• Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s a bit disingenuous to say we had a full blue government. Technically we had it but our majority in the senate didn’t really exist due to false Dems like Manchin

    • popcap200
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Plus the filibuster requires 2/3, not a simple majority to get anything done.

      • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        But doesn’t need 2/3rds to remove, only majority. Which then gets back to the “pseudo” dems that appear anything it gets close to having progressive legislation passed

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Removing the filibuster is a nuclear option that will ensure Republicans will be unable to be stopped next time they’re in power. It’s a stupid idea.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I disagree, republicans don’t let the filibuster stop them when they want to do something.

            They can still pass their tax cuts because of reconciliation and they immediately changed the rules to lock in the supreme Court.

            Classic example of Democrats pretending the other side has a respect for rules and tradition.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              And we were able to pass Build Back Better with reconciliation. The filibuster hampers both sides, and removing it is a terrible, dangerous idea.

              • Triasha@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I actually disagree. Removing it is a democratic idea. We already have 2 houses of Congress which must agree to pass legislation and the president must sign it unless Congress can muster a supermajority.

                Any voter has had 4 chances in the ballot box to represent their interest, we do not need to set artificially higher standards to prevent legislation from passing.

                If voters sow the wind by electing lawmakers that support reckless or harmful policy, then voters should reap the whirlwind that results.

    • Triasha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Manchin wasn’t even in the Senate yet. Lieberman was an independent that endorsed Romney 3 years later.

      There were senators from Louisiana and Missouri in that majority.

      Also Franken wasn’t seated until like June because of recounts and lawsuits. Ted Kennedy was on deaths door and passed away 2 months later. His replacement was seated a couple months after that and then Scott Brown won in fucking Massachusetts in January.

      They ended up with something like 109 working days in which Democrats could override a Republican filibuster. They passed 2 major pieces of legislation. Dodd Frank and the ACA.