• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    They also refused to get rid of the filibuster. They could have done it any time after it became clear that filibustering everything was the new playbook, around about 2012. This has been a problem for over a decade now and Democrats pretend they can’t just change the rule.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      They could have also reformed it to require physical presence and actually filibustering, instead of being possible via email from the tropics. Then again, with the average age and health of Congress, that would likely put a significant limit on its effectiveness as a tactic (I don’t believe for a second that McConnell has the physical endurance to actually filibuster even a single bill).

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Democrats pretend they can’t just change the rule.

      And even more, they pretend like Republicans won’t change the rule. If parliamentary democracy required a supermajority to do anything, every government would fall.

      • WldFyre@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It only requires a supermajority to do something the other party doesn’t want to do