I don't just mean in Idaho. I mean federallyAre you sure there are even any democrats in there?
Political party strength in Idaho - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Idaho conservatives are trying to set the date of life beginning *way* before conception
- Thread starter TheMysteriousGX
- Start date
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
What could they say? I mean, its a solid red state and we have a conservative supreme court. If they have a bill it will be fought, if they are talk then there are other things to talk about.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. There is a few federal Democrat senators who think that Idaho is doing the right thing.
Even if the Democrats wanted to do something, they'd be blocked by a minority in their own party
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Well the Equality Act consistently passes the house and then is opposed in the Senate by several democrats each time, so yes.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Did they oppose the bill, or oppose ending the filibuster? Cause they are two different things.
Opposed the bill, itself. Let it die each time. Funnily enough sometimes it got republican cosponsors, democrats opposed a bipartisan bill for no good reason.
I would just add that the filibuster would make highly unlikely with these cosponsors. But many Dems are out for themselves and not the people. So they can abuse this to their own poltical advantage
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Who was it? Cause as I understand, even Manchin and Sinema signaled support for the bill.
Well in every previous year it was Manchin among others who let it die in committee, so I'm not apt to believe him now. The current iteration of the bill is sitting in committee, passed the house, but still 2 democrats won't sign on. Manchin and someone else. I don't particularly feel like looking through and seeing who the second one not playing ball is (it's not Sinema in this case) because it honestly doesn't matter. There are always enough democrat naysayers to kill any bill, as Trunkage says.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
We've done that before and it didn't work. So no, it's not the obvious solution.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Well, you could try voting republican but I doubt that would get you the result you want. Although, if you want a party that is totally willing to go to an extreme then they are probably the party for you, you just have to horse shoe them around to the left from the right. We already see the far left and far right agreeing on the Ukraine.
Excellent non-sequitur to distract from the fact that we have empirically tried your method, and it didn't work. We can hand over the house, senate, and presidency to them, and if they work on legislation with literally 0 republican support, they'll sabotage it themselves. So you're wrong.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
They have the bare minimum of the senate and republicans are locked hard against them. Manchin and Sineme can't be bullied since their seats would most likely go to republicans if they weren't there and if they wanted to party switch they easily could. The only way forward is to win more so the reluctants don't matter as much. If you want a party that is lock step, go republican.
It's not just this time, we gave them supermajorities before and they still bungled it. If you just say "elect more democrats", well Manchin's a democrat, how useful is it to elect Manchin? Sinema's a democrat, how useful is it to elect Sinema. You don't actually ask anything of your party, so they don't provide, it's that simple.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
They only really had a super majority for like a month and that included Lieberman who was more of an independent at that time since he campaigned for McKain. Cause you may not get them to support certain big issues, but they will still support other things like judges and a supreme court pick. If they were republican then you can bet that the turtle would just run out Biden's full term without adding anyone to the bench. You have the same 'with us or against us' that is so toxic about the republicans, it can be effective, but its also a shitty way to govern.
Manchin himself has blocked multiple appointments and sunk others, so no you don't even have that. And if you want to talk about a "with us or against us" mentality, you get upsetti spaghetti whenever anyone starts bringing things up like "hold politicians accountable" or "I'm not going to vote for a known liar".
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,549
- 3,493
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Well just that he let some through makes him better then the alternative. We have the nuclear option on judges because republicans didn't just block some, they blocked all of Obama's judicial nominations. So they did that to get any appointments through and when democrats lost the senate they didn't get anymore through.