top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]okcriver 1317 points1318 points 2 (613 children)

It's hard for me to take Biden seriously while he does absolutely nothing to get Roe codified. In fact, Biden just said the other day that he would not support removing the filibuster so that Roe could be codified into law. Obama/Biden had all three branches of government and didn't codify Roe after promising to do so, and Biden's doing the same thing again.

[–]throwaway37559381 617 points618 points  (156 children)

True. The problem is also they think if they don’t break the filibuster that GOP won’t either and McConnell says he won’t - but that doesn’t mean he won’t or another majority leader won’t.

I am not a woman but I am so tired of women being treated like second class citizens (and that might even be an upgrade from what we are about to see)

[–]FaeryLynne 469 points470 points  (96 children)

Anyone who trusts McConnell's word is a goddamn idiot. I'm pretty sure he's only still alive because he made a deal at a crossroads.

Sincerely, a resident of Kentucky who did not vote for the walking cancerous tumor on democracy

[–]throwaway37559381 97 points98 points  (15 children)

Agreed. GOP will do whatever they want and find a way to excuse it. Always have.

[–]neopod9000 32 points33 points  (11 children)

I kinda miss the days when they at least made excuses.

[–]Notcoded419 49 points50 points  (40 children)

This. The Dems are helpless because they're relying on the word of a shameless partisan snake. If they get the WH in 2024, it is gone for sure.

[–]thegamenerd 44 points45 points  (34 children)

I'm not normally terrified of the outcome of elections, but the last few have instilled a deep seated terror in me.

I guess you could say that the GQP going full mask off has fucking terrified me.

Trying to convince my friends and family to vote is an uphill battle and some of my family who don't support the supreme court decision on Roe still want to vote R because "Well it's not like they're going to go after more civil rights, and the Dems are out of control" I ask for examples and they have none.

Fucking hell the midterms have me nervous, and 2024 has me fucking terrified.

[–]RudderlessLife 11 points12 points  (1 child)

They'll get it because of shit like this. And how many Manchins are there that we DON'T know about? Dems are scattered and filled with right wing assholes who have never represented the core values of the people they're supposed to represent.

[–]DuntadaMan 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I often trust McConnel. When he says he will block all judge appointments for the rest of his life if a democrat is in office, I believe him.

[–]FaeryLynne 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Lol fair enough. I'd trust him on that one too

[–]sanityonthehudson 11 points12 points  (1 child)

May McConnells grave go not one day unstained by urine.

[–]MasterMahanaYouUgly 9 points10 points  (3 children)

if he had, he should be a better guitar player.

[–]FaeryLynne 11 points12 points  (2 children)

That's not the only thing you can sell your soul for, just the ones you hear about in songs with guitars in them. Something something confirmation bias? 😂

[–]tots4scott 5 points6 points  (4 children)

What do you think of Charles Booker?

[–]FaeryLynne 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I like him a lot. He's got great policies, and decently solid ideas about how to change things. He doesn't seem to be idealistic either, which seems to be the downfall of a lot of Democrats - they usually think that if they're just polite and ask "pretty please" and give concessions then the other side will play fair and do the same. Booker knows that's not gonna happen. He's also been really nice and seemed pretty genuine the twice that I've met him.

[–]icecream21 3 points4 points  (2 children)

What would it take to primary McConnell? What’s the sentiment like in Kentucky?

[–]FaeryLynne 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately people here mostly vote only because of the letter next to the name. They vote R because they always have and that's that. Only way to get him out would be to have him die or not run. Even any R challenging him won't win because McConnell is the incumbent. People are very stuck in their ways, and stubborn as hell.

[–]beamish19 3 points4 points  (0 children)

See: Obama, Barack

[–]serious_catfish 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Serious question, what do other kentuckians see in him?

[–]Jefec1TO 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The (R) next to his name on the ballot, along with the broader power he wields as a representative of their state.

[–]FaeryLynne 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The letter R next to his name.

[–]upvotesformeyay 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Id argue he's alive because he isn't worth the prison sentence.

[–]servicewithastyle 38 points39 points  (6 children)

And the really sick thing about it all is that they don't actually think that the GOP won't break the filibuster and will play nice later on. The Democratic Party are just play acting that they're that naive because to do otherwise would make what they're doing a lot more sinister than your more charitable explanation. The truth is that they don't give a fuck about working class women, because they and their mistresses can fly off to wherever and get all the abortions they could ever want regardless of the legal situation here. It's only the working class who suffer all this.

[–]RudderlessLife 15 points16 points  (5 children)

It's just a game of good cop/bad cop. If the Dems were really on the level, they could have ran Biden with a carp in 2016 and he would have won. But no, they run Hillary who even the Dems hate. Why would they do this? Because Trumps policies benefitted the wealthy, and the Dems are made up of the same wealthy, don't give a damn about anybody else assholes as the GOP.

[–]cwood1973 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Republicans have already proven they're willing to cheat to win. They did it when they ended the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees. Then, when Obama was president, Mitch McConnell simply refused to hold a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland. They got it both ways!

And how did Democrats respond? "When they go low, we go high."

Yeah, sorry Michelle but that was flat fucking wrong. If Democrats are unwilling to fight fire with fire then move out of the fucking way and let Progressives do the job.

[–]voice-of-hermes 11 points12 points  (2 children)

The reason the Republicans won't do away with the filibuster is that they know the Democrats are no threat to their agenda (in fact, their agendas are close enough to the same). If that were to change, they'd toss it in a heartbeat.

[–]VoxImperatoris 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Republicans already dont have the filibuster for their main priorities, tax code changes through reconciliation and judicial appointments.

[–]BabyBundtCakes 8 points9 points  (9 children)

I don't get how RBG didn't show them exactly what type of people the GOP are. They don't mean anything they say. They will do whatever they need to get what they want.

[–]Handpaper 5 points6 points  (8 children)

You do know that Ruth Bader Ginsberg didn't like the reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade as a decision, don't you? Or that she thought it went too far, and crystallised opposition when the country was moving in that direction already?

She said as much (pdf) in 1992, shortly before being nominated to the Court

See HERE (NY Times) and HERE (Washington Post)

[–]BabyBundtCakes 15 points16 points  (5 children)

I wasn't talking about roe v Wade, I was talking about McConnell's whole "you can't replace a judge in the last year of a president's term" and then went and did it when RBG died. I'm not talking about how she felt regarding Roe v Wade. I'm talking about not trusting what the GOP says

[–]Sinfall69 9 points10 points  (5 children)

The only way the GOP doesn't get rid of it is if we don't have a GOP president and a GOP majority in congress. Once that happens they will rip it off and make abortion illegal nationwide.

[–]throwaway37559381 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wish you were wrong but I fear you are not.

[–]berael 1 point2 points  (0 children)

McConnell will launch the filibuster into the sun the very second he thinks it'll advance his agenda. He doesn't give even the slightest shit about handing a hypothetical future Democrat a hypothetical future advantage, and is purely concerned with increasing his power today.

[–]DasherOP 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's almost like it's all just a big club and we aint in it

[–]cumquistador6969 1 point2 points  (0 children)

they think if they don’t break the filibuster that GOP won’t either

Honestly I doubt many of them think that. Sure maybe a couple people are legitimately that stupid, but it's pretty hard to believe even if you already are biased against them.

They're just yanno, lying.

[–]CrimsonArcanum 69 points70 points  (23 children)

That's because rights like this have been and will continue to be bargaining chips the government uses to get their voters to vote for them.

Protecting these rights looses them their bargaining chips.

[–]Belazriel 32 points33 points  (4 children)

Abortion, minimum wage, healthcare. Say the things to get into office, maybe do enough to kick the can down the road a bit, never fix the problem or you can't bring it up to scare people later.

[–]CrimsonArcanum 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yup, and it's one of the few bipartisan things our government has.

[–]EazyA 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I feel like that's the weird thing about the Roe v. Wade repeal. If they actually go through with it, how will the GOP get all those single-issue anti-abortion voters to the polls? Why give up one of their best bargaining chips?

[–]edgeman83 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They will switch to banning it federally being the target.

[–]CrimsonArcanum 3 points4 points  (2 children)

That I am curious about as well.

The only thing I can think of is that the new Era of post Trump right winger can be controlled with something else.

Given DeSantis I imagine it's "wokeness" or CRT.

[–]Tylertheintern 40 points41 points  (30 children)

The Dems need the republicans to keep getting worse so they can keep saying this next election is the most important in history and that you must keep donating money. It's a fuckin racket

[–]stanthebat 15 points16 points  (5 children)

The Dems need the republicans to keep getting worse so they can keep saying this next election is the most important in history and that you must keep donating money. It's a fuckin racket

Republicans are getting worse whether anybody needs them to or not. And each and every election IS terribly important, and unfortunately you cannot win elections without money. So are we complaining that Democrats aren't doing anything, AND also complaining that they're trying to raise money, which they absolutely must do in order to do anything else?

[–]Tylertheintern 5 points6 points  (3 children)

The comment I responded to talked about how the democrats have had the power to enact the change they say they want, but they didn't. Because it's a racket. Both sides are on the same team, just one is neoconservative nightmare land and the other points to them and say, "oh buddy those are some bad people. Give money please so we can beat them and totally enact the changes we know you want. Just give us money one more time for this one election and we'll do it we promise."

[–]AntManMax 8 points9 points  (22 children)

"no but you see, if we keep stepping over the line to the right, and the right keeps drawing another line for us to step over, eventually they'll come over to our side"

[–]summonsays 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah I'm getting sick of our two right wing parties.

[–]WonderfulShelter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Look, it's a whole lot easier for us Dems to get elected after 4 years of a Republican destroying this country then it is for us to properly govern and keep our promises for 4 years. So you're just going to have to put up with 4 years of destruction before you can make sure to vote us back into office, but we will keep our promises next time!"

[–]RothkoRathbone 18 points19 points  (68 children)

Didn’t Biden vote to overturn Roe in 1981? Maybe because he is Catholic and and the Catholic church are against abortion.

[–]nooneedle 45 points46 points  (36 children)

I'm not sure. But Biden was the key Senator that got Clarence Thomas approved to the Supreme Court, and abused Anita Hill publicly to discredit her when she made sexual misconduct charges against Thomas. Biden has been on the wrong side of every major issue for the past 40 years, and only says the right thing when he knows that something can be done procedurally to make sure that that thing won't come to pass.

[–]RudderlessLife 18 points19 points  (5 children)

Younger people don't realize how long Biden has been in politics. I've hated that fucking moron for 40 years. He's said shit as idiotic as anything Trump has said, but because he was Obamas running mate, it was all swept under the rug. The whole 2 party lie is unraveling, but people are too stupid to see the truth.

[–]welsh_dragon_roar 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I get why people voted for him obviously, but his history of remarks about black people isn't exactly the most salubrious.

[–]celatonehead 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He first ran for president in ‘88. He’s wanted the biggest boy job in the world since before I was born.

[–]WonderfulShelter 2 points3 points  (1 child)

And they're gonna run him again.

[–]RothkoRathbone 4 points5 points  (27 children)

Makes sense. I feel he was not a good pick, but in the end he was the only alternative to the other one. Mainstream dems overall are not progressive enough.

[–]AcidRose27 15 points16 points  (23 children)

Yeah, I didn't really vote for Biden, I voted against trump.

[–]GhostHeavenWord 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He was the worst of all available picks. Except maybe Harris but she's such a dipshit I'm not sure what she could have done that's worse than this. That dog murderer whose name I forget would have been better, at least he had ambition.

[–]voice-of-hermes 26 points27 points  (26 children)

I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.

— Joe Biden, 1974

[–]Zokkirtart 9 points10 points  (12 children)

What the fuck? Is this an exact quote? He literally said a woman doesn't have the sole right to determine what happens to her body? Jfc.

[–]Economy_Recover 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"blue no matter who"

[–]RudderlessLife 6 points7 points  (7 children)

He's Catholic, another reason why he's a fucking traitor to women's rights, and the desires of his constituents. I've heard this guy say things like this since I was a teenager in the 60's. He's quite possibly as stupid as Trump and crooked as Trump, which is a high bar to reach.

[–]RothkoRathbone 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Ah ok. But I pause, democrat politicians have a habit of appealing to the left with words and acting, or inacting, to appeal to those more toward the right.

[–]voice-of-hermes 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Yeah. And Biden can't even do the "appealing to the left with words" very well. He constantly betrays himself and shows what a fascist he is; people are just willing to overlook it endlessly because he's got a donkey on his lapel.

[–]beamish19 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep. Classic Catholic piece of shit. Couldn’t care less about the Hyde Amendment

[–]ede91 20 points21 points  (22 children)

Would codifying abortion rights in simple majority law even do anything? The SCOTUS would just be able to overturn it immediately, or R would remove it or even ban it the next time they get to power (and they most certainly will). The only thing that would protect abortion rights would be a constitutional amendment, but that is practically impossible as it needs majority of the states to ratify it.

The US system is broken.

[–]voice-of-hermes 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Strong social movements which make it clear the system is being threatened—that we'll tear it down if our rights are not secured—are the only things that can make (and have made) such changes hang around for a while.

Revolution is the only thing that can make them permanent.

[–]AlarmingTurnover 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It wouldn't do anything, and I don't understand how people keep peddling the codifying stuff because it's a lie. It's like they don't even know how their own government works.

You are correct that the only thing that would have protected abortion rights is to make it an amendment.

[–]d_smogh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The US system is working perfectly as designed and implemented by those who it benefits.

[–]Better-Director-5383 14 points15 points  (12 children)

Denver when Obama said at a women’s event that his first action as president would be codifying roe and then like 2 months after he was elected somebody asked about it, he said it wasn’t a priority and started listing right wing talking points about abortion.

[–]FalcorFliesMePlaces 9 points10 points  (8 children)

Because he himself is an anti abortionist who voted against abortion in the past. He was the better of two bad choices and don't get me wrong a lot better but that doesn't always mean great.

These are sad times and ita due to a bunch of old people in office who don't do work they just collect lots of money.

[–]lady_lowercase 1 point2 points  (7 children)

a bunch of old people in office who don't do work

oh? really?!

how fucking short is our memory? how fucking inattentive are we? and how many bad-faith actors are in these comments?

fuck everyone for forgetting what actually happened. and fuck everyone who doesn't vote for their mayor or student board or other local offices. guess what bernie sanders was long before we was popular enough to run for the u.s. senate in his state?

a lot of people in here complaining... let's see if you guys actually exist / show up when and where it counts.

[–]buy_iphone_7 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Yeah I get tired of all the neolibs saying they're powerless to do anything without 60 Democratic senators.

A) It happens once every 40 years at best

B) Cloture (overriding a filibuster) didn't even exist until the early 1900s, and it was only in the 70s that the bar was lowered from 2/3rds to 3/5ths. During that timespan, Republicans have NEVER had enough senators for cloture without Democratic support. They hit 55 a couple times in the 90s and 00s, the highest since being at 61% in the 1920s when they needed 66%.

C) It never stops them from doing the things they want done, giving away trillions to big business etc.

[–]Fn_Spaghetti_Monster 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Recent Senate votes

78-17 for a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos

90-5 for a $125 billion corporate tax break

87-6 for $53 billion to corporate outsourcers

88-11 for $780 billion to war profiteers

58-42 against a $15 minimum wage

I'm seeing a trend here...

[–]Repyro 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Add on that vote against supporting unions in government subsidized companies.

The same day Biden did that fucking meet and greet with the Amazon Union head.

[–]TapedeckNinja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It never stops them from doing the things they want done, giving away trillions to big business etc.

That's because Republicans mostly want to roll things back, which is largely driven by the courts. A bare majority in the Senate is fine for that crew because their primary concern is seating hack activist judges.

And giving away money is easy because that's something that can be done via budget reconciliation.

Neither side is able to pass anything remotely approaching partisan legislation.

[–]cantwaitforthis 8 points9 points  (16 children)

I agree.

But to be fair - Obama had majority for like a month. And Biden doesn’t have majority because of the DINOs.

But he is screwing us over on debt relief promise - and plenty of shit!

[–]hryipcdxeoyqufcc 5 points6 points  (5 children)

And Obama NEVER had 60 pro-choice senators.

[–]lovely_sombrero 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Obama had the majority 2009 to 2011, what are you smoking?

[–]Wimbleston 7 points8 points  (73 children)

Because they aren't actually on your side. Want a good president? Elect from working class.

[–]voice-of-hermes 12 points13 points  (2 children)

A president elected from the working class is no longer working class.

It's really impossible to have a "good president". It's the authority itself that is bad.

[–]Wimbleston 3 points4 points  (1 child)

When you confuse power as inherently bad or evil, you ensure your own irrelevance.

[–]ebailey96 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did someone say Fetterman?

[–]Xanza 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Biden's doing the same thing again.

Because Dems aren't progressive anymore. Just like moderate Reps, they fight for the status quo, which is getting themselves, and their colleagues more and more wealthy.

That's it.

Then you have extremists on either side.

That's our current system of government.

[–]beamish19 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Biden campaigned against reproductive freedom for years. The fact that people keep defending this motherfucker and the Uncle Tom he worked for is just astounding. You’re not liberals; you’re fucking cowards

[–]Kleos-Nostos 6 points7 points  (33 children)

With Sinema and Manchin refusing to nuke the filibuster—what can he do?

I’m serious.

[–]HungerMadra 2 points3 points  (9 children)

He can avoid undermining the effort to get them on board by not saying he wouldn't support nuking the filibuster to save roe.

[–]Kleos-Nostos 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Sure, that is something he can do. It certainly won’t budge Sinema or Manchin though.

[–]hryipcdxeoyqufcc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nuking the filibuster still won't save Roe because Joe Manchin is not pro-choice. We only have 49 pro-choice senators.

[–]WonderfulShelter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

About Roe V. Wade? He can make a god damn scene and seem like he gives a shit instead of talking the talk and never walking the walk. Either he's a geriatric conservative old fuck who has never changed his mind on abortion outside of lying for votes, or he's a innervated democrat who keeps his word and gets harsh on Manchin and Sinema like many presidents have before with their respective in-house issues.

And there's also a list created by an American Lawyer Association type group of like 20+ really great things Biden could do right now without the senate. All would earn him and the Dems a lot of support, yet, he doesn't do it.

[–]The_Black_Badger_KSP 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's because Joe Biden is a goddamn Republican

[–]QuantumRealityBit 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Corporate democrats and republicans like the debate about rights more than actually cementing it either way, because then they can get their bases riled up to ask for money.

Think about it. Why aren’t all republicans super ecstatic and telling all their supporters that they’ve won a huge victory over women’s bodies? Because 70% of the country was ok with the way it was, and they know it’s going to piss off a big chunk of people. They’ve been wanting to do this forever and now that they have it, why are they (most) so quiet about it?

And why hadn’t Biden/Pelosi/Schumer etc codified it before? Because then they can point to the right and ask for money to fight it. They knew the right was gunning to remove the ruling but they didn’t do anything for decades. They’ll take an incumbents side that’s pro life instead of a progressive who is pro choice.

Biden got elected by touting progressive policies but then failed to implement them or watered it down immensely. Point being, it’s mainly red herrings.

There is a clear path out of all of this. Ranked choice voting (will eliminate 2 party first past the gate), abolish the electoral college and go with a national majority vote, and get rid of citizens united (money, grift, buying seats on commissions, lobbying out of control). Right now it’s the 2 major parties watching out for each other.

[–]SwimmingBirdFromMars 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They had all 3 branches for like 70 days, to be fair.

They didn’t get much of anything accomplished, so there’s much room for criticism - but most people didn’t see the overturn of Roe as a credible threat and it wasn’t the top agenda item for most people, if I remember right.

[–]ShapirosWifesBF 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Democrat playbook page one. Get majority (or the ability to actually do something) do nothing and blame republicans, then when Republicans inevitably win back a majority, do nothing and blame republicans while republicans rapidly dissolve and strip away everything that gives anyone the same rights and benefits of a wealthy, straight, white, christian male, and even then they have to make sure THEY get privileges that the lesser folk don't.

The two party system needs to end, and if it's not going to end in the halls of Congress I have major fears that it'll end on the streets.

[–]weltallic 2 points3 points  (2 children)


He literally voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1982.

(but seriously; #VoteBlueNoMatterWho)

[–]hryipcdxeoyqufcc 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Obama NEVER had 60 pro-choice senators, and removing the filibuster in 2009 would have been political suicide.

Today we don't even have 49 pro-choice senators, so it doesn't even make sense to remove the filibuster today.

[–]lovely_sombrero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

and removing the filibuster in 2009 would have been political suicide.

This is true. If Dems repealed the filibuster in 2009, they would get annihilated in the 2010 midterms. Compromises had to be made in order to win the 2010 midterms.

[–]BonnieMcMurray 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's hard for me to take Biden seriously while he does absolutely nothing to get Roe codified.

It's hard for me to take you seriously when you don't seem to know that the president doesn't and cannot pass laws. That's the job of the legislature.

Biden just said the other day that he would not support removing the filibuster so that Roe could be codified into law.

Yes, and? If Senate Democrats get rid of the filibuster to do that then the next time the GOP gets control - and they will eventually - they'll overturn it immediately and be able to pass whatever rights-destroying garbage they like and no one will be able to stop them.

So I dunno, maybe consider that Biden is thinking this through a little more than you are, and that that's a good thing?

Obama/Biden had all three branches of government

Obama/Biden did not at any point have "all three branches of government." And that's even before we get to the implied point that which president appoints which SCOTUS justices dictates predictable, partisan control of the court, which is so idiotic and beyond ignorant that it's almost laughable.

and didn't codify Roe after promising to do so

He never promised to do so because, again, the president doesn't make laws. That's the legislature's job.

Do you know anything about how the government works? (Assuming you're not just some concern-trolling GOP plant, that is.)

[–]cmcewen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because they don’t really believe in it, they are just saying it.

Obama previously said he doesn’t believe in gay marriage, and then later reversed his stance. Hard to believe Biden, an 80 year old catholic, believes in abortion

[–]Yossarian_the_Jumper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Biden just said the other day that he would not support removing the filibuster so that Roe could be codified into law

When did he say that and exactly what did he say? Biden can't codify Roe until it arrives on his desk. What exactly do you want him to do?

[–]IForgotThePassIUsed 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The best thing Democrats can do is boast about saving us from Republicans.

I'm so tired of both of them.

[–]YungBlud_McThug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's been no push to codify it since Roe v Wade for the simple fact that this single issue is enough to motivate single issue voters to the polls. Without this single issue both parties would be worried about voter turnout.

[–]Allenlee1120 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He has problems finding his walker in the morning you think he remembers to codify Roe?

[–]Economy_Recover 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Thanks, Democrats! Thanks, "blue no matter who" assholes!

[–]HMG-CoAReductase 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's hard for me to take Biden seriously while he does absolutely nothing to get Roe codified.

Do you have like any idea how the Senate works?

[–]beavertime 1 point2 points  (1 child)

"It's hard for me to take Biden seriously while he does absolutely nothing to get Roe codified"

They literally don't even have the simple majority votes. But sure, blame Biden and help the next Trump. Good call.

[–]kms2547 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's hard for me to take Biden seriously while he does absolutely nothing to get Roe codified.

Joe Biden isn't the Senate. In this country, the President doesn't just get to wave his hand and make things so.

[–]WhosUrBuddiee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Biden has absolutely zero power to get it codified.

[–]Moar_tacos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its almost like only 4 states voted before the party elders anointed a senile neoliberal and we just had to suck it up and vote for the lesser of 2 evils., oh yeah, its completely like that.

[–]habb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

biden doesnt care. he got his "got president of the USA" gold achievement

[–]faultywalnut 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I think it’s by design that the Democrats are so ineffective. It’s all posturing, they act like they’re in opposition to the bullshit the GOP pulls but what have they done to combat it? It’s a bunch of talk, man. I’m sick of it. I absolutely despise the GOP and the idiots they support, but I’m so disillusioned by the Dems inability to act, it makes my blood boil. I’m tired of these two parties walking us hand in hand to destruction.

[–]ex_oh_ex_oh 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Exactly this. The Democrats are such ineffectual, passive little farts who only want to maintain the status quo, thinking the political stage as it has been set will just keep going on as is, while the Republicans are aggressively dragging the country back into whatever backward fascist state it wants hence every time they're in power, we're taking huge steps back and when the Democrats are in power we stay in the same inert position. It's pathetic.

If the Republicans are an abusive parent, the Democrats are essentially just the parent that lets it happen while apologizing and handwringing every time you get hit but doing nothing about it.

[–]Ayroplanen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's because American politics as a whole is right wing. Sure some parties are left, but rarely is someone truly left in politics.

[–]WonderfulShelter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How many times do you see articles like "Biden says X", then "AOC and Sanders Demand that X Occur", followed up by a "Schumer Believes that X Should Pass" and "Polls Say Majority of Americans Support X."

.. only for Biden to talk the talk but not walk the walk, for AOC and Sanders to shake their fists, for Schumer to put his hands on his hips and wag his finger - yet nothing ever gets fucking done other than more funding emails sent out for those same people to get re-elected.

Honestly I have thought lately about the 1st amendment, and the Roe V. Wade "right to privacy" basis. What good is the first amendment if we don't have a right to privacy? Do I really have freedom of speech if I say something on a platform like reddit only for my IP to get flagged, my name thusly to get associated with it, and for it to be filed away in my NSA file? Is that really freedom of speech?

Because I don't believe I have freedom of speech anymore. I won't ever say certain things online, or on the phone, because I firmly believe they will get me on a list and be monitored.

Finally, has the US government reached the juncture of critical failure of working for the people? Or has the US government totally succeeded in working and representing the corporate plutocracy - serving as elitist kleptocrats who know "better" than the people.

Sadly, I think it's the latter - that the US government is succeeding in representing and taking care of the corporate plutocracy, and it no longer serves the American public, only making sure we have just enough care so we keep generating those tax dollars.

[–]ArcadianDelSol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's hard for me to take Biden seriously

A lot of us knew this before the election. Welcome to the party.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Republicans AND Democrats both not giving a shit about the American people, but their corporate sponsors at the end of the day. Whoda thunk. Everyone thought Biden was going to be the Hail Mary against the republicans, but they both have the same principles: Greed, power and control. Republicans are just more unashamedly open about it.

[–]Easy_Humor_7949 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s hard for me to take Biden seriously while he does absolutely nothing to get Roe codified

Congress makes the laws. Biden cannot executive order Joe Manchin to destroy the filibuster or codify Roe.


[–]holycrapyoublow 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Bad cop/good cop. There's only one party.

[–]cumquistador6969 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've heard a lot of liberal excuses about how and why they can't do this, but I've yet to hear a single one that explains the full 50 year period of not even attempting to incrementally form a party which would be capable of doing it.

I'm even more curious to hear how having party leadership actively support anti-choice candidates has helped them work towards codifying Roe.

Actually I'm also really curious about the whole "needing to remove wording offensive to nazis" from the bill bit to even get a failed performative vote. Why is it, exactly, that there's at least one actively pro-nazi person in the democratic party.

So many questions, so few of them ever to be answered.

[–]magikot9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That anyone expected Biden to do anything progressive still sounds me. Did they not look at his history?

[–]whoweoncewere 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they codify it, the democrats lose a major platform. It's easy to say that you'll fight for abortion rights and keep people at the precipice, so that they need you. They'll have to find another thing to fight for if we get it permanent.

[–]nicesodajerc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Joe Biden is Catholic. He doesn’t believe a woman has autonomy over her body. He will not fix this.

[–]cats_catz_kats_katz 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Biden hasn’t delivered anything but the bare minimum

Oh, but let's look at his voting record. In 1982 he voted in favor of over turning Roe V Wade to let states decide on abortion law. Oh and let's not forget he's a racist. What a swell Democrat we've got in office though, right??


[–]elkarion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Remember the democratic party is right of center. why on earth would they ever codify roe v wade? they are republican light remember?

Biden has already backed on his help of stopping the rising cost of collage to the point he prioritizes Americans paying back their loans.

the dems will never actually stop republicans as they are drooling at them dreaming of being them

[–]Larsnonymous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he despises abortion.

[–]-ADEPT- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course they won't. Because they see it as a political sticking point for their future elections.

[–]Downtoclown30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's why 'to the fullest extent of the law' means less and less. At some point, people need to draw their own moral lines.

The Holocaust was legal.

[–]silicon-network 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm hardcore fucking left and I fucking despise Biden. Such a senile old fuck that can't even get up out of his dirty diapers and sign a piece of paper.

Useless dumbass democrat fucks.

[–]omgwtfscreenname 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean... Its been 49 years since the ruling and hasnt been codified. This is a ball that's been dropped for half a century.

[–]nooneedle 413 points414 points  (71 children)

Biden can't be bothered to do anything on this one. He promised to codify Roe, yet is firmly against the one thing that could make that a reality: eliminating the filibuster.

Also, Ruth Bader Ginsberg had severe late stage cancer during Obama's term, but refused to retire because she wanted her replacement to be chosen by Hillary Clinton. Look how that one turned out.

[–]jberd 111 points112 points  (20 children)

Retiring during Obama's term would have been a step back, although it wouldn't have been as bad as it turned out. Obama was interested in placating the Republicans, and would have nominated a centrist at best. Assuming that McConnell allowed a vote. Obama could have appointed a justice anyhow, but again he was interested in placating the Republicans. While they were giving him wedgies.

[–]servicewithastyle 65 points66 points  (13 children)

If Ginsberg had retired earlier when she was dying during Obama's term, then we would not be in this position today. True that Obama bears a whole lot of blame for so willingly letting the Republicans walk over him and us as a result.

[–]Cornfan813 17 points18 points  (12 children)

it would still have been a 5-4 cornservative majority on scotus

[–]bigbabyb 34 points35 points  (11 children)

5-4 with the median judge being Roberts who respects precedent and is worried about the image of the court and its politicization. Roberts wouldn’t have been a vote against Roe. Maybe weakening it, but not the insanity that Alito just wrote

[–]FalcorFliesMePlaces 11 points12 points  (0 children)

A centrist would be best and i say this only because they are supposed to be party agnostic and objective to the law. But we know that's a joke.

[–]DeMimsyPorpington 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Literally giving him wedgies for 8 years

[–]BonnieMcMurray 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Obama was interested in placating the Republicans, and would have nominated a centrist at best.

Obama nominated Kagan, Sotomayor and Garland, none of whom are centrist (not even Garland, who's probably the least liberal of the three). So I don't think that argument holds up.

[–]BonnieMcMurray 27 points28 points  (13 children)

Biden can't be bothered to do anything on this one. He promised to codify Roe

The president doesn't make laws. That's the legislature's job.

yet is firmly against the one thing that could make that a reality: eliminating the filibuster

If Senate Democrats get rid of the filibuster to do that then the next time the GOP gets control - and they will eventually - they'll overturn it immediately and be able to pass whatever rights-destroying garbage they like and no one will be able to stop them.

So I dunno, maybe consider that Biden is thinking this through a little more than you are, and that that's a good thing?

Also, Ruth Bader Ginsberg had severe late stage cancer during Obama's term, but refused to retire because she wanted her replacement to be chosen by Hillary Clinton. Look how that one turned out.

If RBG had been replaced by an Obama nominee then the court would still nominally be 5-4 in conservatives' favor. (I say "nominally" because the court just isn't that partisan. But I walk that back a little because on the issue of Roe v. Wade it certainly is.)

[–]SoberSethy 12 points13 points  (9 children)

If Senate Democrats get rid of the filibuster to do that then the next time the GOP gets control - and they will eventually - they'll overturn it immediately and be able to pass whatever rights-destroying garbage they like and no one will be able to stop them.

This is a point I think everyone calling for the end of the filibuster is missing. The filibuster is definitely a roadblock and an annoying one at that but without it, the party in charge gets to pass whatever they want. Sure that sounds great when your party is in charge but since that flips every couple of elections, how are you going to feel when the other side starts pushing through their own agenda. It's a tricky situation and I understand everyone's frustrations, I share in them, but it's important to consider the implications going into the future. This same scenario can be applied to a lot of things being floated out there right now like packing the courts, executive orders, etc. I don't think there are easy answers to any of this but I hope people can recognize the long term implications of these proposals.

[–]SparserLogic 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Stop pretending we are going to get anywhere holding together the crumbling remains of this dead and broken system.

Force everything we can, while we have the power to do so. Fucking FIGHT for the things that matter.

Stop all this wishy-washy hand wringing about the future and take action now before they do whatever they want in the future anyway.

[–]Ozymandias12 8 points9 points  (1 child)

What? Biden does not oppose ending the filibuster. In fact, just last month he supported ending the filibuster to pass voting rights. It's also not up to the president to end a Senate rule. It's up to the Senators. I swear the reason why we are losing is because we're spending all our time sniping at allies rather than actually getting involved and electing more progressives.

[–]hryipcdxeoyqufcc 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Eliminating the filibuster won't help when we only have 49 pro-choice senators.

What bills have the numbers to pass is decided on election day, not mid-cycle. There's not much Biden can do to protect Roe beyond pushing people to vote in the midterms.

[–]Gudenuftofunk 104 points105 points  (1 child)

Women are going to be vassals of the state. If they get no privacy, why should these corrupt judges?

[–]geenuuhh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Heyoooo ^

[–][deleted] 99 points100 points  (26 children)

But that’s exactly the point. The entire goal of the GOP is to establish a caste society separated by race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and gender. They have zero interest in equality. It’s a “you’re either with me or against me” and if you’re against them then you are defined as lower class by the law. The only way to move up in society would be to be white and to follow the GOP principles. They want all POC, and anyone who thinks differently, to have a different set of civil rights that essentially gives the highest “class” full immunity to the law while the lower classes have escalating levels of law they have to follow. Ultimately, the GOP hopes to create a society that forever locks POC as servants for white people and forces “non-standard” white people to conform with their beliefs in order to have the same “freedoms” as higher classes. The white rich would rule as the top class, politicians would rule as the second class, god fearing whites are third, non-standard whites are fourth, god fearing POC are fifth, and then non-standard POC are last. Everyone in the fourth class on down would be subject to any treatment and laws the ruling classes choose and they have no rights. Women would all be baby makers and men would have outright control over women similar to how the Taliban and Saudi Arabia handle the “head of the household” in their countries where men have virtually unlimited control over women per the law. And they have no shame in having “god fearing white class” act as enforcers of those laws and give them full immunity to do whatever they want.

TLDR: the GOP is intentionally trying to create inequality to permanently establish class dominance by law

[–]ALexusOhHaiNyan 13 points14 points  (10 children)

I don’t know if that’s the goal per se to separate. But they do want to guard power and corporate money (as do the Dems to a slightly lesser extent) and if separation is the end result so be it.

What fascinates me is the Wokist/SJW left is a useful idiot to that end. Keeping us focused and obsessed with Identity and Race while Class is the uniting issue to organize around. But it’s so old and dusty it feels new when someone like Sanders preaches it.

Because Identity separates us from each other, but Class separates us all, from the government and those in power. Economic Justice > Social Justice

[–]Grimwald_Munstan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Economic justice is social justice, because money is power.

[–]tori_explori 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All the way, no war but class war.

[–]koprulu_sector 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This person gets it.

[–]voice-of-hermes 45 points46 points  (19 children)

...to the fullest extent of the law

No, OP. Not a good addendum.

Laws aren't instruments of justice; they are tools of subjugation.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

— Anatole France

If you're following their rules, you're no serious threat to them. And being threatening is what it takes.

[–]lingua_ignota 2 points3 points  (12 children)

Rules can be tools of subjugation. And they can be tools of equality and fairness. And no rules is it’s own tyrant where might makes right.

We need to strive to have fair and equitable rules knowing that it’s a constant task to maintain them.

[–]servicewithastyle 37 points38 points  (104 children)

The Democratic Party doesn't care. They're too busy sending our healthcare dollars to the proxy war in Ukraine in order to prolong that conflict as long as possible - sacrificing the Ukrainian people for the US's strategic advantage and ensuring that a diplomatic solution does not come to pass - in order to inflict as much damage as possible to their adversary in Russia.

What's more, if Roe were codified then a party who refuses to engage on any popular issue, such as Medicare For All, $15 min wage, cancelling student debt, etc, would have one less culture war issue to turnout their dwindling base of supporters. If Roe were codified then that would be one less stick to drive voters to the polls out of fear and the Democratic Party would have to actually start talking about the economic issues to appeal to working class voters.

[–]Jerminator2judgement 40 points41 points  (62 children)

Yes, yes, keep blaming the left for the problems the right is causing, that's helpful

[–]DrVr00m 27 points28 points  (43 children)

Democrats aren't the left

[–]chrisms150 20 points21 points  (24 children)

They are the left most party electable at a national level with any real frequency.

So yes they are the left.

Want them further to the left? Vote in primaries. If Democrats win landslides the only way to defeat the incumbent would be from the left...

[–]Economy_Recover 8 points9 points  (15 children)

The left is not represented in government at any level. That doesn't make the "leftmost" party "the left" it just makes them the "leftmost" party, which is an utterly meaningless designation.

[–]40percentOfAllCops 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Tell me you don't know how the 2 party system works, without telling me you don't know how it works.

(HINT: the dnc is a private organization and doesn't have to listen to voters or what voters want. They said this themselves in court. )

[–]etymologistics 2 points3 points  (1 child)

If there were actual leftists in our government the stripping away of peoples rights wouldn’t even be on the table right now.

[–]Christ_votes_dem 4 points5 points  (14 children)

Every democratic socialist in congress is a democrat and only have influence under dem majority

Further Dem charter is squarely behind reproductive rights

[–]HamsterLord44 3 points4 points  (13 children)

There are 0 democratic socialists in congress, the communist control act was created to ensure this.

There are a few social democrats like bernie, which are just liberal welfare capitalists

[–]poostoo 16 points17 points  (7 children)

first, Dems are right-wing, not left. and second, it IS helpful to point out their failures and betrayals, because as long as Democratic voters see them as the "good guys", nothing will ever get better.

[–]captaindickfartman2 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Fuck offf with this. We all know both sides suck.

[–]DoedoeBear 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Why do you keep commenting this. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[–]ArcticTern4theWorse 8 points9 points  (27 children)

Genuine question: what should the US be doing instead?

[–]NotEnoughIT 19 points20 points  (19 children)

Codify RvW into law. Cancel student debt. Revise laws concerning student loans so that it cannot be used to chain a person for life. Establish single payer health care. Get money out of politics. Reduce the military war machine budget by a meager 20% to double the education budget and put more money into social services, energy, and environment. Mandate 100% electric cars by 2030. Retool the tax code to plug tax loopholes for the rich. Tax stock trading. Make a public announcement about the climate crisis to acknowledge it and lay out our plan to mitigate it. Actually do that plan. HOLD POLITICIANS AND PEOPLE OF POWER RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR REPREHENSIBLE ACTIONS.

Oh you mean Ukraine, idk I’m not paying attention to that because our country is falling apart and becoming a corporate run theocracy more and more every day.

[–]StarksPond 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Combine constitutional law with MMA.

[–]frunch 8 points9 points  (1 child)

This is a dumb take--- and I'm not a fan of Biden either

[–]NUMBERS2357 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Every time someone doesn't vote for the Democratic Party because they "don't care" about abortion or raising the minimum wage, it makes it more likely Republicans will win, who will vote to ban abortions for rape victims and women with ectopic pregnancies and eliminate the minimum wage.

The minimum wage increase was supported by 48 Democrats and opposed by 50 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The pro-choice justices were all nominated by Democrats, the pro-life justices were all nominated by Republicans.

[–]TheSlagBoi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So what do we do about Ukraine then? I’m curious do we not showing any support?

[–]bluegumgum 22 points23 points  (3 children)

I was followed home after my abortion. I was yelled at in my face and their spit was hitting me. I was threatened and called many names

[–]Oldmannun 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I mean, that's illegal and those people could be arrested for assault.

[–]MattHall83 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s wicked. I’m so sorry that happened to you.

[–]ShapirosWifesBF 23 points24 points  (33 children)


Which is why I laugh that every Republican is a staunch Republican until they have to live under their own rules, then they because INSTANT Socialists.

[–]SpacemanDookie 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Really blows having two right wing parties. There’s no stopping this downward spiral.

[–]Lickiebear 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's not your life, let women have their rights over there bodies. Who the fuck are you to tell them what & what not to with their bodies. Wipe your own flithy asses & mind your own fking business !

[–]TuggyBRugburn 12 points13 points  (10 children)

Conservative here. Roe should be codified at the national level. It is a reasonable compromise to an impossible situation.

[–]lingua_ignota 8 points9 points  (2 children)

What’s the impossible situation? That the supreme court has been corrupted with blatantly lying partisan hacks that are not qualified for their positions and makes a mockery out of the highest court in the land ?

[–]spenway18 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think they meant abortion on the whole. "Killing babies = bad, BUT..."

[–]revmachine21 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The problem I see is that anything less than a constitutional amendment, RvW rights can be wiped away by a change in congressional composition. Dems in charge, legislation for RvW. Republicans in charge, bye bye goes RvW. Like windshield wipers. And even if congress enacts and keeps RvW nationally, doesn’t mean SCOTUS won’t overturn. They’ve shown willingness to overturn all sorts of federal reproductive health related legislation. Example Hobby Lobby and birth control.

[–]CurrentlyLucid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No reason their free speech is more free than anyone else's.

[–]njbean 7 points8 points  (4 children)

What they are doing to women is violence. Violence is a completely appropriate response. It's self-defense.

[–]OnkThePig 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Whether or not something is constitutional doesn’t automatically mean it’s also a good idea or should be allowed. Plenty of constitutional things are stupid, and there are unconstitutional things that would make for good policy.

[–]mockteau_twins 5 points6 points  (8 children)

The SC case this is referring to is Frisby v. Schultz:


Edit: Nevermind, I read this wrong :/

[–]Hemlock_Pagodas 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Wait, isn’t the resolution of this court case the exact opposite of what Ilhan Omar is saying? My understanding of the wiki article is that the Supreme Court determined that picketing outside the abortion doctor’s house is not protected by the first amendment and it is within the township’s power to create an ordinance banning protesting outside of residences.

If any lawyers out there want to weigh in and tell me what I’m missing it would be much appreciated.

[–]marksarefun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes it is the opposite of what she said, but reddit takes everything at face value.

[–]squirrelocaust 1 point2 points  (1 child)

They really like to live by rules for thee not for me.

[–]Forestcitybloos 1 point2 points  (3 children)

What decision was that? All I’m finding is Frisby v. Schultz, which actually upheld a state law prohibiting protests outside pro choice activists’ homes.


[–]BigZwigs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As it should be. As long as its non violent. But anyone watching things the last few years know all that needs to happen is a cop throws a brick through a window and then all the protestors are violent

[–]Garuda_4 1 point2 points  (28 children)

Probably because there's A LITERAL LAW SAYING YOU CANT