• Gigasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      2 months ago

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

        • FlaminGoku@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

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

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’d rather they eliminate it.

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

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

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

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

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

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

  • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

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

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      At least there’s a carrot now, before we were just getting the stick of “vote for me or the fascists will take over”

    • unmagical@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      There actually was a wolf in that analogy. Just cause the villagers decided to ignore the warnings didn’t make him not exist.

    • auzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Be specific. What exactly?

      Because Obama also got a lot done he promised

      In contrast, Trump clearly makes up things on the spot to impress whoever is in the room at the time

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

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

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

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

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

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re not wrong, but refrain from attacking other users.

        Manchins R replacement is up something like 70-30 in current polling BTW, definitely going R.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        And whoever takes his place will be a Republican.

        His seat, or his function? Because his seat will be occupied by a Republican. We’ll have to see who will come to occupy his function of convenient turncoat obstructionist. Because that person will be a Democrat.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

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

      • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

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