Disturbing to see a young woman interviewed on MSNBC, complaining about Democrats,

[pnwmom]

blaming them for not having "codified" Roe v Wade into law.

If she's smart enough to use the word "codified" in a sentence, why isn't she smart enough to understand about the filibuster?

We should all be doing whatever we can to gently educate people like this woman. (So they don't dig their heels in even more.)

[Wounded Bear]

1. There is a disturbing lack of knowledge about how our government works...nt

[elleng]

2. Yes, very broad and disturbing.

[treestar]

51. and it is disturbing that MSNBC can find a person

important enough to interview without their knowing basic facts.

[SheltieLover]

9. +1,000,000!!!

[shrike3]

17. People don't know and they don't want to know.

I've had people tell me that to my face. "Government is corrupt, so why should I learn anything about it?"

[Wounded Bear]

18. Yep And it explains Dems crossing over to vote for trump...

out of some misbegotten idea that the president can do anything he wants, let alone that he would never want to do anything for the American people anyway.

[lunatica]

76. You're right

Whenever I can see I’m winning an argument they usually just wave their hands like they batting my argument down and say, “Both sides do it!”

[shrike3]

77. My new comeback to that statement is, "Only one side stormed the capitol."

Only one side wanted to hang the VP and shoot the Speaker of the House.

[lunatica]

78. Good comeback!

I haven’t had a political discussion since before Hillary lost to Asshole.

[shrike3]

79. I live in a red area, so I can't avoid them.

[lunatica]

80. I'm mighty lucky to live in a blue state!

Believe me, I’m very aware of it too. And grateful!

[shrike3]

91. You are. n/t

[keithbvadu2]

22. Tuberville thinks the three branches of government are "the House, the Senate and executive."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214542886

Tuberville thinks the three branches of government are "the House, the Senate and executive."

[inthewind21]

96. That's about what 85%

Of the citizenry thinks as well.

[Bettie]

107. DU Skews older, we were taught Civics in

high school. We understand how government works because it was part of our education.

They stopped teaching that under Reagan. Anyone under 50 probably never had any education about government.

[Hekate]

3. Civics classes were jettisoned from a lot of public schools some decades back ...

… words like “boring” and “irrelevant” were used.

The further along we get in this low-information voter society, the more it looks like a plan.

[Wounded Bear]

4. Indeed! nt

[Hugh_Lebowski]

8. +1000 (nt)

[AkFemDem]

10. Huge STEM push

I have kids who graduated in 2010 and 2019- there was a marked difference between the youngest and oldests educations w/ regard to both civics and humanities. The youngest is studying engineering, and so are many of her former classmates- it was obviously by design that STEM classes began to overtake everything else. The oldest isn’t as math brilliant but is a frequent reader and very well versed in civics and government. It seems like the pendulum swing went too far.

[appalachiablue]

20. +1

[Rebl2]

63. I would

like to know the reason for doing that. When I was in junior high (‘70’s) we had to pass a state constitution test in 8th grade and we learned about the US constitution. We learned about voting and actually learned how to use the machines used at that time. I even remember my teachers name-Mrs Chitwood.
It makes you wonder if this is all planned so we have low information voters.

[betsuni]

5. Typical.

All day I've been seeing the same thing, blaming Democrats. Not only right-wing, from all directions.

[lpbk2713]

6. Simply parroting what she heard on Faux.

She might not even know how to spell codified.

[betsuni]

7. Doubt it. Probably from a supposedly left source.

That's how to convince potentially left voters to be cynical and hate Democrats.

[shrike3]

15. Yes. I've heard it from lefties of my acquaintance.

Everything, literally everything, is the Dems' fault.

One was railing on yesterday how Clyburn had to go because he supported Cuellar in Texas and thus it is his fault the progressive woman lost.

[questionseverything]

36. Biden, pelosi and clyburn all went and campaigned against the pro choice candidate

My daughters and their friends are upset to say the least

[Demsrule86]

38. Are you talking Texas? Because if so...the pro-life candidate who won't vote on abortion can win

when the challenger would surely lose...he also was a sitting member. Sen. Casey is also pro-life but no anti-choice.

[Demsrule86]

41. Too bad. Honestly I think some need to learn civics...Texas is a red state and pro-choice candidates

rarely win...and the one who ran against Cuellar would have lost that seat. Cuellar will have a tough time but he has incumbency on his side which helps. You will not always get what you want in politics but Democrats will give you way more. This is a don't let the perfect be the enemy of good moment.

[questionseverything]

49. You do not know that she would have lost

What we do know is nothing will change if we don’t try to change it

[Demsrule86]

52. I know the district. It is extremely conservative...we can never know for sure. But most pundits

think she would have lost. I do too.

[treestar]

55. and remember politics can make strange bedfellows

they can't demand everything from everyone. Sometimes you have to deal with a Cuellar. We can't demand a progressive from every geographic area.

[shrike3]

67. Unfortunately, politics is about winning.

And at this point, it also means fighting back against a batshit crazy Texas GOP.

While I understand your daughters' POV, trying to primary someone like Clyburn would not be a good idea.

[questionseverything]

69. It was someone else's daughter talking about the primary

To my girls they just felt betrayed

Hard to convince them democrats are pro choice when it seems they are “ sometimes “

Just bad optics with this soul crushing decision coming so close to two party leaders supporting a forced birther candidate

[shrike3]

70. That's understandable.

[Demsrule86]

39. Cuellar can win the conservative seat maybe. It will be tough but his challenger had no shot.

[shrike3]

66. I understand that.

The lefty I talked to did not. Hence, she said, Clyburn "must go." I said, "Good luck with that."

[questionseverything]

73. Years ago "they" said a black preacher and a jewish guy

Couldn’t win in Georgia

Glad no one listened

We don’t know who can win until they run

I am from Illinois, I wish I had a dollar for everytime I heard,” that black guy with the funny name can’t win “

lol 😂

[shrike3]

75. People also said Donald Trump would never be president.

You don't know what's going to happen in politics. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. And as you know, Texas is not Illinois.

[Demsrule86]

29. Much of the left including Our Revolution, Greens and the Young Turks take money from the

GOP and are not on our side...most want to bring down the Democratic Party.

[shrike3]

92. If memory serves me, Nader took money from the GOP.

Would not surprise me if the current generation does, too.

[Demsrule86]

100. Yes he did...fucking traitor. And over the years Greens have run candidates funded by the GOP

to make us lose elections.

[shrike3]

103. Uh-huh. They knew what they were doing.

[Hav]

60. I rather think it's Twitter

where they get all their education and information from the "Blame Dems first" crowd.

[Beastly Boy]

11. I wonder if she ever voted for a Democrat in her life.

[Wounded Bear]

19. I wonder if she ever voted...

[keithbvadu2]

23. OUCH!

[Beastly Boy]

44. Touche!

[Celerity]

48. she is affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, not the Dems

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216851745#post45

[Beastly Boy]

58. Oh, a revolutionary... figures.

[lapucelle]

110. That interview was posted on twitter by a prominent Democrat.

Link to tweet

[Cha]

111. Mahalo, lapucelle! I have a Tweet for

those who are Dragging on Dems. over Roe V Wade..

Link to tweet

There's No GD Excuse for NOT Uniting Against Fascism.

Save Our Democracy in 2022 & 2024!

[lapucelle]

112. Mahalo, Cha and thanks for posting that tweet.

It's disturbing to see the "voting is a waste of time" narrative being flogged by people who are vested in depressing the Democrati vote. the public interest is best served when Democrats and allied voters turn out in force.

[Cha]

114. It's Incredible that anyone can be so Be SO

Damn Dumb to say "Voting is a Waste of time".. .. siting home on their GD hands while Democracy is being Burned to the Ground.

Where the fuck have they been for the last few years? Selfish RF.

Aloha!

Save Our Democracy in 2022 & 2024!

[Me.]

119. TY

[Mariana]

89. She certainly didn't vote for Hillary in 2016. nt.

[Cha]

115. Aloha BB.. here's a Tweet Worth Noting..

Link to tweet

There's No GD Excuse for NOT Uniting Against Fascism.

Save Our Democracy in 2022 & 2024!

[Beastly Boy]

116. Mahalo Cha,

I will second that.

[Cha]

117. Mahalo!!💙

Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[Me.]

120. ...

[Cha]

121. Aloha, Me! 💙🤷‍♂️

Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[SouthBayDem]

12. There was never a good time to codify Roe whenever Democrats had congressional majorities.

1973-81: Far too early (especially because many Democrats of this era were representing conservative states - like Thomas Eagleton in Missouri and Fritz Hollings in South Carolina). Also, Nixon and Ford would have vetoed it.

1987-95: Again, many Democrats of this era were representing conservative states, and a codifying bill would've been vetoed prior to 1993.

2007-11: GW Bush would've vetoed it, and then there was the 2008 economic crash and health care reform dominating Obama's first year.

2021-present: COVID and inflation are dominating the congressional schedule, and of course the Senate is as literally deadlocked as you could get.

[Mad_Machine76]

64. I keep having this argument with a lot of my progressive/left-wing friends

They won't listen and/or understand.

[SouthBayDem]

65. It really sucks how so many potential allies lack knowledge of basic civics.

At a lot of "very online left" spaces they expect the president to be an omnipresent, all-powerful savior who can magically deliver anything through executive order or "the bully pulpit" (astonishingly after opposing the former guy's "all-powerful" attitude). Of course, it takes a very convenient forgetting of these facts: The US government is based on checks and balances not a unitary executive, and the real world voting base is nothing like the "very online" base.

[Mad_Machine76]

71. Exactly

I’ve been interested/learning about politics on my own since I was a teenager (during the Clinton years). The disinformation/misinformation that we have to deal with on both sides of the fence is frustrating.

[Hortensis]

13. We have people making the same complaint here. Some are constantly

demanding that we "do something" when many experts have many times in the past, are doing many things at present, and expect to do more in future.

Some seem to have absolutely no comprehension that there are always large numbers of very impressive people in many organizations in and out of government whose LIVES are devoted to whatever issue is being discussed. That such people with incredibly greater knowledge and commitment far, far beyond one's own might exist and be busier than hell, far more involved, is apparently never considered. Or always forgotten in rushes of anxiety.

Worst of all, that those working on OUR side, for liberal and progressive goals, might also tend to be highly principled and dedicated is also never considered. And that's very strange. If one believes our ideals are fine and noble, how can he not realize those whose lives are devoted to furthering them probably aren't low and corrupt like Republicans?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. Yeah she wasn't wrong about this being a shit time to fundraise tho

[pnwmom]

25. Every single House member HAS to fundraise now, because the election is coming in November. nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

28. Of course they do. They ALWAYS have to fundraise. That doesn't mean that the first

communication a person gets from the party after Roe falls has to be a request for funds.

[Demsrule86]

32. Why wouldn't it be? You think we can win this battle without money? I sent what I could.

Hubs is on sick leave and we have no income as he was fired from his job after the second surgery. ACA Medicaid expansion (Ohio) is the only reason we have health insurance. People have sneered at the ACA...but it saved our bacon this year.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

61. Because it's hugely alienating.

People marched, donated, GOTV and voted as hard as they could because they believed in Biden. His entire vibe was being the grown-up, getting things under control, having a plan. I don't expect anything from politicians anymore -- that way I'm not ever disappointed -- but it's pretty bad form, with instant communication being so easy, for a politician or party to not have a reassuring message and clear next-steps ready once Dobbs came down. It sends its own message.

[pnwmom]

74. These communications were scheduled before the decision was announced.

And that young woman doesn't understand that if we all spent a little money and took a little time, we could stop the R's from taking over Congress.

[Mister Ed]

16. Fine, but then the GOP simply un-codifies it when they regain the legislature and the White House.

That needs to be explained to those who are under the sway of dishonest and ill-intentioned internet influencers.

[Demsrule86]

33. We may have to do it again then.

[Mister Ed]

47. For sure. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done.

I'm just saying that people who think this mess is just as much the Democrats' fault because they've never codified Roe are much mistaken.

[Demsrule86]

53. The courts were and are so f'ing important...it just makes me sick to think about it.

[uponit7771]

84. They would need supermajority in senate, they wont ever have that

[Mister Ed]

93. I'm not sure I understand.

I guess the idea is that the GOP would need a supermajority in the Senate to overcome the filibuster and repeal a Democratic codification of abortion rights.

Wouldn't the Democrats likewise need a supermajority to overcome the filibuster and codify Roe in the first place? Or, if they did away with the filibuster in order to get abortion rights legislation passed, couldn't a GOP majority later do likewise to repeal the legislation?

[BeyondGeography]

21. The filibuster crutch again? Good luck winning over the kids with that.

It’s a real problem, but on codifying Roe it was not just Republicans in the way, it was Democrats too. Take the early Obama years. They were either outright opposed to codifying (Ben Nelson, eg) or too squishy to have a big national legislative fight on the issue (more than you can count, including the President himself).

The young women in that clip seemed very well informed to me. However you feel about them, the big national political fight, the one that a lot of elected Dems have been trying to avoid for decades, is here.

[pnwmom]

24. The filibuster issue is more than a crutch. There were a number of times they had the 51 votes,

even if they also had a few Democrats who wouldn't have helped.

Obama only had a filibuster proof majority for a few months, before Ted Kennedy died. Then he was lucky he managed to get the ACA pushed through. No one could have also gotten an abortion law passed in those months.

[BeyondGeography]

27. I agree...not least because Democrats wouldn't have backed him up

Now everyone has to learn the hard way what a world without Roe looks like. If that doesn’t steel enough spines I give up.

[MOMFUDSKI]

30. the kids are NOT alright -

the kids are PISSED

[Demsrule86]

34. Well than I guess they can vote for Republicans or third parties (same thing) and find out what

else they can lose. I have no more patience with idiots these days.

[Demsrule86]

26. And this is why I no longer watch MSNBC or CNN. We never had the votes.

Little miss stupid who was on MSNBC needs to consider what Republicans will do to fix it...well nothing. It is what they want. Fuck her.

[MOMFUDSKI]

31. Fuck her

doesn't solve today's problem

[Demsrule86]

35. True that. They have to vote and if they don't...well then they earned all the bad coming their way.

Of course. so few of them actually vote, we may be able to do it without them if everyone else comes out.

[treestar]

56. it appears she won't be convinced

very easily, but then, she may not represent a large number of voters - the media gives these people air because they are creating conflict and drama, but it does not mean they are numerous.

[Demsrule86]

59. I agree.

[uponit7771]

82. Yes we did, first term of Obama we had a controlling share of congress for 6 months with ..

... 60 votes.

She has a good point

[Demsrule86]

101. We did not have 60 votes...Facts are stubborn things.

"Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011."

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/

[uponit7771]

102. Yes we did for a VERY short time, ACA would ... NOT ... have passed with 59 votes ... PERIOD

[shrike3]

104. Seventy-two days, in fact.

From the San Diego Free Press

Yes, in the 2008 election, Democrats managed to widen their majorities in both houses of Congress. In the 110th Congress that served from January 2007 through January 2009, Democrats held a 35 seat majority in the House and a single seat advantage in the Senate, which included “independent” Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both of whom caucused with the Democrats. The 2008 election saw that majority swell to 78 seats in the House and nine seats in the Senate.
How is that possible, you ask? Everybody says that the Democrats had a full filibuster-proof majority? The math doesn’t add up, you say. If there are 100 seats in the Senate, and Republicans, as of January 2009 had only 40 of them (technically the Republicans had 41 of them initially, but we’ll get to that), doesn’t that mean that the Democrats had the remaining 60, giving them the supermajority in the Senate?

No, not necessarily, because it was a very odd year in Congressional politics.

Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008? The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman? That race dragged on forever, resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner. Franken wasn’t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.

And it wasn’t even that easy. Even had Franken been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge. It wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.

But even that’s not entirely accurate, and the Dems didn’t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasn’t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.

And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.

In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week; from the time Kennedy’s interim successor Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th until the time Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as Kennedy’s “permanent” replacement after his special election victory over Democratic disappointment, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a state that is heavily Democratic, it seems that Coakley figured she didn’t have to actually campaign for the Senate seat; that Massachusetts voters would automatically elect the Democrat to replace the legendary Kennedy. No way Massachusetts would send a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Brown took the election seriously, Coakley did not, and Brown won (he will, however, lose this November to Elizabeth Warren, and all will be right with the world again).

During those four months and one week, Congress was in session for a total of 72 days. So for 72 days the Democrats held a 60 seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. But wait! There’s more! As Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn points out, even that was unreliable. “Even in this window Obama’s ‘control’ of the Senate was incomplete and highly adulterated due to the balkiness of the so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.”

Zorn continues:
The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.

It’s meant to represent that Obama’s had his chance to try out his ideas, and to obscure and deny the relentless GOP obstructionism and Democratic factionalism he’s encountered since Day One.

They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, you’ll believe it.

[Takket]

37. Biden needs to do a prime time address on this

Have Pelosi and Schumer in the oval office. Be frank about it. Have the bill sitting there on this desk. Say we either need 60, or we need 52 with 50 of those pledging to overturn the filibuster.

and frankly i want EVERY Democrat running in 2022 for a senate seat to go on record about the filibuster. we cannot afford another mistake like Sinema ever again.

[gldstwmn]

40. Did they ask her how she felt about Ivanka Trump's abortion?

[mcar]

43. The far left has been spewing that talking point all weekend

They obviously had it ready for now.

I'm assuming the MSNBC host didn't correct this woman's error?

[Celerity]

45. This was Zoe Warren who was interviewed by Yasmin Vossoughian. Warren is a communist, not a Dem

So is the other woman, Julianne D'Eredita

Both are affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP)

video:

https://www.msnbc.com/yasmin-vossoughian/watch/protester-receives-text-from-biden-administration-to-donate-after-roe-v-wade-ruling-142866501790







https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216847150#post4





and the proof of the links:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216847150#post17

https://revcom.us/en/solr-search?search_api_fulltext=sunsara&search_api_language=All&items_per_page=10



Sunsara Taylor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunsara_Taylor

Sunsara Taylor is a political activist affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP), and groups associated with it, such as Refuse Fascism and World Can't Wait. She is one of the organization's most prominent spokespersons, believing that "humanity needs revolution guided by Bob Avakian's new synthesis of communism." She has been a vocal opponent of the anti-abortion movement, the sex industry, and U.S. imperialism, having debated these topics on Fox News.




https://twitter.com/SunsaraTaylor

[AntivaxHunters]

46. Here is the video in question

Link to tweet

[treestar]

50. why do they think that would help

a law is something the SCOTUS could strike down - that might be even worse.

It's only going to the states. Can't she get to work in the purple states? It might be more useful than this.

[TheProle]

54. Even a failed attempt to codify

Full-throatedly endorsed from the bully pulpit could have galvanized public response before we got this point.

[JI7]

57. They are intentionally lying to help Republicans win

[maxrandb]

62. People like this are on Putin's payroll

I will bet my last dollar on that fact.

You think installing that orange amphibian turd in the White House was his only goal?

That fucking Christofascist owns the Retrumplicans Party, and a shit ton of "Dems" that you will NEVER hear speak ill of the Retrumplicans Party

Blaming the Democrats for this shit show, is like giving Superman a Kryptonite neckless, and then bitching that he can't stop the speeding freight train

[Celerity]

68. They are not Democrats, they are actual real communists, see this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216851745#post45

[ForgedCrank]

72. Personally, I think

retrospect is a good thing. If you want to boil down the process of obtaining wisdom, retrospect provides the bulk of the information required for that process. I think it's always good to look at ones self critically, it's how we learn. The question is, will we allow that?
Because we need to.
Your point is also a good piece of that. Why couldn't we overcome a filibuster and gain enough support to pass such legislation?
Yes, these are uncomfortable questions, but if we are to ever move forward, those are the type of things we need to be asking ourselves.

[Demovictory9]

81. annoying

[uponit7771]

83. April 2009 Democrats had supermajority in senate (link) so yes, dems ***COULD HAVE*** voted ..

... abortion protection into law but didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_elections

She has a point regardless of diction, democrats should've voted abortion protection into law but didn't

[pnwmom]

85. Not true. You missed the fact that Franken was appointed in Jan but wasn't confirmed for 7 months.

So in April Obama still only had 59 -- and then Robert Byrd was hospitalized, leaving 58. Byrd was still in the hospital when Franken was finally confirmed in July -- but in August Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk was appointed to temporarily fill that seat, but that didn't leave the Democrats time to pass any substantial legislation before Rep Scott Brown took Kennedy's place. (In fact, the Democrats had to accept the more conservative Senate version of the ACA -- with no amendments in the House -- because Kennedy had signed it in the Senate before he died. They couldn't pass the House bill, or a bill passed in a Conference Committee, because it would have only had 59 votes.)

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
"He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.
"The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
"That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
"But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.
"So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
"Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.
"In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
"Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn in."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869?fbclid=IwAR0TEoztlfC_kRlFvJyUZbdfd0ofCkLfmVEiKD1J2UKSPidCREGMs4jsYnU

[uponit7771]

90. Then how did the ACA pass filibuster at all? No GOP voted for it ... Thx in advance

[pnwmom]

94. The ACA followed a complicated, torturous path, almost derailed at the end by a red state Senator

who had long opposed abortion.

At one point, Harry Reid even bypassed a hurdle requiring unanimous consent by taking an unrelated bill that had overcome that hurdle, and swapping in the language of the ACA!

But at the end, there were two key holdouts on the torturous route to the ACA: Independent Joe Lieberman, who only voted with Democrats when he felt like it (and opposed a public option) -- and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who objected on funding abortion. He finally voted for the ACA after cutting a huge deal for his state, and having decided to retire. He was, as expected in his red state, replaced by a Republican. Leaving aside the fact that it was almost impossible even for a health care bill to be passed in the few months they had that iffy 60 vote majority, there’s no way Nelson would have gone along with passing a bill codifying Roe v Wade, since he had long been opposed to abortions.

https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/19/health.care/index.html


Nelson warned, however, that if there are changes to the health bill when House and Senate leaders meet to resolve their differences, he will withdraw his support. The House has passed a different version of the bill.

. . . . Obama's was one of a flurry of press briefings held Saturday after Nelson's announcement.
Nelson, a social conservative who opposes abortion, did not want taxpayer funds to pay for the medical procedure. One of his main requests was that states that offer insurance present at least one plan without the abortion option. In addition, he was assured that anyone receiving federal health subsidies would pay separately for an abortion.




https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/TedKennedy/story?id=8415706

Aug. 26, 2009— -- Ted Kennedy made affordable health care for all Americans the goal of his Senate career and hoped to see that reform achieved in his lifetime. But the political giant's death raises the question of whether a Congressional bipartisan solution can be achieved.
Even though Kennedy's battle cry for health care continued in his absence from the Senate, while he battled cancer, both Democrat and Republican leaders said he was sorely missed and his absence created a huge gap since he was the leader most easily positioned to advance bipartisan negotiations.



https://khn.org/news/obamacares-history-littered-with-near-death-experiences-text/
January 2010 — Scott Brown Upsets Democrats’ Strategy
Brown, a Republican, unexpectedly won the seat left empty by the 2009 death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, depriving Senate Democrats of 60 votes, the number needed to force a vote on the bill. Backers of the bill moved to a complicated Plan B. That involved requiring the House to pass the Senate bill without any changes. Compromises were worked out through the budget reconciliation process that enabled Senate passage with only 51 votes.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/22/history-lesson-how-the-democrats-pushed-obamacare-through-the-senate/

In a bit of legislative maneuvering, Reid offered his text as an amendment to a completely different House bill — the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. That’s because this bill had been sitting on the Senate Calendar of Business, avoiding the need for Reid to obtain unanimous consent to bring it up. This bill was also already obsolete — the issue had been taken care of in another bill — and so it was an ideal vehicle to start debate on the Senate floor. Reid inserted the text into the shell of the old bill.

[PunkinPi]

86. These women are not on Democrats side and actively work against Dems (twitter thread)...

Link to tweet

The founder of Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights, Sunsara Taylor, is also a Revolutionary Communist Party member who did her most to see Hillary not win the 2016 election. Even tweeting on Election Day that “Hillary is not the answer”.

Link to tweet

And @nycforabortion has denounced this organization on IG:

RiseUp is extremely problematic. I don’t know how they got to amplify their bs on @YasminMSNBC.

More info on tweet thread.

[AntivaxHunters]

87. I run in leftist circles

and have never heard of this org or Bob Avakian.That alone is a red flag to me.
I've never heard of Revolutionary Communist Party. PSL, CPUSA, SPUSA, yes, but Revolutionary Communist Party? Never.
And now I'm very curious because I've not heard of them & am wondering if perhaps this is a group based in antivax rhetoric.
There is intersectionality between the antivax movement & some slinter leftist groups. It's a small number of people but it is there (Jimmy Doorknob superfans as I call them).

Off to research!
Thank you for posting this!

[lapucelle]

125. The organization has been around for a long time. Its offshoot is known in pro-choice communities.

Shared in full with as per the request of the signatories, a coalition of grassroots pro-abortion organizers.

Statement Against RiseUp4AbortionRights

We, a coalition of grassroots pro-abortion organizers, publicly denounce RiseUp for Abortion Rights.

Our movement needs to be strong and united. Most repro groups have turned their backs on RiseUp privately since their inception. It is vital for all repro groups to now unite in discrediting RiseUp publicly.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of our concerns about RiseUp, and why we strongly urge pro-abortion activists to join us in rejecting its leadership and demanding the group step back from pro-abortion spaces:

RiseUp is a cult and pyramid scheme.

RiseUp is an offshoot of the RevCom (Revolutionary Communist Party) group. Over the past few decades, RevCom has emerged as a personality cult revolving around its white male leader Bob Avakian. While RevCom fervently denies accusations of it being a cult, RevCom’s own website claims the only effective way to achieve social change is to follow Avakian’s leadership and teachings. Similar to its parent group RevCom, RiseUp’s only goal appears to be gaining more followers in order to raise more and more money. Both essentially function as pyramid schemes that prey on social movements.

RiseUp diverts money from social and racial justice movements.

RevCom and its fronts — RiseUp and Refuse Fascism — are notorious for raising tens of thousands of dollars and using those funds to pay RevCom leadership, and to purchase marketing materials (to raise even more money). Refuse Fascism exploits civil unrest to recruit followers (as it did during the 2014 and 2020 uprisings), and RiseUp is now repeating the same scheme. The RiseUp website, for instance, features urgent prompts to donate with no information about where this money goes. What we do know is that this money never goes to abortion funds (which they argue are not a strategy to defend abortion access), providers, practical support groups, or anyone actually working to increase abortion access.

RiseUp stigmatizes abortion and perpetuates harmful myths.

RiseUp is currently focused on its ‘Save Roe’ campaign, which involves the wearing of white pants painted with fake blood, die-ins, and coat-hanger imagery. These theatrical tactics further the extremely harmful idea that abortion is a violent procedure and safe self-managed abortion is not possible. In fact, RiseUp has not once raised awareness about medication abortion as a post-Roe tool, and its only aim is “saving Roe”, despite this never having been enough historically.

RiseUp perpetuates anti-Blackness and does not center intersectionality.

RiseUp’s leader, Sunsara Taylor, has been a controversial figure in pro-abortion spaces. She and her followers are known for swooping into town and leeching off of existing BIPOC-led grassroots efforts across the country. Additionally, RiseUp frequently likens abortion bans to “female enslavement,” which is profoundly disrespectful to Black, Indigenous, and POC comrades.

RiseUp has a homophobic past, and remains transphobic.

RiseUp leadership frequently others trans and non-binary folks and excludes them from its speeches, writing, and conversations. In responding to feedback in Instagram comments, RiseUp admitted they focused on “women and girls” and referred to trans and non-binary folks getting abortions as “others” (we have screenshots).

RevCom also has a homophobic past. Up until 2002, the group’s official position was that homosexuality contributed to women’s oppression, amongst other nonsense. While RevCom and its fronts have since begun to include platitudes for the rights of LGBTQ+ peoples, they have yet to apologize for this past or issue a statement or position in defense LGBTQ+ rights.

RiseUp continues to intentionally exclude sex workers.

Sunsara Taylor, the brain behind RiseUp’s grift, is explicitly against sex work and the porn industry (see her prior activism with Stop Patriarchy). Sunsara Taylor’s stance is harmful to the fight for abortion, which we believe must be intersectional.

We urge everyone to share this message widely to prevent fellow organizers and friends from getting further involved with RiseUp and its affiliated fronts.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTK9_SCexYezxIplFRbQPTn-hNXp7o2kUBJamwXC4-yzeVcfSmDglx9iL3zOfeo66SHX3T9ktjmUAt_/pub

======================================================================================

Why Do Texas Feminists Hate This Pro-Choice Group? (2014)

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/07/stop-patriarchy-interview-find-out-why-texas-feminists-hate-this-pro-choice-group.html

In Texas, Activist Group “Stop Patriarchy” Draws Criticism (2014)

https://www.bitchmedia.org/post/in-texas-activist-group-stop-patriarchy-draws-criticism

(2017)
https://usefulstooges.com/2017/03/31/sunsara-taylors-perpetual-revolution/

The Fraud of Rev Com: Why the Revolutionary Communist Party is Neither Revolutionary nor Communist (2019)

https://jamesjjackson.com/2019/06/17/the-fraud-of-rev-com-why-the-revolutionary-communist-party-is-neither-revolutionary-nor-communist/

The Eclipse and Re-Emergence of Political Cults (2017)

https://medium.com/@miguelrr/the-eclipse-and-re-emergence-of-political-cults-e81575f98241

How Maoists Are Like Scientologists

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-maoists-are-like-scie_b_83555

Bob Avakian: Dangerous, yes, but not to capitalism (1979)

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/call-avakian.htm

The RCP's current solution to the gay question. (2016)

https://libcom.org/article/rcps-current-solution-gay-question

[AntivaxHunters]

88. Ok I did some quick research on this group

I'll be honest, I like the policies they stand for. It aligns with what MANY of us stand for big time BUT (big BUT...& I can not lie, you other brothers can't deny!" lol had to) they are a bit, well, whacked.

The issues they stand for are parallel to ours, and they troll Republicans big time by burning the flag on the steps of the Republican headquarters (lol nice!) however there is definitely a "cult" like mentality about them. I know that term gets thrown around a lot but here it's in the most literal sense possible.

Those of you who are older are familiar with "The Moonies". Remember them? Their entire religion was centered around one guy. That is very much the case here with Bob Avakain. It's almost as if he's a "God-like figure" and it's rather quite creepy. I don't know what to make of this group because they are certainly different than any other leftist group out there. They're truly weird.

I guess the definition of them literally is a "Communist cult".
Bizzaro world stuff.

[pnwmom]

97. Thanks for this info, AntivaxHunters. Maybe you should consider

doing an OP on this group, to give more DUers a heads-up.

We'll probably be running into them again.

[AntivaxHunters]

98. I've begun researching them some more

and ya, I may just do that

There are leftist groups who will align with us to fight against fascism; PSL, SA, DSA, CPUSA, SPUSA. All of which are Socialist & Communist parties. And I do believe that solidarity is the way forward if we are going to beat the plague of white supremacy and literal Nazi's who have co-opted the Republican Party.

Just like the Lincoln Party who is a bunch of Republicans but this is well, "a bit more force" if you will heh.

[Cha]

108. FO Yasmin.. The Dem Party is on the

Front Lines trying to Save Our Democracy!

We lose the House and Senate in 2022 you and everyone else will find out you have NO GD Rights At All! Finito

Thank you, PunkinPi, for Exposing the Gaslit Shit.

Save Our Democracy in 2022 & 2024!

[milestogo]

95. She's just repeating what she heard on the teevee.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

99. Using the term "codified" isn't a sign of intelligence

but rather it is evidence that she's received the memo from a certain source of the far-left who has it in for the Democratic Party.

The same old shit never stops.

[Meowmee]

105. Not surprising

These are the type of people who voted for this, by not voting etc. a bunch of idiots and narcissists

[Doleskki]

106. When your beloved Saints lose to the Falcons do you blame the Falcons for playing too well?

If she's smart enough to use the word "codified" in a sentence, why isn't she smart enough to understand about the filibuster?

I believe what this young woman means, is that the Democratic Party has never made codifying RvW into law a priority.

We chose to kick the can down the road for 50 years, with occasional half hearted attempts, and never once tried to leverage our power in any real way to force compromise and protect abortion rights. There was always some more pressing legislative agenda to pursue, or shiny entitlement program.

We did it because we thought RvW was safe, and we liked using it to occasionally drum up support.

This is a significant problem for us whether you choose to accept it or not. Get out in the streets and talk to these young people, you will quickly realize who they hold responsible.

When your beloved Saints lose to the Falcons do you blame the Falcons for playing too well?

The answer is no, you blame the Saints for playing like shit.

[gopiscrap]

126. welcome to DU

[LAS14]

109. We clearly have to vote in Dem reps and senators. nt

[CottonBear]

123. That is exactly it.

[gulliver]

113. I take it MSNBC just handed her the mic, let her say whatever she wanted, ...

...and didn't bother to (as you say) "gently educate" her. They probably didn't even push back out of "politeness." But it's their job to educate.

[CottonBear]

118. It's what the democratic socialist, justice dem teens & 20 somethings are saying...

I was at a rally in my area and that was the message.

I'm a bit older and don't agree with them. They are passionate, but do need to study history.

Full disclosure: I had a safe and legal abortion when I was a young person.

[Johnny2X2X]

122. NPR all week

All week so far, NPR is spinning this that way too. Asking every guest how disappointed I think he Dens are you? Or, why didn’t you do more, you’re a Dem?

Republicans assaulted this right. Dems fought tooth and. All for 50 years and the Reps stole the Supreme Court to end this. It’s not what the people voted for.

[CottonBear]

124. Fuck NPR. Bush & Bush 2 destroyed NPR.