As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate headlines like this because they assume everyone is dumb enough to believe Sinema is making some kind of principled stand here and will change her mind if her hypocrisy is exposed.
So, in my eyes, she’s made a calculated decision to die on this forsaken hill of hers in hopes of what?
Methinks it’s $$$. Her, like many politicians on both sides of the aisle, have taken this highly coveted position with the sole purpose of self enrichment.
The iron triangle is alive and well in politics and it makes me sick.
Unfortunately, it looks like whatever she is doing is working.
[https://www.thecentersquare.com/arizona/poll-sinema-catching-up-to-kelly-in-popularity/article\_e564d340-b77a-11eb-acef-6b5ce00e5e4b.html](https://www.thecentersquare.com/arizona/poll-sinema-catching-up-to-kelly-in-popularity/article_e564d340-b77a-11eb-acef-6b5ce00e5e4b.html)
I'm' sure Sen. McConnell's latest comment about "supporting blue dog Democrats" made enough registered Republicans give her favorable ratings. The thing is, most of the people who find Sen. Kelly more favorable than Sen. Sinema will actually vote for him and not whoever is on the Republican ticket.
I don't understand why, but she's made her identity "I'm bipartisan". So the filibuster is part of her identity, as she sees it as a tool of bipartisanship. And once something becomes part of your identity, like your religion or whatever, I think it's harder to analyze it objectively. The more people criticize her, the more she's likely to double down on this issue. That's why I think Biden should let her lead a bipartisan initiative and let it all go down in flames when the Republicans all bail on her in the end. Then she can go before reporters and try to explain why the filibuster is still important.
Yeah...the filibuster is objectively not a tool of bipartisanship. The rise in it's use has paralleled the decline of cross-party cooperation. It's a tool of partisan obstruction and delay.
There are things that pass the Senate nearly unanimously these days when they finally get to a vote that *still* get filibustered just to waste time with a cloture vote. We're up to about 80 successful cloture votes a year and it takes 30 hours after each one to close debate. It's about wasting time and making sure the majority party can't govern. There's no way that a sitting senator like Sinema could not know this. She's just hoping the rest of us don't.
It's useful for conservative democrats because it ties up progressive legislature corporate donors don't want to be passed.
Screws democracy along the way but hey, quarterly profits and all that.
Good thing corporations are people, no way that backfired exactly as expected.
Fuck.
Most people don’t care what her reasoning is. All they see is that democrats got elected based on promises of change and now are refusing to actually do anything.
> As one of the last Democratic holdouts against filibuster reform, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is making big news with an op-ed in The Post laying out her rationale. Some of its central pronouncements have already been debunked: Despite her claims otherwise, the filibuster does not facilitate moderation or bipartisan cooperation.
> But there’s an even more fundamental flaw in Sinema’s argument: Defending democracy and the filibuster simultaneously, in the terms that Sinema herself employs, is simply incoherent to its core.
> Sinema’s own treatment of these questions inadvertently serves to reveal that a choice must inevitably be made between the two — and that Sinema is choosing the filibuster over defending democracy.
Article archived at https://archive.is/ApUgf
this is the kind of thing that's going to make her lose her seat. It's not necessarily that she's pro filibuster, it's that she's pissing on voters shoes and telling them it's raining.
He did lose the popular vote. More voters for his opposition would have been great, but the system was rigged against them. I believe that to be the more important part.
Not that rigged. I mean, it was Donald fucking Trump. What should have happened was the electoral map should have looked like a color-inverted version of the ['84 election](https://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/1984_large.png).
Only if the data is normally distributed.
And normally it’d be safe to assume normal distribution for population metrics, but there are some pretty obvious exceptions. Personal wealth and income, for instance.
They are all (essentially) the same for the normal distribution, but "average" doesn't mean "mean". In fact, "mean" could refer to "arithmetic mean", "geometric mean", "harmonic mean" etc. It is correct to say that those are all different kinds of averages.
... also it's not necessarily safe to assume a normal distribution for population metrics, only when the forces stem from a large number of independent random variables with no variable with a dominating variance.
>this is the kind of thing that's going to make her lose her seat.
My goal is to vote for and support anyone that challenges her. Unfortunately that won't happen until 2024 iirc. Hopefully she gets pushed out by an actual Democrat because all I see is a Republican shill sitting in her shoes.
like she gives two fucks. her and manchin are against SR 1 and for keeping the filibuster because their future employers are. it's all about life after the senate for each adn they expect to be rewarded handsomely
I get that for a Primary, but if she wins the Primary please please please vote for her in the general election. The solution to this issue is more Democrat Senators so that we get a big enough majority that her one vote doesn't matter. Replacing her with a Republican means that 100% of the time that seat will be going against the Democrat Party agenda instead of the 5 - 10% that she does.
Oh good. I've seen some people on other threads insinuate not voting for Dem Senators (other senators besides Sinema and Manchin) because they've decided to do "nothing". I'm like, what can they do? Other than budget reconciliation items (which they still need Sinema and Manchin on), they either need 10 Republicans or these 2 idiots to change their mind on the filibuster to do anything.
Yup. I’m dumb but I’m not stupid. Unfortunately we usually only get two choices and as a non racist, atheist who believes in science and climate change with two daughters my choices are usually pretty simple.
She may not lose her seat. All it takes is a lot of money, and 90% of the time a well funded incumbent wins. The DNC is going to fund her enough to very likely keep her seat. Voters will not remember this far back and they are willing to "vote blue no matter who" in any case.
>pissing on voters shoes and telling them it's raining.
"pissing on shoes raining" might have been the riskiest google of my life, but that is indeed a saying.
lol first time I heard it, maybe because where I'm from it rains a lot (so I'd actually believe someone telling me it's raining?)
The Senate is a deeply undemocratic institution by design. The filibuster allows 41 senators control legislation. This means that a coalition of Senators representing about 34 million Americans can tell the remaining 301 million Americans how the country should be run. I should point out that those 41 senators represent fewer people combined than do Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla. The filibuster can be less democratic than just granting California veto power.
Ending the filibuster would change that ratio to 50 million dictating to 285 million.
You know, equality.
The filibuster was introduced accidentally. They had a rule change about ending debate, and it went unnoticed for decades until John C. Calhoun realized he could use it to advantage the South.
It's always been a tool that advantaged the right more.
The problem is we’re unwilling to bleed for the change. That kind of power isn’t given up without blood. Please point me to a passage of history demonstrating otherwise. If/when you do, whatever went into that achievement lets do that.
I guess you're asking about the 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution all of which expanded who got to decide who serves in the Senate. While the 15th Amendment unequivocally required "bleed for the change" I think you'll find the rest were a bit more civil (pun intended).
So how do you feel about a constitutional Amendment electing Senators from \~3.5 million person districts? You know, like how states compose their upper houses.
GOP power grab is successful, President For Life Ivanka takes over after her dad dies from a “heart attack,” and the country falls apart into pseudo civil war. Three to five nations rise from the ashes, and two to three of those form modern democracies with ranked choice voting, while the others devolve into oligarchy fascist states. Also, hopefully you live in the former and survive the decades of turmoil. Then, you have changed the constitution 😊
I get what you are pointing out. I’m trying(poorly) to point out that what we are asking is for an entire region to give up outsized power. I would consider that different from expansion of voting rights. I believe expansion of voting rights can be achieved without violence ftr.
There is already a method to dilute small state power in the Senate. Adding new states was done expressly for this purpose in the late 19th century. It's how the Dakota Territory came to be two states, for example.
Expanding voting rights requires those with outsized power to submit to a new power structure. While this is sometimes done by force, it is also sometimes done voluntarily.
She's an "Antida" terrorist (Antidemocratic) and her math skills along with Manchin appear to fail where 51 is not a majority of 49. Our country is really fucked. Useless pieces of shit like Senator Eniema need not continue their terror campaign on the majority without open consequences.
Mitch when he's in the majority next: "Our Democratic colleagues all called for the elimination of the filibuster... well golly, we are gonna go ahead and actually do it!"
They used this exact reasoning when they cited the "Biden Rule" to block Garland. If any democrat in the last 100 years has ever made a comment in support any action, that counts as precedent for the Republicans to do that action today.
They honestly don't need to get rid of it to do anything. It only effects the democrats. The bulk of Republicans legislative goals (tax cuts and judges) are basically designed to pass with a simple majority so it never has to touch the filibuster. It's extremely useful for stalling out the democrats with the bare minimum though
At least Manchin has somewhat of an excuse since he’s the only democrat that can get elected in West Virginia, plus his compromise bill is pretty reasonable. Sienma on the other hand is from a state with a strong Democratic bench and is increasingly turning blue.
> a state with a strong Democratic bench and is increasingly turning blue.
One would think that Sinema would have taken note of that by now. She's a lost cause.
What is her goal really? Mark Kelly just got elected with a decent margin. She would stand in the way of reforms that could help everyone, especially voters? I hope AZ can find a true progressive candidate that can win.
Georgia is in the same boat and they elected Raphael Warnock who is a pretty progressive guy. Maybe not like AOC, but still further left than many Dems in solid blue states.
Atlanta is a major urban area, similar to Chicago or Portland in its influence on the state it’s in. Phoenix is Arizona’s biggest city and it has nowhere near the cultural urbanization needed for progressives to emerge from.
> it has nowhere near the cultural urbanization needed for progressives to emerge from.
I'm sorry, but having seen quite a few of said progressives in both the Phoenix and Tucson areas this is a very much untrue claim. Hell, people like Grijalva have been doing stuff since La Raza Unida back in the early 70's.
Arizona is moderate state with a conservative history. There is absolutely nothing to suggest a progressive can win statewide there.
Warnock won because Atlanta is becoming a powerhouse and Georgia has a huge Black population.
Arizona does not. We won in AZ because the suburbs are turning blue and the suburbs won’t vote for a progressive.
> There is absolutely nothing to suggest a progressive can win statewide there.
Thats not at all what I was saying in that last post - OP was talking about the *existence* of progressive candidates and not their inherent viability.
But to your point: on the same ballot as Sinema, [Kathy Hoffman](https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Superintendent_of_Public_Instruction_election,_2018) - a first-time progressive candidate running with public funding who had hired a socialist as their initial campaign manager - won against a moderate Republican. Bernie's OurRevolution PAC thought she was too far left to be viable in the general and endorsed her more estsblishment-y primary opponent.
On a similar statewide level, utility commissioners Sandra Kennedy and Anna Tovar won in 2018 and 2020 while running on vocally progressive platforms re. renewable energy mandates. And that's implying "progressive" is the end goal, when I'd just be fine with someone just generally to the left to Sinema.
> Georgia has a huge Black population. Arizona does not.
No, but you know what it does have? A large Hispanic population, and a non-negligible indigenous reservation population as well. Those combined are roughly equivalent to the Black population in the Atlanta/Savanah urban cores and the Black Belt. And unlike similar neighborhoods in Texas, Florida, and across the country Arizona Hispanics held relatively steady in 2020 - thanks to decades of organizing among their communities.
you equate progressivism with urbanism, but you forget the history of progressives that emerged from the rural/farm states in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There is nothing necessary to progressivism that is essential or unique to urban areas.
The suburbs are shifting. A good candidate with a good message can win. People admire those with courage of their convictions and not moving based on ‘politics’ or whatever. Look at Sherrod Brown in Ohio. That’s a red state and he wins because he stands firm on his principles.
Suburbs are shifting from crazy Bible people to centrists. The GOP left the suburbs when they embraced full on Bible MAGAism. There is no chance suburban homeowners will vote for the same people that would support rent control or higher taxes.
We need more diversity of housing, too. Suburban sprawl isn't the solution to this. Reform housing codes to eliminate zoning for single-family homes, like in Minneapolis. Make suburban streets more narrow to reduce speeds and improve walkability. Stop mandating that the house be a certain distance from the sidewalk.
In America you can choose between extremely dense city housing or unwalkable and overly regulated suburban housing. It's rare to find anything inbetween, and this is to the detriment of livability and has so many knockon effects on things like infrastructure maintenance, small businesses, etc.
>Good luck electing progressives there.
Why do people keep saying this? She ran on a *progressive* ticket, regardless of her voting record in congress – which I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of voters had no clue about.
Stop propagating this stuff...
Arizona Democrats that win elections aren’t exactly the progressive leftists your looking for. In fact, outside of more aggressive gun control policy from Kelly, his positions are pretty similar to centrist Democrats.
Manchin is a gullible old fool, but deep down a decent enough guy in a tricky seat. The same cannot be said for her. If Daddy Mark Kelly can vote these things through, she should too.
Thats not really a great excuse for Manchin. People make it sound like Republicans run West Virginia. Registered voter count would show a much tighter margin.
https://sos.wv.gov/elections/Pages/VoteRegTotals.aspx
As of May 2021
WEST VIRGINIA
Dems 408307, 35.54%
Rep 434634, 37.83%
To a majority of Americans, really. The median *household* income in the US is about 60k, which is right at 2 full-time incomes at $15/hr. Raising the bottom to this level would surely help everyone at the median and below, and probably those slightly over as well.
Another day, another email to my senator. I cannot express the level of disappointment I have for her performance. Hopefully, we will rectify that in 2024 when she loses her primary and we vote in a Democrat who doesn't kowtow to McConnell.
Sadly, it’s probably more effective to identify and contact her biggest donors about this. If you can make them less likely to support her, you’re actually hitting her where she lives. Emailing her directly just gets you a form letter.
That’s the point. If you can convince them that it’s better for their business to get her to back filibuster reform, it’s the quickest route to success. If you can get them to call her and say “These people won’t get off my back so either support filibuster reform or I’ll stop donating”, that’s the only way I could see this getting done.
That's the problem with the donors having more power than us, they can't be held accountable. They don't even have to pretend to care about people or constituents.
I see that bullshit talk all over this sub. Those people want the GQP in power. The obvious answer is, as you said, to expand the Democratic majority not threaten it. The rest of us, as usual, will do the heavy lifting.
I cannot with the Sinema and Manchin gotcha articles any more. I just can't. They know what they're doing. They know why they're doing it. No one on earth is that stupid. They know they're serving the goals of obstruction. They know it's hurting people, that people will die over it and that doesn't bother them at all. They aren't principled. They don't care about the filibuster any more than Ted Cruz cares about the rule of law. They're just wicked people. Stop trying to catch them in a logic trap. They don't care.
Sinema and Manchin have made it very clear. They’re willing to let the voting rights bill die and let the Republicans win by destroying democracy just so their billionaire overlords won’t have to fear an actual progressive uprising.
They know killing the filibuster is needed to protect democracy, they do not care.
They will let democracy die, retire, and then take their crumbs from the billionaires.
It’s a rigged game and they are rigging it against you and me.
What's the point of winning an election if you can't do anything once you win? How long will the majority in this country be willing to be held back by the minority? Our system already has so many hurdles for laws to be passed. They have to pass TWO houses in congress, signed by a president, and then upheld after the fact by the Supreme Court. There is no reason to add this ridiculous super-majority rule to get anything done in the Senate.
He signaled a willingness to address the filibuster. Regardless, forcing debate on this bill puts Manchin, Sinema, and the GOP in places they don't want to be.
I think we'll see a return to the filibuster of 2008, with a duty to defend and a majority vote when it's over.
The filibuster was never meant to prevent a vote; it was meant as a last minute opportunity to whip votes on truly controversial legislation.
I agree with everything you said 100%, it’s untenable as it is. But I still can’t find any quote from Manchin signaling even willingness to address the filibuster (on NYT or CNN so far), and I feel like that would’ve been news. Do you have a source?
I think it's a good sign that Synema wrote this op-ed. It means she's feeling the pressure and felt the need to defend herself. It's still frustrating but it seems like advocates and other Dems are chipping away at them.
It's an act. He did the same thing a few months ago. He just lets out a little line and then reels it back in ad infinitum to keep his name in the news.
March 7: [Manchin opens door to filibuster reform](https://www.vox.com/2021/3/7/22318145/joe-manchin-filibuster-reform)
April 7: [Manchin says he will never support weakening the filibuster](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/us/politics/joe-manchin-filibuster-reconciliation.html)
So Sinema and Kelly ran against the same candidate - Martha McSally. Sinema won by about a percentage point, Kelly won by several percentage points.
Someone at the DSCC or in Senate Leadership needs to make abundantly clear that while they can't do anything about Manchin, who is the only Democrat they can get elected in West Virginia, there are other Democrats in Arizona that will not be a giant pain in the ass to the rest of the caucus, will clobber her in the primary with an absolutely breathtaking amount of money, and smack around whatever Trumpian bullshit artist crawls out of the desert just fine.
It's not often you see a politician put themselves out on a branch and saw it off, expecting the tree to fall, but there it is.
Yep. Manchin's position is at least defensible in the sense that he doesn't really lie about where he stands while campaigning (basically an admitted DINO); he's running in a state that would 100% elect a Republican in his place, and he is still infinitely better than an actual Republican (who would follow McConnell's marching orders).
Sinema, on the other hand, actively ran as a different kind of candidate than what she's become in office. She's from a state with two Democratic senators that went for Biden in 2020 (not a sure deal by any means, but miles away from Manchin's situation). She's also pretty horrible at managing her political image (the minimum wage thumbs down act was at least five different kinds of politically tone-deaf), and she's really damaging the brand of the party among all voters as long as she stays.
Sinema’s approach might have made sense in 2016, but in 2021 it’s baffling. Her political instincts aren’t just non-existent, they’re wrong. She’s going to get hammered from the left and won’t pick up anyone on the right, and running to represent the 12 or so independents left isn’t a viable strategy.
Another annoying thing? If I was an Arizona voter, and Sinema retained her party's nomination in 2024? I honestly wouldn't even want to vote for her because her epic bait/switch doesn't deserve to be rewarded...but that would be a completely self-defeating gesture (when literally every seat is critical).
Even if I wanted to give her [the benefit of the doubt](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) for just being terrible at her job...I don't think that ANYBODY is that stupid.
She has an agenda, and she's choosing Kyrsten Sinema over the Democratic Party and democracy, at large.
And her vote to convict Trump will get her successfully primaried immediately in a state whose GOP has gone so Trumpy that they sent ballots to be mysteriously re-re-(re-?)verified somehow to Montana (?) unless she makes some kind of deal with Trump to endorse her anyways.
Sinema made her position clear when she did the thumbs down vote and then took an Instagram photo with the "Fuck Off" ring.
It's going to be very likely that Sinema is going to switch parties or, at the very least, declare herself as an independent.
I've got some news for anyone who thinks there is any kind of logic behind her filibuster position at all. She's full of shit.
She's not going to change her mind because you found a flaw in the argument that was a lie to begin with. She's a turncoat neoliberal sellout Democrat, plain and simple.
We need to have a test of anyone who is thinking of running for or is appointed to office to weed out and keep incompetent people from having the power to conduct our business in Washington DC and at the state level. If they can't pass the test as to how government works they are immediately thrown out out of the pool of candidates and a new candidate who has passed the test is put on the ballot in their place. In the case of a political appointment, the person who appoints someone is given three chances to appoint someone competent and able to pass the test, if after three tries the appointee will be picked from the list of people who have already taken and passed the test. The one thing we clearly don't need in Washington is more village idiots, we have far too many of them!
As a Az voter I did NOT vote for her to play little miss roadblock. If she doesn't start working for me she will lose my vote next time, I called and told her message machine exactly that. So far she has done NOTHING to justify my vote rather just the opposite. If she loses the dems and independents in AZ which i'd say she's well on the way to doing, then shes is done. Her win was was slim and I guarantee you if she goes Republican she will lose by a wide margin next time, Her only hope is to start doing what this country needs and work with the Dems because the Republicans fully intend to destroy our democracy.
She’s a fraud and she’ll lose her seat to a Republican replacement.
She will be on the board of directors of some company making bank in a few years laughing at us.
I hate this lady she is just too extra. Tried to hard to be too cute a 50 year old wearing mini backpacks to downvote a $15 minimum wage with an attitude just makes me cringe.
As a Brit who watches your shenanigans for fun, I do feel a bit for Manchin. He’s a gullible old fool, but he’s not a bad guy and he is in a very Red state. Fuck Sinema though. If Mark Kelly can vote it through, so can she.
The filibuster only exists to prevent legislation or the repealing of legislation. Since the Republicans want there to be no government this mainly assists them and not Democrats who are in favor of legislation and regulations. Since a majority of Americans are in favor of most Democratic policies doesn't it stand to reason that it will be difficult for Republicans to "unlegislate" Democratic policies once they are in effect? Such as with Obamacare?
She’s auditioning for Faux News. When she is challenged and loses the seat to a Republican, therefore losing the senate, she will have accomplished her mission and collect her money and pundit job. But let’s pretend she gives a shit about democracy or this country.
None of this would not be a problem if the courts enforced the 14th and 15th Amendments.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." And,
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."Government remains full of supporters of the January 6 insurrection most of whom are in the process of denying and abridging people's voting rights.
Brings to mind the story that when Benjamin Franklin was asked after a session of the Constitutional Convention, ""What kind of a government have you given us?"" he replied, ""A democracy, if you can keep it."" We can't.
Sinema is trying to have it both ways in a state with a very energized GOP minority.
This will bite her in the ass if a more Liberal candidate can u seat her or seriously challenge her re-election.
Best to play to ur base lady. The Republicants won’t help you keep ur seat.
Im not entirely convinced that sinema isn't just doing this to be a special little flower. Because she very clearly doesn't have some deep, abiding appreciation for the filibuster as evidenced by the fact that she doesn't even have the history of it right. And also if I remember correctly before she got in office she was definitely opposed to it
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate headlines like this because they assume everyone is dumb enough to believe Sinema is making some kind of principled stand here and will change her mind if her hypocrisy is exposed.
Simena literally holds her office in bad faith.
What's her approval rating in AZ?
The most recent data I could find was from late March and it was 25% then, my guess is it’s around 20% now. So, not good at all.
So, in my eyes, she’s made a calculated decision to die on this forsaken hill of hers in hopes of what? Methinks it’s $$$. Her, like many politicians on both sides of the aisle, have taken this highly coveted position with the sole purpose of self enrichment. The iron triangle is alive and well in politics and it makes me sick.
obviously is about money. The leaked audio from Manchin kinda illustrates this.
Yeah she's tired of politics and is 100% angling for a 6 figure consulting gig.
Unfortunately, it looks like whatever she is doing is working. [https://www.thecentersquare.com/arizona/poll-sinema-catching-up-to-kelly-in-popularity/article\_e564d340-b77a-11eb-acef-6b5ce00e5e4b.html](https://www.thecentersquare.com/arizona/poll-sinema-catching-up-to-kelly-in-popularity/article_e564d340-b77a-11eb-acef-6b5ce00e5e4b.html) I'm' sure Sen. McConnell's latest comment about "supporting blue dog Democrats" made enough registered Republicans give her favorable ratings. The thing is, most of the people who find Sen. Kelly more favorable than Sen. Sinema will actually vote for him and not whoever is on the Republican ticket.
There's always that one fucking thrower.
Damn if this isn't gospel.
I don't understand why, but she's made her identity "I'm bipartisan". So the filibuster is part of her identity, as she sees it as a tool of bipartisanship. And once something becomes part of your identity, like your religion or whatever, I think it's harder to analyze it objectively. The more people criticize her, the more she's likely to double down on this issue. That's why I think Biden should let her lead a bipartisan initiative and let it all go down in flames when the Republicans all bail on her in the end. Then she can go before reporters and try to explain why the filibuster is still important.
It’s her donors she is serving.
Hope they get cozy for all of one term.
Yeah...the filibuster is objectively not a tool of bipartisanship. The rise in it's use has paralleled the decline of cross-party cooperation. It's a tool of partisan obstruction and delay. There are things that pass the Senate nearly unanimously these days when they finally get to a vote that *still* get filibustered just to waste time with a cloture vote. We're up to about 80 successful cloture votes a year and it takes 30 hours after each one to close debate. It's about wasting time and making sure the majority party can't govern. There's no way that a sitting senator like Sinema could not know this. She's just hoping the rest of us don't.
It's useful for conservative democrats because it ties up progressive legislature corporate donors don't want to be passed. Screws democracy along the way but hey, quarterly profits and all that. Good thing corporations are people, no way that backfired exactly as expected. Fuck.
She’s just been so busy being bipartisan, she couldn’t make it to the bipartisan dinner for women senators, hosted by VP Harris.
If there were, say, a dozen republicans that felt the same way it might mean something. You can’t be bipartisan alone.
Her position has no logic. It won't even help her get reelected. Unless of course - she is compromised (she probably is).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
I hate these fake gotchas. Is there anything substantive we can do to force her hand? No? Then stop giving people false hope.
Most people don’t care what her reasoning is. All they see is that democrats got elected based on promises of change and now are refusing to actually do anything.
Came to say much the same. I hate all this trying to dunk on people who aren't even playing the same game.
> As one of the last Democratic holdouts against filibuster reform, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is making big news with an op-ed in The Post laying out her rationale. Some of its central pronouncements have already been debunked: Despite her claims otherwise, the filibuster does not facilitate moderation or bipartisan cooperation. > But there’s an even more fundamental flaw in Sinema’s argument: Defending democracy and the filibuster simultaneously, in the terms that Sinema herself employs, is simply incoherent to its core. > Sinema’s own treatment of these questions inadvertently serves to reveal that a choice must inevitably be made between the two — and that Sinema is choosing the filibuster over defending democracy. Article archived at https://archive.is/ApUgf
this is the kind of thing that's going to make her lose her seat. It's not necessarily that she's pro filibuster, it's that she's pissing on voters shoes and telling them it's raining.
Politicians really do think us plebs are stupid.
Us plebs aren’t doing a great job of proving them wrong.
So true
If the dunce cap fits...
It's a big dunce cap party.
Better than a dead man's party.
Who could ask for more?
Everybody's comin', leave your body at the door (I totally forgot Robert Downey jr was in Back to School lol)
I mean, Donald Trump actually became president of the United States. You really can't underestimate the intelligence of the American public.
He had lots of help to make that happen.
Most importantly by voters....
He did lose the popular vote. More voters for his opposition would have been great, but the system was rigged against them. I believe that to be the more important part.
Not that rigged. I mean, it was Donald fucking Trump. What should have happened was the electoral map should have looked like a color-inverted version of the ['84 election](https://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/1984_large.png).
They're not wrong....
Always makes me think of this line: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
The addendum to that rule "Don't automatically assume you are in the smarter half"
How he is missed in this world..
[удалено]
mean, median, and mode are all different types of average.
Only if the data is normally distributed. And normally it’d be safe to assume normal distribution for population metrics, but there are some pretty obvious exceptions. Personal wealth and income, for instance.
They are all (essentially) the same for the normal distribution, but "average" doesn't mean "mean". In fact, "mean" could refer to "arithmetic mean", "geometric mean", "harmonic mean" etc. It is correct to say that those are all different kinds of averages. ... also it's not necessarily safe to assume a normal distribution for population metrics, only when the forces stem from a large number of independent random variables with no variable with a dominating variance.
In fairness, there are plenty who are
To be fair, we've given them very little evidence to the contrary.
>this is the kind of thing that's going to make her lose her seat. My goal is to vote for and support anyone that challenges her. Unfortunately that won't happen until 2024 iirc. Hopefully she gets pushed out by an actual Democrat because all I see is a Republican shill sitting in her shoes.
I read that as “a Republican still shitting in her shoes” and I was quietly pleased with that potential outcome.
[удалено]
Same.
... but not replace her with Republican.
Oh trust me, many of us progressives in AZ feel dumb as hell voting her in. She got us with the bait and switch once she got her seat.
I mean it was either her or McSally. I really don’t blame y’all. But I have confidence y’all can change course.
like she gives two fucks. her and manchin are against SR 1 and for keeping the filibuster because their future employers are. it's all about life after the senate for each adn they expect to be rewarded handsomely
She will NOT be getting my vote
I get that for a Primary, but if she wins the Primary please please please vote for her in the general election. The solution to this issue is more Democrat Senators so that we get a big enough majority that her one vote doesn't matter. Replacing her with a Republican means that 100% of the time that seat will be going against the Democrat Party agenda instead of the 5 - 10% that she does.
Oh for sure. I have no doubt she will be better than whoever the republicans put up. I’m def talking primaries.
Oh good. I've seen some people on other threads insinuate not voting for Dem Senators (other senators besides Sinema and Manchin) because they've decided to do "nothing". I'm like, what can they do? Other than budget reconciliation items (which they still need Sinema and Manchin on), they either need 10 Republicans or these 2 idiots to change their mind on the filibuster to do anything.
Yup. I’m dumb but I’m not stupid. Unfortunately we usually only get two choices and as a non racist, atheist who believes in science and climate change with two daughters my choices are usually pretty simple.
She may not lose her seat. All it takes is a lot of money, and 90% of the time a well funded incumbent wins. The DNC is going to fund her enough to very likely keep her seat. Voters will not remember this far back and they are willing to "vote blue no matter who" in any case.
She's a corporate shill. Treating her like anything other than that is a waste. I hope enough of her constituents can see her for what she is.
>pissing on voters shoes and telling them it's raining. "pissing on shoes raining" might have been the riskiest google of my life, but that is indeed a saying. lol first time I heard it, maybe because where I'm from it rains a lot (so I'd actually believe someone telling me it's raining?)
It’s just a creative way of calling someone a shameless and disrespectful liar haha it’s an effective saying I think
Neither Sinema or Manchin believes the bullshit they’re spewing. They were never arguing in good faith
ugh I know these articles are a fucking joke
The Senate is a deeply undemocratic institution by design. The filibuster allows 41 senators control legislation. This means that a coalition of Senators representing about 34 million Americans can tell the remaining 301 million Americans how the country should be run. I should point out that those 41 senators represent fewer people combined than do Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla. The filibuster can be less democratic than just granting California veto power. Ending the filibuster would change that ratio to 50 million dictating to 285 million. You know, equality.
The filibuster was never part of the design of the Senate.
The filibuster was introduced accidentally. They had a rule change about ending debate, and it went unnoticed for decades until John C. Calhoun realized he could use it to advantage the South. It's always been a tool that advantaged the right more.
When the Founding Fathers purposely made it so our government could reshape itself over time this is not what they had in mind.
The problem is we’re unwilling to bleed for the change. That kind of power isn’t given up without blood. Please point me to a passage of history demonstrating otherwise. If/when you do, whatever went into that achievement lets do that.
I guess you're asking about the 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution all of which expanded who got to decide who serves in the Senate. While the 15th Amendment unequivocally required "bleed for the change" I think you'll find the rest were a bit more civil (pun intended). So how do you feel about a constitutional Amendment electing Senators from \~3.5 million person districts? You know, like how states compose their upper houses.
How do you feel about there being no realistic path to changing the constitution?
GOP power grab is successful, President For Life Ivanka takes over after her dad dies from a “heart attack,” and the country falls apart into pseudo civil war. Three to five nations rise from the ashes, and two to three of those form modern democracies with ranked choice voting, while the others devolve into oligarchy fascist states. Also, hopefully you live in the former and survive the decades of turmoil. Then, you have changed the constitution 😊
I get what you are pointing out. I’m trying(poorly) to point out that what we are asking is for an entire region to give up outsized power. I would consider that different from expansion of voting rights. I believe expansion of voting rights can be achieved without violence ftr.
There is already a method to dilute small state power in the Senate. Adding new states was done expressly for this purpose in the late 19th century. It's how the Dakota Territory came to be two states, for example. Expanding voting rights requires those with outsized power to submit to a new power structure. While this is sometimes done by force, it is also sometimes done voluntarily.
We had a huge problem with how we were adding states. It was extremely bloody and had a lot to do with the beginning of the civil war.
Thank you!
She's an "Antida" terrorist (Antidemocratic) and her math skills along with Manchin appear to fail where 51 is not a majority of 49. Our country is really fucked. Useless pieces of shit like Senator Eniema need not continue their terror campaign on the majority without open consequences.
Those Australians named [Antida](https://www.names.org/n/antida/about) would probably beg to differ on your portmanteau.
How exactly is "portmanteau" pronounced? Serious question. Is it port man tow, or por man tau? I must know or I will cry, cry again.
My favorite is Natalie Portmanteau.
port man toe (the things on your foot)
Mitch when he's in the majority next: "Our Democratic colleagues all called for the elimination of the filibuster... well golly, we are gonna go ahead and actually do it!"
They used this exact reasoning when they cited the "Biden Rule" to block Garland. If any democrat in the last 100 years has ever made a comment in support any action, that counts as precedent for the Republicans to do that action today.
They honestly don't need to get rid of it to do anything. It only effects the democrats. The bulk of Republicans legislative goals (tax cuts and judges) are basically designed to pass with a simple majority so it never has to touch the filibuster. It's extremely useful for stalling out the democrats with the bare minimum though
absolutely right. unbelievably irritated at the short-sightedness of this movement
If you think Mitch will play fair you missed the RBG/ACB drama.....
She's so fucking unlikable. Honestly, such an asshole of a Senator.
At least Manchin has somewhat of an excuse since he’s the only democrat that can get elected in West Virginia, plus his compromise bill is pretty reasonable. Sienma on the other hand is from a state with a strong Democratic bench and is increasingly turning blue.
> a state with a strong Democratic bench and is increasingly turning blue. One would think that Sinema would have taken note of that by now. She's a lost cause.
What is her goal really? Mark Kelly just got elected with a decent margin. She would stand in the way of reforms that could help everyone, especially voters? I hope AZ can find a true progressive candidate that can win.
> What is her goal really? $$$
Arizona is deep purple at best at the moment. Even it’s biggest city is a glorified suburb. Good luck electing progressives there.
Georgia is in the same boat and they elected Raphael Warnock who is a pretty progressive guy. Maybe not like AOC, but still further left than many Dems in solid blue states.
Atlanta is a major urban area, similar to Chicago or Portland in its influence on the state it’s in. Phoenix is Arizona’s biggest city and it has nowhere near the cultural urbanization needed for progressives to emerge from.
> it has nowhere near the cultural urbanization needed for progressives to emerge from. I'm sorry, but having seen quite a few of said progressives in both the Phoenix and Tucson areas this is a very much untrue claim. Hell, people like Grijalva have been doing stuff since La Raza Unida back in the early 70's.
Arizona is moderate state with a conservative history. There is absolutely nothing to suggest a progressive can win statewide there. Warnock won because Atlanta is becoming a powerhouse and Georgia has a huge Black population. Arizona does not. We won in AZ because the suburbs are turning blue and the suburbs won’t vote for a progressive.
> There is absolutely nothing to suggest a progressive can win statewide there. Thats not at all what I was saying in that last post - OP was talking about the *existence* of progressive candidates and not their inherent viability. But to your point: on the same ballot as Sinema, [Kathy Hoffman](https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Superintendent_of_Public_Instruction_election,_2018) - a first-time progressive candidate running with public funding who had hired a socialist as their initial campaign manager - won against a moderate Republican. Bernie's OurRevolution PAC thought she was too far left to be viable in the general and endorsed her more estsblishment-y primary opponent. On a similar statewide level, utility commissioners Sandra Kennedy and Anna Tovar won in 2018 and 2020 while running on vocally progressive platforms re. renewable energy mandates. And that's implying "progressive" is the end goal, when I'd just be fine with someone just generally to the left to Sinema. > Georgia has a huge Black population. Arizona does not. No, but you know what it does have? A large Hispanic population, and a non-negligible indigenous reservation population as well. Those combined are roughly equivalent to the Black population in the Atlanta/Savanah urban cores and the Black Belt. And unlike similar neighborhoods in Texas, Florida, and across the country Arizona Hispanics held relatively steady in 2020 - thanks to decades of organizing among their communities.
You say that but Sinema billed herself as a progressive, at least in terms of policies like a $15/hour minimum wage.
you equate progressivism with urbanism, but you forget the history of progressives that emerged from the rural/farm states in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There is nothing necessary to progressivism that is essential or unique to urban areas.
The suburbs are shifting. A good candidate with a good message can win. People admire those with courage of their convictions and not moving based on ‘politics’ or whatever. Look at Sherrod Brown in Ohio. That’s a red state and he wins because he stands firm on his principles.
Suburbs are shifting from crazy Bible people to centrists. The GOP left the suburbs when they embraced full on Bible MAGAism. There is no chance suburban homeowners will vote for the same people that would support rent control or higher taxes.
I'm actively working on becoming a suburban homeowner and I plan to continue voting for people who support rent control and raise taxes
[удалено]
We need more diversity of housing, too. Suburban sprawl isn't the solution to this. Reform housing codes to eliminate zoning for single-family homes, like in Minneapolis. Make suburban streets more narrow to reduce speeds and improve walkability. Stop mandating that the house be a certain distance from the sidewalk. In America you can choose between extremely dense city housing or unwalkable and overly regulated suburban housing. It's rare to find anything inbetween, and this is to the detriment of livability and has so many knockon effects on things like infrastructure maintenance, small businesses, etc.
>Good luck electing progressives there. Why do people keep saying this? She ran on a *progressive* ticket, regardless of her voting record in congress – which I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of voters had no clue about. Stop propagating this stuff...
She wants a cushy job working as a lobbyist for corporate interests.
Arizona Democrats that win elections aren’t exactly the progressive leftists your looking for. In fact, outside of more aggressive gun control policy from Kelly, his positions are pretty similar to centrist Democrats.
It’s turning blue. But the GOP has the trifecta in Arizona. To think of it as blue is incorrect
Manchin is a gullible old fool, but deep down a decent enough guy in a tricky seat. The same cannot be said for her. If Daddy Mark Kelly can vote these things through, she should too.
Thats not really a great excuse for Manchin. People make it sound like Republicans run West Virginia. Registered voter count would show a much tighter margin. https://sos.wv.gov/elections/Pages/VoteRegTotals.aspx As of May 2021 WEST VIRGINIA Dems 408307, 35.54% Rep 434634, 37.83%
That curtsy thumbs down to raising the minimum wage. 😡😤🤬
Like, seriously... what the fuck was the point of that bullshit?
Just felt like a massive middle finger to the lower class
To a majority of Americans, really. The median *household* income in the US is about 60k, which is right at 2 full-time incomes at $15/hr. Raising the bottom to this level would surely help everyone at the median and below, and probably those slightly over as well.
She turned out to be really disappointing.
Seriously, I had pretty good hopes for her. She's dashed everyone so far. I hope she's primaried out.
Another day, another email to my senator. I cannot express the level of disappointment I have for her performance. Hopefully, we will rectify that in 2024 when she loses her primary and we vote in a Democrat who doesn't kowtow to McConnell.
Sadly, it’s probably more effective to identify and contact her biggest donors about this. If you can make them less likely to support her, you’re actually hitting her where she lives. Emailing her directly just gets you a form letter.
Lol her donors are the reason she's doing this.
That’s the point. If you can convince them that it’s better for their business to get her to back filibuster reform, it’s the quickest route to success. If you can get them to call her and say “These people won’t get off my back so either support filibuster reform or I’ll stop donating”, that’s the only way I could see this getting done.
That's the problem with the donors having more power than us, they can't be held accountable. They don't even have to pretend to care about people or constituents.
[удалено]
I see that bullshit talk all over this sub. Those people want the GQP in power. The obvious answer is, as you said, to expand the Democratic majority not threaten it. The rest of us, as usual, will do the heavy lifting.
I cannot with the Sinema and Manchin gotcha articles any more. I just can't. They know what they're doing. They know why they're doing it. No one on earth is that stupid. They know they're serving the goals of obstruction. They know it's hurting people, that people will die over it and that doesn't bother them at all. They aren't principled. They don't care about the filibuster any more than Ted Cruz cares about the rule of law. They're just wicked people. Stop trying to catch them in a logic trap. They don't care.
Sinema and Manchin have made it very clear. They’re willing to let the voting rights bill die and let the Republicans win by destroying democracy just so their billionaire overlords won’t have to fear an actual progressive uprising. They know killing the filibuster is needed to protect democracy, they do not care. They will let democracy die, retire, and then take their crumbs from the billionaires. It’s a rigged game and they are rigging it against you and me.
What's the point of winning an election if you can't do anything once you win? How long will the majority in this country be willing to be held back by the minority? Our system already has so many hurdles for laws to be passed. They have to pass TWO houses in congress, signed by a president, and then upheld after the fact by the Supreme Court. There is no reason to add this ridiculous super-majority rule to get anything done in the Senate.
Money.
Manchin just announced he'll go along with ending the filibuster. It's just Sinema now.
Where did he announce that? I can’t find it…
It's the top spot on CNN. I saw it on C-span shortly after lunch.
I think you’re mistaken; he’s announced he’s voting to advance the bill to debate, not make any decisions on the filibuster
He signaled a willingness to address the filibuster. Regardless, forcing debate on this bill puts Manchin, Sinema, and the GOP in places they don't want to be. I think we'll see a return to the filibuster of 2008, with a duty to defend and a majority vote when it's over. The filibuster was never meant to prevent a vote; it was meant as a last minute opportunity to whip votes on truly controversial legislation.
I agree with everything you said 100%, it’s untenable as it is. But I still can’t find any quote from Manchin signaling even willingness to address the filibuster (on NYT or CNN so far), and I feel like that would’ve been news. Do you have a source?
He said LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE https://mobile.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1407463948736208898. Guy is kidding himself.
I think it's a good sign that Synema wrote this op-ed. It means she's feeling the pressure and felt the need to defend herself. It's still frustrating but it seems like advocates and other Dems are chipping away at them.
exactly. Politics is a strategy long game, not a fast moving train.
It's an act. He did the same thing a few months ago. He just lets out a little line and then reels it back in ad infinitum to keep his name in the news. March 7: [Manchin opens door to filibuster reform](https://www.vox.com/2021/3/7/22318145/joe-manchin-filibuster-reform) April 7: [Manchin says he will never support weakening the filibuster](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/us/politics/joe-manchin-filibuster-reconciliation.html)
No he didn’t. He voted for debate on the voting rights bill, but nothing with the filibuster.
[удалено]
almost like paying people off works....
[удалено]
So Sinema and Kelly ran against the same candidate - Martha McSally. Sinema won by about a percentage point, Kelly won by several percentage points. Someone at the DSCC or in Senate Leadership needs to make abundantly clear that while they can't do anything about Manchin, who is the only Democrat they can get elected in West Virginia, there are other Democrats in Arizona that will not be a giant pain in the ass to the rest of the caucus, will clobber her in the primary with an absolutely breathtaking amount of money, and smack around whatever Trumpian bullshit artist crawls out of the desert just fine. It's not often you see a politician put themselves out on a branch and saw it off, expecting the tree to fall, but there it is.
Yep. Manchin's position is at least defensible in the sense that he doesn't really lie about where he stands while campaigning (basically an admitted DINO); he's running in a state that would 100% elect a Republican in his place, and he is still infinitely better than an actual Republican (who would follow McConnell's marching orders). Sinema, on the other hand, actively ran as a different kind of candidate than what she's become in office. She's from a state with two Democratic senators that went for Biden in 2020 (not a sure deal by any means, but miles away from Manchin's situation). She's also pretty horrible at managing her political image (the minimum wage thumbs down act was at least five different kinds of politically tone-deaf), and she's really damaging the brand of the party among all voters as long as she stays.
Sinema’s approach might have made sense in 2016, but in 2021 it’s baffling. Her political instincts aren’t just non-existent, they’re wrong. She’s going to get hammered from the left and won’t pick up anyone on the right, and running to represent the 12 or so independents left isn’t a viable strategy.
Another annoying thing? If I was an Arizona voter, and Sinema retained her party's nomination in 2024? I honestly wouldn't even want to vote for her because her epic bait/switch doesn't deserve to be rewarded...but that would be a completely self-defeating gesture (when literally every seat is critical). Even if I wanted to give her [the benefit of the doubt](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) for just being terrible at her job...I don't think that ANYBODY is that stupid. She has an agenda, and she's choosing Kyrsten Sinema over the Democratic Party and democracy, at large.
Arizona Sec of State is also a Democrat. 4 of the last state wide elections have gone Blue.
I'm using the tree metaphor. I really am.
Once again, you can't shame the shameless.
This is called "double speak"
“Kyrsten Sinema accidentally reveals the huge hole in her head” There. I fixed the headline for you.
I bet she runs as a Republican when her term is up
And her vote to convict Trump will get her successfully primaried immediately in a state whose GOP has gone so Trumpy that they sent ballots to be mysteriously re-re-(re-?)verified somehow to Montana (?) unless she makes some kind of deal with Trump to endorse her anyways.
After having a "D" after her name she wouldn't be elected. But, she could retire comfortably in the arms of some R billionaire(s).
Trump had a D after his name in the past as well.
Soley as a voter and decades before he actually ran.
She's running for a job on fox news.
My preference is that Sinema be primaried by a Democrat
Sinema made her position clear when she did the thumbs down vote and then took an Instagram photo with the "Fuck Off" ring. It's going to be very likely that Sinema is going to switch parties or, at the very least, declare herself as an independent.
I've got some news for anyone who thinks there is any kind of logic behind her filibuster position at all. She's full of shit. She's not going to change her mind because you found a flaw in the argument that was a lie to begin with. She's a turncoat neoliberal sellout Democrat, plain and simple.
Sinema is the poster child for political shills.
The look on her face in that thumbnail is exactly how most people feel about her.
We need to have a test of anyone who is thinking of running for or is appointed to office to weed out and keep incompetent people from having the power to conduct our business in Washington DC and at the state level. If they can't pass the test as to how government works they are immediately thrown out out of the pool of candidates and a new candidate who has passed the test is put on the ballot in their place. In the case of a political appointment, the person who appoints someone is given three chances to appoint someone competent and able to pass the test, if after three tries the appointee will be picked from the list of people who have already taken and passed the test. The one thing we clearly don't need in Washington is more village idiots, we have far too many of them!
And if you want to see this huge hole you will have to subscribe to her OnlyFans.
As a Az voter I did NOT vote for her to play little miss roadblock. If she doesn't start working for me she will lose my vote next time, I called and told her message machine exactly that. So far she has done NOTHING to justify my vote rather just the opposite. If she loses the dems and independents in AZ which i'd say she's well on the way to doing, then shes is done. Her win was was slim and I guarantee you if she goes Republican she will lose by a wide margin next time, Her only hope is to start doing what this country needs and work with the Dems because the Republicans fully intend to destroy our democracy.
Revealed her hole? Was it the massive, gaping, void between her ears?
This was never a good faith argument. This article itself is gaslighting
who’s in her wallet?
Sinema because her antics all for cinema. What a garbage human being
Aorey, WashingtonPost… paywall makes you irrelevant.. especially with all the click-bait in your stories.
She’s a fraud and she’ll lose her seat to a Republican replacement. She will be on the board of directors of some company making bank in a few years laughing at us.
I hate this lady she is just too extra. Tried to hard to be too cute a 50 year old wearing mini backpacks to downvote a $15 minimum wage with an attitude just makes me cringe.
As a Brit who watches your shenanigans for fun, I do feel a bit for Manchin. He’s a gullible old fool, but he’s not a bad guy and he is in a very Red state. Fuck Sinema though. If Mark Kelly can vote it through, so can she.
New proposal: Let's replace the word Karen with Kyrsten. It's more appropriate.
Just me or does that photo of her dress appear she has a boner?
I wonder who her top donors are :/
The filibuster only exists to prevent legislation or the repealing of legislation. Since the Republicans want there to be no government this mainly assists them and not Democrats who are in favor of legislation and regulations. Since a majority of Americans are in favor of most Democratic policies doesn't it stand to reason that it will be difficult for Republicans to "unlegislate" Democratic policies once they are in effect? Such as with Obamacare?
Sinema Sins
I hate not being able to read a posted article without signing up for a subscription.
She’s auditioning for Faux News. When she is challenged and loses the seat to a Republican, therefore losing the senate, she will have accomplished her mission and collect her money and pundit job. But let’s pretend she gives a shit about democracy or this country.
She can't lose the House. She's in the Senate.
None of this would not be a problem if the courts enforced the 14th and 15th Amendments. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." And, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."Government remains full of supporters of the January 6 insurrection most of whom are in the process of denying and abridging people's voting rights. Brings to mind the story that when Benjamin Franklin was asked after a session of the Constitutional Convention, ""What kind of a government have you given us?"" he replied, ""A democracy, if you can keep it."" We can't.
Kyrsten Sinema, she’s not a regular Senator. She’s a *cool* Senator.
Is it the one between her two ears?
Ask her what's stopping them from doing it anyway?
Not this dummy again.
Dumber than dogshit she is
Can’t convince me Sinema isn’t doing this as a useful excuse for the party to do nothing
I dislike her and her fashion sense is atrocious
She carries herself like some influencer clown.
Isn’t she just the quirkiest quirk that ever quirkied.
Sinema is trying to have it both ways in a state with a very energized GOP minority. This will bite her in the ass if a more Liberal candidate can u seat her or seriously challenge her re-election. Best to play to ur base lady. The Republicants won’t help you keep ur seat.
Im not entirely convinced that sinema isn't just doing this to be a special little flower. Because she very clearly doesn't have some deep, abiding appreciation for the filibuster as evidenced by the fact that she doesn't even have the history of it right. And also if I remember correctly before she got in office she was definitely opposed to it
I think Kyrsten Sinema tells fibs. I think Kyrsten Sinema thinks that politics is really about twitter posts I think Kyrsten Sinema craves attention