This lady tells it like it is, about the fight for democracy

[steve2470]

Link to tweet

[Baitball Blogger]

1. Let's buy her a ticket to West Virginia so she can give Joe Manchin and earful.

[KS Toronado]

8. I'd help pay for that!

[Deuxcents]

2. Whoa

I agree with her. “If your heart’s not in it..get out of the way”.

[czarjak]

3. What she said!

[tiredtoo]

4. Bravo for the lady

But in reality the Dems don't really have the senate.

[Dan]

7. If Mitch had 50 votes and the VP,

He would be ramming shit through.

Maybe we should take lessons from Mitch on how to run the Senate.

[bottomofthehill]

16. Right, and if Schumer had 50 votes he would too

But he does not have 50 votes he has 50 people who currently self identify as democrats but they do not all vote with him. I know it’s an over used phrase, but “I am old enough to remember when” this happened with the Republican Party and Senator Jeffords of Vermont walked….

[StarfishSaver]

21. This.

[erronis]

5. No pussy-footing around here! Preach it!

[gab13by13]

6. I fear she is going to get an alert.

Maybe we all should just take a couple somas and chill? My Ford.

[dalton99a]

9. Kick

https://democraticunderground.com/100215506081

[Picaro]

10. Oh baby!

Man, she is on fire. And, I completely agree with her. The one thing that Biden is not doing good and it’s driving me crazy is NOT going after these bastards. really, build a fucking concentration camp and put these assholes in it.

[Caliman73]

12. Really? A concentration camp?

really, build a fucking concentration camp and put these assholes in it.

So you are suggesting that the Biden administration build a concentration camp and put his political enemies into that camp, and that is justified and will "save Democracy".

Explain how that works please.

[gab13by13]

15. Concentration camps are more humane

then firing squads for traitors.

[Caliman73]

25. Debatable, but before we get ANYWHERE near either option...

There is due process. Has there been due process? Have there been trials resulting in convictions, resulting in sentences.

I did not see that in the post that I responded to. My reading comprehension may not be all there today, did I miss that? Or was I correct in questioning why we need to build concentration camps.

Also, WHO are we building these camps for? Insurrectionists from the 6th? They will likely be put into prison. Congress people and Senators who are using the rules to obstruct legislation? If so, then my response to you stands... Where is the due process?

I would like to see Trump, his offspring, and anyone who follows him in this "big lie" bullshit, receive consequences. I think that he needs to be charged with sedition, however, even though I am not an attorney, I know enough to know that any charges of sedition right now, would not likely result in a conviction. So, we need to wait, we need to do what we can (Call our reps and Senators, vote, campaign, work with civic organizations to get others to vote, etc...) to resist the Republicans.

Firing squads and concentration camps are NOT the solution.

[Bettie]

11. I agree with her completely

But, apparently, those of us who think there's a problem need to calm down and bow our heads for the metaphorical noose.

[H2O Man]

13. Recommended.

[Caliman73]

14. So, I understand the concern and the frustration.

I am wondering if she made a follow up video on what exactly she would do given the rules of the Senate, to change things. Given the media landscape that demonstrably favors conservative view points in terms of time on air and saturation in local and national markets, how would she be doing things differently.

It is easy to criticize. It is a lot more difficult to plan and carry out actions.

[gab13by13]

17. It's why Senators are paid that big money.

Bring good bills up for votes and make them actually filibuster. Do something to put pressure on Manchin. The filibuster needs to go, whatever means possible.

[StarfishSaver]

22. That's not how filibusters work

If they want to make them work that way, they have to vote to change the rules - and, of course, they don't have the votes to change the rules, so, for now, the filibuster process must continue as it is - and the current process does not provide for bills to put up for votes and force the minority to filibuster. It doesn't work that way.

And exactly what pressure do you propose the Dems "put on Manchin" to vote the way leadership wants him to?

[PortTack]

18. +1000

I like her and follow her on TikTok..she’s good at setting it on fire..we need that, but we also need creditable action

[jaxexpat]

19. The rules of the senate? Oh you mean the customs that GQP changes or ignores at their whim?

Have Democrats given much thought to denying a USSC nominee hearings if they're nominated by GQP presidents? I don't recall Bush having that problem from Democrats. Seems to me that shithead got pretty much everything he wanted except sending Social Security to the Wall Street slot machine.
Where did rules prevent voting on bipartisan investigations of insurrection? Where are senate rules that prevent voting on bills? Where are senate rules against voting on changing senate rules or abandoning senate customs and traditions? It's time a Democratic senator presiding over the senate simply denies objections from GQP senators and conducts up or down votes on important items and to hell with those who don't like it. It's time for every Democratic senator with enough balls to cast a vote to support him. What could go wrong enough with that to make things worse?

But wait, I'm probably wrong. It's surely written into the rules of the senate that no senators from the party with the most voters shall have their way in the determinations of the senate. Thus preserving the senate's tradition of control by and for the wealthiest. Otherwise the decorum would go to shit, Right?

[Caliman73]

20. I don't know. I don't have access to the rules of the Senate.

Question.

When did Democrats control the Senate to deny a Republican president a Supreme Court nominee? We were actually the first party in modern times to deny a nominee with Bork.

Cloture, as it stands right now, prevents a vote until "debate" is ended, which means that 60 Senators have to vote to end debate. Cloture has been changed several times, with Democrats eliminating it for circuit courts when Republicans were obstructing, then Republicans removing it from Supreme Court nominations. I agree that Cloture should be eliminated for Civil Rights legislation, or at very minimum, changed to make the Opposing party actually have to come out in public to talk about why they are denying a vote. Any filibuster that remains should be difficult for the minority party. However, the rule still stands. 2 Democratic Senators are blocking the changes in the filibuster not Republicans.

Right now, if Schumer tries to vote on changing the Senate rules and denying objections of Republican Senators, he will lose. Then it will be shown that he has no control over the caucus, which can lead to a vote of no confidence and the Democratic Party in the Senate would be in disarray as people vie to take his place. That might be a way that would make things worse, no?

The party with the majority has advantages over the minority party, but the minority has been afforded certain mechanisms to maintain some say. We have a 50/50 Senate right now with VP Harris as a tiebreaker, which she would almost certainly break to the Democratic Party's advantage. The problem as it stand now, is that we actually have a 48/52 Senate on changing voting rules. So, how do we get around that without just chucking everything and creating a chaotic power grab situation?

It isn't about Decorum. It is about the rules and values that we are defending. If you break the rules to "save the rules" where does that leave you in terms of your legitimacy in being the arbiter of the rules? We can certainly go with a might, or majority makes right situation, but then we have abandoned any idea of values greater than just holding power. Is that what you are advocating for? It is okay if you are, just be honest about it and then defend that.

[StarfishSaver]

23. EVERYTHING you said.

That is all.

[Caliman73]

24. You and I have had this conversation before...

I totally get it. The frustration. The thought that "We aren't doing enough". I feel that too sometimes, but then I ask, what would I do that these Senators, House Members, Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, aren't doing.

I mean I could try to get myself on the news daily giving press conferences, but would they stop biting after awhile. I might be labeled a "publicity hound" and that would diminish my reach.

I do think that Democrats need to keep what Republicans are doing front and center in the news. The problem is that it isn't only Republicans. Synema and Manchin are monkey wrenches and I am sure that Schumer is trying to deal with them as best he can.

I do not have blind confidence in Schumer or the Democrats, but I am also not willing to "burn the village down to save the village".

[jaxexpat]

26. Did the Democrats deny Bork an opportunity to be considered?

I recall he was simply not confirmed. Am I wrong on this? Regarding all your very correct and, by me, appreciated commentary I still feel that these times are actually the battle of Armageddon for American democracy. The actors for the enemy are lining up for action more each day. The holder of the scales is, in my view, the military. That's a pretty radical and foundation shaking reality to back away from with any hope of returning to a normal as acceptable as, say, 2000. I recall 2000 as the year when the minority was given the white house for the first time. Hardly a moment of great business as usual. These are extraordinary times, indeed. It will take extraordinary efforts to see us through. Otherwise we will expire with only a muted whimper.