…
“The president has been adamant that we need to restore Roe. It is unfathomable that women today wake up in a country with less rights than their ancestors had years ago,” Fulks said.
Biden has been poised to run on what has been described as the strongest abortion rights platform of any general election candidate as he and his allies look to notch a victory in the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.
Last month, Biden seized on a case in Texas, where a woman, Kate Cox, was denied an abortion despite the risk to her life posed by her pregnancy.
“No woman should be forced to go to court or flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs,” Biden said of the case. “But that is exactly what happened in Texas thanks to Republican elected officials, and it is simply outrageous. This should never happen in America, period.”
Party spent decades not codifying it…
Didn’t fight for Obama’s SC seat, just accepted that the next president would pick it to try and help Clinton…
Took no actions since Roe was overturned…
But we’re supposed to believe next term it’ll be fixed?
They haven’t even held a vote yet so voters will know what Dems are going to vote against it.
Why would anyone take Bidens word on this? Isn’t the safe bet to assume the same thing will happen as the last campaign promises? Meaning as soon as he assumes office Biden will either “look into it” or he’ll say there’s not enough D votes so he can’t try.
And the voters still won’t know if their representatives would actually support party platform.
Please identify the Congressional term that had a pro-choice majority that could have passed federal abortion protections but did not. Do beware of the caveat that up until quite recently, the Democrats had a substantial minority faction of anti-abortion politicians from the south.
No one who’s complained about the Dems apparently just deciding to miss what would be one of their greatest political victories for shits and giggles has ever been able to identify when this would have actually passed, but hey, maybe you’ll be the first one.
The Dems had 2 months of a senate supermajority in the 2008-2010 Senate, with a majority in the House, then still had a majority for the rest of the term in both houses and as president. This was their first trifecta for almost 20 years and didn’t deliver on any of their selling points from the 90s.
By 2008, Democrats were very, very, very deep on the “vote for us, we’re saving abortion” side.
Republicans are objectively worse, but let’s not pretend that the Democrats even make at attempt here.
Democrats are so useless as a collective in Congress that Biden appears left leaning.
And several of those Senators in that supermajority were against abortion rights. I can name them if you actually care.
Mate, I literally warned you against this. Two of those Senators were from god damned Arkansas, one from Indiana, and one from Louisiana. This was not the Democratic Party of the 2020s. Several of them voted for a federal ban on late-term abortions and bans for the use of any federal funding for abortions. Our good friend Joe Manchin was also in that majority.
Please though, do try again. You seemed very confident that this pro-abortion majority definitely existed, so I’ll wait.
Two things.
One: even removing those listed senators from the supermajority, that still leaves a majority.
Two: their original comment lamented that the Democrats never even held a vote when they had control with the intent of putting their votes on the record, so that voters would know who actually supports their rights.
The party shouldn’t try to sell itself as the party saving abortion.
They aren’t entirely bad for failing to deliver on saving abortion given the limitations. They’re bad for claiming to be able to solve all these problems while actively maintaining/campaigning for people that prevent fixing these issues.
That said, the Republicans are worse and third-party votes are a shit-show in the US, so it’s not like there’s really any other good option.
Oooh!
You’ve got more than feelings right? and can demonstrate some kind of political understanding (far beyond ours) on how the Dems will codify abortion?
Cuz from what you’ve said so far you’ve only proved that the Dems can’t, even with a supermajority. (But not a real one lol)
What’s unsaid by you is that Dems would need a supermajority in both houses and that those Dems would also have to be pro-abortion right? If you show me your worth we can talk about that next.
Can you tell me, with your knowledge, how we’ll get there? how that will go? How Bidens promise to “make it his top priority” in a year will work? I don’t know much, but i feel like he should have started already. Can we focus on how i should believe him?
I think that will be very hard. Because he can’t, or won’t. What i mean by “won’t” is “Won’t do enough to make it happen.” What they will do is have an excuse when they fail. An excuse just like yours.
But you’re here to tell me this is different, right? Cuz to me it just seems like a cynical, open-ended promise to “try”, from a party specializing in “sorry, we tried”.
I don’t understand why you’re so proud of this argument in that case, one that provides more ammunition for those who believe the Democrats will never codify abortion.
Can you tell me why you’re making it?
Because his argument has understanding of the situation, and isn’t a pithy tantrum.
If you want abortion, you have to vote for it. There are primaries coming up. Go vote for every pro-choice Republican and Democrat you can find. Let me know if you elect 60 of them to the Senate and 218 to Congress. Then you’ll absolutely get your codified abortion rights.
Or maybe your whining about Dems will fix the problem.
Your big win is that for two months, during which Congress was scrambling to deal with a recession so bad we still feel its effects and Dems fought and lost a fight to get the public option in healthcare, they could have easily just codified the right to abortion. You’re either a troll or an idiot. Either way, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
And several of those Senators in that supermajority were against abortion right
Sounds like Democrats are shit bags too then and the whole “vote blue no matter who” won’t actually solve anything.
Vote for trump then
Why? Because expecting Democrats to serve the people who’s votes they depend on is to tall an order? How fucking pathetic is that?
Because you seem to prefer them
Man if only there was some other piece of legislation they got passed during that 2 months… Maybe the largest healthcare overhaul in generations?
Fucking breadcrumbs. Banks and insurance companies benefited more from Obama’s presidency than the American people.
The one that said it was illegal to not buy health insurance? The “compromise” that turned it into a huge win for the insurance industry? And it still sounds like people are going bankrupt because of medical issues or having treatments blocked because some insurance asshole disagrees with their doctor.
Yes, the one that was neutered completely by republicans which was somehow Obama’s fault for doing something instead of nothing, the very thing being condemned in this thread
Weren’t we talking about a period of time when the Dems controlled the presidency, house and senate?
That wasn’t the case when the aca was created
“Controlled”. If having a monolithic voting bloc is your number one issue, then go vote Republican. By the way, they’re not any better at passing legislation, so don’t get your hopes up.
Oh I remember, that’s the one that the Republicans literally created as RomneyCare
Democrats, assisting fascists since the invention of liberalism
I love how the guy you’re responding to brought up the ACA, clearly unaware of all the sabotage the Democratic party did to it before they allowed the broken husk to pass. There were at least half a dozen Democrats involved, but don’t forget what really brings the joke home, the Dems even had a
fall guyintransigent senator to blame with a D by his name!! The man single- handedly destroyed the public option. Gosh, they were so close to 60 votes too!!Fuck me, they accidentally provided the perfect example of how the Democrats “win” when they have power.
Lieberman was an independent at the time. For fuck’s sake, if you’re going to turf, at least get some of facts right.
Hmm? Lieberman wasnt who i was talking about my good man. Cmon, which Democrat, who was previously an insurance executive, blocked the public option? This info should be enough for you to Google their names.
I know this because i was there! See, back then i believed in, voted for, and even donated to the DNC! I have been watching a long time!
(Or i have been studying in a special putin camp where they teach 'turfers to know the history of your country’s politics b/c i am a Russia astroturfer)
Or maybe, I’m a good ol American who is actually a trumpet in disguise! Maybe i really love trump but unlike most magats im kinda good at talking so they made me a liason to trick only the dumbest democrats! Only the dumbest of course, because the smartest of you guys immediately smell out any dissidents and call them 'turfers.
We Magats didn’t make a very smart plan in that case, but what do you expect? We are dumb haha.
Which of the two am i? Definitely i am not who i have consistently said i am.
Definitely i am not an embittered ex-democrat who went hard for bernie and watched my own party crush him (oops thats a different 'turfers job, sorry Vladmir)
Definitely im not a real person trying to figure out what to do in a country i feel doesn’t listen to me, or really any of us… definitely not losing hope some days… Definitely i don’t think to myself some days about the dichotomy of feeling when i post:
how much i want you to believe this is happening so i can have an ally, maybe one more person to see what it happening, vs. how little i want you to believe my message. Since even if i convinced you, id feel bad about the stress and pain you were about to go thru (the same i have been in since my realization). How little i wish that feeling of powelessness on anyone! I hate this feeling! I have no answers, only the black void of reality to share with you… Im fine that you don’t believe, especially since i have no answers on what we should do next. If what im saying is true, you’ll figure it out on your own time anyway.
If i were you, id rather believe i was a turfer too. See yah around comrade
Do beware of the caveat that up until quite recently, the Democrats had a substantial minority faction of anti-abortion politicians from the south.
“Before you criticise our dear leaders, take into account the anti-choice people who the leadership actively supported and promoted!”
Every time a conservative democrat runs against a progressive or even a further left liberal, DNC leadership supports the conservative.
The last anti-choice Dem representative, Henry Cuellar, was losing to pro-choice progressive Jessica Cisneros until Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn endorsed him and personally showed up to speak at his rallies.
You’re just obfuscating. Don’t you see? There’s nothing the Democrats could have done!
But elect Biden and he will codify Roe.
Democrats are some dumb mother fuckers lol
… democrats are the dumb mother fuckers?
No no you’re right what am I thinking. Donald Trump single handily solved covid. Remember when everyone shoved a flashlight up their ass and drank some bleach?
“I voted thrid party!” (Vote for Trump)
“I didn’t vote!” (Vote for Trump)
“I’m not from america.” OH? Enlighten us. Which shit show describes your government?
Keep saying that when Biden loses because the dems chose a bowl of shit candidate
deleted by creator
As a person, yes… but as a candidate? I don’t have a lot of hope.
No one has ever recovered from polling numbers as low as Biden’s…. And it’s getting worse. He has lost the youth vote and he needs it badly to win. And because of electoral college he’s already down 5 points even if the popular vote is 50/50
If they are that bad at governing they have no business getting reelected.
Maybe this is not a message for people who vote D, after all what you gonna do, vote for the R lunatics?. Maybe it is for moderate republicans, specially women, that got fucked and now may be looking for an alternative, so Biden spelling it out may give enough incentive for some to vote D.
What good would codifying Roe have done?
Edit: perhaps I should be more specific: what good would attempting to codify Roe have done?
The attempt would have allowed the voting base to identify who voted “nay,” and vote them out. Even if the bill fails, if people scream the names of the representatives and senators that prevented it from passing, well those people would be primaried. That’s why they won’t even hold a vote on something that should be as simple as:
US statute XXXX: All people in the US have the right to reproductive healthcare. No medically approved procedure, treatment, or medicine shall be banned.
Done.
They won’t because so much of the country is sick and fucking tired of this
issuered herring that anyone that votes against it is very likely to be primaried.I’ve seen similar arguments for other cases. If Dems do it and not all Dems vote for it, the anti-Dem left says “all Dems are at fault and they’re doing nothing”. If Dems are united behind it but Republicans block it, then it’s “Dems knew the GOP would block it, and they’re doing nothing”. If Dems do it and it passes, but then the courts block it, then it’s “they knew the courts would block it and they’re still doing nothing”. If the Dems do it and it passes, then it’s “that wasn’t important compared to 15 other issues, and they’re still doing nothing”.
It’s a Hobson’s Choice.
If what you want is a list of names, then you can do that without them calling a vote. Go to your representative’s town hall events and ask them their position. If you don’t like their answer, find a primary opponent. Doubly so if you live in a gerrymandered district where Dems will always win (the mathematics of gerrymandering is that you give your opponent safe districts, but fewer than your side has). The Tea Party figured out this formula and it’s one thing the left ought to learn from them.
Codify would have meant drawing it up and adding it to the constitution as a human right. An amendment. The Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional, but if it is in the amendment, it is what the SC would rule as acceptable. (Not saying it always appears that way these days)
You should look into what it takes to add an amendment to the constitution. Barring civil war, aliens landing on the whitehouse lawn, or similar galvanizing incident, I’m doubtful the US will be unified enough to be capable of passing an amendment to the constitution on ANY topic for ANY purpose during the lifetime of anyone reading this comment, and I’m doubtful we could have done so within at least the past 20 years.
To add to that, even amendments that only affect the overall structure of government, with no particular favor to any political party, are almost impossible to pass. For example, the last amendment ratified was the 27th, and all it did was prevent Congress from passing its own salary increase and having it take affect before the next election. Simple nuts and bolts stuff. It was proposed in 1789 and wasn’t ratified until 1992.
For an abortion amendment that would be so obviously divisive? Forget it. Waste of everyone’s time.
Don’t forget that when an amendment does get ratified, you’ve got to really nail it or else people will still be fighting over the verbiage.
You’d think “keep it simple stupid” would suffice, but look at how we interpret this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
IANAL, but I see a few things as I read it:
- Militias must be well regulated. I agree.
- Militias are necessary to the security of a free state. Sounds a bit dated but I don’t disagree.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Ok…so…is that “the right” can’t be infringed, or “the arms” can’t be infringed? Who are the people, and are they separate from the well-regulated militia? Because you can have a right to bear arms, but still limit what arms are available for civilian use. Non civilian use would be either military or para-military, the latter would be a militia, which ipso facto must be well-regulated, and as such there must be restrictions on arms because how are you going to regulate a militia if not its armaments? It’s not well-regulated if it’s a free-for-all. This is law. There are rules.
Should I be able to buy a nuke? An ICBM? A tank? Live grenades? Where is the line drawn? When does it transition from “civilian hunting and defense” to “military fetishism” to “para-military/militia” to “military”. Because it must be somewhere. And I feel like there’s one group of those four that’s really being a stick in the mud over it.
United States v. Miller did interpret the Second Amendment along those lines. It was a challenge against the NFA’s ban on short barreled shotguns. Ruling was that because a short barreled shotgun isn’t something a militia would use, the government could ban it.
That leads to an interpretation nobody likes. You can ban short barreled shotguns, but not stuff a militia would use. Stuff like fully automatic weapons or rocket propelled grenades.
Yeah the fucking ERA failed.
I do think there’s a chance for an explicit right to privacy as an amendment but it needs to be really campaigned on as it’d give the democrats most of what they want socially
That would never pass.
Not currently no. I agree. I was just answering what codify was likely said to mean in that context
Codify means laws, generally not amendments.
If it were just made a law then it would be ruled unconstitutional according to the SC, thats why I said amendment. No way 2/3rds support on both the senate and congress will happen anytime soonq. I agree with your definition though
Could be, but given that the argument that they used to overturn RvW was, :it’s not our job to write the laws, the states and Congress have that job:. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that even the current SCOTUS isn’t that blatantly hypocritical.
Abortion rights are super fucking important, but frankly, I’ll just settle for “not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”, which the Democrats are basically world champions at.
He’s working really fucking hard at ensuring his defeat with Netanyahu’s help. I’d be disgusted with his self-sabotage even if I didn’t care about Palestinians.
Literally the only way he could try and lose more voters is to go full beto and tell Americans hes coming for their guns. You can be mad at the fact, but if you deny that that would lose him votes you’re delusional.
If the Democrats could STFU about guns and actually start addressing systemic injustices, abortion rights, the right to repair, they’d crush the Republican party into the dirt while also reducing shootings and taking back ground lost to Reaganism.
But they won’t, because that’s not what the “donors” actually want.
Are there any pro life democrats still or did they all disappear after roe fell? I know they were still around during Hillary’s campaign in 2016, so my question has been if it was acceptable for Dems to take a soft line on abortion as late as 2016, why in the world can we not have dems with different views on guns and immigration. BOTH those areas are tribal devoid of nuance, as soon as people hear nuance that resonates with them on those issues is when they break out of the polar tribalism of party politics, and not a second sooner. I feel like you’re implying what I have come to understand is true, the democrats financial backers do not want the democrats to win every election. Id wager at least half those financiers also finance republicans, which would necessarily mean there’s at least one party they fund they want to lose.
The minute he gets elected “whoops I forgot I can’t do shit without the Senate. Sorry everybody”
I mean, his administration has done lots of things within their power to help protect reproductive rights. You’re not wrong they’d need the senate to codify roe v wade or even be able to get a judge on the supreme court. They’d probably need to end the filibuster to get it through too.
Here’s a summary of some of the executive actions they have taken. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/what-is-in-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html
His administration has also launched multiple lawsuits across the country trying to protect abortion rights, and defended against Republican lawsuits trying to restrict them further. Having all these federal agencies making rules and regulations trying to support rather than restrict reproductive rights is still important.
So you’re right that he can’t codify roe v wade nationally without senate and house control as well as getting rid of the filibuster or some miracle cooperation by republicans. But all of the executive actions, the resources of the justice department, etc could be used to attack reproductive rights rather than defend them if a republican were to be elected.
I’d argue he may even have gone beyond his power. While I wish he could have done more, an awful lot of what he completed is through executive decision, despite Congress. It seems like he’s had to go way beyond the norm for us as a democracy (while avoiding the craziness on the Trump regime). I only hope he hasn’t planted the seeds to increase authoritarianism, for whenever in the future someone I disagree with inevitably gets elected
Sounds like a whole lot of “fuck all” then.
Well it won’t feel like “fuck all” when a Republican led FDA revokes authorizations for abortion medications, morning after pills, or maybe even birth control across the country, even in states where it’s legal. Or sends federal law enforcement after doctors and others providing mail order abortion services. Or starts trying to withhold funding from states that supplement Medicaid to cover abortions. Or sues states trying to protect health information from anti abortion and anti trans states who want it to harass them. I mean the list of horrible possibilities goes on. The executive department can’t do everything on its own, congress has the most power, but it is still important on its own. Not to mention needing a president friendly to reproductive rights to sign any bill that manages to get passed, or veto any unfavorable bills.
But seriously, save at least a little vitreol for the political party actively working to restrict reproductive Healthcare rights. If even a handful of Republican members of congress, a single digit percentage, were in favor of protecting reproductive rights, this would all be over yesterday. By all means though primary the crap out of any democrat not strongly supporting reproductive rights enough or not supporting overturning the filibuster to do so, I know I will.
Should’ve voted for someone better in the 2020 primaries then. You keep trying to guilt me into making better choices. I’m just turning it back around. Make better choices in the primaries.
The democrats did pass a bill codifying roe v wade though when they held the house then. Biden was in support and would have signed it. It failed in the senate. Not a single republican in support. 98% of democrats in support. Even ending the filibuster wouldn’t have been enough as the lone democratic holdout and 50th senator needed was Manchin (pro life).
I’m just skeptical of the motives of all the people in this thread acting like Biden himself banned all abortions, could bring them back whenever he wanted, and is choosing not to out of some weird extortion scheme for the next election. None of that is even remotely true. And where is all the hate for all the people that did this in the first place and are actively working to make it even worse?!
I have no concerns that Biden would happily sign a bill codifying roe v wade if one were to make it to his desk, considering all he’s done since taking office. I supported Sanders in the primaries, and I think his strong support was helpful at pushing Biden and the party platform further to the left in many areas, even if my preferred candidate didn’t end up on top. For primaries I’m talking any senators who may be soft on this, though honestly the only two I know of are Manchin (who’s leaving), or Sinema (which, yeah that whole situation, also not in the party anymore so job done). Or if you’re a republican, pushing them. Would honestly be the most helpful thing of all to try and get more pro choice Republicans in office in red states.
The democrats did pass a bill codifying roe v wade though when they held the house then. Biden was in support and would have signed it. It failed in the senate. Not a single republican in support. 98% of democrats in support. Even ending the filibuster wouldn’t have been enough as the lone holdout and 50th senator needed was Manchin (pro life).
Then they should’ve voted in 2008-2009. But they didn’t because Democrats are procorporate pieces of shit.
deleted by creator
The right says that banning guns and drugs would not help as they would be on the black market. I wonder when they would come to realize the same situation with abortion.
It feels so much like Biden is fucking with us… There’s a whole year left in this term!! You think i don’t see this? You think we’re actually that stupid? I want to at least be lied to less obviously!
God what a slap in the face
I mean, what’s he supposed to do right now? Republicans still control both houses of congress (or, at least, hold enough seats to render both houses impotent). The upcoming congressional elections matter as much as (or potentially more than) the presidential election.
He had zero issues going around Congress to “sell” weapons to Israel to be used in an o going genocide…
Bonus points:
They “bought” the weapons with American taxpayers money after Biden had just given it to them.
Why can Biden go around Congress for that, but not for what would help Americans?
Because the president can’t create a constitutional amendment. They are not a member of the legislative branch. He can provide emergency military support, being the leader of the executive branch (head of the military)
I don’t agree with what he did, but it is under his perview apparently. Much like he can send our troops to fight for ~90 days before needing congressional approval. Essentially creating a situation that you are already in a war by the time congress can say no
He can fix the supreme Court all on his own by adding members, then the case can be brought up again.
But let me guess, you think if Dems do that, Republicans will somehow do even more of what they’re already doing?
So we’re going to ignore the stolen SC, because if we take it back legally, they might steal it again?
And people wonder why 1/3 of the country don’t vote.
Only one side is actually fighting, the other wants to pretend there’s no war because then people will ask them why they let it get this bad
Yeah, I suspect they’ll have no problem getting those new judges confirmed through the Senate. Genius play.
I get that you’re frustrated. We all are. But attacking the people who are mostly on your side instead of the people actively trying to hurt you doesn’t help.
A firefighter standing by my house while it brings down isn’t helping me.
Especially when he keeps telling me I need to work with the arsonist who set the fire and unless the arsonist agrees, he has no choice but to stand there socializing with the arsonist
I can say we need a different firefighter and that if the only other option is the arsonist…
Then ignoring that our system is broken doesn’t help anyone.
All it does is make less people vote on who the next firefighter is, and gives the arsonist better odds of winning.
I know it’s tempting, but burying your head in the sand won’t fix anything anymore than it has with climate change
Ok but the alternative wants me dead. He’s promising to strip my rights and get rid of people like me. So maybe some of us see y’all standing and taking this position and think “wow, we’re fucked”. Because you can’t even bring yourself to vote for a liberal against a fascist. Vote in the primaries like the rest of us. Try to convince moderates to vote left as they can.
The number of Supreme Court justices is set by statute. The president cannot add more justices without the support of Congress.
And next term, when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, he also won’t be able to do anything about abortion.
This is why I’ve stopped believing presidential candidates when they say they’re gonna do things. They’re one branch of government, so there’s only so much they could possibly do, and even that will take years.
Hes supposed to encourage a floor vote so we can at least find out whos not supporting this and vote them out of congress. But were gonna go into the election without knowing anyone stance, so politicians of both parties can simply claim anything since theres no record.
The leader of each house is Republican, and they control what comes up for a vote. He can encourage all he wants, he has no say in the matter.
Okay and what was his excuse before Midterms when that wasn’t true?
what’s he supposed to do right now?
There’s a lot of cases during his presidency where he could do something within his power as president, and go around Congress.
He has shown he has the willpower to do so when he wants to, just not for things i want. There are many things unrelated to this specific case where it has played out that way.
To me, a dumb working stiff, it sure seems like he won’t use his power to help people like me. So he and you will have to excuse me on this case, where he may not even have the power (as you said), for not trusting him when he promises me something he knows i want without even promising that he will succeed.
It is just too cynically timed, and I’ve heard this one before
There’s a lot of cases during his presidency where he could do something within his power as president, and go around Congress.
Then fuck him for not doing that in his first term.
And that’s precisely what makes this so fucking meaningless. What’s he able to do in his second term for abortion rights he couldn’t in his first? Neither answer is a good look.
They did nothing when the decision was leaked.
Nothing when it was official.
Nothing in the years since.
Why?So they could use it as campaign chip in this election.
Fuck off.Both parties use their constituency as pawns, rather than employers. It’s why we all need to support Represent Us and the Forward Party who are trying to make our representatives actually represent us.
Since 2023 the Democrats haven’t had a majority in the House and prior to that they only had a pseudo-majority in the Senate because of Manchin and Sinema. They passed the Right to Contraception Act and it died in the Senate. They passed the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 and it was voted downin the Senate (also get fucked Manchin). Ensuring Access to Abortion Act passed and died in the Senate. Biden, via the Pentagon, is reimbursing members of the military for travel to seek abortion.
You want them to do more? Get them a real majority in both chambers. Granted, they squandered previous majorities by not codifying abortion access but as I recall the last big, heavily opposed bill they passed (Obamacare) still only made it through with a slim margin and if abortion access was a part of that bill it may not have passed.
To say they did nothing just isn’t true. In all of 20 seconds of searching you could have found this https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/
Maybe they could have done more? Sure.
Just like he did everything in his power to
tackle student loanssend weapons to israel.“Restoring Roe isn’t the only item on Biden’s to-do list. In a second term, the president would aim to “finish the job,” on a slate of priorities his administration has already begun pushing for, Fulks said, including banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, cutting the cost of insulin and expanding student loan forgiveness.”
This all sounds like shit he should have done in his first term if he wanted Dems to have any faith in him whatsoever.
He did cut the cost of insulin, and it kicked in Jan 1st.
He did push student loan forgiveness and the SCOTUS knocked it down after a Republican lawsuit.
Your link doesn’t mention the word insulin once…
So I googled it…
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-insulin-epipen/
Apparently trump is the one who’s did that, and Biden stopped it as soon as he took office.
And two years later, Biden stopped obstructing it, and now wants credit for that like he made it happen?
That’s a terrible example of Biden getting stuff done…
That’s a perfect example of what centrists want us to give Biden credit for.
It’s straight up sociopathic to expect people to be grateful Biden only obstructed it for two years because it was Trump’s idea.
Like, trump is obviously a giant piece of shit.
But it’s even worse to stop one of the handful of good things he did for years and then expect people clap when you step aside and let it happen.
Really highlights just how little Biden has actually accomplished when this is what they have left it hold up as an accomplishment
It draws into question all the other things they list as “accomplishments,” like giving him sole credit for the UAW’s accomplishments because he showed up for a photo op.
Ugh don’t remind me of unions, now I’m angry he broke the railroad strike again
I hope unions accomplish what Democrats refuse to.
And he only showed up because Fain threatened to not endorse Biden.
Fuck Joe Biden. Fain for president.
They’re referring to the $35 monthly insulin cap contained within Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Perhaps the Department of Health and Human Services is a good enough source for you?
Effective January 1, 2023, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are capped at $35 per monthly prescription among Medicare Part D enrollees under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). A similar cap takes effect in Medicare Part B on July 1, 2023.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/insulin-affordability-ira-data-point
Bit of advice: If you’re not familiar with a situation, you should do deeper research than a quick Google search and stopping the moment you find an unrelated article that affirms your bias.
We stopped the price gouging on insulin!
For a subset of Medicare recipients.
That subset is actually about 1 in 8 insulin users, so I imagine those people are pretty happy about it.
And the other 7 don’t matter because they’re not boomers.
deleted by creator
Another win for Boomers. Hurrah.
I assume he stopped blocking it because his good friend Manchen’s daughter is no longer CEO of the epipen company.
You seem to think a president can act unilaterally. Or that Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema weren’t holding the senate by the balls until the house got taken by Republicans two years ago.
Then what the fuck is Biden going to do in his second term? You just said he can’t do anything.
If the house and senate don’t go blue? Or if they do? Because I assure you I much prefer him vetoing republicans to trump encouraging them
Welp, unfortunately Biden has decided he’d rather block strikes, fuck the BBB and support genocide over getting my vote so…
I did not say that. That is false.
Then explain it to me. What does “prioritizing” mean? What the fuck can Biden do and why should I vote for him “prioritizing” abortion rights?
Are you going to acknowledge you made a false accusation about me?
Not until you prove otherwise. You haven’t given a concrete example of what he can do.
No. I do not have to prove that I didn’t say something you claimed I said. It is not my job to prove that you didn’t lie. It is yours. If I said Biden can’t do anything, quote me. If I didn’t say it, be an adult and admit you lied.
Biden is pathetically weak.
He let two of the most corrupt senators in his caucus bully him into losing ALL of his agenda, while he still called them his good friends.
On the one hand you are saying Biden was powerless, but somehow in the future he won’t be?
You’re even more pathetic than Biden
I was going to post a real response to this, but then you ended with a personal attack. Sorry if you wanted a discussion.
And this is Exactly why Biden will lose
You don’t have to make excuses for the powerful, you know. There are always going to be challenges to overcome to create positive change. We should judge people by how well they overcome those challenges.
Okay, explain exactly how Biden would have been able to ban assault weapons, cut insulin costs and expand student loan forgiveness without congress. And without SCOTUS blocking it. I’d honestly like to know.
I’m going to say a thing that would be considered entirely reasonable if we were talking about any other profession, but since we are talking about the powerful, will be disregarded:
That is not my job. That is the president’s job. I should not be expected to come up with a strategy to solve their problems. When they tell me they are going to do something, and then fail to do so, they did a bad job.
I used to think like you do. I used to think I was savvier than all the naive people who wanted things from their politicians, and criticized the politicians when they didn’t deliver, because how could they have? But over time I’ve realized that I was being duped. That I should stop arguing that better things aren’t possible, because when people believe that, it comes true.
A criticism I’ll head off: I understand I can’t vote for them and forget it. I’m not advocating for reduced civil engagement; it’s our job to protest and agitate.
Please provide evidence that I think I am “savvier than all the naive people who wanted things from their politicians and criticized politicians when they didn’t deliver.”
Unless that was a lie. Was it a lie that I think the way you used to think?
Sure, in response to this statement that is a criticism that Biden did not deliver:
This all sounds like shit he should have done in his first term if he wanted Dems to have any faith in him whatsoever.
You said:
You seem to think a president can act unilaterally. Or that Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema weren’t holding the senate by the balls until the house got taken by Republicans two years ago.
I don’t think it’s unfair to say you think it is naive to believe that the “president can act unilaterally”, and the natural converse of naivety is being savvy.
Anyway, I fail to see the point of arguing with someone who thinks I am a liar, so I will bow out of this conversation. Have a nice day. Believe it or not, I do sincerely wish you well.
Then why promise it
Because that’s how politics has worked for centuries. Is this your first day on planet Earth?
And why should anyone believe his empty worthless promises he has no intention of doing anything about this time?
We all know that Democrats don’t want to do shit about Roe. We know they’ll find just enough no votes, or find some procedural bullshit excuse, and of course they will never get rid of the filibuster.
I always wonder what proposal you people actually suggest that isn’t Joe Biden walking into the Senate with a gun and pointing it at Manchin.
Abortion, guns, medical costs, student loans.
It’s more a list of generally winning issues for Democrats to be trotted out ever 2-4 years. With the added ‘benefit’ of Republicans fucking up abortion rights so bad that now it’s a flagship issue for Dems more than it has been since Roe.
Honestly, Republicans fucked this up for themselves. Abortion was the classic wedge issue. Single-issue voters that wanted abortion banned would come out every 2-4 years to vote for the candidate who claimed to be pro-life, who would then make a token effort then shrug when nothing changed, rinse-repeat. Now, those voters have no reason to come out and people that are actually affected negatively have EVERY reason to come out.
In my country it’s called anti-abortion. Is it ever called this in the US? I think it frames it better, as everybody here is pro-living-things
That’s exactly why they like to call it a pro life stance, even though nobody’s life is preserved. Not mothers in need of emergency medical care. Not fetuses with debilitating medical deficiencies. It’s a fake stance that projects compassion without actually having any.
Hold medical legislation hostage?
Classy.
Well, after they dangle it long enough that most states amend their constitution via ballot proposal, they will start to promise to fix ACA, even though they could have done that in 2021, or repeal citizens untied (even though they could have done that in 2021), or fix the voting rights act (even though they could have done that in 2021).
It feels like they’re just dangling common sense things to motivate people.
Republicans have wedge issues. Democrats have unfulfilled promises. Neither leads or governs.
Expand the Supreme Court. Place justices that will restore roe v wade. Reverse Citizens United.
I mean, if you’re really interested in preserving American democracy.
We’ve been hearing this song and dance for 50 years. At this point the only ones that would fall for it again are in no position to be voting
Well, last time his top priority was 15$ minimum wage.
Fucking Pathetic.
If this is Biden’s top priority, we know it won’t happen.
Just like Trump’s campaign released a statement saying that Trump does not have offensive body odor. We now can confirm that Trump has offensive body odor.
We can also confirm that Biden will do nothing for the rest of his presidency to do anything about abortion rights as well.
Democrats are even more pathetic than republicans. At least republicans actually fight for what they want, even if what they want is stupid shit.
Democrats are fucking pussies.
thank you
overturned in 2022 could he not take the time between then and now to do something or anything and a whole year left what is he doing with that time
