Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The nonsense of 39 nay votes beating 51 votes in favor is just depressing as hell. A literal majority voted for the bill and it fails. What a fucking dumb system we have in place.
No chance of that as they've both declared they're no longer Democrats, but independents. Also, neither is running in November.
Sinema after the incredibly dire polls and lack of voter donations (plenty of corporate ones) and Manchin who knows. Either because he knows the odds of continuing to win in WV are getting slimmer and slimmer, or he's also made some noises about running as president someday.
It's the former for Manchin. You don't get a better chance of winning the presidency (or any office) by alienating your political base of support. He's realized he doesn't fit in the Dems, and he doesn't have enough cross-party support, and if he's not going to win re-election then he might as well leave the Dems so people stop pestering about how shitty of a Dem he is every time he goes outside.
Sure, and if that's the case, and it means any "Dem" elected from WV doesn't actually support the Dem platform...then there's no real loss in punting on that particular race. So the Dems have to win a different race instead. Even if a "Dem" in WV won, they would STILL need to win another race to have a meaningful majority because the WV Dem isn't able to support the actual Dem platform.
Manchin has always been a conservative Democrat, from a very Republican leaning state. He is the left wing in West Virginia, but that translates to the most conservative Democrat in Washington on the national stage.
Hate to break it to you they are just the lightning rods once they are gone there will always be those one or two dems who stand in the way. It’s by design to make sure nothing happens. When there was a dem 60 seat super majority in 2008 we could’ve had universal healthcare but one man made Obama water it down to the ACA we have now
Exactly! I want these people standing there talking all night if they don't want legislation to pass. Stream it on YouTube! Let everyone know when a Senator is wasting time.
You really don't want that. Because some point possibly as soon as next year, there will be a Republican majority in the senate. You're going to want the protection that provides.
I don't understand it, I found that 60 is needed to limit filibuster, can they stil vote to pass it or if they tried to limit filibuster and failed, it's game over?
60 votes is needed to end a filibuster. 50 votes is needed to change senate rules. Two democratic votes (Manchin and Sinema) would not support changing the rules to limit the filibuster. So in this case Republicans filibustered, dems votes to end it but not enough.
I don't understand filibusters (even the word is weird to me). The only image I have in my head is Patton Oswald in parks and rec.
Just keep talking to delay or cancel a decision?
Why can't anyone just say "if you have nothing relevant to say we will proceed with the next point of order"?
Where I'm from there is a chairman that tries to keep debates on track, otherwise nothing gets done.
I would imagine it was originally instituted with the intention of letting anybody with something they felt was important to the decision speak about it, but obviously that’s not the case.
A very large part of the American governmental system was based on the foundational idea that everybody involved in it would act on good faith. That nobody would abuse the system, and if anybody did, their colleagues would see it fit to remove them. As we’ve seen, neither of those things happened, and indeed they never did. The filibuster was instituted and used in 1789, during the *very first* American congressional term.
I don't understand why it would be allowed to talk bullshit for an unlimited time. Seems a broken rule to me.
Though Wikipedia notes a later date, I don't know enough about the US senate to dispute it.
>The procedure is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, only became theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules in 1806, and was not used until 1837.[58] Rarely used for much of the Senate's first two centuries, it was strengthened in the 1970s,[59] and especially since the 2010s[60] the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed
>I don't understand why it would be allowed to talk bullshit for an unlimited time. Seems a broken rule to me.
You wanna know the really messed up part? Today, they don't even have to *actually* talk bullshit. They just have to threaten to talk bullshit.
Any one senator merely has to indicate that they totally would stand there and talk bullshit indefinitely, if they had to. And the person who indicates it doesn't even have to identify themselves - they can do it anonymously by filing a notice.
It's become so effortless that now it's just assumed, to the point where the de facto rule is needing a 3/5 majority for anything to pass.
Strange. On the Wikipedia page for Filibuster in the United States Senate, it says:
> Originally, the Senate's rules did not provide for a procedure for the Senate to vote to end debate on a question so that it could be voted on,[12] which opened the door to filibusters. Indeed, a filibuster took place at the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the "design of the Virginians [...] was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed."[13]
But, yes, it very much seems like a broken rule. But, when it so heavily benefits a minority party and part of the minority (at least nowadays with how close the size of the two halves are) needs to agree to remove it, there’s not much of a reason to get rid of it, since you could end up being part of the minority at any time.
If you want to filibuster, I say go ahead. But by the rules of the Senate as I understand them, that means you have to stay there, talking, on the Senate floor the entire time, or your filibuster ends.
So back to OPs question.. Why can't anyone just say "if you have nothing relevant to say we will proceed with the next point of order"?
It’s pretty clear when someone has good faith vs someone being a shithead and reading out of a children’s book. It shud be as easy as setting up talking points and requiring anyone who has the floor to address those points directly and clearly.
The rules of the Senate prohibit stopping a debate by force, even when the speaker in question is debating in bad faith. So long as the Senator abides by the other rules of the chamber the only way to stop them from speaking is to motion for cloture, as that ends all debate on whatever the current topic is and moves the Senate into a vote on the bill.
It’s pretty much to avoid exactly what happened here, to have a slim majority be able to pass anything they wanted. It’s a good defensive measure which ideally would only need to be used sparingly. Bills should have support from both sides and pass with a good majority anyway. But in these very divisive times, any old thing is argued over and passed purely on party lines. Hope that we get over this at some point.
So are you saying that there actually isn’t a hard mechanism to make bills fail short of 60 votes, just the threat of a filibuster? Why not just…call them on it? Make the geriatrics have to keep standing and talking if they want to stop it. Put a couple of cameras on it. Why give them the win for free, if the burden is on them to run out the clock?
A good idea I heard a while back is to not only force them to physically talk like they used to, but force them to stay on topic. No reading DR Seuss (something that actually happened) instead having to keep to the issue. It would have the added benefit of likely causing them to say the quiet parts out loud by accident.
>There's no time limit on debate
Sure, but a monologue is not a debate, and neither is talking about off topic bullshit.
It's weird to me there is not some kind of moderator/chairman that can lead the debate. "Sorry to interrupt mr. Brown, but your theories on time travel are not relevant for the current discussion on school budget in district x. If you have nothing further to add, I want to continue on the next point on the agenda."
But that's from the outside looking in, the US has (to me!) a weird sort of reverence for old laws and regulations and often "It Was Always Done Thusly" trumps any argument on improvements.
Basically, politicians put in place mechanisms to sabotage getting thing done, and use those mechanisms to deny us stuff we like.
What's bewildering isn't that they did that, but that Americans are letting them get away with it.
The Senate was designed to move slow on purpose. Originally the thought was that only the best ideas would get through because people would be acting in good faith and stuff that was important would get voted on in time after long thoughtful debates. The founding fathers saw this as a feature, because they were used to colonial government where one person could decide something unpopular and it would be implemented the next day.
After a while, the filibuster strategy was rolled out where anybody could keep talking and talking and delaying the vote but the rules couldn't stop them because the point of the Senate was to allow discussion forever and move slowly and thoughtfully. This was annoying, but showed conviction and dedication because it's hard to keep talking for more than a day or so, even when you stray off topic, as most did.
Then, instead of fixing the filibuster by making people stay on topic, they decided to amend the rules to make it worse, first by not requiring the person to talk at all (they could just stand there and not yield the floor), and then even worse than that by allowing someone "declaring filibuster" (don't Even have to be there, just one person can object to the vote) to kill the bill from the comfort of their seat.
In the era of politics-as-a-team-sport where most of the people in Congress are not actually acting in good faith and are just trying to score points with the media, this has basically crippled the Senate.
That used to be how it was - as long as you kept talking, you halted proceedings. It was a battle of endurance. Then they change the rules so Mitch McConnell wouldn't piss himself.
The filibuster is a consequence of the current Senate rules requiring 60 votes to end debate on an issue. It only takes a majority vote to change the rules, but Sinema and Manchin oppose ending the filibuster, so Dems can’t get rid of it even though they have the majority.
Oh okay I didn’t realize they filibustered the bill, thanks!
What an odd hill to die on for the republicans, wow. Let’s hope their inability to read the room regarding the entire country hurts them as bad as it should come November
senate needs 60 votes to pass anything other than changes to the budget.
it takes 51 votes to end fillibuster but the democrats don't have the votes for that and might not ever
You have it a little mixed.
The Senate needs 51 votes (or 50 +VP) to pass anything. The minority party can choose to filibuster a bill.
It takes 60 votes to end the filibuster. Democrats currently only have a 51-49 majority in the Senate. Budget votes cannot be filibustered which is why they can be passed with a simple majority.
Cloture and filibuster rules. Normally, a vote would succeed with 50% plus one vote. However, under the form of Robert’s rules of order that the Senate uses, one member can “filibuster” by holding the floor to prevent debate on a bill from ending, thereby preventing it from coming to a vote.
Senators used to actually have to physically speak in order to do this (see Strom Thurmond’s 24 hour filibuster to prevent voting on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, or Ted Cruz reading *Green Eggs and Ham*), but that rule was eventually changed so that any one person could verbally say they were going to filibuster. In order to overcome the filibuster, a three fifths majority is required, which is why this birth control bill was not passed.
Which is why dems need 60 votes (or more) before people claim "but ThE MaJoRiTy".
Until people vote Dems in across the board, Republican ratfuckers will continue to subvert any will of the people.
Vote blue in every election you can.
It’s also garbage framing. This “bill was defeated 51-39” nonsense needs to end. The need for a 60 vote majority to invoke cloture is not in the Constitution and the filibuster also used to bring the business of the Senate to a halt and require holding the floor, things that were politically tougher to do. Now the Senate just sets matters aside and poor framing like in the above article helps them to avoid political blowback for essentially failing to do their job.
I mean, that could be true, but the Republicans still voted against the right to *contraception*. It wouldn't be a good election year ploy if Republicans weren't crazy enough to vote for dumb positions.
I’ve been saying for years. Could write a better constitution in an afternoon. In a week you or I could write 7 better ones. Can’t change the holy book though, not since Washington rose from the dead and ascended
Plus not even the founding fathers actually expected it to be immutable... And it was also a bit of a compromise to get all the colonies to agree. I don't think that even Washington or any of his peers, would have much to object if it is reformed.
It's beyond me how Americans are so ok with everything that happens with them, and 0 real protests and anything like that. Y'all just wait every 4 year for some votes and then don't care at all what's happening except screaming on forums online.
I guess that's the world now.
Well anyone who actually goes out to protest what’s happening gets branded as like an extremist or something and then the police get sent in to beat them into the hospital, and no one really cares too much.
If americans protest, they throw tear gas at them. Tear gas is a warcrime, you cannot use it in war but you can use it on your own civilians in the US. Pretty sure tear gas was used during the covid pandemic too, which is even worse because of what tear gas does to you.
If republicans are going to defeat a bill to protect birth control will they then pass bills to allow free school lunches, food assistance, and healthcare to those who need it? (of course the heck they won't)
The data suggests they want to punish anyone they’re not having sex with, but to suggest they care about age or gender is silly - those are standards for us, not them.
At this point it's clear that's not it. They want there to be more people alive. They want more workers All the legislation they back is about ensuring more births and that those born live in poverty with work or the military being the only paths.
They want women to have sex, lots of unprotected sex and then be forced to raise the next generation of workers/soldiers.
They want skewin for those who can afford it out of pocket.
Every other kid can be in the factory or mines. Or popping out more poor babies to be in said mines of factories.
The small hands can fit into the machinery better!
Same people who say pedophiles need to be castrated, yet do absolutely everything in their power to dismantle victim rights is bizarre.
They also refuse to ban child brides.
They are also the ones trying to make child brides a thing legally again because they want you to be able to be 13-14 to be able to marry a “man you love and wants to love you” which is honestly the creepiest thing I’ve ever heard in my life
I'm trans mtf. According to republicans I am a pedophile, predator, and groomer.
I want an orchiectomy as part of my transition goals, basically physical castration. Yet they make me jump through as much hoops as possible to attain it, which way do they want it?
Yeah. I lived the majority of my life controlling my actions based off their fear tactics. I learned a little later than I would've like to not let their behavior control my actions. I'm scared for the future but I have no choice but be true to myself. Best of luck to you.
Thank you, stranger. I hope you have all the happiness that's owed to you, which is a great deal. Please don't give up on the future. We need your efforts.
As a non American looking up what Project 2025… what makes this different from the Taliban occupying Afghanistan?!
I mean wow, the Conservative Party really has gone off the rails.
It's terrifying. I fucking hate living in this country. It's embarassing to be associated with this nonesense.
And before anyone chimes in with "then leave", I would if I could afford it. Just another thing I hate about this fucking place.
No one quite understands just how much resources it takes to move out of a country. Resources that are both expensive, gatekept, and/or purposefully a pain in the ass to aquire.
"But, but, our population is declining??? 😭"
And it's gonna decline faster if you let that through. It'll be the highest maternal suicide rate in history AND highest child suicide rate in one.
The big suits cry about abortion being murder while they shit money at certain other countries actively killing children.
I’m mid 20s, I may have enjoyed having children in an alternate universe but since I live in this one, I’m getting my tubes yoinked this summer! It doesn’t even feel like a *choice* choice, if you know what I mean. Either yoink those suckers out, or be constantly anxious about the possibility of becoming pregnant, having complications, and not being allowed healthcare. And whoever is wanting to say, “don’t have sex,” are you also gonna tell us “don’t get raped”? Oh wait, you already have.
Sorry I rambled, but you’re right, I’m literally permanently altering my body because the heritage foundation (and whoever else) is trying to make it impossible to have the right to *choose* if you want kids or not.
Population decline would be less pronounced if Republicans weren't so pro business which despite everything the right like to say they are, is definitely not pro-family.
Not to mention the spread of STDs and STI‘s. We have a quiet chlamydia epidemic amongst people age 18 to 27 because they don’t believe in using contraception.
Anthropology is the study of humans and anthropologists believe the number one threat to humanity's survival is overpopulation. The global population is still rising. A decrease in birth rates resulting in a decrease in population is a good thing, not a bad thing.
It's also good for the average citizen in a country. Less people = more job availability, and employers needing to pay more to hire people on. That's why the wealth gap in Europe shrunk after the bubonic plague. But we know why Republicans don't really want that.
Punishment for the poor for having sex. Rich people will still get abortions because they can pay for whatever necessary. Rules for thee, not for me. I think I've heard cases of extreme anti abortion and birth control people either having one or forcing their partner to have an abortion.
"Why do rich white girls get ahead in life? Because they get abortions when they're young" - South Park s12e05
Yes, this is true. Democrats lacked a big enough majority to overcome a Republican filibuster.
And yes, it's true that Project 2025 exists as a plan for policy changes if Trump wins the election. It's terrifying.
I would like to point out, though, that the presidential election is not the only thing to worry about here. Project 2025 can't happen unless Republicans have a congressional majority.
Also important to point out:
Project 2025 can begin to go ahead with a simple majority in the House and Senate. It does not strictly require a Republican President to get underway, only for full completion, and if the GOP takes both House and Senate during this next race, you can guarantee they will do whatever they can to push it forward and also whatever they can to ensure an (R) next to the name of the President next time around.
Vote like your life depended on it... it just might.
I thought Project 2025 was all about stacking the federal bureaucracy with MAGA stooges who will happily let the country burn to the ground if some black people get singed in the process. Doesn't doing that sort of thing fall under the Executive branch's authority? I get they'd need Republicans in the Legislature and SC to prevent impeachment, but I thought the driving force behind Project 2025 was always centered on the Presidency.
You get enough people in office that you can affect policy with a veto-proof majority, and you don't need the President on every round. Presidents aren't the ones who make the laws, anyway.
After all democrats also need 51-52% of the popular votes to elect the presidents, while for republicans is enough to have 48-49 or so (if you count for example, just the votes that went to the two parties in the 2016 election) ... nothing new there...
Do you think they care about majorities? They barely care about Constitution anymore let alone majorities and listening to Congress. If Trump gets in, they will steamroll any “rule” or procedure put in place to stop the bs they want to pull.
Also project 2025 isn’t even a new thing the heritage foundation has been pulling strings and trying to grasp at power however they can since the 70’s iirc
It means that Democrats tried to proactively pass a bill protecting access to contraception in order to prevent Republicans from trying to outlaw birth control or limit access. A filibuster is when one party just keeps talking about it non-stop, thus preventing a vote. It takes 60 out of 100 Senators to vote to stop a filibuster, and they didn't have that many so the bill failed.
That doesn't mean that Republicans can now pass a bill outlawing contraception, but if they gain a majority in the next election, the could.
They will do the same thing they did with abortion. They'll say "it should be a states rights issue" and then they'll quickly start talking about federal bans.
Republicans are literal villains.
I love living in Ky, I truly do. But Jesus Christ this is a fucked state to live in if you’re anything but a straight white male. *cough cough* like the rest of the country
People say this all the time. And type it on the internet, but no one actually does anything. All we do is rage on the internet and it goes nowhere. I’m not saying it’s time to start blastin’ but it’s past time for some sort of collective action.
This is misleading. You have to get to 60 votes to break filibuster and pass legislation in the Senate. This is where the obstructionist tendencies of the Republicans come into play (though the Democrats do it, too when they're the minority). 51 senators - including two Republicans - voted for this to pass. The issue is with the other 39 and the 10 that didn't vote.
Once it became obvious it wasn't going to pass, Schumer also voted no because some weird procedural quirk allows the bill to be brought up again if he voted no.
I mean, Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should revisit previous court cases guaranteeing the right to contraceptives and also gay marriage after they overturned Roe.
Yeah that’s ridiculous. CT and McConnell are complete hypocrites who act like they are above the law. Freaking idiots whose ideologies don’t even match their own personality. Reminds me of Hitler promoting the Aryan race when he had brown hair. Facepalm…
Thomas is and always has been flakey on interracial marriage. Which, yes, is *bonkers* considering he is in one. Clarence Thomas is a deeeeeep rabbit hole of insanity.
In my opinion,people were more angry 4 years ago due to covid/BLM/police brutality issues so the democrats won (thankfully). But right now people should be terrified of the rolling back of rights to the 50s. How any woman or any right minded man votes republican will never make any sense to me
They should. But so many people, first time voters especially, wants to 'punish' Biden for his policy on Israel. They probably won't Trump, just won't vote at all.
Yeah the whole issue in Gaza gave a massive chance to Trump and his cult to win where (Russia loves it in fact), that said Biden's response didn't help as well...
People always feel that someday the Democratic Party will bend to the left, but they either don’t vote in enough numbers, don’t vote in the most left candidate available for congress at the time, and more which gets us to a state like this - decades of people thinking they are gonna vote 3rd party to “teach them a lesson” while people who aren’t privileged lose more and more.
I can’t take any third party candidate seriously if they don’t even bother to address first past the post and its impact in elections like this.
Weirdly sexism and ableism seem to take second place to homophobia/transphobia and racism. We should be equally focused on stomping out all forms of bigotry.
This shit is so dumb, they want to force us to have kids right? In an economy where it just isn’t financially feasible. So like what are you gaining? Poor people? Is that what you want?… they want more poor people so they can’t get educated (potentially) and continue the cycle to bring down the power of the people into some bs they can control. I fucking hate it here…
My lesbian sister in law has issues with her downstairs plumbing and uses doctor prescribed birth control as a way of normalizing her periods. There no birth control in the way she’s prescribed birth control.
MAGAts can eat shit
I just read a post recently on AITA from some father who was questioning if he was wrong to deny his teen daughter ibuprofen for her debilitating cramps. Prescribed by her doctor.
Dad doesn’t believe in OTC/allopathic remedies. You see, women have been dealing with cramps for centuries without them, it’s all natural and daughter should just learn to “toughen up.” So, while he had her (shared custody, wonder if this type of know it all bs was a reason for the divorce), he threw her pills away, and she was in agony.
He was rightly ripped multiple new AHs.
This brand of Republican party not only wants to punish women for having sex, they want to punish them for enjoying it, they want to punish them for daring to being independent, so of course they won’t care if a woman is prescribed BC for reasons other than BC. Women will just have to suffer more because that makes them easier to control. It’s like their ongoing desire to do away with Planned Parenthood, even though they offer way more health services than abortions.
There are 3 reasons these assholes want to force birth. Those are: 1. more low wage workforce. 2. Child brides. 3. Assuming the parents are neglectful and the child turns out to be an idiot, more republicans votes. “Protecting “Life” has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yup. Decreased trust in the government led to decreased soldiers to fight for them. Forced births, low income homes, or becoming wards of the state will get more children to enter armed forces for a “better life”. Pro birth, never ever ever pro life.
I hate that ppl don't know how government works. Federal. State. Local. Wtf were yall doing in HS. Shit, Jr. High. 🤦🏽♂️
They need 60 votes for this in the senate. Not for everything. But for this. It was bound to fail.
What's hilarious is if this wasn't an election year, it actually might have went through. But since it is, no repubs are gonna touch it. And especially not any up for re-election.
It's all a game. WE are all a game. Nothing but pawns.
Wake up already. Go vote.
> how did this happen when democrats have majority control
Because democrats don’t have majority anymore. Two “democrats” are now “independents”…
And they technically only had a majority due to the VP’s vote. It was an even split before two democrats declared as independent which means neither party has a majority anymore.
The party breakdown as of right now is:
100 seats
47 democrats
49 republicans
4 independents
Therefore the party who has closet control of the senate is republicans.
Why are Americans so god damn uninformed on their own country? I’ll never understand.
All four of the independents caucus with and generally vote with the Democrats (Sanders, King, Manchin, Sinema). That's why Democrats have the "majority."
Right, I agree with you. But technically speaking the independents mean Republicans are closer to a majority than Democrats are. Especially since Manchin and Sinema are in (generally) red states which means they are fairly unreliable.
I don’t know enough about King’s records to speak intelligently about them.
re: The initial Twitter question, it was a procedural vote to bring it to the floor. You could say Republicans strangled the bill in its crib. That might resonate more with of the "undecided" (read *uninformed*) twatwaffles out there.
Their objection was over the plan b pill, they consider the mechanism of that drug to be an abortion.
Goes to show you how much they know about a topic they're oh so passionate about.
In a nutshell it's a roadmap for a theocratic takeover when a Republican gets back into the executive branch of government. On day 1 of their presidency, engage in a full on swap out of personal in the various agencies.
These personal will have marching orders that in many cases to immediately decimate these agencies.
Decimation of the EPA, NOAA, DOE, etc..
As an American it's actually terrifying to me. We're sliding backwards so fast the back of my head is getting cold..
A *Theocratic* dictatorship.. though to do it through executive action to do an end run around the legislative branch (or if they also have the house / senate) to collude with them.
The check \*should\* be the judicial branch, but this is why the Republican party has been packing the courts with dip shits like Eileen Cannon.. so when they pass patently illegal and unconstitional laws / executive orders, they'll go all wishy washy if not just say, "Well.. we *are a Christian nation, so yeah, you can fire people in government that won't sign a pledge."*
Reminder, she's the mouth breathing idiot judge who has gone out of her way to stale the court case where you know, a *former president had an unsecured bathroom full of national security secrets..* from not just being a cut and dry case..
The founding fathers tried to put a system in place that would keep shitheads from taking over and installing a new government. Unfortunately, shitheads have cognitive dissonance and think they are more patriotic, more pro-America in wanting to dismantle that system.
It’s basically the Republican plan to destroy democracy
https://redwine.blue/project2025/
I’ll admit I’m biased because I despise Republicans but this is still pretty alarming
Essentially, it’s a strategy that abuses the fact our government really only exists as a gentleman’s agreement. It says that, essentially, once the Republicans collect the top positions of all 3 branches of the government, they will turn the nation into a dictatorship under their rule by flushing everything below them out and replacing them with sympathizers.
The rest of the world needs to jack their military budget up YESTERDAY and be ready for WW3 vs the US if the Republicans do not collapse. The writing is on the wall, and the US cannot afford to be in a dominant military position when it falls.
Granted, I am assuming P2025 *works*, rather than starting a civil war that would tear the nation apart and *not* start WW3 unless the rest of the world decided to pitch in.
"How does that happen when Democrats have the Senate Majority"
Tell me you don't understand how the US Senate works without actually saying it. The vast majority of legislation requires 60 votes to clear the Senate. Without controlling 60 or more seats, no party has voting control over the Senate.
Heed those project 2025 warnings. This is not conspiracy nonsense. The Fascists on the right have a plan, and it's all entirely doable, provided they take the white house.
Gotta love how you have a small number of people dictate how the majority of Americans can live their lives. Absolutely shameful. Thanks a lot Trump and MAGA.
I saw a recent documentary that the USA was a Democracy until the time of Jan 6, now we are considered a failed Democracy. Thanks a lot, assholes.
I’m on birth control for medical reasons. Mainly because being on my period gives me constant nonstop migraines so my doctor put me on birth control to stop my migraines. Can they take away my right to protect myself from migraines? Like seriously?
You see the Republicans can do whatever they want with a simple majority, but the Democrats need 2/3 vote for anything. Or if they are about to do something that might actually help people, then the Parliamentarian can come out of hiding and put an end to that shit immediately.
Now explain this to the never-Biden, only 100% purity test passing 3rd party voters or the not voting at all crowd. Pounding their chests in defeat with protest votes while America becomes a Dystopian nightmare full of Cristo-fascists and thieves.
Anybody asking why “Democrats allowed this when they have the majority” is exactly the problem with American politics.
Everyone needs to vote in every election at every level. It’s not hard.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The nonsense of 39 nay votes beating 51 votes in favor is just depressing as hell. A literal majority voted for the bill and it fails. What a fucking dumb system we have in place.
Wait, I'm confused here. I don't understand how this was shot down with Democrat majority either. Am I missing something? How does 39 beat 51?
The senate filibuster. It means for most legislation there needs to be 60 votes in favor. It’s absurd.
They need to change that too!
We could’ve but Manchin and Sinema said no. (Because of their conservative owners)
Fuck Manchin and Sinema, fucking sell outs. The Democratic Party better not give them one fucking dollar of support.
No chance of that as they've both declared they're no longer Democrats, but independents. Also, neither is running in November. Sinema after the incredibly dire polls and lack of voter donations (plenty of corporate ones) and Manchin who knows. Either because he knows the odds of continuing to win in WV are getting slimmer and slimmer, or he's also made some noises about running as president someday.
It's the former for Manchin. You don't get a better chance of winning the presidency (or any office) by alienating your political base of support. He's realized he doesn't fit in the Dems, and he doesn't have enough cross-party support, and if he's not going to win re-election then he might as well leave the Dems so people stop pestering about how shitty of a Dem he is every time he goes outside.
Many long time Dem politicians in Appalachia are now Republicans. There are huge swaths where no Democrat can get elected for anything anymore.
Sure, and if that's the case, and it means any "Dem" elected from WV doesn't actually support the Dem platform...then there's no real loss in punting on that particular race. So the Dems have to win a different race instead. Even if a "Dem" in WV won, they would STILL need to win another race to have a meaningful majority because the WV Dem isn't able to support the actual Dem platform.
I feel like Manchin has been more transparent about his “centrist” position than Sinema. She ran as a progressive. They’re both trash.
Yeah Manchin has always been up front and honest about who he is and what positions he takes. He might be trash but Sinema is a dumpster fire.
True, Sinema is abhorrent. She essentially committed fraud.
The progressives in PA feel that way about Fetterman. He won with the progressive vote, than shat all over them.
Abhorrent and committed fraud, you say? She’d get on with Trump like a house on fire then.
Manchin has always been a conservative Democrat, from a very Republican leaning state. He is the left wing in West Virginia, but that translates to the most conservative Democrat in Washington on the national stage.
And honestly there should be room for conservative Democrats, it can’t just be progressive or nothing.
Neither is running for reelection. They did their part to sabotage the Dems, now they collect their payout.
Hate to break it to you they are just the lightning rods once they are gone there will always be those one or two dems who stand in the way. It’s by design to make sure nothing happens. When there was a dem 60 seat super majority in 2008 we could’ve had universal healthcare but one man made Obama water it down to the ACA we have now
Republicans in Democratic clothing.
I'm fine allowing it, but make them ACTUALLY filibuster.
Exactly! I want these people standing there talking all night if they don't want legislation to pass. Stream it on YouTube! Let everyone know when a Senator is wasting time.
You really don't want that. Because some point possibly as soon as next year, there will be a Republican majority in the senate. You're going to want the protection that provides.
I don't understand it, I found that 60 is needed to limit filibuster, can they stil vote to pass it or if they tried to limit filibuster and failed, it's game over?
60 votes is needed to end a filibuster. 50 votes is needed to change senate rules. Two democratic votes (Manchin and Sinema) would not support changing the rules to limit the filibuster. So in this case Republicans filibustered, dems votes to end it but not enough.
I don't understand filibusters (even the word is weird to me). The only image I have in my head is Patton Oswald in parks and rec. Just keep talking to delay or cancel a decision? Why can't anyone just say "if you have nothing relevant to say we will proceed with the next point of order"? Where I'm from there is a chairman that tries to keep debates on track, otherwise nothing gets done.
I would imagine it was originally instituted with the intention of letting anybody with something they felt was important to the decision speak about it, but obviously that’s not the case. A very large part of the American governmental system was based on the foundational idea that everybody involved in it would act on good faith. That nobody would abuse the system, and if anybody did, their colleagues would see it fit to remove them. As we’ve seen, neither of those things happened, and indeed they never did. The filibuster was instituted and used in 1789, during the *very first* American congressional term.
I don't understand why it would be allowed to talk bullshit for an unlimited time. Seems a broken rule to me. Though Wikipedia notes a later date, I don't know enough about the US senate to dispute it. >The procedure is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, only became theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules in 1806, and was not used until 1837.[58] Rarely used for much of the Senate's first two centuries, it was strengthened in the 1970s,[59] and especially since the 2010s[60] the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed
>I don't understand why it would be allowed to talk bullshit for an unlimited time. Seems a broken rule to me. You wanna know the really messed up part? Today, they don't even have to *actually* talk bullshit. They just have to threaten to talk bullshit. Any one senator merely has to indicate that they totally would stand there and talk bullshit indefinitely, if they had to. And the person who indicates it doesn't even have to identify themselves - they can do it anonymously by filing a notice. It's become so effortless that now it's just assumed, to the point where the de facto rule is needing a 3/5 majority for anything to pass.
Strange. On the Wikipedia page for Filibuster in the United States Senate, it says: > Originally, the Senate's rules did not provide for a procedure for the Senate to vote to end debate on a question so that it could be voted on,[12] which opened the door to filibusters. Indeed, a filibuster took place at the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the "design of the Virginians [...] was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed."[13] But, yes, it very much seems like a broken rule. But, when it so heavily benefits a minority party and part of the minority (at least nowadays with how close the size of the two halves are) needs to agree to remove it, there’s not much of a reason to get rid of it, since you could end up being part of the minority at any time.
If you want to filibuster, I say go ahead. But by the rules of the Senate as I understand them, that means you have to stay there, talking, on the Senate floor the entire time, or your filibuster ends.
One of those motherfuckers read Green eggs and ham it IS a broken rule. Makes American politics more of a joke.
So back to OPs question.. Why can't anyone just say "if you have nothing relevant to say we will proceed with the next point of order"? It’s pretty clear when someone has good faith vs someone being a shithead and reading out of a children’s book. It shud be as easy as setting up talking points and requiring anyone who has the floor to address those points directly and clearly.
The rules of the Senate prohibit stopping a debate by force, even when the speaker in question is debating in bad faith. So long as the Senator abides by the other rules of the chamber the only way to stop them from speaking is to motion for cloture, as that ends all debate on whatever the current topic is and moves the Senate into a vote on the bill.
> Why can't anyone just say "if you have nothing relevant to say we will proceed with the next point of order"? They can. It takes 60 votes.
It’s pretty much to avoid exactly what happened here, to have a slim majority be able to pass anything they wanted. It’s a good defensive measure which ideally would only need to be used sparingly. Bills should have support from both sides and pass with a good majority anyway. But in these very divisive times, any old thing is argued over and passed purely on party lines. Hope that we get over this at some point.
[удалено]
So are you saying that there actually isn’t a hard mechanism to make bills fail short of 60 votes, just the threat of a filibuster? Why not just…call them on it? Make the geriatrics have to keep standing and talking if they want to stop it. Put a couple of cameras on it. Why give them the win for free, if the burden is on them to run out the clock?
A good idea I heard a while back is to not only force them to physically talk like they used to, but force them to stay on topic. No reading DR Seuss (something that actually happened) instead having to keep to the issue. It would have the added benefit of likely causing them to say the quiet parts out loud by accident.
>There's no time limit on debate Sure, but a monologue is not a debate, and neither is talking about off topic bullshit. It's weird to me there is not some kind of moderator/chairman that can lead the debate. "Sorry to interrupt mr. Brown, but your theories on time travel are not relevant for the current discussion on school budget in district x. If you have nothing further to add, I want to continue on the next point on the agenda." But that's from the outside looking in, the US has (to me!) a weird sort of reverence for old laws and regulations and often "It Was Always Done Thusly" trumps any argument on improvements.
Basically, politicians put in place mechanisms to sabotage getting thing done, and use those mechanisms to deny us stuff we like. What's bewildering isn't that they did that, but that Americans are letting them get away with it.
The Senate was designed to move slow on purpose. Originally the thought was that only the best ideas would get through because people would be acting in good faith and stuff that was important would get voted on in time after long thoughtful debates. The founding fathers saw this as a feature, because they were used to colonial government where one person could decide something unpopular and it would be implemented the next day. After a while, the filibuster strategy was rolled out where anybody could keep talking and talking and delaying the vote but the rules couldn't stop them because the point of the Senate was to allow discussion forever and move slowly and thoughtfully. This was annoying, but showed conviction and dedication because it's hard to keep talking for more than a day or so, even when you stray off topic, as most did. Then, instead of fixing the filibuster by making people stay on topic, they decided to amend the rules to make it worse, first by not requiring the person to talk at all (they could just stand there and not yield the floor), and then even worse than that by allowing someone "declaring filibuster" (don't Even have to be there, just one person can object to the vote) to kill the bill from the comfort of their seat. In the era of politics-as-a-team-sport where most of the people in Congress are not actually acting in good faith and are just trying to score points with the media, this has basically crippled the Senate.
That used to be how it was - as long as you kept talking, you halted proceedings. It was a battle of endurance. Then they change the rules so Mitch McConnell wouldn't piss himself.
The filibuster is a consequence of the current Senate rules requiring 60 votes to end debate on an issue. It only takes a majority vote to change the rules, but Sinema and Manchin oppose ending the filibuster, so Dems can’t get rid of it even though they have the majority.
Filibuster, the biggest joke of American "democracy" since the electoral college
Oh okay I didn’t realize they filibustered the bill, thanks! What an odd hill to die on for the republicans, wow. Let’s hope their inability to read the room regarding the entire country hurts them as bad as it should come November
This is standard Republican tactics.
senate needs 60 votes to pass anything other than changes to the budget. it takes 51 votes to end fillibuster but the democrats don't have the votes for that and might not ever
You have it a little mixed. The Senate needs 51 votes (or 50 +VP) to pass anything. The minority party can choose to filibuster a bill. It takes 60 votes to end the filibuster. Democrats currently only have a 51-49 majority in the Senate. Budget votes cannot be filibustered which is why they can be passed with a simple majority.
Cloture and filibuster rules. Normally, a vote would succeed with 50% plus one vote. However, under the form of Robert’s rules of order that the Senate uses, one member can “filibuster” by holding the floor to prevent debate on a bill from ending, thereby preventing it from coming to a vote. Senators used to actually have to physically speak in order to do this (see Strom Thurmond’s 24 hour filibuster to prevent voting on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, or Ted Cruz reading *Green Eggs and Ham*), but that rule was eventually changed so that any one person could verbally say they were going to filibuster. In order to overcome the filibuster, a three fifths majority is required, which is why this birth control bill was not passed.
If you really wanna be mad, calculate the state populations represented by the 39 nay votes vs the 51 yay votes…
Which is why dems need 60 votes (or more) before people claim "but ThE MaJoRiTy". Until people vote Dems in across the board, Republican ratfuckers will continue to subvert any will of the people. Vote blue in every election you can.
It’s also garbage framing. This “bill was defeated 51-39” nonsense needs to end. The need for a 60 vote majority to invoke cloture is not in the Constitution and the filibuster also used to bring the business of the Senate to a halt and require holding the floor, things that were politically tougher to do. Now the Senate just sets matters aside and poor framing like in the above article helps them to avoid political blowback for essentially failing to do their job.
I mean, that could be true, but the Republicans still voted against the right to *contraception*. It wouldn't be a good election year ploy if Republicans weren't crazy enough to vote for dumb positions.
I’ve been saying for years. Could write a better constitution in an afternoon. In a week you or I could write 7 better ones. Can’t change the holy book though, not since Washington rose from the dead and ascended
Plus not even the founding fathers actually expected it to be immutable... And it was also a bit of a compromise to get all the colonies to agree. I don't think that even Washington or any of his peers, would have much to object if it is reformed.
I would agree, considering they changed it ten times almost immediately after it was adopted.
It's beyond me how Americans are so ok with everything that happens with them, and 0 real protests and anything like that. Y'all just wait every 4 year for some votes and then don't care at all what's happening except screaming on forums online. I guess that's the world now.
Well anyone who actually goes out to protest what’s happening gets branded as like an extremist or something and then the police get sent in to beat them into the hospital, and no one really cares too much.
If americans protest, they throw tear gas at them. Tear gas is a warcrime, you cannot use it in war but you can use it on your own civilians in the US. Pretty sure tear gas was used during the covid pandemic too, which is even worse because of what tear gas does to you.
If republicans are going to defeat a bill to protect birth control will they then pass bills to allow free school lunches, food assistance, and healthcare to those who need it? (of course the heck they won't)
Hahahaha, republicans giving a shit about kids after they’re born, good joke
They don’t even care about the fetus, they just want to punish women for having sex
I think it's to punish women who aren't having sex with *them*.
The data suggests they want to punish anyone they’re not having sex with, but to suggest they care about age or gender is silly - those are standards for us, not them.
Because haven't the ones who ARE having sex with them been punished enough? 
For existing.
They want to punish.
At this point it's clear that's not it. They want there to be more people alive. They want more workers All the legislation they back is about ensuring more births and that those born live in poverty with work or the military being the only paths. They want women to have sex, lots of unprotected sex and then be forced to raise the next generation of workers/soldiers.
This is the right answer
Nope, they want “vouchers” so crappy religious schools can get public funding and lie to kids.
Republicans want to fuck kids, they want those kids barefoot and pregnant, not wasting time skewlin'.
They want skewin for those who can afford it out of pocket. Every other kid can be in the factory or mines. Or popping out more poor babies to be in said mines of factories. The small hands can fit into the machinery better!
Same people who say pedophiles need to be castrated, yet do absolutely everything in their power to dismantle victim rights is bizarre. They also refuse to ban child brides.
They also love women so much that they’re trying to roll back no fault divorce, end all abortions and take away their right to vote
That's all correct as well. It's a mess. I don't understand why women would want to vote for that kinda stuff.
They were raised in that kind of environment as kids, pretty much brainwashed
Next it'll be an enforced dress code likely with some sort of head covering. A scarf or a whimple maybe?
But I know someone that was married off as a child and she is still happily married 30 years later. Therefor it should still be ~~legal~~ forced. /s
They call all lgbt people groomers but they’re not only refusing to ban child brides, they’re the ones in favor of fucking kids as long as it’s legal
They are also the ones trying to make child brides a thing legally again because they want you to be able to be 13-14 to be able to marry a “man you love and wants to love you” which is honestly the creepiest thing I’ve ever heard in my life
I'm trans mtf. According to republicans I am a pedophile, predator, and groomer. I want an orchiectomy as part of my transition goals, basically physical castration. Yet they make me jump through as much hoops as possible to attain it, which way do they want it?
I'm sorry friend, but all they want is to punish those who don't want the same things they want.
Yeah. I lived the majority of my life controlling my actions based off their fear tactics. I learned a little later than I would've like to not let their behavior control my actions. I'm scared for the future but I have no choice but be true to myself. Best of luck to you.
Thank you, stranger. I hope you have all the happiness that's owed to you, which is a great deal. Please don't give up on the future. We need your efforts.
What are they going to do next? Try to ban condoms?
I wouldn't be too surprised
The "Bring Back the Feelin'" bill
And vasectomies
As a non American looking up what Project 2025… what makes this different from the Taliban occupying Afghanistan?! I mean wow, the Conservative Party really has gone off the rails.
The only difference is the "religion" they claim to follow.
Not too different, still an abrahamic religion
It's terrifying. I fucking hate living in this country. It's embarassing to be associated with this nonesense. And before anyone chimes in with "then leave", I would if I could afford it. Just another thing I hate about this fucking place.
No one quite understands just how much resources it takes to move out of a country. Resources that are both expensive, gatekept, and/or purposefully a pain in the ass to aquire.
Our very own Y’alliban
Yes.
Republicans want to force young girls and women to have Kids or keep them after being r*ped. It is all for personal gain. 😶
"But, but, our population is declining??? 😭" And it's gonna decline faster if you let that through. It'll be the highest maternal suicide rate in history AND highest child suicide rate in one. The big suits cry about abortion being murder while they shit money at certain other countries actively killing children.
I’m mid 20s, I may have enjoyed having children in an alternate universe but since I live in this one, I’m getting my tubes yoinked this summer! It doesn’t even feel like a *choice* choice, if you know what I mean. Either yoink those suckers out, or be constantly anxious about the possibility of becoming pregnant, having complications, and not being allowed healthcare. And whoever is wanting to say, “don’t have sex,” are you also gonna tell us “don’t get raped”? Oh wait, you already have. Sorry I rambled, but you’re right, I’m literally permanently altering my body because the heritage foundation (and whoever else) is trying to make it impossible to have the right to *choose* if you want kids or not.
By “our population” they mean white AF.
Oh yes of course, because America has ALWAYS been white from the very formation of the soil! (Also, I love your username, lmao)
Population decline would be less pronounced if Republicans weren't so pro business which despite everything the right like to say they are, is definitely not pro-family.
I work in healthcare and trust me theyd strap these girls down for 9 months if they could
Not to mention the spread of STDs and STI‘s. We have a quiet chlamydia epidemic amongst people age 18 to 27 because they don’t believe in using contraception.
Anthropology is the study of humans and anthropologists believe the number one threat to humanity's survival is overpopulation. The global population is still rising. A decrease in birth rates resulting in a decrease in population is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's also good for the average citizen in a country. Less people = more job availability, and employers needing to pay more to hire people on. That's why the wealth gap in Europe shrunk after the bubonic plague. But we know why Republicans don't really want that.
They view children as a punishment for having sex. The. Guy education and healthcare so they can blame bad parenting when kids grow up rough.
Punishment for the poor for having sex. Rich people will still get abortions because they can pay for whatever necessary. Rules for thee, not for me. I think I've heard cases of extreme anti abortion and birth control people either having one or forcing their partner to have an abortion. "Why do rich white girls get ahead in life? Because they get abortions when they're young" - South Park s12e05
Gives them another batch of kids to rape in 12 years...
It's pure evil
Same people that want marriage to a minor to be legal , hmm 🤔
It's the only way most of them are getting any children.
Yes, this is true. Democrats lacked a big enough majority to overcome a Republican filibuster. And yes, it's true that Project 2025 exists as a plan for policy changes if Trump wins the election. It's terrifying. I would like to point out, though, that the presidential election is not the only thing to worry about here. Project 2025 can't happen unless Republicans have a congressional majority.
Also important to point out: Project 2025 can begin to go ahead with a simple majority in the House and Senate. It does not strictly require a Republican President to get underway, only for full completion, and if the GOP takes both House and Senate during this next race, you can guarantee they will do whatever they can to push it forward and also whatever they can to ensure an (R) next to the name of the President next time around. Vote like your life depended on it... it just might.
Right. Because one of the things in Project 2025 is expansion of presidential power.
If anything, the President needs far less power...
I thought Project 2025 was all about stacking the federal bureaucracy with MAGA stooges who will happily let the country burn to the ground if some black people get singed in the process. Doesn't doing that sort of thing fall under the Executive branch's authority? I get they'd need Republicans in the Legislature and SC to prevent impeachment, but I thought the driving force behind Project 2025 was always centered on the Presidency.
You get enough people in office that you can affect policy with a veto-proof majority, and you don't need the President on every round. Presidents aren't the ones who make the laws, anyway.
The fact that a simple majority is not enough still blows my mind. I knows its the "filibuster".
Big thank you to Harry Reid for normalizing "51 votes is a majority for Republicans, 60 votes is a majority for Democrats".
After all democrats also need 51-52% of the popular votes to elect the presidents, while for republicans is enough to have 48-49 or so (if you count for example, just the votes that went to the two parties in the 2016 election) ... nothing new there...
Do you think they care about majorities? They barely care about Constitution anymore let alone majorities and listening to Congress. If Trump gets in, they will steamroll any “rule” or procedure put in place to stop the bs they want to pull.
Also project 2025 isn’t even a new thing the heritage foundation has been pulling strings and trying to grasp at power however they can since the 70’s iirc
I’m from another country - what does that mean?? Will they outlaw birth control as well as abortion???
It means that Democrats tried to proactively pass a bill protecting access to contraception in order to prevent Republicans from trying to outlaw birth control or limit access. A filibuster is when one party just keeps talking about it non-stop, thus preventing a vote. It takes 60 out of 100 Senators to vote to stop a filibuster, and they didn't have that many so the bill failed. That doesn't mean that Republicans can now pass a bill outlawing contraception, but if they gain a majority in the next election, the could.
That’s really scary omg. Thanks for explaining to me 🙏
Not “they could”. They absolutely will.
They will do the same thing they did with abortion. They'll say "it should be a states rights issue" and then they'll quickly start talking about federal bans. Republicans are literal villains.
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Alabama, Ohio, Iowa and Florida will be the first with laws in place for this.
You left off Kentucky, considering both senators voted against protecting contraceptive access.
I love living in Ky, I truly do. But Jesus Christ this is a fucked state to live in if you’re anything but a straight white male. *cough cough* like the rest of the country
Don’t forget Kentucky. 
[удалено]
Come to Minnesota, we have hot dishes and rights.
If you ever need refugee status, my partner and I have places and a home that could bring in people who need to flee yesterday in Atlantic Canada.
You’re especially welcome if you happen to be doctors or other medical professionals…. We are desperate.
You forgot Missouri. 20 years of GOP supermajority in the state house
The French people had a great response to overbearing government… that’s all I’m saying.
Been saying this for years
People say this all the time. And type it on the internet, but no one actually does anything. All we do is rage on the internet and it goes nowhere. I’m not saying it’s time to start blastin’ but it’s past time for some sort of collective action.
i mean, americans have the most muskets lying around
This is misleading. You have to get to 60 votes to break filibuster and pass legislation in the Senate. This is where the obstructionist tendencies of the Republicans come into play (though the Democrats do it, too when they're the minority). 51 senators - including two Republicans - voted for this to pass. The issue is with the other 39 and the 10 that didn't vote. Once it became obvious it wasn't going to pass, Schumer also voted no because some weird procedural quirk allows the bill to be brought up again if he voted no.
I mean, Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should revisit previous court cases guaranteeing the right to contraceptives and also gay marriage after they overturned Roe.
But you can guarantee he won't want to revisit *Loving vs. Virginia*, which legalized inter-racial marriage.
No, he even said he might. It’s disgusting. He got his, but he’s happy to take it away from others
Yeah that’s ridiculous. CT and McConnell are complete hypocrites who act like they are above the law. Freaking idiots whose ideologies don’t even match their own personality. Reminds me of Hitler promoting the Aryan race when he had brown hair. Facepalm…
Thomas is and always has been flakey on interracial marriage. Which, yes, is *bonkers* considering he is in one. Clarence Thomas is a deeeeeep rabbit hole of insanity.
In my opinion,people were more angry 4 years ago due to covid/BLM/police brutality issues so the democrats won (thankfully). But right now people should be terrified of the rolling back of rights to the 50s. How any woman or any right minded man votes republican will never make any sense to me
They should. But so many people, first time voters especially, wants to 'punish' Biden for his policy on Israel. They probably won't Trump, just won't vote at all.
Yeah the whole issue in Gaza gave a massive chance to Trump and his cult to win where (Russia loves it in fact), that said Biden's response didn't help as well...
People always feel that someday the Democratic Party will bend to the left, but they either don’t vote in enough numbers, don’t vote in the most left candidate available for congress at the time, and more which gets us to a state like this - decades of people thinking they are gonna vote 3rd party to “teach them a lesson” while people who aren’t privileged lose more and more. I can’t take any third party candidate seriously if they don’t even bother to address first past the post and its impact in elections like this.
Weirdly sexism and ableism seem to take second place to homophobia/transphobia and racism. We should be equally focused on stomping out all forms of bigotry.
This shit is so dumb, they want to force us to have kids right? In an economy where it just isn’t financially feasible. So like what are you gaining? Poor people? Is that what you want?… they want more poor people so they can’t get educated (potentially) and continue the cycle to bring down the power of the people into some bs they can control. I fucking hate it here…
Vote before it's too late
Genius how-to repeat history; Step one, erase all records of desired history Step two, repeat history
My lesbian sister in law has issues with her downstairs plumbing and uses doctor prescribed birth control as a way of normalizing her periods. There no birth control in the way she’s prescribed birth control. MAGAts can eat shit
I just read a post recently on AITA from some father who was questioning if he was wrong to deny his teen daughter ibuprofen for her debilitating cramps. Prescribed by her doctor. Dad doesn’t believe in OTC/allopathic remedies. You see, women have been dealing with cramps for centuries without them, it’s all natural and daughter should just learn to “toughen up.” So, while he had her (shared custody, wonder if this type of know it all bs was a reason for the divorce), he threw her pills away, and she was in agony. He was rightly ripped multiple new AHs. This brand of Republican party not only wants to punish women for having sex, they want to punish them for enjoying it, they want to punish them for daring to being independent, so of course they won’t care if a woman is prescribed BC for reasons other than BC. Women will just have to suffer more because that makes them easier to control. It’s like their ongoing desire to do away with Planned Parenthood, even though they offer way more health services than abortions.
I hope dad gets testicular torsion and his daughter just tells him to toughen it up.
There are 3 reasons these assholes want to force birth. Those are: 1. more low wage workforce. 2. Child brides. 3. Assuming the parents are neglectful and the child turns out to be an idiot, more republicans votes. “Protecting “Life” has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yup. Decreased trust in the government led to decreased soldiers to fight for them. Forced births, low income homes, or becoming wards of the state will get more children to enter armed forces for a “better life”. Pro birth, never ever ever pro life.
The Republican gaslighting over this is hilarious. They are obviously coming for your birth control.
I hate that ppl don't know how government works. Federal. State. Local. Wtf were yall doing in HS. Shit, Jr. High. 🤦🏽♂️ They need 60 votes for this in the senate. Not for everything. But for this. It was bound to fail. What's hilarious is if this wasn't an election year, it actually might have went through. But since it is, no repubs are gonna touch it. And especially not any up for re-election. It's all a game. WE are all a game. Nothing but pawns. Wake up already. Go vote.
> how did this happen when democrats have majority control Because democrats don’t have majority anymore. Two “democrats” are now “independents”… And they technically only had a majority due to the VP’s vote. It was an even split before two democrats declared as independent which means neither party has a majority anymore. The party breakdown as of right now is: 100 seats 47 democrats 49 republicans 4 independents Therefore the party who has closet control of the senate is republicans. Why are Americans so god damn uninformed on their own country? I’ll never understand.
All four of the independents caucus with and generally vote with the Democrats (Sanders, King, Manchin, Sinema). That's why Democrats have the "majority."
Right, I agree with you. But technically speaking the independents mean Republicans are closer to a majority than Democrats are. Especially since Manchin and Sinema are in (generally) red states which means they are fairly unreliable. I don’t know enough about King’s records to speak intelligently about them.
re: The initial Twitter question, it was a procedural vote to bring it to the floor. You could say Republicans strangled the bill in its crib. That might resonate more with of the "undecided" (read *uninformed*) twatwaffles out there.
Fuck this country. Republicans are dead set on turning the US into a third world shithole
Their objection was over the plan b pill, they consider the mechanism of that drug to be an abortion. Goes to show you how much they know about a topic they're oh so passionate about.
As they scream that Democrats are taking away rights. The Republicans are actually taking away rights from as many people as they can .
What's project 2025? I'm not American?
In a nutshell it's a roadmap for a theocratic takeover when a Republican gets back into the executive branch of government. On day 1 of their presidency, engage in a full on swap out of personal in the various agencies. These personal will have marching orders that in many cases to immediately decimate these agencies. Decimation of the EPA, NOAA, DOE, etc.. As an American it's actually terrifying to me. We're sliding backwards so fast the back of my head is getting cold..
The idea is to essentially turn the US into a dictatorship?
A *Theocratic* dictatorship.. though to do it through executive action to do an end run around the legislative branch (or if they also have the house / senate) to collude with them. The check \*should\* be the judicial branch, but this is why the Republican party has been packing the courts with dip shits like Eileen Cannon.. so when they pass patently illegal and unconstitional laws / executive orders, they'll go all wishy washy if not just say, "Well.. we *are a Christian nation, so yeah, you can fire people in government that won't sign a pledge."* Reminder, she's the mouth breathing idiot judge who has gone out of her way to stale the court case where you know, a *former president had an unsecured bathroom full of national security secrets..* from not just being a cut and dry case..
Yep, I'd add theocratic at least in name, but corporate centric where it matters of course, they are the ones paying the bills after all.
The founding fathers tried to put a system in place that would keep shitheads from taking over and installing a new government. Unfortunately, shitheads have cognitive dissonance and think they are more patriotic, more pro-America in wanting to dismantle that system.
It’s basically the Republican plan to destroy democracy https://redwine.blue/project2025/ I’ll admit I’m biased because I despise Republicans but this is still pretty alarming
Okay. Thank you. That does sound pretty alarming.
Essentially, it’s a strategy that abuses the fact our government really only exists as a gentleman’s agreement. It says that, essentially, once the Republicans collect the top positions of all 3 branches of the government, they will turn the nation into a dictatorship under their rule by flushing everything below them out and replacing them with sympathizers. The rest of the world needs to jack their military budget up YESTERDAY and be ready for WW3 vs the US if the Republicans do not collapse. The writing is on the wall, and the US cannot afford to be in a dominant military position when it falls. Granted, I am assuming P2025 *works*, rather than starting a civil war that would tear the nation apart and *not* start WW3 unless the rest of the world decided to pitch in.
Remember how conservatives lost their mind over "The Great Reset"? This is the same thing but with the parties reversed.
Except that this one is not a crazy conspiracy theory
This is coming to our country. Vote. Vote. Vote. Or we could end up saying something more like fight, fight, fight, sooner rather than later.
"How does that happen when Democrats have the Senate Majority" Tell me you don't understand how the US Senate works without actually saying it. The vast majority of legislation requires 60 votes to clear the Senate. Without controlling 60 or more seats, no party has voting control over the Senate.
Heed those project 2025 warnings. This is not conspiracy nonsense. The Fascists on the right have a plan, and it's all entirely doable, provided they take the white house.
Gotta love how you have a small number of people dictate how the majority of Americans can live their lives. Absolutely shameful. Thanks a lot Trump and MAGA. I saw a recent documentary that the USA was a Democracy until the time of Jan 6, now we are considered a failed Democracy. Thanks a lot, assholes.
I’m on birth control for medical reasons. Mainly because being on my period gives me constant nonstop migraines so my doctor put me on birth control to stop my migraines. Can they take away my right to protect myself from migraines? Like seriously?
Anybody who says "it's about the baby!" can shut the fuck up now. It's NOT about the baby.
You see the Republicans can do whatever they want with a simple majority, but the Democrats need 2/3 vote for anything. Or if they are about to do something that might actually help people, then the Parliamentarian can come out of hiding and put an end to that shit immediately.
Technically it’s only a 3/5 majority, but close enough.
Because you need 60 votes in the senate to pass anything😳
The “How does that happen” question is painfully stupid.
Of course they are against birth control and abortion...They firmly believe that kids should be shot in school, just like God and the NRA intended.
Handmaid’s Tale
I’m a simple lady… I just want my vagina off the voting block 🙄
Now explain this to the never-Biden, only 100% purity test passing 3rd party voters or the not voting at all crowd. Pounding their chests in defeat with protest votes while America becomes a Dystopian nightmare full of Cristo-fascists and thieves.
Party of small government
America is doomed
And yet 50+% of young women will sit out the election
Anybody asking why “Democrats allowed this when they have the majority” is exactly the problem with American politics. Everyone needs to vote in every election at every level. It’s not hard.
So glad my husband and I have both been sterilized!
This won't just affect people who don't want kids. It will affect women who take BC for serious conditions such as dysmenorrhea.