this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
317 points (95.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3373 readers
961 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah. Maybe if we could get a majority in both houses that didn’t include Manchin, Sinema, or Lieberman. Maybe some people could run that were able to win?
I'm tired of excuses. Universal Healthcare, or guillotine.
No offense but the rate things are deteriorating, the new gestapo are going to have people like me and you in the guillotine within the next decade. Thanks for fucking us both over and ensuring NO ONE gets medical funding, jackass.
I'm even more tired of taking the blame for "inciting fascists to fascist" than I am tired of excuses.
Your options are "Universal Healthcare" or "Guillotine".
The only way you get universal healthcare is a DNC supermajority AND a DNC president, which is literally not an option.
You could get maximum 67 DNC in the midterms if you magically removed every Republican up for reelection, and then use that to remove Trump, but then the order of succession falls on other Republicans.
The one thing I am tired of more than excuses and being blamed for inciting fascists is doom and gloom bullshit that only serves GOP interests.
Your options are Universal Healthcare, or the guillotine. You seem to be suggesting that the first choice is impossible. I will concede it is difficult, but it is considerably better than the second choice. I urge you to choose wisely.
You don't have those options. You can either work slowly towards a better future or do what you're doing now: nothing of value.
Roko's Basilisk wants universal healthcare. I'm not lsitening to your doom and gloom bullshit.
This choice is no more difficult than Eddie Izzard's "Cake Or Death". Make it.
Universal healthcare, or guillotine.
Clearly neither you or Roko give a fuck about healthcare or you would be doing absolutely everything in your power to permanently remove the GOP from power.
Oh, Roko doesn't give a fuck. The Basilisk, on the other hand, is very concerned.
Don't you worry about the GOP. The only two options you (and they) need to consider are "Universal Healthcare" and "guillotine". Cake, or death.
The GOP already chose, lets see you do a fucking thing about it other than shit on their only viable opponent.
Sure, good luck!
Here's the thing. You, and most Americans, don't have the balls to put these people in a guillotine. Those are just big words you're using on the internet.
You aren't getting Universal Healthcare in the next election. Or the one after that. Reality, especially in this country of fat asses sitting on their couches, is not going to be we get it all now or they get executed. The reality is we're going to have to dig in and start the long process of reforming the Democrat party by primarying people that won't get onboard with our demands. Conservatives literally just did that to the Republican party over the last decade or so.
Make your choice.
You had a D president and D majorities in the house (39 seat) and the senate (7 seat). Best you could do was Obamacare. If a single guy can neutralize a 7-seat majority, and you can't take away his power to do that (you could, but you didn't) then the game is clear. It's been a controlled opposition scenario for a long time now.
Well yeah, 57 isn't 60, so it couldn't pass filibuster. They could remove the need for filibuster but that ALSO REQUIRES 60 VOTES.
There's a method of getting rid of the filibuster with a simple majority - the so called "nuclear option" we've been hearing about. Perhaps you agree that the public option wasn't worth it. I don't. And I claim that was a deliberte choice made by the controlled opposition to protect private capital. They could have passed it, but they didn't and the story sold that time was bad Joe Lieberman killed it.
Whats your magical solution to remove the filibuster with 50 votes and a VP?
It's literlly called that. For as long as I've been following US politics, it hasn't been a question of whether the filibuster could be removed to pass legislation with 51 votes. Instead the discussions have been around whether something is worth setting the precedent.
So basically a Senator claims that the Senate rules have been violated, the (senate) president disagrees, the senator appeals and a simple majority decides right or wrong.
Given that quite clearly no rules were actually broken, whats to stop State Attorney Generals from suing the US Federal Government to prevent implementation just like they did with countless other things, namely student loan forgiveness?
You and I, and 50 state AGs might feel that there have "clearly" been no rule violations, but neither you nor I nor a state AG, nor a federal judge are constitutionally empowered to make that determination.
According to Article I Section 5 Clause 2, the power to "Determine the rules of its proceedings" is granted to... The Senate.
If the Senate says its rules have been broken, the Senate's rules have been broken.
Lmao, "just ignore the federal judges" you sound like the Trump admin rn.
You realize thousands of federal employees were rehired due to orders from federal judges? You realize the large majority of Biden Era student aid forgiveness was blocked by federal courts?
You're not getting it. I didn't say we should ignore the courts.
When you try to sue, the courts will take one look at Article I and rule that the Senate is responsible for its own rules.
The cases you are talking about did not arise from senate rulemaking procedures. They do not set the precedent you suggest.
The courts can decide the Senate is responsible for its own rules but it can also decide that a simple majority didn't have the power to enact multibillion dollar legislation by the strict wording of its own rules.
That said, if we can get another majority in then I highly recommend they try it. I'd even be willing to call my representative and ask them.
You are not understanding what the Senate is doing here. The "Nuclear Option" is the Senate rewriting its rules. They absolutely have that power. It's specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The court does not have the constitutional authority to demand the Senate follow a previous version of its rules. The court must accept the new rules the Senate writes for itself, because the Constitution gives them the power to establish such rules.
FYI that is the norm for them
The Nuclear Option has never been used to rewrite its rules but to change how the rules have been interpreted, such as in 2013 and 2017 where the ability to filibuster was not extended to SCOTUS nominations and presidential cabinet picks. To rewrite the senate rules requires 67 senators, I was mistaken earlier when I said 60, as outlined in the 1975 fillibuster reform OR it could even take 100 votes as outlined in the Senate rules Article 5
A distinction without a relevant difference: The court would be required to follow the later interpretation, not the earlier one.
The courts only have a say in laws they pass not internal rules of either chamber...
We're talking about the laws passed as a result of change of interpretation of the rules such that the rule is not followed at all per its intention in the previous 1975 legislation which introduced it.
No we're talking about senate rules and how it's completely up to the senate to decide and implement them.
The filibuster is completely a tool of the senate and only because they made it one of their rules. Which they even been when they want to make it easier on themselves to use as a simple threat not having to actually stand and talk.
The student loan forgiveness failed as far as I'm aware because Biden used a previous legislation which didn't actually allow for this instead of passing new legislation. If you write a law and you do something that the law doesn't let you do, you may get stopped by the courts. If you however want to do all the things that are needed to establish universal healthcare, you can put them in a bill and pass it with a simple majority in the United States of America. Don't ask me why it hasn't happened. I already said what I think.
Are you an American? I only ask because this is not as simple as you're making it out to be and that might be because you're not familiar with the Congressional arcana. Many Americans aren't either, of course, but given the context it'd be interesting to know.
Canadian since 2005, inevitably watching USpoli closely. Am likely much more familiar with it than the average American. Same goes for Canadian politics.
"Points of order" are different than legislation like healthcare.
I don't see an argument here that says it can't be used for legislation. The arguments in the article as well as made by politicians have been that it abaolutely can be used. The arguments against the usage not the possibility have been about the effect of losing their own ability to filibuster legislation after that. There are so many examples out there that I get the feeling you just haven't heard or read about it. Here's one. And here's Chucky's plan from 2022 which got torpedoed by Manchinema. Please read about it because it's important to know what shit politicians are spinning when they don't do what you elected them for. I used to believe that the filibuster was some ironclad barrier that required 60 votes or cooperation from the opposition, cause that's how it's was spun. I had't paid enough attention at the time to understand there's always been an asterisk - can remove the barrier, don't want to becauae X, Y or Z.
Ending the filibuster forever requires only 51. Don't lie on behalf of the people who won't do it just because you like the results.
the republican neutered the original bill of "ACA' and they wernt going to agree with it unless its watered down, plus there were a ton of DINOS at the time too.
What do you mean they watered it down? It started out as their halfway plan, ie Romneycare.
Then why did the Republicans filibuster Romneycare and then recently froze all of it's funding? Why did they campaign on removing it, twice?
Because it was implemented by dems and gave things to the poors and minorities.
It's also why they don't have a replacement because it was their plan.
So its both leftist anti-elite legislation and also corrupt republican-lite legislation, got it.
In republican eyes yes. But they don't care about being hypocritical.
For example Romney taking credit for it and saying it's terrible
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare
How many republicans agreed to vote for it at the end?
Technically the Republicans didn't even agree with the watered down bill, the one we had to convince to pass via supermajority was Ind Joe Leieberman.