since you all seem to get your one-liner responses from the same text file, i’m gonna follow your example and repost another comment from this post
Democrats haven’t had 60 senators since 1979. They had 58 in 2010 for exactly 72 days and tried to pass public option healthcare but only 1 independent voted with them so they settled for the lesser medicaid expansion that the current Republicans are gutting in the budget. For the record, that medicaid expansion passed with supermajority as every singe Republican voted nay.
You only need a simple majority to remove the filibuster. We elected them to use their power, not to let their hands be tied by rules that never seem to stop them or the republicans from doing bad things.
Dems could have simply gotten rid of the filibuster and passed free healthcare with 50 votes, and shown an entire generation of voters that politics is a viable means of achieving positive social change. But they genuinely do not want this because the donor class does not want this, so they let the rules stop them.
For the dems, a generation of energized, politically active 20-30 year olds is a problem to overcome.
since you all seem to get your one-liner responses from the same text file, i’m gonna follow your example and repost another comment from this post
You only need a simple majority to remove the filibuster. We elected them to use their power, not to let their hands be tied by rules that never seem to stop them or the republicans from doing bad things.
what’s that to do with medicare?
Dems could have simply gotten rid of the filibuster and passed free healthcare with 50 votes, and shown an entire generation of voters that politics is a viable means of achieving positive social change. But they genuinely do not want this because the donor class does not want this, so they let the rules stop them.
For the dems, a generation of energized, politically active 20-30 year olds is a problem to overcome.