this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
751 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19062 readers
3834 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

They need either 60 votes in the Senate

Democrats can get rid of that number at the start of any Congressional session. They have deliberately chosen not to do so, because they cling to the idea of bipartisan reforms passing through the upper chamber.

You could get 49 ideal leftist socialists elected, but as long as there’s 1 detractor

You offer the detractor the carrot or the stick. Very easy to wipe the vote of a Senator when the next Defense Authorization bill is up for a vote and everyone is talking about which bases to close.

Bush did not need 60 votes. Trump did not need 60 votes. Reagan sure as hell did not need 60 votes.

Democrats are lying to themselves if they think 60 is a magic number. They're lying even harder if they think 49 Socialist Party Senators would not be able to whip support for their policies, given how ably the GOP has skated by with a meager 40.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Do you have any examples of a carrot or stick actually convincing a politician to change their mind? If that worked, you could just shame Republicans into getting 100-0 votes for everything.

This is what's ridiculous to me. You're cynical and conspiratorial that there will always be controlled opposition, but you also think a bully pulpit and the right words will convince that opposition to support you.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Do you have any examples of a carrot or stick actually convincing a politician to change their mind?

The Civil Rights Act was a big one.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested in knowing more.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

I mean, I don't want to be snide but... there's an ample backlog of historical material that gets into the details. Just pick up a book. Nick Kotz's "Judgement Days" offers a deep dive. Chapter 17 of Howard Zinn's "People's HIstory" gives you the abbreviated version. There are plenty of others.

From Johnson's acerbic legislative style to the economic leverage applied by MLK's boycotts and the militant organizing of Malcolm X's radicals, historically intractable politicians were swayed with both the carrot of an enormous new activist constituency and the stick of strikes, shut-downs, and the President literally grabbing and twisting your ballsack because you failed to deliver him the votes.