Emerging leader Sen. Chris Van Hollen says he is refusing to fund the government next month until the war is defunded.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
48 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 67 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (22 children)

We need a new Senate majority leader. We need someone not afraid to drop the filibuster day one.

If we keep the filibuster in place we waste our House and Senate majorities.

We can pass Medicare For All, federally protect access to abortion, undo Citizens United, pass legislation to allow states to have Citizens Ballot initiatives, bring back a broader version of the Fairness Doctrine, expand the court with term limits, uncap the House, give D.C. and Puerto Rico the option for statehood, and much more.

If Democrats are afraid of losing their lead in 2028, then the surest way to ensure they gain more seats in the House and Senate is by actually passing positive change now in this rare moment where they actually can. The surest way they can do that is not wasting two years getting blocked by the filibuster with only one or two bills passing through reconciliation only to then get vetoed.

A veto’s not a big deal since you can amend the bill slightly and it’s suddenly a new bill. If the veto gets used on say Medicare For All, then put more time into investigations since they will have shown they don’t care about what the American people care about and it will be on record.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 15 hours ago (7 children)

    Yup, agree completely. Trump will veto most of it, but he's a craven narcissistic populist in addition to being a fascist. El-Sayed's suggestion to call Medicare for All "Trumpcare" may in fact be all the ego-stroking needed to make the difference. Either way, if he vetoes everything, we can go into 2028 with a clear demonstration of what needs to happen and who is in the way of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

    There’s a chance he could get impeached as well - should investigations become the core focus, assuming he’s not rubber stamping legislation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    At least 10 Republican Senators would have to vote to impeach for it to stick

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

    If the full documents come up as well as the handling of Iran, then there could be 10 Republican Senators that vote that way. If not, at least they’ll be on record for how they voted which is also something many of them would want to avoid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 12 hours ago

    At least if we get rid of filibuster, Trump will have to veto everything. With the filibuster, it's the senate's fault for sucking. Without, it's Trump's fault for sucking.

    Maybe Republicans had a reason to keep the filibuster, since it makes Trump's job easier, but I don't think there's any legitimate reason for Democrats to keep it.

    Filibuster is just so stupid. In the future, after we hopefully abolish it, nobody will understand why we ever had it.

    Just like when we get real universal healthcare, people will look back at these times and wonder what the fuck was wrong with us idiots.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 hours ago*

    That's exactly why I disagree with it. Trump will veto everything and we lose the main protection against Republicans if they reclaim the majority.

    The time to drop the fillabuster is when they control all 3 branches

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Unfortunately you are right. trump selected Steven Miller for Chief of Staff, Republicans choose Gym Jordan for minority leader.

    Those are clear signs they don't look for compromises.

    Side note, one has to wonder... People are overwhelmingly are dissatisfied, and they still hang to the senile 80 year man, who isn't even hiding that he is destroying America and creating a room to our enemies to get stronger.

    What is it that they willing to stick with him even with clear pedophilia connections? Bribes, blackmail? I'm very interested what is in the other 3 millions Epstein documents. I'm starting to think many prominent congresspeople are there as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

    I expect they’ll pull from Mitch’s playbook at the minimum, so shutting down the filibuster option has to be one of the first focus points. Once the Senate rules are in place we can’t retroactively get rid of the filibuster, and they stay in place for two years.

    At this point, surely many of them must have something on each other. I think you’re onto something with many congresspeople being implicated to some degree or another.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child)

    the dynamic duo can do all that and bernie is an independent who has no say in this whatsoever

    rather like the leftist delayed learners spreading anti dem propaganda on lemmy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    Sen. Schumer can make it clear if he intends to drop the filibuster. But both he and Rep. Jeffries have not set a clear message that they are for Medicare For All which would be a huge for the American people yet alone some of the other things I mentioned. Dems have a shot to actually pick up seats this go-around if they have ambition. Similarly, a strong Dem candidate running for President in 2028 will help seal the deal as well, assuming Dems have shown they have done everything they can for the American people over these next two years.

    Wins on implementing these policies now could create progressive changes lasting a generation and likely give Democrats a supermajority for years as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago* (8 children)

    This sounds like a waste of the shock of dropping the filibuster and also a waste of time.

    No, we keep the filibuster, because Trump will just veto anyway. He’s a lame duck so nobody will even care. And put focus on the senators that are killing the legislation. If Americans want Medicare for all and their senators votes against it, that will make it tough on them in 2028. Maybe this is how we get to 60.

    Don’t let the lame duck protect the senators up for reelection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (7 children)

    We need to ride the laurels of the win. If legislation sits in the Senate, and only a bill or two goes through after months of reconciliation only to get vetoed, which then causes a government shutdown because it’s a spending bill, then Dems make concessions that get us a nothing-burger for two years and they lose their momentum.

    Meanwhile if the legislature passed bills back to back but they’re getting vetoed then they can point to Trump and Republicans as standing in the way of what the American people want. There’s a chance Trump doesn’t veto but just doesn’t sign the bills, which make them go into law anyways after 10 days. There’s no way we get 60 or more Senate seats in 2028 if we don’t push tooth and nail now.

    We’ve seen what happens when a Senate doesn’t pass anything before. That’s what killed all our momentum back during the Obama era because the public sees it more as a failure of politicians to work things out between themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago* (6 children)

    they can point to Trump and Republicans

    This is where I think you’re wrong. Republicans already don’t like Trump, which is why Texas turned blue. In 2028, this won’t matter anymore. If Trump is doing the veto, and that is the reason the bill gets blocked, it will be ONLY Trump being blamed. The rest of the republicans won’t be to blame.

    You need senators from states up for reelection in 2028 blocking bills so you can point the finger at them. A veto is meaningless for 2028.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago* (5 children)

    If it gets vetoed they can still attempt to overturn the veto and show a count of how many Republicans did not try to overturn the veto.

    Trump still has a hold on some of his base, but that base has shrunk significantly.

    Even if everything gets vetoed and we fail to overturn the vetoes, it still matters because say Trump/Vance get impeached pre-2028, then the House Majority leader becomes President and the Senate Majority leader becomes VP. With the filibuster gone, they can start signing legislation into law at a quick speed with no filibuster holdups.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (4 children)

    There’s also a chance that getting rid of filibuster motivates Republicans in 2028. Ending the filibuster now is just showing your hand with very very little possibility for benefit. Let republicans dig themselves into a deeper hole for 2 years. Then if you don’t have 60 in 2028, that’s the time to talk about ending the filibuster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (3 children)

    The Republican politicians are already motivated as are their donors. The American people currently, at large, are much more motivated for the Democrats because they’re trusting we will try to implement changes. If we fail to deliver then that’s where Republicans will be motivated to turn up to vote for Republicans and Democrats could be frustrated and not turn up.

    The benefit now is the headlines of “X bill passes House and Senate by Democrats in record time and number” for the next two years. Let them have to veto the bills, but passing them does matter to show Democrats are showing up to work everyday for these next two years. If we get even something helpful passed because we got rid of the filibuster it’ll help motivate Democrats to turn out again in record numbers.

    We can easily pick up another handful of Senate seats if we’re passing helpful legislation these next two years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (2 children)

    Well, we can agree to disagree. I think “X bill failed because these specific senators voted against it” will be much more effective for getting an even larger majority in 2028 than “X bill failed because Trump vetoed”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Their ‘No’ votes in the House and Senate will still be on record in either case so we can still bring that up come 2028.

    So Trump, the figurehead of the Republicans whether in office or out, can try to field the blame but the rest of the party still looks bad since the ‘No’ votes go on record as well. Especially so if Democrats attempt to overturn any of the vetoes directly as they can point to both Trump and the Republicans in Congress as the hold-up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 24 minutes ago

    Sounds like a whole if wishful thinking and all downside. Ending the filibuster now is madness. We can talk in 2029. But now is just dulling your blade before you have the opportunity to use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 53 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

    The best part about being one of his constituents is I never need to write him a letter urging him to vote the way I want him to, he just does it.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

    I guess the dynamic is similar for Schumer's constituents, but because he'll never vote the way they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

    He votes the way the imaginary people in his head tell him to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Bernie Sanders is the man.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 13 hours ago

    The man who wasn't backed by his parties leader for all his career won't back that leader once change is imminent that could help pushing his ideas. I wouldn't back that Schmuck Chummer and neither should you.

    Democracy now!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago

    They should order Schumer a Big Mac, and make him eat it.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 hours ago* (1 child)

    Does Bernie get to vote in the Democrats' Senate leadership vote since he's an Independent? It's honestly unclear to me. I was under the impression that no, he does not.

    I guess unless Dems allow Independents who caucus with them to have a vote in their Senate leadership?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

    People said the 'status quo is fucked', democrats took this too mean, "life is fucked because extraneous circumstance, need to return to satus quo", wtf is wrong with these fucks?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

    Can you point to where all the Democrats said this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

    No, but I can point to a majority of them doing so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    Can you point to where a majority of Democrats said this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Are you a pedant or an asshole? I have read a Politico and The Hill Articles that said Jefferies was a shoo-in. Do I need to link them or are your hackles raised?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Oh my god, you think Politico and The Hill represent the Democratic Party?! Politico is owned by Axel Springer, which is German, and whose CEO imposes editorial decisions from the top, such as strict support for Israel. The Hill is owned by Nexstar Media, which universally publishes straight-up conservative propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

    Holy crap America .... you need an ancient wizard to tell you to get rid of the dinosaur in your midst?

    I love Bernie Saunders and I think he's great ... but you really need to get some younger people into positions of power to get you through the next few decades or you'll be thrown under the bus of more progressive countries around the world or else you'll just fall under a total facist state because your elderly leadership was easily coerced.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

    Bernie Sanders is not running to be majority leader, but also Bernie Sanders clearly still has the fight in him, and there's no reason for him to stop right now. If you watch the press conference this article is about, not only is he completely right, but he also presented this with Senator Elissa Slotkin, who is 50. Senator Jon Ossoff is 39. New Senators include Abdul El-Sayed, 42, Annie Andrews, 46, James Talarico, 37, and probably Scott Colom, 43.

    Republicans win with the oldest senator, Chuck Grassley, 93, and the most vegetative senator, Mitch McConnell, 84.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    I know he isn't running for leadership ... what I'm point out is that your leadership and even your spokespeople have to always be old people in positions of power ... and it's OK to have older wiser people in power but over the past few decades that idea has become farcical because you are being led by a government of 70 and 80 year olds

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

    I think Sander's knows he's too old for leadership at this point. The man he is proposing for Majority Leader is 67, which is still old, but only a little bit above the average for the Senate, and quite a few years younger than the 85-y-o Sanders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 9 hours ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • 3 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 21 points 14 hours ago

    Can we please ensure that Sanders celebrates his 150th birthday. He has been consistently trying his best within the constraints of the party.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 14 hours ago

    What a fucking dude

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago

    i really don't know how this guy does it. Much respect

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
    [–] 10 points 19 hours ago

    Good. Schumer and Jeffries failing to gain party leadership roles in Congress will be a good indicator that the Dems are slowly starting to reform into something less beholden to AIPAC and corporate money.

  • source