discussion Kamala says no to federal abortion clinics, tells Dems to vote in November

[jadeabove]

2 hours ago, BreakinTheIce said:

I agree that AOC is a great communicator, but Harris said what needed to be said though? She's not messing around with people and making them think that more can be done than what is reality. she's being honest with what is possible. i'm sorry that some people are mad at that but maybe they should be mad at government functions themselves then and not the messengers. 

 

she also outlined what they CAN do, but people don't care. if people really can't be bothered to learn how things work, then that's not my or any politicians fault. its all their own.

Can't say I disagree, sis. 

[jadeabove]

1 hour ago, BeyIridescent said:

Naw they should’ve done something about it in 2016. These people in the forum are blaming the centrist democrats instead of the extreme left wing of the party. The Bernie bros who refused to vote for Hillary as well as the countless black Americans that voted for Obama but not Hillary are to blame. Not to mention the white Karen’s who voted for Trump. 

 

Americans as a whole are responsible for this.

Yeah, but it's almost like saying it's too late to do anything. I much prefer thinking what can be done to prevent any further radicalization. I'm super jaded as it is, I just choose to look forward at this point cuz if we want to be resentful, there's a shitload of resentment we can feel at all time. 

[BeyIridescent]

49 minutes ago, jadeabove said:

Yeah, but it's almost like saying it's too late to do anything. I much prefer thinking what can be done to prevent any further radicalization. I'm super jaded as it is, I just choose to look forward at this point cuz if we want to be resentful, there's a shitload of resentment we can feel at all time. 

Hillary Clinton warned us over and over again. The rejection of the first viable female presidential candidate  is what led to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Pretty ironic don’t you think? We are way too late. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by BeyIridescent
typo

[jadeabove]

50 minutes ago, BeyIridescent said:

Hillary Clinton warned us over and over again. The rejection of the first viable female presidential candidate  is what led to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Pretty ironic don’t you think? We are way too late. 

So by that logic, we just stop mobilizing because we’re just doomed? I’m not even American. I feel absolutely terrible for anyone who is at this time, but I’m not stupid, this means that it can legit happen anywhere which is why I hope that Canadians remain extremely vigilant. Either way, the mindset of doom and gloom won’t work. Neither is the extremely positive perspective. Action is needed.

[spree]

Biden should legalize marijuana right before the midterms in Nov.  What is needed is getting the YOUNG to vote.

[Sugar-Rush]

This administration is useless. And can y'all stop bringing up Hillary ffs? She lost 6 years ago, get over it.

[CovalentBondage]

7 hours ago, BreakinTheIce said:

god the people in this thread really are delusional. she wouldn't commit to it RIGHT NOW because they DO NOT have the votes. how hard is this to grasp? they only have 48/50 Democratic senators who would blow the filibuster up. So what she's saying is vote in NOvember to get at least 2 more Dems on the books so they DO have the 50 to blow it up and not worry about Manchin or Sinema. if you actually watched the interview, you'd know that the tweet is misleading, and she "wouldn't go there" *right now* because its futile

 

It's really annoying seeing people live in this fantasy world where there's all these things that they could be doing but aren't. sorry that the admin is trying to reason with people and be realistic about what can and can't be done right now. there's also just as many legal issues with creating abortion clinics on federal land and it likely would not be able to work out.

 

also miss me with any nina turner tweet. she has no right to be giving any opinions after losing two democratic primaries and basically helping Trump get elected in 2016.

This. Im not even American and its clear that they can't just go ahead with these decisions 

[ClashAndBurn]

7 hours ago, BreakinTheIce said:

god the people in this thread really are delusional. she wouldn't commit to it RIGHT NOW because they DO NOT have the votes. how hard is this to grasp? they only have 48/50 Democratic senators who would blow the filibuster up. So what she's saying is vote in NOvember to get at least 2 more Dems on the books so they DO have the 50 to blow it up and not worry about Manchin or Sinema. if you actually watched the interview, you'd know that the tweet is misleading, and she "wouldn't go there" *right now* because its futile

 

It's really annoying seeing people live in this fantasy world where there's all these things that they could be doing but aren't. sorry that the admin is trying to reason with people and be realistic about what can and can't be done right now. there's also just as many legal issues with creating abortion clinics on federal land and it likely would not be able to work out.

 

also miss me with any nina turner tweet. she has no right to be giving any opinions after losing two democratic primaries and basically helping Trump get elected in 2016.

Even if there were miraculously some net gain of +2 Dems to negate Sinema and Manchin, two things:

 

1. Dems are not keeping the House. They will be losing at least 40 seats.

 

2. Even if Dems kept the House, there are way more Democrats than just those two who oppose nuking the filibuster for any reason. The others who oppose it just get to hide behind those two because it makes them look like they're supportive of the party and enables them to fend off primaries while the filibuster gets upheld anyway. Manchin is unprimaryable and Sinema doesn't care - she's fine with checking out of elected life and getting checks for lobbing instead.

 

Not to mention Biden has publicly said he opposes changing the filibuster himself, and he doesn't want that to be a path that Democrats pursue. He demands the mathematically impossible threshold of 60 Dem Senators or bust. And partisan simpletons STAY giving him excuses for why nothing is possible.

[Kassi]

8 hours ago, jadeabove said:

AOC is doing a heck of a better job. 

Well, when you can lie cause you're not the one who has to follow through on your preposterous suggestions, it's probably easier.

[Azulito]

22 hours ago, BreakinTheIce said:

Pretty sure the DNC directly did not promote Nina to be a chairman of the party in Ohio. Nina is irrelevant and trying to be relevant and she never will be. She still can't accept the fact that she lost multiple times now.

The DNC promoted Jaime Harrison to be  chairman of the party after losing his Senate race. You’re fine with that but bothered by Nina’s tweets? A joke. 

[khalyan]

17 hours ago, Kassi said:

Well, when you can lie cause you're not the one who has to follow through on your preposterous suggestions, it's probably easier.

You consider the expansion of the supreme court or removing the filibuster to be "preposterous"? 

[Kassi]

1 hour ago, khalyan said:

You consider the expansion of the supreme court or removing the filibuster to be "preposterous"? 

Yes. And I’ll let AOC tell you why. 
 

 

This is probably the most honest tweet she’s ever tweeted. Its cut, dry, to the point, and the article even has a BIG graphic right up front which summarizes the conclusion and names the obstacles.
 

Which leads to the only viable solution: ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS. 

Everything else is bloviating nonsense. How is that simple point so hard for anyone to grasp?

[spree]

in layman's terms, what does "filibuster" mean?

[rihannabiggestfan]

She is so ridiculous  Why should anyone vote for your uninspiring and incompetent ass?

 

 

 

and since the center-right Hillary Bros are getting brave in this thread

 

 

 

[ClashAndBurn]

3 hours ago, Kassi said:

Yes. And I’ll let AOC tell you why. 
 

 

This is probably the most honest tweet she’s ever tweeted. Its cut, dry, to the point, and the article even has a BIG graphic right up front which summarizes the conclusion and names the obstacles.
 

Which leads to the only viable solution: ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS. 

Everything else is bloviating nonsense. How is that simple point so hard for anyone to grasp?

You’re screeching to elect more democrats when… it’s literally mathematically impossible to get to a filibuster-proof majority that is pro-choice. You know this from the last time Democrats had their supermajority that they did nothing with before Ted Kennedy kicked the bucket.  It’ll be even harder in 2024 when Democrats lose Manchin’s seat permanently.

[chessguy99]

5 hours ago, spree said:

in layman's terms, what does "filibuster" mean?

For a bill to be voted on in the Senate, the debate over the bill must be ended. Traditionally one or more Senators could hold up the the end of debate by continually speaking on the Senate floor, this was called a filibuster. The rules have been streamlined to a vote to conclude debate, with this vote being 60% of the Senate membership to end debate and move on to voting on the bill. This is why people say you need a supermajority, 60 votes, to get anything passed in the Senate.

[A Bomb]

6 hours ago, spree said:

in layman's terms, what does "filibuster" mean?

To add one important detail to the last post. It can be done away with a simple majority. All the stalling on legislation is self-induced. 

[Tropez]

On 6/27/2022 at 6:58 PM, bad guy said:

The absolute failure of this administration is one for the history books. This may as well be Trump's second term 

It won’t be. They’re turning on Trump. DeSantis has a stronger chance. 

[Bloo]

7 hours ago, spree said:

in layman's terms, what does "filibuster" mean?

The filibuster is a senate rule (not in the constitution) that requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill. That’s it. It can be removed and done away with at anytime. 

[Bloo]

8 hours ago, Kassi said:

Yes. And I’ll let AOC tell you why. 
 

 

This is probably the most honest tweet she’s ever tweeted. Its cut, dry, to the point, and the article even has a BIG graphic right up front which summarizes the conclusion and names the obstacles.
 

Which leads to the only viable solution: ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS. 

Everything else is bloviating nonsense. How is that simple point so hard for anyone to grasp?

This isn’t the compelling point you think it is. We all know Democrats won’t do it because they don’t care about getting anything done. We all know that. Which is why voting blue no matter who isn’t a compelling strategy. AOC and voters in general are calling for Dems to do the right thing now. Biden opposes removing the filibuster and people are trying to push him to join the fight to do the right thing. If you cede that the Democrats as a whole are too worthless to expect to do that, then great, don’t expect people to turn out to vote. 

[Vroom Vroom]

8 minutes ago, Bloo said:

This isn’t the compelling point you think it is. We all know Democrats won’t do it because they don’t care about getting anything done. We all know that. Which is why voting blue no matter who isn’t a compelling strategy. AOC and voters in general are calling for Dems to do the right thing now. Biden opposes removing the filibuster and people are trying to push him to join the fight to do the right thing. If you cede that the Democrats as a whole are too worthless to expect to do that, then great, don’t expect people to turn out to vote. 

It took 50 years of strategic planning for Republicans to get Roe overturned. And now people are expecting dems to bring Roe back from the dead in 2 weeks. It is just not realistic. Making meaningful change takes time.
The quickest solution is for dems to win more elections. Biden and Kamala are doing what they can right now. They can’t just wave a magic wand to make everything better 

 

OT: Kamala’s interview skills have improved tremendously. No awkward laughing, just straight to the point

[Vespertine]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:28 AM, BreakinTheIce said:

the way people don't understand how government in this country works.... voting is the key central thing to everything that happens.

 

people want to get pissed about being asked to vote yet where were you in 2016 when trump won? people not voting in 2016 directly contributed to where we are right now. if hillary would've won, we wouldn't be here right now.

 

so yes, voting ******* matters. i don't get how this is a hard concept.

Why have Dems made 0 effort to codify abortion rights into law over the last 50 years? Quickly. 

[Communion]

8 hours ago, Kassi said:

Which leads to the only viable solution: ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS. 

 

23 minutes ago, Vroom Vroom said:

the quickest solution is for dems to win more elections

Democrats and sycophants: TO PUT OUT THE FIRE, GET WATER FROM THE RIVER

 

Progressives: *keep running to the river to get a bucket of water*

 

Centrists: *keep dumping out the water instead of putting the fire out*

 

Democrats and sycophants: WHY AREN'T YOU WORKING HARDER TO PUT OUT THE FIRE??? MORE WATER!!

 

People stopped believing in elections because your corporate Dems kept putting their thumb on the scale for centrists who support the fascism we're meant to be stopping. At one point do you feel bad for lying to defend fascist-enablers?

[Bloo]

42 minutes ago, Vroom Vroom said:

It took 50 years of strategic planning for Republicans to get Roe overturned.

It took 50 years of complacent Democrats for this to happen. Republicans weren’t covert in what they were doing. Democrats have just consistently maintained that they would rather not do anything to combat them. Nancy Pelosi has also been openly critical of the idea of pushing out anti-abortion Democrats from the party (see Pelosi: Don’t kick out anti-abortion Dems from party). Just as recently as a month ago, Nancy Pelosi was actively campaigning for a Democrat that is anti-abortion and has an A+ rating from the NRA in a primary against a pro-abortion, progressive woman of color running for the same position. Explain how voting blue no matter who helps us when Democrats aren’t even in agreement on abortion rights? Democrats could have codified Roe v. Wade in 2009 when they had super majorities in both chambers of Congress. Obama said codifying Roe would be his top priority as president in 2007. When he had super majorities in both parties in 2009, he instead said it wasn’t a priority. 
 

Republicans were only able to get this far because the Democrats chose to do nothing. Defending them from the very legitimate criticism that they did too little to protect women’s rights helps no one. They need to do better if they want to win races. They need to do better if we want a shot at protecting wonen’s rights. Pretending that this is all the Republican’s helps no one. I’m not sure why y’all continue to defend the abject incompetence on display by the Democratic Party. 
 

They’re losers and they do not give a damn about you, me, and the others they claim to fight for. Stop pretending that they’re heroes that are in there for the best intentions. They’re not. They’re power-craven ghouls and they should be called out and smeared for their failures and betrayal. 

[spree]

57 minutes ago, Bloo said:

It took 50 years of complacent Democrats for this to happen. Republicans weren’t covert in what they were doing. Democrats have just consistently maintained that they would rather not do anything to combat them. Nancy Pelosi has also been openly critical of the idea of pushing out anti-abortion Democrats from the party (see Pelosi: Don’t kick out anti-abortion Dems from party). Just as recently as a month ago, Nancy Pelosi was actively campaigning for a Democrat that is anti-abortion and has an A+ rating from the NRA in a primary against a pro-abortion, progressive woman of color running for the same position. Explain how voting blue no matter who helps us when Democrats aren’t even in agreement on abortion rights? Democrats could have codified Roe v. Wade in 2009 when they had super majorities in both chambers of Congress. Obama said codifying Roe would be his top priority as president in 2007. When he had super majorities in both parties in 2009, he instead said it wasn’t a priority. 
 

Republicans were only able to get this far because the Democrats chose to do nothing. Defending them from the very legitimate criticism that they did too little to protect women’s rights helps no one. They need to do better if they want to win races. They need to do better if we want a shot at protecting wonen’s rights. Pretending that this is all the Republican’s helps no one. I’m not sure why y’all continue to defend the abject incompetence on display by the Democratic Party. 
 

They’re losers and they do not give a damn about you, me, and the others they claim to fight for. Stop pretending that they’re heroes that are in there for the best intentions. They’re not. They’re power-craven ghouls and they should be called out and smeared for their failures and betrayal. 

so what is your solution?  If it's not vote blue, then what?  Vote independant?