this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
202 points (94.7% liked)
World News
32311 readers
945 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Source: https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-blasted-not-codifying-roe-v-wade-democrat-failure-1719156
Look why don't we just point this out, which is a pretty obvious hole in all this.
Do you really think the Affordable Care Act would be the way it is if they ever had the majority needed to codify Roe?
They spent literal years getting filibustered.
Absolutely. This is the group that never put the public option on the table to begin with as a show of "good faith bipartisanship". Which netted them zero votes. We can argue whether Democrats don't know how to fight or just don't want to. But for now the result is the same. A few are finally starting to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. But they're still a minority.
The facts don't support your contention: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869
111th Congress (2009–2011)
Majority Party: Democrats (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republicans (41 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat (both caucused with the Democrats)
Total Seats: 100
Note: Senator Arlen Specter was reelected in 2004 as a Republican, and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected in 2006 as an Independent.
Source: https://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm
You spent all that time typing a reply yet you didn't even read my source...
He never had 60 present to overcome the filibuster and only passed ACA because Joe fucking Lieberman was bribed by the insurance industry to remove the public option. You should edit your posts for factual accuracy.
Oh I read it, written by Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm.
And if your party member is incapable of voting then he should have resigned a long fucking time ago. That's on them for not forcing him out. The same way Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have resigned due to her failing health instead of clinging to last vestiges of power.
I guess you are going to defend Sen. Dianne Feinstein now too, when she incapable of doing her job, but being forced to stay in her position because that's convientent for Adam Schiff to stay in power.
Moving the goalposts is a lazy form of debate. Thank you for admitting you were wrong about Obama having a supermajority and should have codified abortion rights.
I will agree with you that they should have forced Ginsburg out and Feinstein should have been voted out a year ago. But that's not what you initially claimed (multiple times, I might add).
But not Senator Byrd, right?
Again with the goalposts. Facts are facts. Admit you were wrong about Obama having a supermajority. Unless you are just being a provocateur, you don't help your case when you clearly miss the truth and deflect from admitting it.
Okay. I checked the timeline. It's shit.
Robert Byrd was relased from hospital in 2009-06-30 - https://rollcall.com/2009/06/30/byrd-released-from-hospital-2/
Al Franken's was sworn in 2009-07-07 - https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna31778598
Robert Byrd was again only hospitalized in 2009-09-22 - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/09/byrd-admitted-to-hospital-after-fall-027429
Lol. Byrd was 91 and "out of commission". He wasn't present and your timeline means nothing. I'll say it again for the tenth time, Obama did not have a supermajority to override a Republican filibuster.
It's not my timeline. It's me proving your timeline in https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869 is just factually wrong.
Lololol. First, Franken’s timeline is as stated. Byrd was out. You somehow think that his being out of the hospital means he was present and voting? Are you an idiot?
Is not an argument.
I'm out. I was open to discussion until personal attacks.
You were never open to a discussion because you refused to admit you were wrong about the supermajority. And you’ve spent a lot of time deflecting from that fact.
Just gonna call you out for a sec.
He said Ginsburg and Fenstein, because you said Ginsburg and Feinstein. While the answer to this question could easily be a "yes", this wasn't part of the original message. You're expecting him to bring up things you yourself didn't.
It was.
You're just arguing in bad faith. We can easily just say yes but if you don't explicitly bring it up then you're just trying to find a way to debase the argument. You shouldn't expect people to answer for people you only bring up after your first argument didn't give you the results you wanted.
Your link literally discredits your own argument. Not enough people to overturn a filibuster....
59+vice president=60
EDIT: Actually I'm wrong here. Vice president only has tie breaker vote.
And you think every single one of them is going to come out to codify abortion. Even West Virginia?
That was Obama's promise in 2007.
Guess we needed to give him more votes.
Is the ACA period the only time period y'all know how to cite? If that's your only example you've got, then it's 100% true that there haven't been any other opportunities. And getting the ACA through and properly implemented was its own massive battle.