her failure, you’ll be castigated for bringing it up.

          • TachyonTele
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Honestly, I’ll be surprised if I even remember about it next year.

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Well is she gonna overturn President Joe Mansion’s veto?

    Does she feel like appointing an AG who will go after him and his family’s various conflicts of interests?

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        My point is “is she going to take the necessary action to whip the vote”, Manchin isn’t the only dem senator who’d rather the democrats didn’t accomplish anything as it could hurt their donors.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Really? “Joe Mansion”? That’s Trump-level wordplay. Surely you can do better?

      • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        They’re referring to the Senator from West Virginia, who’s literally named Joe Mansion. He’s a living political cartoon of a corrupt politician. He’s also not seeking reelection, so Kamala wouldn’t need to negotiate with him at all to begin with.

  • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    13 hours ago

    How many times does the boy have to cry wolf before people realize there is no wolf? This is more of that ‘on day one’ bullshit we heard from Obama, dangling carrots in front of voters to lure them to the poles only for them to backtrack the day after being sworn in.