News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Rescission packages aren't subject to the filibuster, only a simple majority is needed. Expect more of this.
Sounds like something democrats could have used during the biden administration. Did they?
Frankly, it's starting to look like democrats always have an excuse. Have a majority? Oh shucky dern, we can't pass what we ran on but never intended to pass because of the filibuster! WOOHOO! I mean, it really is unfortunate that we can't do anything.
Don't have a majority? There is always some reason you can't filibuster! WOOHOO! I mean, it really is unfortunate that we can't do anything. Donate to put us back into power that we will refuse to use!
Well a rescission package can only be used to cut spending, so it couldn't have been used by the Democrats to pass new spending.
What do you think they should have used it to cut?
The military, the police, the prisons, ICE, TSA, DHS, CIA, NSA... any number of oppressive organizations that exist to protect the exalted status of capital.
I'm with you there but you could not have got even a simple majority of elected representatives to agree to that. It would have to be something that Democrats broadly support.
Isn't that the point of this thread? That Democrats don't support the working class?
I thought you were saying they were ineffective at enacting their agenda because they didn't use rescission packages.
If we're talking about what you just said I have no quarrel.
Why would democrats ever defund any of those? They don't even seriously dislike any of them.
That’s my point. Democrats don’t have the best interest of working people in their hearts.
The funding for trump's wall.
Yeah, they should have. Congress ended up doing the opposite, forcing him to continue funding. Democrats don't have nearly the party unity that Republicans do around immigration, I think that's why it keeps being leveraged as a wedge issue.
The main reason republicans are able to get better results from a filibuster than the democrats is republicans don't give a shit about the consequences.
When there is a lapse of government funding it causes chaos in a lot of programs that tens of millions of people depend on. Even if it's just a day, the government spends weeks preparing for it and when it's over it's not like flipping a switch and everything goes back to normal, there is a long recovery period. Even getting close to a lapse results in wasted effort preparing for the possibility which takes away from running the programs and harms people.
For republicans that's an added benefit to a point, not something to be avoided so they will hold out until they get a large portion of what they want. Democrats have to weigh the pain and suffering from a lapse against getting concessions so their thresholds are different.
But as absentbird said, that doesn't really apply here because rescission isn't something that democrats are going to use often.
The democrats get the results they want from the filibuster. It blocks progressive legislation and that's all it's for.
You can filibuster anything if you have the will. The Democrats just don't have any care to fight for anything but their pathetic jobs.
No, you can't. Debate time is limited in the senate for a rescission package. There is no filibuster, neither a traditional talking one nor one where they just say they're filibustering to prevent a vote.
I suppose someone could just talk and refuse to stop. They would be ruled out of order, and if they didn't stop the Senate Sergeant at Arms would have them removed. If every democrat did that I guess that would hold things up a bit, but it's not a filibuster and eventually the vote would proceed.
Better to be dragged out for standing up for what is right than to roll over and show your belly to the butcher.
Given who we're taking about, I won't hold my breath for it.
At this point I fear that it would be the best case scenario if all the Democrats were sniveling little controlled opposition weenies.
What if a lot of them are good people with the will, the energy, the means, and the awareness that now is their time to make history, and they are not because the writing on the wall (or the approaching shit tsunami, if you will) looks that much worse from the inside where they can see the machinations of this takeover in action long before it hits the news. And maybe they’ve heard some consistent believable inside rumors about the details of certain high profile suicides.
They sure seem to be the useless variety though.