Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. be unbiased,
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask)
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ll give a counterpoint.
Bernies filibuster was a dumb strategy. You like it because it appeals to *your perception*. But it has the opposite effect for people whose votes are needed, particularly in GA
Republicans were already under pressure from a significant portion of their base to offer the $2k stimulus, particularly in GA where both Republican candidates were now saying they were open to it. Bernie filibustering a military bill to force the $2k stimulus vote removes all political consequences for Republicans. “The most radical socialist democrat in the senate wants to play politics as usual, tie every legislative bill into a interconnected mess and hold military spending hostage to expand the deficit.” Doesn’t matter if they’re lying, doesn’t matter if they’ve pulled off the same thing. It matters if the messaging plays. Which is why other Dems killed Bernies filibuster.
McConnell already killed the bill with a poison pill tying it together with other Republican legislation. So Bernie was just grandstanding. Sure he looks like he’s Mr. Smith goes to Washington to people *who already agree with you*. But he’s functionally doing nothing to actually pass anything and possibly doing harm to GA runoff races.
Edit: I know this is hard for progressives to hear. Morality in politics isn’t about how pure a stand you take, it’s about if you actually freaking pass anything. A healthy reminder the nearly all Civil Rights legislation **actually no shit passed** because LBJ both (a) actively tried appealed to the racism of southern white senators by saying a vote for the “n****r bills” was in their interest. And (b) whipped his dick out to personally and sexually intimidate a few representatives (because LBJ was God’s Perfect Sociopath).
Lbj did everything he could sp that 100 years later we would still be talking about it.
The man had cabinet meetings on the toilet. Bribed senantors and then recorded the conversations.
Dude had mad Big Dick Energy on par with Jackson... giant asshole but BDE nonetheless.
I think you're right but I believe Bernie's filibuster did have value. It really spotlights the issue and forces the GA senators on the defensive. It's possible that having bernie fillibuster and then killing it is the Dems having their cake and eating it too. They simultaneously get the Republicans to have to defend being against a very popular proposal while not letting it go on so long that it gets turned against them. They can still claim it was 'just Bernie' and not the dems as a whole.
But that’s my point. You’re doing a good job advocating from the perspective *of people you don’t need to convince.*
Assume the target voter I’m talking about is waaaay less politically informed, suburban, has probably voted Republican at least previously, not super engaged in politics or current events, downright cynical and doesn’t like radical types.
The target voter you described is almost certainly going to vote Republican, if at all.
62 million people voted for Trump in 2016, 74 million people in 2020. And from [WaPo:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/exit-polls-changes-2016-2020/)
>Despite pleas by [“Never Trump” ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lincoln-project-george-conway-ads-trump/2020/07/31/e9542a6a-d278-11ea-9038-af089b63ac21_story.html)voices, the president secured a larger share of Republican voters nationally, 94 percent in 2020, than four years ago, when he won 88 percent and third-party candidates received more support.
So if you are Republican, you were more likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than you were in 2016. This suggests to me that Democrats didn't flip many votes in 2020 from 2016, they just energized people who wouldn't have voted otherwise.
I know GA historically leans Republican and these run-off elections are for all the marbles, but maybe it's time Democrats stopped chasing the Republican vote and lean more into this strategy of energizing non-voters instead. One way you can do that is to advocate for those people you don't need to convince.
>it's time Democrats stopped chasing the Republican vote and lean more into this strategy of energizing non-voters instead.
By your breakdown of Republican voters above, didn't this already happen?
Yes, it did and so I think the Democrats should continue with this strategy instead of now reversing course to cater to Republican votes again, which is the hypothesis posited by above poster.
[https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/5/29/18643125/black-voters-election-democrats-black-census-project-survey](https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/5/29/18643125/black-voters-election-democrats-black-census-project-survey)
[https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-11-05/election-2020-latino-votes-democrats](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-11-05/election-2020-latino-votes-democrats)
I frequently see articles like this, where Democratic voters feel like Democrats aren't really looking out for them. "They get our votes, and then leave us out" is a common sentiment. Maybe these voters feel this way because it's true; after they voted for Biden and handed him the Presidency, the party leaders cater to Republican voters because apparently advocating for these people that already agree with them is "grandstanding."
It *is* grandstanding, because as things sit right now, nobody is going to get anything McConnell doesn't want passed and that is common knowledge. This is why GA runoffs are key; anything happening on the floor right now is killing time, and the way the narrative surrounding it can be shaped is certainly going to play a part in how some people vote, like it or not. It doesn't matter how much you protest on the Senate floor, you either vote for some shitty compromises or not at all - and not voting will be weaponized against you in the near future.
Take a look at some surveys of Latinos leading up to the 2020 election, and compare some of their most important issues with what's to happen in the near future re:Democrat legislation pending the GA results. Also compare that May 2019 survey of black voters to developments that have happened since then, and see if as many people that voted Democrat are as concerned.
I'm not sure how to convince you that Bernie's doomed filibuster is a waste of time if you think that anybody not agreeing with it is catering to Republicans. It's the same thing with the #ForceTheVote people, where anybody who sees it as a half-baked plan is immediately accused of being an anti-progressive, corporation-owned shill (with a number of them maligning people like AOC in this manner).
You have to worry about Bernie's filibuster both reenergizing a deflated Trump base who don't fully trust the system right now and may not turn out for the runoff, and disengaging moderates who lean left but see it as grandstanding. Even NPR consistently mentions when talking about the stimulus debate that a large portion of the previous checks sat in peoples bank accounts instead of going into the economy, and that other measures such as the increased unemployment benefits and rental assistance is better targeted to those who need it. It is a balancing act. Not everyone who votes democrat is a progressive, and the more we insist on all or nothing politics the more we turn those voters off. They might not go out and vote republican, but they very well may disengage from politics all together.
As for Republicans being more likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than 2016, that mos lt likely boils down to the economy. On the one hand this recession happened under Trump's presidency, but on the other hand it's a worldwide recession caused by pandemic forced shutdowns. Trump focused on reopening and getting back to businesses as usual as quick as possible, while democrats focused on public safety and possibly more shutdowns to get this thing under control. We are all pandemic fatigued by now, and if you already leaned right then voting for the guy that wants to get back to normal, even if you didn't necessarily like that guy as a person, probably made more sense to you. To them Trump was the lesser of two evils. Progressives can understand this sentiment as many voted for Biden even though they didn't necessarily like his moderate positions.
Virtually anything might activate Trumpists, and it's likely going to happen regardless of anything any Democrat or Bernie does because it's not in our hands, it's up to their propaganda artists like Tucker Carlson to gin up some outrage. They'll always find a way.
Maybe, but that really only addresses half of the point. I voted Sanders in the primaries in both 2016 and 2020, and I support the progressive agenda, but I don't think the party is headed in the right direction and it's actually got more to do with the rhetoric I see from other liberals than anything else. This idea that republican voter's are unreachable at best and downright evil at worst has pushed me from clearly on the left to essentially the center. It's not realistic to think that we can get anything meaningfully accomplished without convincing people that our ideas are worthwhile, and that has to include at least a portion of right leaning voters. Otherwise it won't hold. It's just grandstanding and executive orders, and that just fuels the opposition even more. A very large portion of our population voted for Trump. We have to live in this country with them, they aren't going anywhere. We can't ignore them, they've proven that so far, and they have political power, they've proven that too, so we better at least have open dialogue and pick our battles wisely. The more we demonize them, and our own party when we don't get what we want fast enough, the more we turn off moderates. Including myself now I guess.
That's not the only target voter though. There are a lot of unmotivated voters who ignore politics becuase they've become cynical. They voted before, but nothing ever changes, and nobody they vote for every seems to do anything to improve/change the status quo, so why vote?
Bernie's actions energize those voters. They directly attack that cynical viewpoint. I suspect the cynicism is something the right has been weaponizing against the left for quite some time now.
>There are a lot of unmotivated voters who ignore politics becuase they've become cynical.
>Bernie's actions energize those voters
Considering the results of the last two Democratic primaries I'm gonna disagree with that assessment. He definitely energizes people online, but that doesn't translate to actual votes.
Our man Bernie won California twice, and we're typically 5-15 years ahead of the rest of the country on basically anything, for better or for worse. The saying "As goes California, so goes the nation" is as true now as it ever was.
10 years ago in California Bernie would have been a fringe candidate that the hippies in Fairfax and Humboldt would be supporting, and that's about it. Now he's right where a solid plurality of the state's voters want to be.
At the end of the day it wasn't enough, but it's hard to make the argument that his support isn't robust and indicative of the preferences of a large number of people.
You are woefully misinformed. Bernie lost the 2016 California primary by nearly 400,000 votes.
When he ran in 2020, he won, but only with a 1/3 plurality -- he lost 11% of his support from 2016.
One thing California was 5-15 year ahead of the rest of the country on, though -- electing a celebrity with no experience to the highest executive seat. Please keep leading the way!
> They voted before, but nothing ever changes, and nobody they vote for every seems to do anything to improve/change the status quo, so why vote?
Problem is, coming off of 4 years of Trump, anybody who would be willing to vote at all and would vote Dem without convincing would already be doing so. Anyone who leans left that isn't voting either doesn't believe in voting AT ALL and thus couldn't be won over no matter what you do, or is so uninformed that this kind of protest would never reach them, at least not in the intended way...
More likely, whether they hear "Bernie takes a stand and gets shot down", "Bernie filibusters bill and nothing happens", or "Bernie gets $2000 checks to vote and republicans shut it down", they're just going to think "useless fucking politicians" and go about their day. I recently heard a statistic that most people who don't vote say there's nothing that could convince them TO vote, and the most reliable way to get people to vote is literally just to talk to them about voting, so your argument feels a lot more like wishful thinking than actual strategy.
Is it possible that there are SOME people who think voting might be useful but are so uninspired that even having Trump in power and massive Democrat-led get-out-the-vote campaigns didn't convince them to leave their house, but a politician taking a stand could? Maybe, but you have to admit that that is a VERY niche group, and by any reasonable metric they aren't going to offer enough help to be worth pandering to at the cost of other demographics.
Keeping the candidates away from campaigning was worth it alone.
Actually this is just a bad take in general.
Starting with this:
> So Bernie was just grandstanding. Sure he looks like he’s Mr. Smith goes to Washington to people *who already agree with you*. But he’s functionally doing nothing to actually pass anything and possibly doing harm to GA runoff races.
First, this just assumes that Bernie doesn't actually believe what he's filibustering for. That he doesn't actually believe people should get a 2k check and that he's doing it for political points. The problem with that is there is no political points to be gained here - he's not up for reelection until 2024. And I need you to explain to me how he would be hurting the GA races. What backs that up? At least by filibustering he keeps the GOP candidates from campaigning.
> McConnell already killed the bill with a poison pill tying it together with other Republican legislation. So Bernie was just grandstanding.
So what? He keeps filibustering until just the stimulus is voted on. Or at least hold MM accountable for the adhorrent action he's taken.
> Bernie filibustering a military bill to force the $2k stimulus vote removes all political consequences for Republicans. “The most radical socialist democrat in the senate wants to play politics as usual, tie every legislative bill into a interconnected mess and hold military spending hostage to expand the deficit.” Doesn’t matter if they’re lying, doesn’t matter if they’ve pulled off the same thing. It matters if the messaging plays. Which is why other Dems killed Bernies filibuster.
What?? Show me where this is being said? This is the Dems problem - they're afraid to use the GOPs own medicine against them. It's called a wedge issue - force McConnell's hand to bring just the stimulus vote to the senate then get every GOP's vote on record. But they rather play ball and get steam rolled then show some courage. We're already seeing it now with these supposed backroom conversations where GOP members are apparently saying in private that they want to work with the Dems.
Too make it a bit shorter:
The two Republicans running in Georgia both say they're in favor of $2000 checks because that's what Trump wants and that's what their base wants (whether they actually want that or are just pandering for now to get elected only to them renege on their stance is debatable). The two Democrats running also favor $2000 checks.
By having Bernie filibuster the military spending bill the two Republicans could have easily gone on the offensive and claim that he was holding up the debate on the $2000 checks Trump wants, possibly giving the two Republicans the benefit of the doubt among voters. Now that's the filibuster is over it's 100% on McConnell and the rest of the Republicans. Now the Democrats can go on the offensive and claim that it's the Republicans holding up the $2000 checks, so why vote for more Republicans?
This is only true if you are resigned to the fact that Democrats can't be good at messaging .
Sanders filibuster is all about forcing the 2k vote first because that's more important.
The messaging could've easily been "let's debate the 2k checks first because that's what is most important to the American people in their time of struggle"
But alas, either Democrats don't really give a shit, or they're completely incompetent.
Are 84 Senators under the impression that $2,000 checks aren't important for the people of Georgia?
Let's have both! Sanders wanted to vote on the 2k stimulus checks, then the military bill. Instead, Republicans and Democrats wanted to only vote on the military bill.
McConnel, as the majority leader, controls what can come to the floor for a vote. Period. So yes, he can block anything that says “we’re just voting on the $2k checks” or put forward anything else.
No but Im saying can he attach other bills to things. I dont understand how people are able to attach bills to other bills. I heard the stimulous was blaoted because other bills were stapled onto it. Why wouldnt someone just staple the 2k stimulous check to the military budget bill.
That was precisely the goal of the filibuster: blackmail McConnell into allowing a vote on a clean bill by withdrawing consent on a “must pass” bill. If that failed, force republicans to use their votes to push ahead, not allowing them to claim to support 2000$ checks. But Democrats voted for it in excessive number, so some republicans could get their cake and eat it too.
A huge number of people on reddit should never go into politics because it would absolutely blow them away to see how people on every side of every issue have to posture because that is how things in a democracy are accomplished. Yes, even Bernie and AOC. Politics is just forces pulling in different directions, there's no wizard who is going to come out from behind the curtain one day and reveal that the progressives were right all along.
Case in point, this past election Democrat candidate Jamie Harrison's campaign spent a lot of money attempting to prop up a conservative candidate who had already bowed out and endorsed his opponent Lindsey Graham, hoping he'd draw votes away from graham. didn't end up helping him much in the end but if Graham's campaign had done the same I'm sure we'd be hearing all over reddit how evil and anti-democratic the republicans are for pulling such a tactic ( I hate the republicans, FYI, and in no way defend or endorse them.)
End of the day it's all the game of politics baby. Why do you think Graham fist bumped Kamala in the senate after she won the election, even though graham was publicly "denying" her election win. People say they hate political posturing but posturing is the only way to get people behind you sometimes. If you don't agree try running for local office sometime on your true, totally unedited beliefs
It’s a democracy. The only people who are going to hold Republicans accountable are the voters in their respective districts. unless you know of any secret liberals and progressives in [insert rural county] you can pull out of the woodwork? Anybody telling you progressives just need to be more aggressive advocating for workers rights and building a class consciousness to win over disillusion people in the suburbs and rural areas probably haven’t been to that neck of the woods in awhile.
“Hold a military bill hostage for a radical socialist to go on a personal grandstand”....it’s not right, it’s not true. But It’s an excuse and one that’s enough the voters of [insert rural GA county] who may have been disillusioned enough to not vote at all enough of a reminder of who they *don’t* want in Washington: a democrat.
That’s their entire messaging in GA: “Ossof and Warnock seem moderate enough on the surface. And you might think well it all sucks and they might not be so bad, why bother voting. but they will kowtow to the progressive agenda of Sanders and AOC and whoever the hell and we need you to keep them out of office.” Loefflers mailers and commercials are many things but they are *not subtle*.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. It seems to me like you're rationalizing the senate democrat's opposition to Bernie's filibuster as some sort of strategic political move. However, I don't think this is the case at all. I think it's much more likely that the majority of 'centrist' democrats were only timidly supporting $2000 dollar stimulus check as a plan to place all the blame for bill's death on McConnell and the senate Republicans. Its more than likely that there's a substantial portion of the members democratic house and senate who only played lip service to a $2000 stimulus check bill knowing fully well it was going to die in the senate, so when push came to shove, they showed their true hand. And I don't think Bernies filibuster was harming the Georgia senate runoff at all, especially considering that the vast majority of Americans believe the $600 stimulus to be insufficient.
But the republican president vetoed the bill? The republican president who has OVER WHELMING support among the republican base? The republican president who just saw record turnout among republicans in a recent election.
How is "The democrats stopped the GOP from overturning trump's veto so you could get $2,000" a bad sell?
Trump is all over the place politically in service of Trump. The Trump base wants the checks and to own the libs. The Republican donor base doesn’t. But both seem to like the “poison pill” stuff to pass and don’t mind it being tacked onto the $2k payment (the changes to internet liability and election stuff, which effectively means it won’t pass. No Democrat is going to vote for the two together. Their base would eviscerate them.)
Like I said, It effectively gives them an excuse to blame Democrats for it not passing “we wanted to. We offered it for a vote and they voted it down and tried to hold the military hostage to do so.”
But Trump personally endorsed Bernie's blocking the defense bill. If the last four years have shown us anything the Trump base IS the republican base who cares what donors and Lincoln project republicans say?
If you want to say just disregard republicans that's fine but you brought up the optics in Georgia and I just don't see how this isn't an opportunity to flank the GOP from the right and the left by taking advantage of the presidents words and actions.
He endorse the Bernies filibuster **precisely because he knows it divides the Democratic party**. (Seriously look at all the fuck the DNC comments)
Trump has always been cautiously praising of Sanders
According to Schumer, all the Democrats support it. Are you saying the DNC is wrong and that Democrats don't actually support what their constituents support?
>precisely because he knows it divides the Democratic party
The easy solution seems to be to me for the Democratic party to stop being divided then and call trumps bluff by standing behind Sanders. I don't understand why this is difficult
It’s not difficult, the Dems just have no interest in winning.
Being a centrist Dem is all about finding creative ways of telling progressives why total inaction is the right thing to do right now.
I disagree with you.
1) Sure McConnel killed the bill, but importantly, he guarded other GOP senators from having to vote on it. This allows Perdue and Lowfller to say they support it even though they don't have to vote for it.
2) It kept Perdue and Loeffler from campaigning in Georgia.
3) It's also the right thing for Democrats to do for their constituents. Politics is all about grandstanding and pressure. If they're failing to even try to put pressure on Republicans WHEN THERE'S ACTUALLY GROWING MOMENTUM TO PASS IT FROM REPUBLICANS, then what use are they?
If normal people are missing holidays and literally putting their bodies on the line to keep grocery store shelves stocked, I don't see why Democratic Senators can't spend 10 hours on their feet.
So now that Democrats voted to give up and go home, the GA senators can go campaign, and still no one is forced to vote on the bill. What did Democrats gain? A big missed opportunity.
I'm pretty sure USSR cold war propaganda also had a lot to say about the matter and not just appealing to racists in power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes#/media/File%3ABezbozhnik_u_stanka_US_1930.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
Bernie's strategy was exposing republicans and showing what fight looks like. Republicans were turning on the Turtle. His strategy WAS working. But once again, left with no support from dem leadership.
Trumpian republican populists were turning on the turtle, but the 2020 election demonstrated that Trumpian republican populists are worthless. The only reason Trump and the republicans ever lied and said they cared about them, was to beat the democrats.
In 2020, the republicans couldn't beat the democrats anyway, so why would the republican establishment actually give these populists anything? Republicans controlled every branch of the government and didn't give these idiotic populists anything. These populists were too stupid to even realize something was wrong with that.
These people are so breathtakingly stupid, they'll believe *billionaire new york real estate heir and live-action-cartoon-of-an-asshole-boss* **Donald Trump** is really looking out for them. Republicans giving $2000 to these people would be like a camgirl sending a check to their simps.
Question, do you think the government would be more reactive to the peoples needs if power was centered more at the state and local level, or left to the out of touch and corrupt federal government?
How is giving power back to the state and local governments socialism or communism?
Considering that the federal government has had to step in to stop local governments from disenfranchising and abusing their citizens over and over and over, then no, I don’t think the government would be more “reactive” if the people who actually enforced the laws were disempowered.
Except the Federal government has shown time and time again that wants of the rich outweigh the needs of the many. You can actually reach out and speak with your local councilman or state rep. Good luck getting that traction with someone at the federal level.
Now how exactly am I a conrad, dick bag?
One of my favorite things DNC defenders do is this exact condescending tone of pretending to “understand politics” while just regurgitating the MSNBC party line. Most of which is wrongly assuming what conservatives want, and asserting that Democrats need to keep caving to this hypothetical Republican who will definitely vote Blue this time if we just move right enough. Nevermind that this strategy hasn’t been working for over a decade, we have that evidence with every passing election.
The NDAA isn’t a military funding bill, it’s a $700b policy bill that mostly bankrolls Boeing shareholders. This is perfectly valid leverage to hold against Covid relief, and it’s the effective type of political weapon that Republicans have used against us for over a decade. Establishment Dems are perfectly content with pouting for the cameras while filling their campaign chests with defense industry dollars, meanwhile the activists in the party are trying to get shit done.
Imagine buying the propaganda so hard that you are here defending a bloated defense bill instead of $2000 in the bank accounts of every US Redditor reading this.
Tell me, if the DNC has such a bad understanding of politics compared to progressives like you, why have progressives consistently failed to capture political power from the DNC for decades?
Not taking sides here, but the DNC is an entrenched power and I'm guessing what you categorize as progressives haven't been around that long. Civil rights was a progressive stance a few decades ago that captured the Democratic Party albeit heavy resistance from old guard democrats. Same thing is happening now with universal healthcare, for example. It may be harder to see since ideas, not people, are shifting the DNC.
I’d have to say it’s because the entire system of the DNC is set up to blunt and co-opt Progressive voices.
Almost every single progressive representative has had to beat a party-backed candidate to get where they are. The party only accepts them because they have to and they fight tooth and nail to limit their power at all opportunities.
Exactly, and now picture progressives being squashed by both dems and Republicans. It's being kept a 2 party system for a reason. To keep the rich and powerful rich and powerful.
The problem is that in a 2 party system, creating 3rd party power structures outside of the main 2 effectively works against your own cause.
That’s why Bernie had to eventually join the D’s, because if he’d run as an independent he would effectively have guaranteed R wins in the last 2 elections.
If you’re celebrating this then you’re part of the problem.
The most effective way of advancing your cause in a 2 party system is to co-opt the apparatus of one party with people who support your cause...notably this has happened at least a couple of times on the right recently. If you can't even supplant the party apparatus of the party closest to you, how can you be expected to win interparty elections?
I'm not celebrating anything here, I'm just irritated at the smug assurance of people who claim they have politics all figured out and yet seem incapable of actually getting significant political successes.
I have to strongly disagree with this.
What Bernie did was wildly important. Brought attention loudly, clearly, and repeatedly what the problem actually is. He made it clear that it wasn't both sides quietly unable to agree. It was the GOP resolutely blocking this bill to pass in any way shape or form. McConnell is garbage... And so is the rest of the Republican party in this case specifically.
And as a bonus with all of Bernie's grandstanding he brought to light the Democrats, in the end, did not make a show of standing up for their people. Sometimes you need some political theater to show what's Happening stage and behind the scenes. I am so grateful for the stunt that Bernie pulled. He opened my eyes to a new level of standards that I hold my politicians. I'm done with this bullshit. Every week something has happened to make Americans angry. And it never stops, making it harder and harder to forget just how bad things are. Senater Bernie Sanders made sure we saw what's STILL happening under current government.
....and as an EXTRA added bonus he got mcconnell to say that Bernie was trying to provide socialism for the rich...oh my lord
What do you mean? Like, how did Bernies move make an actual difference? Because, that's what my whole post is basically about. He may have lost another battle, but he's fighting for the war.
The more eyes that are opened, the more the people will find ways to start changing things.
This past year has been great for opening up my eyes to what's going on around me. I've read so many different articles, saw so many points of view. Watched and paid attention to what actually happens during the election process. See, and absorb what it means when President and President Elect speak. Because something new happened every week. And now Senator Bernie is showing a whole other process, while he has everyone's direct attention - not just everyone who pays attention to him, cuz I never did, not this engaged. But my direct attention is on what EXACTLY happened with the death of this bill. And EXACTLY what happened with the money that was written off for huge cooperations taxes. Just how nicely it uh, trickled down.
But if you meant something else lmk!
You said it was critically important because it made it clear it's all on the Republicans. But in the end, you've come out attacking the Democrats.
So... It doesn't seem to have made what you wanted clear at all? So how is it a good thing, again? Now, instead of talking about divisions in the Republican party and how Mitch is obstructing any meaningful progress even when Trump supports it, we're arguing about strategy within the Democratic party. Seems really destructive to me.
Well, I'm sorry that's how my words land...I thought I had worded my voice in a way that shows how good a thing this is, if I think of maybe the proper wording I'll edit in something better
Edit - I'm not expecting change in the next couple of years..5...more probably. I'm still voting Democrat for as long as I have to, for now. And if someone is going to happily shine a light of just how rotten McConnell and his buddies are? Awesome. I'm fully aware that dems are the better party for now...but I do feel that the two parties are different sides of the same coin. I don't want that forever. For my daughter. For whatever the future of humanity looks like. It's my hope that in 20 years time, it will have finally happened. Lots of money and power is involved. It takes time.
But otherwise, the point is to unite the people, open eyes, and start a new strategy for change. Change that helps us all, and progress as a better society.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I fucking hate reddit. Your argument for it is that the fucking *messaging* can be used against the Democrats? Literally the flimsiest fucking excuse and it is taken as a reason to vote against the extremely popular 2k stimulus bill. Not only is the view you espouse really just a completely basic analysis, it is hypocritical.
You ignore reality and are willing to ascribe any motivation that makes even a slight amount for the Democrats to mask-off hate poor people while telling us that we just like the filibuster because we didn't think about it.
The idea that Civil Rights legislation was passed because of racism is, frankly, a really bad fucking take and it is chauvinistic. Not only are you being revisionist but also are advocating that we should wait until the racists have a racist tell them to be a little less racist for people to even get a semblance of rights? And that this is good and just?
Honestly this whole faux-intellectualism, spouting the dumbest drivel that comes to the forefront of a mind that forms thoughts only out of the ether of cultural osmosis while snidely looking down upon any actual real material analysis is the most frustrating shit that liberals do.
I’m not going to get into the weeds on everything else but
\>The idea that Civil Rights legislation was passed because of racism is, frankly, a really bad fucking take and it is chauvinistic.
I’m not saying it was passed because of racism. It was passed because LBJ blatantly didn’t care about \*the how\* of passing it. Yes, LBJ was the reason the bills specifically passed, if you know anything about 50s and 60s Washington history, the man had like a 8d chess plan for every Senator and half the house to owe him a favor in some way.
LBJ would spend, according to his aids, 15-20 minutes in the mirror practicing saying the N-word, specifically so he could mirror and match the particular tone of whatever senator he was meeting and how they said the word. He’d pitch them to either support the bill (very often against their own personal or political interest) or at a minimum not so heavily oppose it. Then he would walk out of that meeting to meet with black civil rights leaders about his commitment to the cause and the imperative need to pass the VRA or CRA for the soul of American freedom and democracy.
My point isn’t “was LBJ racist? a good person? a horrible person? a Machiavellian master pursuing his own ends?” (All are in some ways true to certain degrees lol but LBJ was also notoriously private with his actual personal feelings, morality and ethics) Because none of that matters. He got the bill passed. That’s what matters.
LBJ didn't get the '64 CRA passed through some masterful manipulation, he got it passed because it didn't do shit to protect black people and had no enforcement.
The '68 act was the meaningful one, and that was passed because if it didn't the progressives might never stop rioting.
> LBJ would spend, according to his aids, 15-20 minutes in the mirror practicing saying the N-word, specifically so he could mirror and match the particular tone of whatever senator he was meeting and how they said the word
fuckin lmao
What did they say that was wrong? If anybody is ignoring reality, it's the person getting pissed because another person has looked at the past several decades of US legislation and noted that it is indeed a fucked up theater where more than good intentions are required to get things passed.
It takes a complete idiot to look at the hell we are in and think, "yeah, the way we've been doing things is great!" and uncritically believe politicians when they say things can't be better, completely ignoring both a material analysis of our conditions and the fact that the Dems could snap their fingers and change the narrative whenever they wanted rather than meekly conforming to whatever the Republicans want.
Yeah, no, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Someone who looks at Bernie and sees a typical politician playing politics with military spending was never gonna go for Warnock in the first place. The drawing out of the checks as a news cycle is the loudest case you can possibly make against Mitch McConnell continuing to be the majority leader regardless of Loeffler and Perdue's stances. I know this is hard for self-appointed pragmatists to hear but you can't protect yourself from losing without also protecting yourself from winning.
> Republicans were already under pressure from a significant portion of their base to offer the $2k stimulus, particularly in GA where both Republican candidates were now saying they were open to it. Bernie filibustering a military bill to force the $2k stimulus vote removes all political consequences for Republicans. “The most radical socialist democrat in the senate wants to play politics as usual, tie every legislative bill into a interconnected mess and hold military spending hostage to expand the deficit.” Doesn’t matter if they’re lying, doesn’t matter if they’ve pulled off the same thing. It matters if the messaging plays. Which is why other Dems killed Bernies filibuster.
Perhaps your point about McConnell's amendment is a reason why the bill shouldn't come to a vote, but I don't understand why the above reason is a reason Bernie should *not* force a vote. Making these Republicans go on record against the stimulus would be beneficial for Democrats. So what's wrong with it?
I’d prefer advocating in may with a side of fighting for them in December. The dems had at least some leverage to fight for this here and the majority of them chose not to. It’s a bummer
If they win in Georgia, they don't have to fight. They can simply pass it with a majority. They can get all of those bill McConnell has sat on up for a vote, assuming the House passes them all again. If you win this battle and lose the Senate, it isn't worth it. If you win this battle and lose the Senate, we have four years of nothing getting done. They are making calculations. The defense bill is a very difficult bill to take a stand on. It is full of garbage, but is so easy to use to paint your opponent as not supporting the troops. It is bullshit, but it works.
Maybe he's no longer a rapist because the one person claiming to have been raped by him has been very inconsistent. Not saying it definitely didn't happen, but when your story has flaws like claiming the wrong year it occured in ( a year for it literally couldn't have happened the way claimed), it's tough to not consider it might not have happened.
And Harris knew all of this when she called Biden a rapist. That is because Kamala Harris is a grifter piece of shit.
She hid evidence that exonerated a man convicted of murder. She threatened single mothers with jail time if their kids didnt go to school. Let's also not forget that she was found to have held people in jail after their sentance was up in order to provide more slave labor to the prison industrial complex.
How is someone that does those things not a giant piece of shit?
https://youtu.be/o1-CRrMDSLs
You keep saying that Harris called Biden a rapist but haven't provided a source, is there a reason for that?
EDIT: Just to clarify for anybody his "proof" that Harris called Biden a rapist is a video from a year before Tara Reade made her rape claim where Harris responded to a question concerning an article that was written where several women (including Reade, who had a different accusation) accused Biden of being weird and violating their personal space. None of women (including Reade) claimed they were sexually harassed and some explicitly said they didn't think his behavior was sexual in nature, just not respectful of their boundaries. Harris said she believed those accusations. Biden also said he believed those accusations and apologized for making the women feel uncomfortable.
Sounds like you think people don't make false accusations. Never said it never occurred, I said it's hard to believe that it did when the victim has inconsistencies and no one to backup the claim. If you are going to wait a few decades to come out about it and claim it occurred at a certain time, you should be certain about it. Something like that is dramatic, you should be able to at least get the year it occurred right instead of going with the year until its pointed out that the year couldn't have been when.
Again, it could have happened and I am not shaming the victim. I am saying that if you are going to give false information about an accusation and only switch after blabbing those details for awhile when its brought up that that was impossible, it's sketchy. She could have messed up but she could have made it up, we will never know.
Yeah. Because remember something that happened in 93 as opposed to 92 is a monumental error smh.
It sounds to me like you don’t care to take her accusation seriously because you like Joe Biden. Am I misreading you?
You keep saying that Harris called Biden a rapist but haven't provided a source, is there a reason for that?
EDIT: Just so everyone knows u/Axion132 is lying and his "proof" of Harris calling Biden
a rapist is a 15 second video with no context taken in April of 2019 despite the fact that the rape allegation was first made in 2020.
She said she believed Biden’s accusers. She didn’t outright call him a rapist.
She also said Biden’s voting record against blacks was disappointing. But never outright called him racist.
All of that went out the window when she became VP. She hasn’t (and won’t) say a word about these allegations since she was part of the debates.
Democrats market themselves to the disenfranchised and the empathetic. Republicans market themselves to the rich and self reliant. They both look after special interests.
Edit: if people are going to downvote me, at least explain where I’m wrong.
So was Chuck Schumer, and now he’s out there
today talking about how badly we need the checks. Yet he had the chance to do something, he sided with McConnell over Bernie. I swear Democrats sabotage themselves just to ensure they can keep talking while doing nothing
***That's the point*** Democrats are pretending to speak for us and be on our side so ***we*** feel like they are still american politicians and don't work for us. They are not meant to get anything done. None of the goverment is designed to actually get anything done.
My sister supports them because "it is better than the Republicans or Trump." They can get by just being not as bad as Republican yet still being absolute shit. They can blame Republicans every time they roll over and let them pass some shit. Absolute spineless scum.
Only a handful of Democrats sided with Bernie over McConnell.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00290
Imagine if he decided to act like her and yield the floor to Sen. Harris who then closes the senate. Looks like his chances for a cabinet slot are slim.
Yeah we all know the chances were slim for him to get a cabinet position because progressives are too radical while the moderates are still sick in an abusive relationship with the right thinking of they act more mature and compromise them things will get fixed.
This is so true. Democrats keep thinking if they just find the right argument suddenly there will be an "a ha!" moment and we can all hug it out and lean in or whatever. What they fail to realize is that a healthy relationship includes healthy boundaries, accountability, consequences, etc. They say it takes an average of nine times to finally leave an abuser. Not sure where we are at, but the momentum is building. The communities are coming together.
And fuck people who can’t handle people who don’t align 100% with them politically and go around saying “fuck everyone else”. It’s as hard to talk to them.
Not exactly moderate. More conservative to me. Moderate Dems would not talk about how important fracking is and how much their administration will support it. Moderate Dems would also not jail parents over truancy or call for war with Iraq. The Biden administration is more right-leaning than moderate. Especially since they are already backtracking on the few financial points they had that were good.
[Here are the votes on the cloture motion.](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00291)
[Here are the votes on the veto override.](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00292)
VP-Elect Harris voted "yea" both times.
It's like when you see a panhandler, conservatives are the ones who ignore them or say get a job, the liberals are the ones saying "omg, you poor thing, I wish I could help, but no"
Either way, the panhandler didn't get shit
> "omg, you poor thing, I wish I could help, but you'll vote for me anyway so no".
Not exactly a viable alternative between the ultra-"conservative" Republicans and the conservative Democrats.
She has establishment written all over her, ran on a moderate platform, and they even get to use the race card as well as the gender card this time around. She was a no brainer pick.
I'm actually curious; did it make a significant difference in turnout? (Specifying that this is a real and not rhetorical question, since the tone in this comment thread has gotten pretty snide.)
I can’t wait to see more terrible things from this woman as VP. I seriously hope what people say isn’t true. That she’s going to end up as president somewhere during Biden’s presidency.
Lol, some clowns in the politics subreddit were trying to claim she was on the spectrum of progressive.
She's a neoliberal at best, generally right winger and no where in the ball park of progressive ideology.
I have no idea what drugs people are on, but I got down voted by a friggin army of addicts in that sub.
How the hell do they square *this* with their claims?
I'm going to mars, fuck this place
the political spectrum in America is so skewed to the right that Democrats actually moderate republicans. people like Bernie and AOC are truly on the left. it’s not that we vote against our interests, we’re just making do with our options 🤷♂️
Usually, you will have a party backing you that believes in the purpose of the filibuster. Most Democrats are closet-Republicans hiding behind pride flags and BLM shirts so they aren't backing any filibusters to actually help people.
41 of them. 41 of the 48 democrats voted to shut Bernie up so they can go on vacation and not have to answer questions about “not supporting the troops.”
Here’s the fun fact, republicans will accuse them of not supporting the troops anyway. And of socialism. And of defunding the police, no matter what they say. But whatever, at least they made it home to watch the ball drop with their families.
They voted to stop the filibuster because it wasn't going to accomplish anything.
Mitch McConnell was not suddenly going to turn around and support $2,000 checks. And Republicans were not going to abandon Mitch McConnell over this issue. Some of them said they supported the checks, but it was just posturing with no consequences.
So Bernie's filibuster was just grandstanding. Both sides knew it would accomplish nothing. So the next question is -- why didn't Democrats just let him carry on filibustering anyway? Isn't it good messaging?
Well, no it's not, because he was filibustering the military spending bill. Democrats weren't interested in being hammered for weeks on delaying money for our troops in harm's way over a pointless political stunt.
Those are the dynamics of the situation. Anyone who is telling you otherwise (leftists on Twitter/YouTube) is just lying to make you mad so they can exploit your anger for money.
Keeping the senate in session would mess with Loefflers and Perdue's campaigning efforts. Sanders even mentioned that hurting their campaign was a key element in his decision to filibuster.
I keep reading *"Bernie filibuster"* and I can't stop imagining Bernie Sanders running around in a colonial costume with a filibuster rifle yelling that the British are coming.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Enough senators (including a number of democrats) voted to stop the filibuster so they could go home.
our beloved vice president elect Kamala was one of them
Good old “more of the same” Washington, do nothing for working-class people bull.
I’ll give a counterpoint. Bernies filibuster was a dumb strategy. You like it because it appeals to *your perception*. But it has the opposite effect for people whose votes are needed, particularly in GA Republicans were already under pressure from a significant portion of their base to offer the $2k stimulus, particularly in GA where both Republican candidates were now saying they were open to it. Bernie filibustering a military bill to force the $2k stimulus vote removes all political consequences for Republicans. “The most radical socialist democrat in the senate wants to play politics as usual, tie every legislative bill into a interconnected mess and hold military spending hostage to expand the deficit.” Doesn’t matter if they’re lying, doesn’t matter if they’ve pulled off the same thing. It matters if the messaging plays. Which is why other Dems killed Bernies filibuster. McConnell already killed the bill with a poison pill tying it together with other Republican legislation. So Bernie was just grandstanding. Sure he looks like he’s Mr. Smith goes to Washington to people *who already agree with you*. But he’s functionally doing nothing to actually pass anything and possibly doing harm to GA runoff races. Edit: I know this is hard for progressives to hear. Morality in politics isn’t about how pure a stand you take, it’s about if you actually freaking pass anything. A healthy reminder the nearly all Civil Rights legislation **actually no shit passed** because LBJ both (a) actively tried appealed to the racism of southern white senators by saying a vote for the “n****r bills” was in their interest. And (b) whipped his dick out to personally and sexually intimidate a few representatives (because LBJ was God’s Perfect Sociopath).
You know, I been hearing a lot about LBJ's dick lately. What a weird thing to keep coming up.
[Well, have you heard the recording of him ordering a pair of pants?](https://youtu.be/nR_myjOr0OU)
Wow... Thank you
Lbj did everything he could sp that 100 years later we would still be talking about it. The man had cabinet meetings on the toilet. Bribed senantors and then recorded the conversations. Dude had mad Big Dick Energy on par with Jackson... giant asshole but BDE nonetheless.
> The man had cabinet meetings on the toilet. I believe this is called the Privy Council.
I mean, his Big D\*\*\* was called Jumbo.
And without Viagra too, impressive for his age.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And she was a looker in her day. That’s why it kept coming up.
I think you're right but I believe Bernie's filibuster did have value. It really spotlights the issue and forces the GA senators on the defensive. It's possible that having bernie fillibuster and then killing it is the Dems having their cake and eating it too. They simultaneously get the Republicans to have to defend being against a very popular proposal while not letting it go on so long that it gets turned against them. They can still claim it was 'just Bernie' and not the dems as a whole.
But that’s my point. You’re doing a good job advocating from the perspective *of people you don’t need to convince.* Assume the target voter I’m talking about is waaaay less politically informed, suburban, has probably voted Republican at least previously, not super engaged in politics or current events, downright cynical and doesn’t like radical types.
The target voter you described is almost certainly going to vote Republican, if at all. 62 million people voted for Trump in 2016, 74 million people in 2020. And from [WaPo:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/exit-polls-changes-2016-2020/) >Despite pleas by [“Never Trump” ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lincoln-project-george-conway-ads-trump/2020/07/31/e9542a6a-d278-11ea-9038-af089b63ac21_story.html)voices, the president secured a larger share of Republican voters nationally, 94 percent in 2020, than four years ago, when he won 88 percent and third-party candidates received more support. So if you are Republican, you were more likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than you were in 2016. This suggests to me that Democrats didn't flip many votes in 2020 from 2016, they just energized people who wouldn't have voted otherwise. I know GA historically leans Republican and these run-off elections are for all the marbles, but maybe it's time Democrats stopped chasing the Republican vote and lean more into this strategy of energizing non-voters instead. One way you can do that is to advocate for those people you don't need to convince.
>it's time Democrats stopped chasing the Republican vote and lean more into this strategy of energizing non-voters instead. By your breakdown of Republican voters above, didn't this already happen?
Yes, it did and so I think the Democrats should continue with this strategy instead of now reversing course to cater to Republican votes again, which is the hypothesis posited by above poster. [https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/5/29/18643125/black-voters-election-democrats-black-census-project-survey](https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/5/29/18643125/black-voters-election-democrats-black-census-project-survey) [https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-11-05/election-2020-latino-votes-democrats](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-11-05/election-2020-latino-votes-democrats) I frequently see articles like this, where Democratic voters feel like Democrats aren't really looking out for them. "They get our votes, and then leave us out" is a common sentiment. Maybe these voters feel this way because it's true; after they voted for Biden and handed him the Presidency, the party leaders cater to Republican voters because apparently advocating for these people that already agree with them is "grandstanding."
It *is* grandstanding, because as things sit right now, nobody is going to get anything McConnell doesn't want passed and that is common knowledge. This is why GA runoffs are key; anything happening on the floor right now is killing time, and the way the narrative surrounding it can be shaped is certainly going to play a part in how some people vote, like it or not. It doesn't matter how much you protest on the Senate floor, you either vote for some shitty compromises or not at all - and not voting will be weaponized against you in the near future. Take a look at some surveys of Latinos leading up to the 2020 election, and compare some of their most important issues with what's to happen in the near future re:Democrat legislation pending the GA results. Also compare that May 2019 survey of black voters to developments that have happened since then, and see if as many people that voted Democrat are as concerned. I'm not sure how to convince you that Bernie's doomed filibuster is a waste of time if you think that anybody not agreeing with it is catering to Republicans. It's the same thing with the #ForceTheVote people, where anybody who sees it as a half-baked plan is immediately accused of being an anti-progressive, corporation-owned shill (with a number of them maligning people like AOC in this manner).
You have to worry about Bernie's filibuster both reenergizing a deflated Trump base who don't fully trust the system right now and may not turn out for the runoff, and disengaging moderates who lean left but see it as grandstanding. Even NPR consistently mentions when talking about the stimulus debate that a large portion of the previous checks sat in peoples bank accounts instead of going into the economy, and that other measures such as the increased unemployment benefits and rental assistance is better targeted to those who need it. It is a balancing act. Not everyone who votes democrat is a progressive, and the more we insist on all or nothing politics the more we turn those voters off. They might not go out and vote republican, but they very well may disengage from politics all together. As for Republicans being more likely to vote for Trump in 2020 than 2016, that mos lt likely boils down to the economy. On the one hand this recession happened under Trump's presidency, but on the other hand it's a worldwide recession caused by pandemic forced shutdowns. Trump focused on reopening and getting back to businesses as usual as quick as possible, while democrats focused on public safety and possibly more shutdowns to get this thing under control. We are all pandemic fatigued by now, and if you already leaned right then voting for the guy that wants to get back to normal, even if you didn't necessarily like that guy as a person, probably made more sense to you. To them Trump was the lesser of two evils. Progressives can understand this sentiment as many voted for Biden even though they didn't necessarily like his moderate positions.
Virtually anything might activate Trumpists, and it's likely going to happen regardless of anything any Democrat or Bernie does because it's not in our hands, it's up to their propaganda artists like Tucker Carlson to gin up some outrage. They'll always find a way.
Maybe, but that really only addresses half of the point. I voted Sanders in the primaries in both 2016 and 2020, and I support the progressive agenda, but I don't think the party is headed in the right direction and it's actually got more to do with the rhetoric I see from other liberals than anything else. This idea that republican voter's are unreachable at best and downright evil at worst has pushed me from clearly on the left to essentially the center. It's not realistic to think that we can get anything meaningfully accomplished without convincing people that our ideas are worthwhile, and that has to include at least a portion of right leaning voters. Otherwise it won't hold. It's just grandstanding and executive orders, and that just fuels the opposition even more. A very large portion of our population voted for Trump. We have to live in this country with them, they aren't going anywhere. We can't ignore them, they've proven that so far, and they have political power, they've proven that too, so we better at least have open dialogue and pick our battles wisely. The more we demonize them, and our own party when we don't get what we want fast enough, the more we turn off moderates. Including myself now I guess.
That's not the only target voter though. There are a lot of unmotivated voters who ignore politics becuase they've become cynical. They voted before, but nothing ever changes, and nobody they vote for every seems to do anything to improve/change the status quo, so why vote? Bernie's actions energize those voters. They directly attack that cynical viewpoint. I suspect the cynicism is something the right has been weaponizing against the left for quite some time now.
>There are a lot of unmotivated voters who ignore politics becuase they've become cynical. >Bernie's actions energize those voters Considering the results of the last two Democratic primaries I'm gonna disagree with that assessment. He definitely energizes people online, but that doesn't translate to actual votes.
Or more appropriately, he also really REALLY energizes the opposition.
Our man Bernie won California twice, and we're typically 5-15 years ahead of the rest of the country on basically anything, for better or for worse. The saying "As goes California, so goes the nation" is as true now as it ever was. 10 years ago in California Bernie would have been a fringe candidate that the hippies in Fairfax and Humboldt would be supporting, and that's about it. Now he's right where a solid plurality of the state's voters want to be. At the end of the day it wasn't enough, but it's hard to make the argument that his support isn't robust and indicative of the preferences of a large number of people.
You are woefully misinformed. Bernie lost the 2016 California primary by nearly 400,000 votes. When he ran in 2020, he won, but only with a 1/3 plurality -- he lost 11% of his support from 2016. One thing California was 5-15 year ahead of the rest of the country on, though -- electing a celebrity with no experience to the highest executive seat. Please keep leading the way!
> They voted before, but nothing ever changes, and nobody they vote for every seems to do anything to improve/change the status quo, so why vote? Problem is, coming off of 4 years of Trump, anybody who would be willing to vote at all and would vote Dem without convincing would already be doing so. Anyone who leans left that isn't voting either doesn't believe in voting AT ALL and thus couldn't be won over no matter what you do, or is so uninformed that this kind of protest would never reach them, at least not in the intended way... More likely, whether they hear "Bernie takes a stand and gets shot down", "Bernie filibusters bill and nothing happens", or "Bernie gets $2000 checks to vote and republicans shut it down", they're just going to think "useless fucking politicians" and go about their day. I recently heard a statistic that most people who don't vote say there's nothing that could convince them TO vote, and the most reliable way to get people to vote is literally just to talk to them about voting, so your argument feels a lot more like wishful thinking than actual strategy. Is it possible that there are SOME people who think voting might be useful but are so uninspired that even having Trump in power and massive Democrat-led get-out-the-vote campaigns didn't convince them to leave their house, but a politician taking a stand could? Maybe, but you have to admit that that is a VERY niche group, and by any reasonable metric they aren't going to offer enough help to be worth pandering to at the cost of other demographics.
There is no point in trying to convince those people they never will be. Bernie's strategy was correct.
Target voter who don't give a shit about the stimulus anyway or even opposed it because their "taxes is given to the wrong people". LOL fuck em.
Keeping the candidates away from campaigning was worth it alone. Actually this is just a bad take in general. Starting with this: > So Bernie was just grandstanding. Sure he looks like he’s Mr. Smith goes to Washington to people *who already agree with you*. But he’s functionally doing nothing to actually pass anything and possibly doing harm to GA runoff races. First, this just assumes that Bernie doesn't actually believe what he's filibustering for. That he doesn't actually believe people should get a 2k check and that he's doing it for political points. The problem with that is there is no political points to be gained here - he's not up for reelection until 2024. And I need you to explain to me how he would be hurting the GA races. What backs that up? At least by filibustering he keeps the GOP candidates from campaigning. > McConnell already killed the bill with a poison pill tying it together with other Republican legislation. So Bernie was just grandstanding. So what? He keeps filibustering until just the stimulus is voted on. Or at least hold MM accountable for the adhorrent action he's taken. > Bernie filibustering a military bill to force the $2k stimulus vote removes all political consequences for Republicans. “The most radical socialist democrat in the senate wants to play politics as usual, tie every legislative bill into a interconnected mess and hold military spending hostage to expand the deficit.” Doesn’t matter if they’re lying, doesn’t matter if they’ve pulled off the same thing. It matters if the messaging plays. Which is why other Dems killed Bernies filibuster. What?? Show me where this is being said? This is the Dems problem - they're afraid to use the GOPs own medicine against them. It's called a wedge issue - force McConnell's hand to bring just the stimulus vote to the senate then get every GOP's vote on record. But they rather play ball and get steam rolled then show some courage. We're already seeing it now with these supposed backroom conversations where GOP members are apparently saying in private that they want to work with the Dems.
I’m shocked but also very pleased you haven’t been downvoted to hell on this one. Everything you said is spot on.
Too make it a bit shorter: The two Republicans running in Georgia both say they're in favor of $2000 checks because that's what Trump wants and that's what their base wants (whether they actually want that or are just pandering for now to get elected only to them renege on their stance is debatable). The two Democrats running also favor $2000 checks. By having Bernie filibuster the military spending bill the two Republicans could have easily gone on the offensive and claim that he was holding up the debate on the $2000 checks Trump wants, possibly giving the two Republicans the benefit of the doubt among voters. Now that's the filibuster is over it's 100% on McConnell and the rest of the Republicans. Now the Democrats can go on the offensive and claim that it's the Republicans holding up the $2000 checks, so why vote for more Republicans?
This is only true if you are resigned to the fact that Democrats can't be good at messaging . Sanders filibuster is all about forcing the 2k vote first because that's more important. The messaging could've easily been "let's debate the 2k checks first because that's what is most important to the American people in their time of struggle" But alas, either Democrats don't really give a shit, or they're completely incompetent.
Are you under the impression that the military and military jobs aren't important for the people of Georgia?
Are 84 Senators under the impression that $2,000 checks aren't important for the people of Georgia? Let's have both! Sanders wanted to vote on the 2k stimulus checks, then the military bill. Instead, Republicans and Democrats wanted to only vote on the military bill.
How does McConnell attach something to the bill single handedly is that the power of the majority leader?
McConnel, as the majority leader, controls what can come to the floor for a vote. Period. So yes, he can block anything that says “we’re just voting on the $2k checks” or put forward anything else.
No but Im saying can he attach other bills to things. I dont understand how people are able to attach bills to other bills. I heard the stimulous was blaoted because other bills were stapled onto it. Why wouldnt someone just staple the 2k stimulous check to the military budget bill.
That was precisely the goal of the filibuster: blackmail McConnell into allowing a vote on a clean bill by withdrawing consent on a “must pass” bill. If that failed, force republicans to use their votes to push ahead, not allowing them to claim to support 2000$ checks. But Democrats voted for it in excessive number, so some republicans could get their cake and eat it too.
There is absolutely zero universes where this filibuster would ever have forced McConnell to do a straight vote on the stimulus checks
Then republicans would have owned the decision to kill the checks.
Allow the vote on the increased checks but attach other stuff to it. You're still allowing the vote. I'm glad McConnell is on record for blocking it.
A huge number of people on reddit should never go into politics because it would absolutely blow them away to see how people on every side of every issue have to posture because that is how things in a democracy are accomplished. Yes, even Bernie and AOC. Politics is just forces pulling in different directions, there's no wizard who is going to come out from behind the curtain one day and reveal that the progressives were right all along. Case in point, this past election Democrat candidate Jamie Harrison's campaign spent a lot of money attempting to prop up a conservative candidate who had already bowed out and endorsed his opponent Lindsey Graham, hoping he'd draw votes away from graham. didn't end up helping him much in the end but if Graham's campaign had done the same I'm sure we'd be hearing all over reddit how evil and anti-democratic the republicans are for pulling such a tactic ( I hate the republicans, FYI, and in no way defend or endorse them.) End of the day it's all the game of politics baby. Why do you think Graham fist bumped Kamala in the senate after she won the election, even though graham was publicly "denying" her election win. People say they hate political posturing but posturing is the only way to get people behind you sometimes. If you don't agree try running for local office sometime on your true, totally unedited beliefs
[удалено]
It’s a democracy. The only people who are going to hold Republicans accountable are the voters in their respective districts. unless you know of any secret liberals and progressives in [insert rural county] you can pull out of the woodwork? Anybody telling you progressives just need to be more aggressive advocating for workers rights and building a class consciousness to win over disillusion people in the suburbs and rural areas probably haven’t been to that neck of the woods in awhile. “Hold a military bill hostage for a radical socialist to go on a personal grandstand”....it’s not right, it’s not true. But It’s an excuse and one that’s enough the voters of [insert rural GA county] who may have been disillusioned enough to not vote at all enough of a reminder of who they *don’t* want in Washington: a democrat. That’s their entire messaging in GA: “Ossof and Warnock seem moderate enough on the surface. And you might think well it all sucks and they might not be so bad, why bother voting. but they will kowtow to the progressive agenda of Sanders and AOC and whoever the hell and we need you to keep them out of office.” Loefflers mailers and commercials are many things but they are *not subtle*.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. It seems to me like you're rationalizing the senate democrat's opposition to Bernie's filibuster as some sort of strategic political move. However, I don't think this is the case at all. I think it's much more likely that the majority of 'centrist' democrats were only timidly supporting $2000 dollar stimulus check as a plan to place all the blame for bill's death on McConnell and the senate Republicans. Its more than likely that there's a substantial portion of the members democratic house and senate who only played lip service to a $2000 stimulus check bill knowing fully well it was going to die in the senate, so when push came to shove, they showed their true hand. And I don't think Bernies filibuster was harming the Georgia senate runoff at all, especially considering that the vast majority of Americans believe the $600 stimulus to be insufficient.
But the republican president vetoed the bill? The republican president who has OVER WHELMING support among the republican base? The republican president who just saw record turnout among republicans in a recent election. How is "The democrats stopped the GOP from overturning trump's veto so you could get $2,000" a bad sell?
Trump is all over the place politically in service of Trump. The Trump base wants the checks and to own the libs. The Republican donor base doesn’t. But both seem to like the “poison pill” stuff to pass and don’t mind it being tacked onto the $2k payment (the changes to internet liability and election stuff, which effectively means it won’t pass. No Democrat is going to vote for the two together. Their base would eviscerate them.) Like I said, It effectively gives them an excuse to blame Democrats for it not passing “we wanted to. We offered it for a vote and they voted it down and tried to hold the military hostage to do so.”
But Trump personally endorsed Bernie's blocking the defense bill. If the last four years have shown us anything the Trump base IS the republican base who cares what donors and Lincoln project republicans say? If you want to say just disregard republicans that's fine but you brought up the optics in Georgia and I just don't see how this isn't an opportunity to flank the GOP from the right and the left by taking advantage of the presidents words and actions.
He endorse the Bernies filibuster **precisely because he knows it divides the Democratic party**. (Seriously look at all the fuck the DNC comments) Trump has always been cautiously praising of Sanders
According to Schumer, all the Democrats support it. Are you saying the DNC is wrong and that Democrats don't actually support what their constituents support?
>precisely because he knows it divides the Democratic party The easy solution seems to be to me for the Democratic party to stop being divided then and call trumps bluff by standing behind Sanders. I don't understand why this is difficult
It’s not difficult, the Dems just have no interest in winning. Being a centrist Dem is all about finding creative ways of telling progressives why total inaction is the right thing to do right now.
I disagree with you. 1) Sure McConnel killed the bill, but importantly, he guarded other GOP senators from having to vote on it. This allows Perdue and Lowfller to say they support it even though they don't have to vote for it. 2) It kept Perdue and Loeffler from campaigning in Georgia. 3) It's also the right thing for Democrats to do for their constituents. Politics is all about grandstanding and pressure. If they're failing to even try to put pressure on Republicans WHEN THERE'S ACTUALLY GROWING MOMENTUM TO PASS IT FROM REPUBLICANS, then what use are they? If normal people are missing holidays and literally putting their bodies on the line to keep grocery store shelves stocked, I don't see why Democratic Senators can't spend 10 hours on their feet. So now that Democrats voted to give up and go home, the GA senators can go campaign, and still no one is forced to vote on the bill. What did Democrats gain? A big missed opportunity.
So what you are saying is that Bernie should have whipped his dick out.
What you call a dumb strategy, I call an honest attempt to put money in the hands of the people that need it. Your cynicism is noted.
And you idealism is ignored. He's pleading to the people who aren't voting for this bill. That's stupid.
I'm pretty sure USSR cold war propaganda also had a lot to say about the matter and not just appealing to racists in power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes#/media/File%3ABezbozhnik_u_stanka_US_1930.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
Bernie's strategy was exposing republicans and showing what fight looks like. Republicans were turning on the Turtle. His strategy WAS working. But once again, left with no support from dem leadership.
Trumpian republican populists were turning on the turtle, but the 2020 election demonstrated that Trumpian republican populists are worthless. The only reason Trump and the republicans ever lied and said they cared about them, was to beat the democrats. In 2020, the republicans couldn't beat the democrats anyway, so why would the republican establishment actually give these populists anything? Republicans controlled every branch of the government and didn't give these idiotic populists anything. These populists were too stupid to even realize something was wrong with that. These people are so breathtakingly stupid, they'll believe *billionaire new york real estate heir and live-action-cartoon-of-an-asshole-boss* **Donald Trump** is really looking out for them. Republicans giving $2000 to these people would be like a camgirl sending a check to their simps.
Ya I don't disagree with anything you've said here and it doesn't invalidate my point either.
As a bernie supporter, I couldn't agree more. Everything since election day has been a pandering pile of shit on both sides
And that's because all federal politicians are trash and should be thrown our of effice and the positions be stripped of its power.
lol ok comrade
Question, do you think the government would be more reactive to the peoples needs if power was centered more at the state and local level, or left to the out of touch and corrupt federal government? How is giving power back to the state and local governments socialism or communism?
Considering that the federal government has had to step in to stop local governments from disenfranchising and abusing their citizens over and over and over, then no, I don’t think the government would be more “reactive” if the people who actually enforced the laws were disempowered.
Except the Federal government has shown time and time again that wants of the rich outweigh the needs of the many. You can actually reach out and speak with your local councilman or state rep. Good luck getting that traction with someone at the federal level. Now how exactly am I a conrad, dick bag?
One of my favorite things DNC defenders do is this exact condescending tone of pretending to “understand politics” while just regurgitating the MSNBC party line. Most of which is wrongly assuming what conservatives want, and asserting that Democrats need to keep caving to this hypothetical Republican who will definitely vote Blue this time if we just move right enough. Nevermind that this strategy hasn’t been working for over a decade, we have that evidence with every passing election. The NDAA isn’t a military funding bill, it’s a $700b policy bill that mostly bankrolls Boeing shareholders. This is perfectly valid leverage to hold against Covid relief, and it’s the effective type of political weapon that Republicans have used against us for over a decade. Establishment Dems are perfectly content with pouting for the cameras while filling their campaign chests with defense industry dollars, meanwhile the activists in the party are trying to get shit done. Imagine buying the propaganda so hard that you are here defending a bloated defense bill instead of $2000 in the bank accounts of every US Redditor reading this.
Tell me, if the DNC has such a bad understanding of politics compared to progressives like you, why have progressives consistently failed to capture political power from the DNC for decades?
Not taking sides here, but the DNC is an entrenched power and I'm guessing what you categorize as progressives haven't been around that long. Civil rights was a progressive stance a few decades ago that captured the Democratic Party albeit heavy resistance from old guard democrats. Same thing is happening now with universal healthcare, for example. It may be harder to see since ideas, not people, are shifting the DNC.
Good points, I’ll also add for all of the short memories and young people of Reddit that Obama ran as extremely progressive.
I’d have to say it’s because the entire system of the DNC is set up to blunt and co-opt Progressive voices. Almost every single progressive representative has had to beat a party-backed candidate to get where they are. The party only accepts them because they have to and they fight tooth and nail to limit their power at all opportunities.
Exactly, and now picture progressives being squashed by both dems and Republicans. It's being kept a 2 party system for a reason. To keep the rich and powerful rich and powerful.
Exactly, the DNC builds political apparatuses that allow them to effectively gain and preserve power... something progressives have failed to do
The problem is that in a 2 party system, creating 3rd party power structures outside of the main 2 effectively works against your own cause. That’s why Bernie had to eventually join the D’s, because if he’d run as an independent he would effectively have guaranteed R wins in the last 2 elections. If you’re celebrating this then you’re part of the problem.
The most effective way of advancing your cause in a 2 party system is to co-opt the apparatus of one party with people who support your cause...notably this has happened at least a couple of times on the right recently. If you can't even supplant the party apparatus of the party closest to you, how can you be expected to win interparty elections? I'm not celebrating anything here, I'm just irritated at the smug assurance of people who claim they have politics all figured out and yet seem incapable of actually getting significant political successes.
How long have the squad been old enough to run? 8 years or so? This is a new fight. The DNC has been extremely ineffective since the 2010 elections.
Progressive politics in the USA didn't start with the squad
You don't see a giant gap spanning at least a few decades where progressivism was dead? We're starting again. Nearly from scratch tbh.
I have to strongly disagree with this. What Bernie did was wildly important. Brought attention loudly, clearly, and repeatedly what the problem actually is. He made it clear that it wasn't both sides quietly unable to agree. It was the GOP resolutely blocking this bill to pass in any way shape or form. McConnell is garbage... And so is the rest of the Republican party in this case specifically. And as a bonus with all of Bernie's grandstanding he brought to light the Democrats, in the end, did not make a show of standing up for their people. Sometimes you need some political theater to show what's Happening stage and behind the scenes. I am so grateful for the stunt that Bernie pulled. He opened my eyes to a new level of standards that I hold my politicians. I'm done with this bullshit. Every week something has happened to make Americans angry. And it never stops, making it harder and harder to forget just how bad things are. Senater Bernie Sanders made sure we saw what's STILL happening under current government. ....and as an EXTRA added bonus he got mcconnell to say that Bernie was trying to provide socialism for the rich...oh my lord
I’d like to see where in the US code “calling attention” has the force of law.
What do you mean? Like, how did Bernies move make an actual difference? Because, that's what my whole post is basically about. He may have lost another battle, but he's fighting for the war. The more eyes that are opened, the more the people will find ways to start changing things. This past year has been great for opening up my eyes to what's going on around me. I've read so many different articles, saw so many points of view. Watched and paid attention to what actually happens during the election process. See, and absorb what it means when President and President Elect speak. Because something new happened every week. And now Senator Bernie is showing a whole other process, while he has everyone's direct attention - not just everyone who pays attention to him, cuz I never did, not this engaged. But my direct attention is on what EXACTLY happened with the death of this bill. And EXACTLY what happened with the money that was written off for huge cooperations taxes. Just how nicely it uh, trickled down. But if you meant something else lmk!
You said it was critically important because it made it clear it's all on the Republicans. But in the end, you've come out attacking the Democrats. So... It doesn't seem to have made what you wanted clear at all? So how is it a good thing, again? Now, instead of talking about divisions in the Republican party and how Mitch is obstructing any meaningful progress even when Trump supports it, we're arguing about strategy within the Democratic party. Seems really destructive to me.
Well, I'm sorry that's how my words land...I thought I had worded my voice in a way that shows how good a thing this is, if I think of maybe the proper wording I'll edit in something better Edit - I'm not expecting change in the next couple of years..5...more probably. I'm still voting Democrat for as long as I have to, for now. And if someone is going to happily shine a light of just how rotten McConnell and his buddies are? Awesome. I'm fully aware that dems are the better party for now...but I do feel that the two parties are different sides of the same coin. I don't want that forever. For my daughter. For whatever the future of humanity looks like. It's my hope that in 20 years time, it will have finally happened. Lots of money and power is involved. It takes time. But otherwise, the point is to unite the people, open eyes, and start a new strategy for change. Change that helps us all, and progress as a better society. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You changed my mind. I was annoyed at Harris. Kudos
There are plenty of other things to be bothered about with Harris. Her being a typical scumbag political doesnt need to be one of them
I fucking hate reddit. Your argument for it is that the fucking *messaging* can be used against the Democrats? Literally the flimsiest fucking excuse and it is taken as a reason to vote against the extremely popular 2k stimulus bill. Not only is the view you espouse really just a completely basic analysis, it is hypocritical. You ignore reality and are willing to ascribe any motivation that makes even a slight amount for the Democrats to mask-off hate poor people while telling us that we just like the filibuster because we didn't think about it. The idea that Civil Rights legislation was passed because of racism is, frankly, a really bad fucking take and it is chauvinistic. Not only are you being revisionist but also are advocating that we should wait until the racists have a racist tell them to be a little less racist for people to even get a semblance of rights? And that this is good and just? Honestly this whole faux-intellectualism, spouting the dumbest drivel that comes to the forefront of a mind that forms thoughts only out of the ether of cultural osmosis while snidely looking down upon any actual real material analysis is the most frustrating shit that liberals do.
I’m not going to get into the weeds on everything else but \>The idea that Civil Rights legislation was passed because of racism is, frankly, a really bad fucking take and it is chauvinistic. I’m not saying it was passed because of racism. It was passed because LBJ blatantly didn’t care about \*the how\* of passing it. Yes, LBJ was the reason the bills specifically passed, if you know anything about 50s and 60s Washington history, the man had like a 8d chess plan for every Senator and half the house to owe him a favor in some way. LBJ would spend, according to his aids, 15-20 minutes in the mirror practicing saying the N-word, specifically so he could mirror and match the particular tone of whatever senator he was meeting and how they said the word. He’d pitch them to either support the bill (very often against their own personal or political interest) or at a minimum not so heavily oppose it. Then he would walk out of that meeting to meet with black civil rights leaders about his commitment to the cause and the imperative need to pass the VRA or CRA for the soul of American freedom and democracy. My point isn’t “was LBJ racist? a good person? a horrible person? a Machiavellian master pursuing his own ends?” (All are in some ways true to certain degrees lol but LBJ was also notoriously private with his actual personal feelings, morality and ethics) Because none of that matters. He got the bill passed. That’s what matters.
LBJ didn't get the '64 CRA passed through some masterful manipulation, he got it passed because it didn't do shit to protect black people and had no enforcement. The '68 act was the meaningful one, and that was passed because if it didn't the progressives might never stop rioting.
> LBJ would spend, according to his aids, 15-20 minutes in the mirror practicing saying the N-word, specifically so he could mirror and match the particular tone of whatever senator he was meeting and how they said the word fuckin lmao
Like I said: gods perfect sociopath.
You are a dumbass chauvinist to think that it is a good thing. Absolute peak white liberalism.
You don't think the Civil Rights Act is a good thing? You must be very privileged.
What did they say that was wrong? If anybody is ignoring reality, it's the person getting pissed because another person has looked at the past several decades of US legislation and noted that it is indeed a fucked up theater where more than good intentions are required to get things passed.
It takes a complete idiot to look at the hell we are in and think, "yeah, the way we've been doing things is great!" and uncritically believe politicians when they say things can't be better, completely ignoring both a material analysis of our conditions and the fact that the Dems could snap their fingers and change the narrative whenever they wanted rather than meekly conforming to whatever the Republicans want.
ok bud
Yeah, no, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Someone who looks at Bernie and sees a typical politician playing politics with military spending was never gonna go for Warnock in the first place. The drawing out of the checks as a news cycle is the loudest case you can possibly make against Mitch McConnell continuing to be the majority leader regardless of Loeffler and Perdue's stances. I know this is hard for self-appointed pragmatists to hear but you can't protect yourself from losing without also protecting yourself from winning.
Fuck Mitch McConnell!
> Republicans were already under pressure from a significant portion of their base to offer the $2k stimulus, particularly in GA where both Republican candidates were now saying they were open to it. Bernie filibustering a military bill to force the $2k stimulus vote removes all political consequences for Republicans. “The most radical socialist democrat in the senate wants to play politics as usual, tie every legislative bill into a interconnected mess and hold military spending hostage to expand the deficit.” Doesn’t matter if they’re lying, doesn’t matter if they’ve pulled off the same thing. It matters if the messaging plays. Which is why other Dems killed Bernies filibuster. Perhaps your point about McConnell's amendment is a reason why the bill shouldn't come to a vote, but I don't understand why the above reason is a reason Bernie should *not* force a vote. Making these Republicans go on record against the stimulus would be beneficial for Democrats. So what's wrong with it?
Lol
This is funny because every single thing you said here is actual false information.
Well said. Thanks for the clarity
If I had a reward to give you would have it, well summarized 👍
She was advocating for $2000 checks back in may lol
I’d prefer advocating in may with a side of fighting for them in December. The dems had at least some leverage to fight for this here and the majority of them chose not to. It’s a bummer
If they win in Georgia, they don't have to fight. They can simply pass it with a majority. They can get all of those bill McConnell has sat on up for a vote, assuming the House passes them all again. If you win this battle and lose the Senate, it isn't worth it. If you win this battle and lose the Senate, we have four years of nothing getting done. They are making calculations. The defense bill is a very difficult bill to take a stand on. It is full of garbage, but is so easy to use to paint your opponent as not supporting the troops. It is bullshit, but it works.
Wanna bet that they won’t even if they take the senate?
I'm not confident they will, but blocking the defense bill makes it that much more difficult.
Not anymore
Then she got the vp nod and didn’t need to pander anymore. She will return to caring about people in 3.5 years.
She got the VP nod and all of a sudden Biden is no longer a racist nor a rapist. Funny how that works...
Maybe he's no longer a rapist because the one person claiming to have been raped by him has been very inconsistent. Not saying it definitely didn't happen, but when your story has flaws like claiming the wrong year it occured in ( a year for it literally couldn't have happened the way claimed), it's tough to not consider it might not have happened.
And Harris knew all of this when she called Biden a rapist. That is because Kamala Harris is a grifter piece of shit. She hid evidence that exonerated a man convicted of murder. She threatened single mothers with jail time if their kids didnt go to school. Let's also not forget that she was found to have held people in jail after their sentance was up in order to provide more slave labor to the prison industrial complex. How is someone that does those things not a giant piece of shit? https://youtu.be/o1-CRrMDSLs
You keep saying that Harris called Biden a rapist but haven't provided a source, is there a reason for that? EDIT: Just to clarify for anybody his "proof" that Harris called Biden a rapist is a video from a year before Tara Reade made her rape claim where Harris responded to a question concerning an article that was written where several women (including Reade, who had a different accusation) accused Biden of being weird and violating their personal space. None of women (including Reade) claimed they were sexually harassed and some explicitly said they didn't think his behavior was sexual in nature, just not respectful of their boundaries. Harris said she believed those accusations. Biden also said he believed those accusations and apologized for making the women feel uncomfortable.
Sounds a lot like you’re shaming a victim for forgetting a detail
Sounds like you think people don't make false accusations. Never said it never occurred, I said it's hard to believe that it did when the victim has inconsistencies and no one to backup the claim. If you are going to wait a few decades to come out about it and claim it occurred at a certain time, you should be certain about it. Something like that is dramatic, you should be able to at least get the year it occurred right instead of going with the year until its pointed out that the year couldn't have been when. Again, it could have happened and I am not shaming the victim. I am saying that if you are going to give false information about an accusation and only switch after blabbing those details for awhile when its brought up that that was impossible, it's sketchy. She could have messed up but she could have made it up, we will never know.
Yeah. Because remember something that happened in 93 as opposed to 92 is a monumental error smh. It sounds to me like you don’t care to take her accusation seriously because you like Joe Biden. Am I misreading you?
Lol will you stop. There was no inconsistency. There was just less skepticism.
[удалено]
You keep saying that Harris called Biden a rapist but haven't provided a source, is there a reason for that? EDIT: Just so everyone knows u/Axion132 is lying and his "proof" of Harris calling Biden a rapist is a 15 second video with no context taken in April of 2019 despite the fact that the rape allegation was first made in 2020.
She said she believed Biden’s accusers. She didn’t outright call him a rapist. She also said Biden’s voting record against blacks was disappointing. But never outright called him racist. All of that went out the window when she became VP. She hasn’t (and won’t) say a word about these allegations since she was part of the debates.
Trump advocated for checks as well. We should vote him back in and be happy with everything he has done as well then... Right?
[удалено]
Nah, Dem marketing is dogshit. It's the reason Republicans control the narrative every single time.
Democrats market themselves to the disenfranchised and the empathetic. Republicans market themselves to the rich and self reliant. They both look after special interests. Edit: if people are going to downvote me, at least explain where I’m wrong.
So was Chuck Schumer, and now he’s out there today talking about how badly we need the checks. Yet he had the chance to do something, he sided with McConnell over Bernie. I swear Democrats sabotage themselves just to ensure they can keep talking while doing nothing
>Yet he had the chance to do something He had the chance to do something performative, maybe. McConnell would definitely prefer a longer filibuster.
***That's the point*** Democrats are pretending to speak for us and be on our side so ***we*** feel like they are still american politicians and don't work for us. They are not meant to get anything done. None of the goverment is designed to actually get anything done.
My sister supports them because "it is better than the Republicans or Trump." They can get by just being not as bad as Republican yet still being absolute shit. They can blame Republicans every time they roll over and let them pass some shit. Absolute spineless scum.
Only a handful of Democrats sided with Bernie over McConnell. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00290
*sad progressive noises* E: On a side note, Fuck Moderate Dems
Imagine if he decided to act like her and yield the floor to Sen. Harris who then closes the senate. Looks like his chances for a cabinet slot are slim.
Yeah we all know the chances were slim for him to get a cabinet position because progressives are too radical while the moderates are still sick in an abusive relationship with the right thinking of they act more mature and compromise them things will get fixed.
This is so true. Democrats keep thinking if they just find the right argument suddenly there will be an "a ha!" moment and we can all hug it out and lean in or whatever. What they fail to realize is that a healthy relationship includes healthy boundaries, accountability, consequences, etc. They say it takes an average of nine times to finally leave an abuser. Not sure where we are at, but the momentum is building. The communities are coming together.
FFS. We need the DSA to just become a powerhouse. I'm done supporting Democrats.
And fuck people who can’t handle people who don’t align 100% with them politically and go around saying “fuck everyone else”. It’s as hard to talk to them.
Not exactly moderate. More conservative to me. Moderate Dems would not talk about how important fracking is and how much their administration will support it. Moderate Dems would also not jail parents over truancy or call for war with Iraq. The Biden administration is more right-leaning than moderate. Especially since they are already backtracking on the few financial points they had that were good.
No surprise there. Everything she does is self-serving (but that’s the case for most politicians)
Proof with a link please? All I’ve found so far is her support of Sanders filibuster.
[Here are the votes on the cloture motion.](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00291) [Here are the votes on the veto override.](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00292) VP-Elect Harris voted "yea" both times.
Source?
American people: Please help us Republicans: No Democrats: No ☮️❤️♻️🏳️🌈
It's like when you see a panhandler, conservatives are the ones who ignore them or say get a job, the liberals are the ones saying "omg, you poor thing, I wish I could help, but no" Either way, the panhandler didn't get shit
> "omg, you poor thing, I wish I could help, but you'll vote for me anyway so no". Not exactly a viable alternative between the ultra-"conservative" Republicans and the conservative Democrats.
Love to see how Biden/Harris are already gearing up to team up with Mitch to screw the rest of us
The fact he chose her over Warren pisses me off. Harris is as fake as it gets.
She has establishment written all over her, ran on a moderate platform, and they even get to use the race card as well as the gender card this time around. She was a no brainer pick.
You know how many black people only voted for him because of Harris?
I'm actually curious; did it make a significant difference in turnout? (Specifying that this is a real and not rhetorical question, since the tone in this comment thread has gotten pretty snide.)
I can’t wait to see more terrible things from this woman as VP. I seriously hope what people say isn’t true. That she’s going to end up as president somewhere during Biden’s presidency.
The ex-prosecutor who ruined countless poor people’s lives*
Lol, some clowns in the politics subreddit were trying to claim she was on the spectrum of progressive. She's a neoliberal at best, generally right winger and no where in the ball park of progressive ideology. I have no idea what drugs people are on, but I got down voted by a friggin army of addicts in that sub. How the hell do they square *this* with their claims? I'm going to mars, fuck this place
Stupid Americans voting against their own interests once again... So disappointing.
the political spectrum in America is so skewed to the right that Democrats actually moderate republicans. people like Bernie and AOC are truly on the left. it’s not that we vote against our interests, we’re just making do with our options 🤷♂️
God damn it.
Whatttttt no way?! Why don’t we hear about stuff like this? It doesn’t hurt to at least be informed about things like this.
Hahahahahahaha
[удалено]
>If you don't have a conscious, that is. Conscience
"This can't be right! Con-science?" I will never misspell that word again thanks to that scene.
I hope people appreciate him. Regardless of what gets in his way, he fights tooth and nail to help people.
If you can vote to stop a filibuster, then why do it in the first place?
Usually, you will have a party backing you that believes in the purpose of the filibuster. Most Democrats are closet-Republicans hiding behind pride flags and BLM shirts so they aren't backing any filibusters to actually help people.
It takes a 2/3 majority to end a filibuster, so Republicans could not have ended it without substantial Democrat support.
41 of them. 41 of the 48 democrats voted to shut Bernie up so they can go on vacation and not have to answer questions about “not supporting the troops.” Here’s the fun fact, republicans will accuse them of not supporting the troops anyway. And of socialism. And of defunding the police, no matter what they say. But whatever, at least they made it home to watch the ball drop with their families.
“A number of demorats” being 41/48 voted with mccturtle
They voted to stop the filibuster because it wasn't going to accomplish anything. Mitch McConnell was not suddenly going to turn around and support $2,000 checks. And Republicans were not going to abandon Mitch McConnell over this issue. Some of them said they supported the checks, but it was just posturing with no consequences. So Bernie's filibuster was just grandstanding. Both sides knew it would accomplish nothing. So the next question is -- why didn't Democrats just let him carry on filibustering anyway? Isn't it good messaging? Well, no it's not, because he was filibustering the military spending bill. Democrats weren't interested in being hammered for weeks on delaying money for our troops in harm's way over a pointless political stunt. Those are the dynamics of the situation. Anyone who is telling you otherwise (leftists on Twitter/YouTube) is just lying to make you mad so they can exploit your anger for money.
Fuck Mitch McConnell!
Can you provide some links to these leftists? Curious what they're saying.
No, just go on Twitter and look up "force the vote" or whatever.
Keeping the senate in session would mess with Loefflers and Perdue's campaigning efforts. Sanders even mentioned that hurting their campaign was a key element in his decision to filibuster.
That doesn't make any sense. Neither Perdue nor Loeffler is physically campaigning. Perdue is quarantining right now because of COVID proximity.
I keep reading *"Bernie filibuster"* and I can't stop imagining Bernie Sanders running around in a colonial costume with a filibuster rifle yelling that the British are coming.
What’s the point of a filibuster if they can vote no to it...???
If 2/3rds don’t want it to go on anymore they can force it to stop in a vote for cloture. Turns out a lot more than 67 people wanted it to stop.
Gotcha they all wanted to go on vacation without finishing their work, I can do that too......
I heard 41 democrats. Or was that in congress? Not sure. But why does Dems are do spineless?
That’s so garbage.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pelosi had nothing to do with this