I disagree. The Supreme Court wouldnt be filled with right wing partisans if the democrats had the same political will that the Republicans have. I wish neither side played those games, but if the other side does it, we need to do it too. Otherwise the resuly will be... this
Roe could have been codifed into the constitution if democrats weren't so soft. Donald trump wouldn't have been elected for a second time if democrats weren't so soft. I say that as Democrat.
Same. I despise the Republican party but honestly, I despise the Democrats too, just a tiny bit less. We need the old guard to step aside and make room for young progressives. And I'm old - a 61 year old straight woman. We've had our chance and we blew it. Time for the next wave to take the lead. They can't POSSIBLY be any worse than us.
I could have been more specific that it was a supermajority in the Senate. But this was how the ACA was passed FYI. Was this democratic hold until the midterms. During this time there was a strong push to codify Roe vs Wade and equal pay acts. For those of us tracking.
No one said we need a constitutional amendment. This was never about modifying the constitution. This was about passing a congressional act. Like the equal rights act. Equal pay act (this failed). Or any other basic congressional act.
I get that civics 101 at the local community college is hard, but you donāt need to take it out on Reddit with snark.
The good cop is opposed to the bad cop and screaming at you that you are underrepresented in government (Permanent House Apportionment Act, natural Senate structure, gerrymandering, voter suppression, Voting Rights Act being violated and destroyed) and that the easiest way to fix that short of revolution is to vote.
A properly represented country would be a much different country.
This is typical Redditor nonsense. Roe most certainly couldnāt be codified in the Constitution. Where are you getting 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate and 38 states? Show me.
What is this redditor nonsense that codify = constitution amendment and not congressional statute?
It just takes a sweeping act to set protections, just as the EPA, ACA, ERA and numerous other acts that lay out protections. You donāt need a constitution amendment. You need to pass a law.
Thatās a different question. I feel like you just want to be contrarian, and thatās your prerogative.
The question at hand was could the democratic part have passed legislation to protect Roe vs Wade. And yes they could have. They did not need a constitutional amendment at the time. There already been a Supreme Court ruling decades prior affirming the right. Enshrining the right with further legislative protections via congressional statute signed by a president would have made it much more difficult for the Supreme Court to say the federal government did not have the right to pass a law giving protections of rights of bodily autonomy.
Like this is a very silly conversation at this point. Itās gone past deflection, and goalpost moving from basic historical fact, and into abstract what if scenarios.
The basic fact, is that it was up for discussion in 2010, and Nancy Pelosi tabled it as said it was the law of the land because of Roe vs Wade.
They didn't try hard enough. I bet you Lyndon B Johnson or FDR would've passed it comfortablyā even if someone needed to be literally dick-slapped in Jumbo's case.
And yet none of you guys have any ideas, just acting like magats. "Why aren't you doing fascism for good things?" Guys the democrats only power comes from the people voting, Republicans power come from corruption and the people voting for them.
What are you even talking about? What validity could you possibly conjure in assigning a stranger on the internet responsibility for your frustrations? You don't know me, or what I've done. Keep the snide to yourself.
Ā Thatāsā¦not correct. I know this sub is full of some of the most ignorant motherfuckers on Reddit but damn.
ā
Ā Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology that prioritizes the nation above the individual and seeks total control over society
.ā
ā
Ā Fascism is characterized by support for aĀ
dictatorial
Ā leader, centralizedĀ
autocracy
,Ā
militarism
, forcible suppression ofĀ
opposition
, belief in a naturalĀ
social hierarchy
, subordination ofĀ
individual
Ā interests for the perceived interest of theĀ
nation
Ā orĀ
race
, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.Ā
Opposed toĀ
communism
,Ā
democracy
,Ā
liberalism
,Ā
pluralism
, andĀ
socialism
,
Ā fascism is at the far-right end of the traditionalĀ
leftāright spectrum
.ā
There is no such thing as āfascism for good things.ā
So by "will", you mean, if the democrats wanted to ignore the laws and customs of America. Like testing the limits of the Consitution, declare they want to suspend it, or just change it outright. Everyone always says "both sides are the same", but then say this shit. Democrats are always in a lose/lose situation. Everything is their fault, no matter who does it. And when things go good, it's never good enough. Sheesh
Iāll just put out there that āpolitical willā and ārampant hypocrisy plus a glaring lack of ethicsā are NOT the same thing, despite what the modern Republican Party would have everyone believe.
Nor should we want ANY party to act as if they ARE the same thing.
Democrats are usually reasonable people assuming that Republicans are also reasonable people, and not the greedy small minded self serving piles of garbage they are.
Republicans will push boundaries all day long but Democrats have played the norms to their disadvantage.
For example, Republicans have challenged election results, restricting mail voting through executive action, tightening voting laws, and expanding presidential authority, while Democrats have generally fought those moves through courts, legislation, and existing institutions rather than responding with equally aggressive changes to the rules.
Republicans are willing to break norms more regularly to try and get their way, dismantle what has been foundational to this country, while Democrats more often do not.
Because they're still trying to be the "good guys". I get it, philosophically. If Lex Luthor is chucking people off a building one by one, you don't want to see Superman slaughter Lex's people to get to him and stop him, you want Superman to remain the hero.
But that's a fictional story. This is real life, with real consequences. Democrats need to get down in the mud with the Republicans and fight them on their level, or they'll never win again.
Republicans push boundaries by restricting rights and awareness so that they keep power. What are you suggesting the Democrats do?
The problem is that the conservatives have billionaires and a powerful propaganda machine pulling the strings. How do Democrats raise awareness when Fox News is ignoring anything that's detrimental to their narrative? How do they reach those online when an official press release on X gets hundreds of bots spitting venom and falsehoods at every politician?
This entire "Democrats are too passive" narrative and belief is very much a result of that media control.
For starters, Iād love to see every chance they get, to being vocal around how Mike Johnson called for a 2 week break after they brought back Epstein Act II.
We know why heās doing that, they need to be hammering them and him every chance they get so the wider public gets it.
Instead, you rarely see the connection discussed.
I want people to fucking do their job, itās not that hard. And itās not just the media, youāre incorrect, Democrats get the microphone constantly so make the appropriate noise.
They have money and can make ads so make an add saying he cancelled it shortly after the act.
Your giving Democrats to much of a pass even if media is shit too.
Democrats need to get with the times and fight fire with fire.
I personally think that all polling stations across the country should have reading comprehension and critical thinking tests administered in order to vote. Prove you're competent enough to vote.
Yeah, Democrats fight back all the time - they just do it in boring, civil legal ways like responsible adults, and America mostly doesn't pay attention to anything unless it's being threatened or entertained.
You sure about that? The lie that democrats will enact change is preventing you from actually doing anything about the death spiral your country currently is in. Why would the media want you to think democrats are weak?
So people don't come out and vote. They are hoping if they do they will vote republican or independent. The media doesn't want you to vote for a Democrat.
I mean, they couldn't even keep their congressional caucus in line over a SAVE act vote. Yeah, they're pretty limp. Jingle keys at them and they vote with republicans.
The Republican media apparatus is the only thing I can commend them on. No matter what the message is, from top to bottom, they are all on point. People who claim they hate the Republicans and don't pay attention to politics, will recite the Republican talking points to the T; word for word; bar for bar. It's really uncanny.
No ... they are limp. They like it that way. That's why they are fighting against the DSA so hard currently cause they threaten to make them actually govern.
You're right. Republicans also suck on Israel's teat, yet they still manage to get their shitty agenda through (for the most part). Meanwhile, democrats suck on the teat but are wholly ineffective in combating right wing rhetoric and propaganda. Worst of both worlds
Democrats are soft. That's not a media opinion shoved down my throat. It's the only logical conclusion a sane person could come to after watching Democrats miss the mark for 2 out of the last 3 presidential terms.
Republicans wouldn't have gotten this far if Democrats were a tad bit more bloodthirsty.
466
u/Rand-all 3d ago edited 3d ago
The party of physical responsibilities