177
Why Does Schumer Keep Trying to Cave? (prospect.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/usa@midwest.social
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

How the Senate Democratic leader and his Gang of Eight keep trying to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Bullshit. It's caving and saying that they can let them expire in a year. The subsidy needs to be ironclad - and the alternative is that we repeal every law related for-profit health care as anything legal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    And in that year, it will be used as a talking point to motivate people to vote. And then (hopefully), enough of congress will agree to a budget that includes the subsidies, among other things

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Oh yeah, like Roe v Wade! That went great!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Since Roe v Wade was overturned, nearly every vote to grant abortion access passed. It's an issue that motivates voters to act.

    However, it would seem that enough dems caved to the republican budget that it doesn't matter. So basically everything I've said in this thread regarding the hopeful strategy that was put forth is moot. I'm back to being disappointed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Row v Wade was only able to be overturned because Democrats wanted to be able to run on the platform of defending it, rather than just codifying it into law

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The belief in the courts and with politicians was that it was settled law and therefore not up for debate. The dems, at least as far as I know, had nothing to do with the case being overturned. It wasn't codified into law for two main reasons - there wouldn't have been enough votes and/or a president wouldn't veto it, and it wasn't seen as necessary given the fact that it was settled law.

    Do you have sources for any of this? Because it sounds a little too ridiculous to be truthful

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •