There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Schumer floats history-making votes on abortion and voting rights

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) single-handedly raised the stakes of the 2024 elections on Tuesday, revealing he’d consider carving out rare exceptions to allow votes on protecting voting and abortion rights.

Schumer’s plan would move the Senate closer to getting rid of the filibuster, a longtime rule that requires 60 votes instead of a simple 50 vote majority to advance legislation.

Nougat ,

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.

xtr0n ,

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?

would_be_appreciated ,

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.

FlowVoid ,

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.

PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S ,
@PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Then fucking do it, and stop talking about doing it until you do it

24_at_the_withers ,

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.

darvocet ,

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.

xmunk ,

Especially if it forces GOPers to vote against rape, viability and incest exceptions. Getting those fucks on record about that would be awesome.

Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

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.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

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.

Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

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.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

It is about putting the GOP on the record to motivate the voters by taking some kind of action.

Try to keep up.

Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

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?

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

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.

Blackbeard ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

So no then?

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

Didn’t know I needed a thesis to have an opinion.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

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.

MediaBiasFactChecker Bot ,

Axios - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Axios:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.axios.com/2024/08/20/schumer-filibuster-votes-abortion-voting-rights

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •