Then fucking do it, and stop talking about doing it until you do it
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
155 points (99.4% liked)
News
23259 readers
2944 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He can't, as this is an ideological split between the parties and would need to go through the house as well, where it would fail. Bringing this up now helps inform voters of an issue that could be resolved if Democrats turn out and take control of the house while retaining control of the Senate and executive branch.
It’s more about getting the republicans on record with a vote on a clean bill. Hard to campaign when you voted no on voting rights.
Especially if it forces GOPers to vote against rape, viability and incest exceptions. Getting those fucks on record about that would be awesome.
I'm highly skeptical that anyone in the GOP would a) have trouble crafting a campaign message that trashes an ostensibly "clean" bill or b) lose any support over a vote either way. Anyone who cares about abortion or voting rights is already voting blue, and anyone who's voting red at this point won't care about this procedural tactic. We've been hammering Dems to get GOP votes "on the record" for decades, and it hasn't really been the factor that moved the needle in any meaningful way.
Showing the Dems will actually do something would motivate the apathetic people. It isn't about swaying existing voters, it is about increasing the number of people who vote by giving them something to vote for.
You literally just moved the goalposts. First it's about putting the GOP on the record, and now it's about motivating voters? Who exactly are you catering to with that tactic? And do you have proof it does either? I've never seen any.
It is about putting the GOP on the record to motivate the voters by taking some kind of action.
Try to keep up.
You...you think Democratic voters need Republicans to vote against abortion rights to justify going to the polls? What kind of half-baked logic is that?
Also I asked for evidence it works that way. Got any?
No, I think undecided or apathetic voters who are not currently engaged in voting will be motivated by the Dems actually doing something before the election and seeing the GOP obstruct it. More motivated than by Dems saying they will do something in the future, which they constantly fail to do.
Just fucking do something.
I speak from experience as an unaffiliated voter who votes against Republicans, but isn't really voting for Dems because I think they will do anything. Just because it is the best chance to make the GOP lose.
So no then?
Didn't know I needed a thesis to have an opinion.
Evidence should be easy to find if the effect is as obvious as you suggest, no?
edit: Look, as charming as this back-and-forth is, I'd like to present evidence to the contrary. This kind of gesture doesn't register at all with voters, and makes zero difference in their motivation to vote, because Democrats tried to codify abortion rights into federal law in 1989, 1993, 2004, 2007, 2013, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 and folks like you are still clamoring for them to "just do something". If they open the floor for another inevitably doomed bill and do more "something", people will still bitch and moan that they're not doing anything, just like they always have.
If if if if if if.
I don't buy for a second that he will ditch the filibuster if the Dems have control. They could get rid of it right now and they would be no worse off than when the Republicans have the house, senate, and oval office and choose to ditch it to pass their project 2025 bullshit like they neutered it to stack the courts.
Ditching the filibuster, passing the legislation, and then blaming the house for not following through should dominate the election discussion.
You don't have to get rid of the filibuster. You only have to get rid of the procedural filibuster. Make 'em stand and talk.
Maybe keeping people in office till they’re 80 and 90+ would be less appealing if they had to stay in session for a real physical filibuster?
Strom Thurmond was already 53 when he did his 24-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I'm convinced he still could've done it at 100 years old when he left office fueled by nothing but hate.
The majority already has the power to "make em stand and talk". They generally choose not to in order to avoid wasting everyone's time.