this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
147 points (96.2% liked)

politics

23472 readers
2888 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For the most part, nominees aren't subject to filibuster; the most that the Democrats can do is to slow the pace of approvals to a crawl, which they should have been doing from day 1. Next best time to do it for every nominee is today.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There aren't enough Democrats in the Senate to actually stop them. Just slow things down so much that the Republicans need to pick and choose which ones they care enough to push through.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 4 points 19 hours ago

Seems like that would’ve been a GREAT strategy 100-some odds days ago.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It sure is neat how republicans can reliably stop democrats no matter how large a majority democrats have, but it never seems to work the other way.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

They couldn't during 2021-2022 when Democrats had 50 seats in the Senate plus the VP. You could pass what the most conservative Democrat was willing to vote for then, so long as it was a budget reconciliation bill.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Which is why the national minimum wage is no longer 7.25 and BBB passed.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net -1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

BBB became the Inflation Reduction Act. Its what Manchin would vote for.

The most conservative Democrat is far more conservative than you or I.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

And centrists ran on the inflation reduction act in 2024, with no shame at all for what they stole from us. Because killing everything that had a direct tangible benefit to voters (except lowering the price of 10 drugs for boomers on medicare) was democrats' accomplishment.

Go ahead. Tell me how all the corporate handouts in the law will help individuals. Trickle down economics is so great.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It was far better than anything we got before in terms of environmental impact, even while not being enough:

The Republican effort to repeal it is (rightly) going to to be a real disaster, costing us not just a liveable future, but a lot of jobs in the near term.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I didn't mention environmental impact, now did I? I thought I was talking about direct individual benefits. You know, shit that makes a measurable impact on people's lives before the election? Something we can point to when people point out that things suck? Not just "be grateful you don't have it worse like other countries." Which is shit messaging to people who aren't making it, no matter how much it resonates with the out of touch overpaid consultants that control party messaging.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Even there, Manchin was a major problem. Almost all the Democrats wanted stuff like an expanded child tax credit, but Manchin announced that if parents had money, they'd all go out and buy meth, so he insisted on its removal from the bill before he would vote for it.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

If it wasn't manchin, someone else would have rotated in.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Or...the actual problem is that every single republican is opposed to doing things that help Americans, so with a 50/50 Senate, it took buying off only one Democrat to force stuff out

The actual path to good policy is more and better Democrats. Enough that the failings of one or three can't sink legislation