For the most part, nominees aren’t subject to filibuster; the most that the Democrats can do is to slow the pace of approvals to a crawl, which they should have been doing from day 1. Next best time to do it for every nominee is today.
For the most part, nominees aren’t subject to filibuster; the most that the Democrats can do is to slow the pace of approvals to a crawl, which they should have been doing from day 1. Next best time to do it for every nominee is today.
I didn’t mention environmental impact, now did I? I thought I was talking about direct individual benefits. You know, shit that makes a measurable impact on people’s lives before the election? Something we can point to when people point out that things suck? Not just “be grateful you don’t have it worse like other countries.” Which is shit messaging to people who aren’t making it, no matter how much it resonates with the out of touch overpaid consultants that control party messaging.
Even there, Manchin was a major problem. Almost all the Democrats wanted stuff like an expanded child tax credit, but Manchin announced that if parents had money, they’d all go out and buy meth, so he insisted on its removal from the bill before he would vote for it.
If it wasn’t manchin, someone else would have rotated in.
Or…the actual problem is that every single republican is opposed to doing things that help Americans, so with a 50/50 Senate, it took buying off only one Democrat to force stuff out
The actual path to good policy is more and better Democrats. Enough that the failings of one or three can’t sink legislation
The problem is “no matter who” leaves no room for better democrats.
Which is why the party is basically oops all manchins.
Nah. Its that of any large group, there is a risk somebody is bought off. So having a few more legislators more than the minimum protects you from that.
Nah, we can still move to the right, just ignore that.