The Senate Democratic leader and his Gang of Eight keep trying to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. On Thursday, they told their caucus colleagues they had ten votes to reopen the government—in exchange for no real Republican concessions.
How the Senate Democratic leader and his Gang of Eight keep trying to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Bullshit. It’s caving and saying that they can let them expire in a year. The subsidy needs to be ironclad - and the alternative is that we repeal every law related for-profit health care as anything legal.
And in that year, it will be used as a talking point to motivate people to vote. And then (hopefully), enough of congress will agree to a budget that includes the subsidies, among other things
However, it would seem that enough dems caved to the republican budget that it doesn’t matter. So basically everything I’ve said in this thread regarding the hopeful strategy that was put forth is moot. I’m back to being disappointed.
Row v Wade was only able to be overturned because Democrats wanted to be able to run on the platform of defending it, rather than just codifying it into law
The belief in the courts and with politicians was that it was settled law and therefore not up for debate. The dems, at least as far as I know, had nothing to do with the case being overturned. It wasn’t codified into law for two main reasons - there wouldn’t have been enough votes and/or a president wouldn’t veto it, and it wasn’t seen as necessary given the fact that it was settled law.
Do you have sources for any of this? Because it sounds a little too ridiculous to be truthful
My point is, at least in part, that the proposal to extend healthcare subsidies for a year is not caving.
Bullshit. It’s caving and saying that they can let them expire in a year. The subsidy needs to be ironclad - and the alternative is that we repeal every law related for-profit health care as anything legal.
And in that year, it will be used as a talking point to motivate people to vote. And then (hopefully), enough of congress will agree to a budget that includes the subsidies, among other things
Oh yeah, like Roe v Wade! That went great!
Since Roe v Wade was overturned, nearly every vote to grant abortion access passed. It’s an issue that motivates voters to act.
However, it would seem that enough dems caved to the republican budget that it doesn’t matter. So basically everything I’ve said in this thread regarding the hopeful strategy that was put forth is moot. I’m back to being disappointed.
Row v Wade was only able to be overturned because Democrats wanted to be able to run on the platform of defending it, rather than just codifying it into law
The belief in the courts and with politicians was that it was settled law and therefore not up for debate. The dems, at least as far as I know, had nothing to do with the case being overturned. It wasn’t codified into law for two main reasons - there wouldn’t have been enough votes and/or a president wouldn’t veto it, and it wasn’t seen as necessary given the fact that it was settled law.
Do you have sources for any of this? Because it sounds a little too ridiculous to be truthful