r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • Sep 07 '26

PoliticalTea 🗳️ Missing: Mitch

Post image
56.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

482

u/Rand-all Sep 07 '26 edited Sep 07 '26

The party of physical responsibilities

160

u/Bonti_GB Sep 07 '26

I’d also like to see a large outrage from Democrats, investigations, and media attention and their own investigations.

But the left always seems limp in comparison and the media has fallen too much from the journalistic ideals of yesterday.

Too much of America is bought it seems.

53

u/cat_prophecy Sep 07 '26

You only think the Democrats are "limp" because that's what the media wants you to think.

45

u/KitchenBad5507 Sep 07 '26

I disagree. The Supreme Court wouldnt be filled with right wing partisans if the democrats had the same political will that the Republicans have. I wish neither side played those games, but if the other side does it, we need to do it too. Otherwise the resuly will be... this

42

u/Ashenfenix Sep 07 '26

Roe could have been codifed into the constitution if democrats weren't so soft. Donald trump wouldn't have been elected for a second time if democrats weren't so soft. I say that as Democrat.

24

u/KitchenBad5507 Sep 07 '26

Same. I despise the Republican party but honestly, I despise the Democrats too, just a tiny bit less. We need the old guard to step aside and make room for young progressives. And I'm old - a 61 year old straight woman. We've had our chance and we blew it. Time for the next wave to take the lead. They can't POSSIBLY be any worse than us.

29

u/cman1098 Sep 07 '26

Democrats are soft by design unless of course they are fighting a progressive.

11

u/WannaBeSuiko Sep 07 '26

Nancy Pelosi blocked attempts to codify Roe vs Wade when Dems had a super majority if I recall correctly. Said it was settled or something.

1

u/Hairy_Technology_213 Sep 08 '26

Do you people check anything before you post? The last time Democrats had 67 votes in the Senate was in 1967, bud. That’s six years before Roe.

0

u/WannaBeSuiko Sep 08 '26

No, not really… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

In the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party) increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obamabeing sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993.

I could have been more specific that it was a supermajority in the Senate. But this was how the ACA was passed FYI. Was this democratic hold until the midterms. During this time there was a strong push to codify Roe vs Wade and equal pay acts. For those of us tracking.

0

u/Hairy_Technology_213 Sep 08 '26

JFC. 67 votes are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, professor.

0

u/WannaBeSuiko Sep 08 '26

No one said we need a constitutional amendment. This was never about modifying the constitution. This was about passing a congressional act. Like the equal rights act. Equal pay act (this failed). Or any other basic congressional act.

I get that civics 101 at the local community college is hard, but you don’t need to take it out on Reddit with snark.

11

u/DrPreppy Sep 07 '26

Roe could have been codifed into the constitution

That's objectively wrong. They had a supermajority for 72 days requiring people who were confirmed as against that. It's not even debatable.

2

u/tetrified Sep 07 '26

but but but how are we supposed to pretend like democrats are just as bad as republicans if we don't lie????????

0

u/Dry-Dragonfly5286 Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 08 '26

The good cop is still the partner of the bad cop

3

u/tetrified Sep 08 '26

are you really going to pretend we'd be in a war with iran right now if harris were elected?

are you really going to pretend we'd be having this many food safety issues if rfk weren't in charge of the fda?

really? are you actually this fucking stupid? do you seriously still think elections don't have consequences?

come on.

2

u/DrPreppy Sep 08 '26

The good cop is opposed to the bad cop and screaming at you that you are underrepresented in government (Permanent House Apportionment Act, natural Senate structure, gerrymandering, voter suppression, Voting Rights Act being violated and destroyed) and that the easiest way to fix that short of revolution is to vote.

A properly represented country would be a much different country.

0

u/Alarming-Curve5339 Sep 08 '26

You don't have to lie

1

u/tetrified Sep 08 '26

but then how are we supposed to pretend like democrats are just as bad as republicans??????

11

u/Hairy_Technology_213 Sep 07 '26

This is typical Redditor nonsense. Roe most certainly couldn’t be codified in the Constitution. Where are you getting 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate and 38 states? Show me.

1

u/WannaBeSuiko Sep 08 '26

What is this redditor nonsense that codify = constitution amendment and not congressional statute?

It just takes a sweeping act to set protections, just as the EPA, ACA, ERA and numerous other acts that lay out protections. You don’t need a constitution amendment. You need to pass a law.

1

u/Hairy_Technology_213 Sep 08 '26

And you think the Supreme Court find such a law constitutional?

1

u/WannaBeSuiko Sep 08 '26

That’s a different question. I feel like you just want to be contrarian, and that’s your prerogative.

The question at hand was could the democratic part have passed legislation to protect Roe vs Wade. And yes they could have. They did not need a constitutional amendment at the time. There already been a Supreme Court ruling decades prior affirming the right. Enshrining the right with further legislative protections via congressional statute signed by a president would have made it much more difficult for the Supreme Court to say the federal government did not have the right to pass a law giving protections of rights of bodily autonomy.

Like this is a very silly conversation at this point. It’s gone past deflection, and goalpost moving from basic historical fact, and into abstract what if scenarios.

The basic fact, is that it was up for discussion in 2010, and Nancy Pelosi tabled it as said it was the law of the land because of Roe vs Wade.

1

u/Hairy_Technology_213 Sep 08 '26

Dude. Just admit you’re wrong and move on.

8

u/snakerjake Sep 07 '26

Roe could have been codifed into the constitution if democrats weren't so soft

Do you really think 38 states would have ratified that amendment?

6

u/Glittering_Role1658 Sep 07 '26

No they would not have

0

u/AlarmingAffect0 Sep 07 '26

Yes.

5

u/joggle1 Sep 07 '26

They couldn't even pass it as a federal law, which is a significantly lower bar than a constitutional amendment.

0

u/AlarmingAffect0 Sep 07 '26

They didn't try hard enough. I bet you Lyndon B Johnson or FDR would've passed it comfortably— even if someone needed to be literally dick-slapped in Jumbo's case.

2

u/AdorableStrawberry93 Sep 07 '26

That's what is intriguing about the SDA. They are more inclined to be tough and rowdy. Willing to punch back.

3

u/SnooChickens5474 Sep 07 '26

Democrats aren't soft on issues their owners want pressed, most of the democratic party are bought and owned by lobbyists.

2

u/Expensive_Cheetah820 Sep 07 '26

That’s bullshit you to have majority in both houses. In the senate you have to have 60 votes. You don’t anything.

1

u/Fugufish-Chomp Sep 08 '26

You are SO damn right! Ugh!

1

u/Zestyclose_Sale2672 Sep 09 '26

I agree and I say that as a Democrat as well.

1

u/WolfofWalnutdrive Sep 07 '26

And yet none of you guys have any ideas, just acting like magats. "Why aren't you doing fascism for good things?" Guys the democrats only power comes from the people voting, Republicans power come from corruption and the people voting for them.

3

u/Ashenfenix Sep 07 '26

What are you even talking about? What validity could you possibly conjure in assigning a stranger on the internet responsibility for your frustrations? You don't know me, or what I've done. Keep the snide to yourself.

1

u/WolfofWalnutdrive Sep 07 '26

I know you are ignorant about politics from the comment I responded to.

0

u/plannedobso Sep 07 '26

“Fascism for good things” isn’t fascism lol 

2

u/WolfofWalnutdrive Sep 07 '26

... Fascism is how you decide laws, it's not if they are good or bad. Major facepalm

1

u/plannedobso Sep 08 '26

 That’s…not correct. I know this sub is full of some of the most ignorant motherfuckers on Reddit but damn.

“  Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology that prioritizes the nation above the individual and seeks total control over society .”

“  Fascism is characterized by support for a  dictatorial  leader, centralized  autocracy ,  militarism , forcible suppression of  opposition , belief in a natural  social hierarchy , subordination of  individual  interests for the perceived interest of the  nation  or  race , and strong regimentation of society and the economy.  Opposed to  communism ,  democracy ,  liberalism ,  pluralism , and  socialism ,  fascism is at the far-right end of the traditional  left–right spectrum .”

There is no such thing as “fascism for good things.”

1

u/WolfofWalnutdrive Sep 08 '26

?do you not understand the definition you posted even?

6

u/alwayssunnyinskyrim Sep 07 '26

Fighting fire with sternly worded letters.

5

u/KitchenBad5507 Sep 07 '26

Lol careful! You might get scowled at!

1

u/MrMetraGnome Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 08 '26

So by "will", you mean, if the democrats wanted to ignore the laws and customs of America. Like testing the limits of the Consitution, declare they want to suspend it, or just change it outright. Everyone always says "both sides are the same", but then say this shit. Democrats are always in a lose/lose situation. Everything is their fault, no matter who does it. And when things go good, it's never good enough. Sheesh

1

u/SaucyJ4ck Sep 08 '26

I’ll just put out there that “political will” and “rampant hypocrisy plus a glaring lack of ethics” are NOT the same thing, despite what the modern Republican Party would have everyone believe.

Nor should we want ANY party to act as if they ARE the same thing.

1

u/OG_joenationwide Sep 08 '26

Democrats are usually reasonable people assuming that Republicans are also reasonable people, and not the greedy small minded self serving piles of garbage they are.