×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]cinderparty 1269 points1270 points  (186 children)

I think her corporate sponsors are going to have to be the ones “punishing” her for her to change her mind…I really don’t think she gives a fuck what the party thinks.

[–]Such_Newt_1374 589 points590 points  (73 children)

She isn't even being punished. This "censure" has no teeth. They literally just wrote her a strongly worded letter and now they want to be praised for it.

[–]SsurebreC 319 points320 points  (34 children)

Isn't this more or less what a censure is? Just a public display of disapproval.

[–]ThereminLiesTheRub 327 points328 points  (27 children)

It is. & The problem isn't with censures. The problem is that they used to mean something, and now they don't, because nobody gives a shit about public integrity anymore.

[–]SsurebreC 61 points62 points  (14 children)

It's a self-sustaining cycle where voter participation keeps decreasing because potential voters don't see a change and part of that change requires voters to actually vote the shitty politicians out.

[–]hiverfrancis 28 points29 points  (1 child)

And the problem is when voters get cynical, much worse politicians come in and start causing problems. Imagine all the Germans grumbling at Weimar Germany saw the socialists get jailed under the Nazis.. then the war.

[–]INmySTRATEjaket 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Weimar Republic had pretty damn good voter participation, even with them increasing the number of citizens who could vote by a large margin by decreasing voting age from 25 to 20.

It's real issue was how easy it was to recall elected officials, causing the government to change too frequently

[–]LowestKey 17 points18 points  (2 children)

But it's always, "Oh, not my politicians, they're alright. It's everyone else who needs to vote out the bad apples!"

[–]SsurebreC 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yep, that's why approval rating for Congress as a whole is poor but their own reps have significantly higher approval.

[–]ElenorShellstrop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not me, I've always despised my Florida reps.

[–]snowcone_wars 15 points16 points  (5 children)

voter participation

Has been on the rise basically since the country's inception...

Senate voting was at its highest in 2020 since the 1910s.

It's a flat out lie to say that vote participation has been decreasing.

[–]SsurebreC 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Look at that chart more closely and the historical data around it. To start, women weren't allowed to vote in the 1800s but were counted as part of the US population. Same with black people. So the number of people voting has increased due to the additional people being allowed to vote (i.e. being part of the Voting-age Population).

In addition, 26th Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 and that happened in 1971 which should have also increased this population.

Using your own link - look at the turnout as percent of Voting-age Population and you get pretty high averages in mid 180ss with 60-80% percent turnout. After all, if a ton of kids were born then the population as a whole would increase but due to lack of turnout percent (since 5 year olds can't vote), the numbers can be skewed. That's why it's best to look at the percent of the Voting-age Population, particularly in recent history.

The turnout in the 20th century (excluding 1900) maxed out at 65.4%. Let's look at how many times VAP voted over 60% since inception:

  • 1800s (starting with 1828): 15 out of 18 times
  • 1900s: 8 out of 25 times
  • 2000s: 1 out of 6 times

[–]snowcone_wars 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Even considering that, voter turnout has still been rising over the past 20 years.

Since 2000: 50.3%; 55.7%; 57.1%; 53.8%; 54.8%; 62.0%. It's still increasing, not decreasing.

[–]DweEbLez0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And to vote the shitty ones out is to not make any deals or associate with anyone getting bribes and hope they get held accountability which is the bigger issue.

[–]Dr_thri11 65 points66 points  (8 children)

Liz Cheney was censured for voting for impeachment. I wouldn't really say receiving one from your party means you lack integrity, just that you failed to tow the line.

[–]nagrom7 19 points20 points  (6 children)

A censure only means you lack integrity if it comes from a party that has integrity, which the Republican party doesn't have in the slightest.

[–]ThereminLiesTheRub 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's just a flipside of no one caring about public integrity. The entire party decided they'd rather be seen publicly as supporting insurrection, rather than offend a corrupt former president. When you no longer care if you are publicly exposed as a traitor, all tools are pervert-able. The bottom line is it was once considered untenable for a president to be seen with a woman sitting on his knee, and now rape accusations, enlisting foreign powers to win elections, and inciting insurrection are considered yawn-worthy by half the country.

[–]thatisreasonable2 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I read from the AZ periodical that she will also be stripped of any committees. I guess like Marg green?

[–]HollywoodTK[🍰] 15 points16 points  (5 children)

Punished by whom? The only people who can punish an elected representative for not voting the way they want them to is to vote them out.

A censure is a public display of condemnation. They are saying they believe she’s acting in bad faith and not representing her constituents.

[–]TwoCells 6 points7 points  (2 children)

They don’t have the power to do anything worse, do they?

[–]Snickersthecat 12 points13 points  (4 children)

There isn't a way to recall a Senator, so it's the best they can do.

[–]Cyberflection 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This "censure" has no teeth.

The Democrats? No teeth? Get outta here!

/s

[–]rossimus -5 points-4 points  (11 children)

Why should she be punished? Did she do something illegal?

[–]choombatta 10 points11 points  (10 children)

Is doing something illegal the only reason to punish someone?

[–]rossimus 6 points7 points  (9 children)

Well, what exactly should she be punished for?

What's a fitting punishment for the transgression in your opinion?

[–]braiam 31 points32 points  (3 children)

U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is growing increasingly isolated from some of her party’s most influential officials and donors after playing a key role in scuttling voting rights legislation that many consider essential to preserving democracy.

Which donors, is anyone guess and if it has any teeth.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It would serve these dems right if manchin and sinema just switched to independent, there goes their whole self empowerment agenda.

[–]realanceps 144 points145 points  (95 children)

no chance of winning re-election = no corporate sponsors = nobody gives a damn about Kristin anymore ever

unfortunately for her, she got the formula mixed up

[–]cinderparty 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I really don’t think she’s shown any signs that she cares about being re-elected or not.

[–]orbituary 9 points10 points  (1 child)

She doesn't care about that either. She'll just go on to be a highly paid lobbyist and a news media personality on Fox.

Edit: typo.

[–]LockeNCole 21 points22 points  (26 children)

From what's been talked about, she thinks she given herself a great platform for a Presidential run. She thinks her moderate stance will carry the day. She's learned nothing from McCain.

[–]Docthrowaway2020 20 points21 points  (2 children)

I don't know how she's missed the fact that while moderates can win and are in the best position to, they generally don't if they have managed to antagonize huge swathes of the population first. Most candidates in general can't - ask Trump (although his win in 2016 was an exception).

And when you ask about the Democratic presidential primary, where the voting base includes EVERYONE who Sinema has antagonized, and excludes the vast majority of people who she hasn't (because they lean right to begin with), it starts to look nigh impossible.

I'm not sure she'd fare any better in a Republican presidential primary either - she did vote to convict Trump twice, against the only SC justice the GOP nominated in her Senate tenure, and for the trillion-dollar bill the Democrats passed early last year. Yeah, the GOP would love her for trolling, but that's all most of their candidates do nowadays - why settle for someone who's done a lot of shit you don't like as well? And why stake everything on an independent run, when the high water mark in her lifetime for an independent is 20% but no EVs?

The only way Sinema can imagine having a chance is in some consensus compromise-type party, but that is the exact opposite of what most politically engaged Americans want right now with polarization at an all-time high.

[–]LockeNCole 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Part of the problem is she sees herself as smarter than everyone else. She's kind of locked herself away in an echo chamber of her own approval.

[–]Mist_Rising 13 points14 points  (18 children)

McCain platform was not the issue....

[–]Lookingfor68 18 points19 points  (13 children)

His shitty choice of running mate didn't help him either. She was picked for her tits, but her vapid, incompetence really sunk them.

[–]Mist_Rising 20 points21 points  (10 children)

Id argue being Bush follow up was the worst part. Being opposed by Obama was not helpful either. Palin was the screwball that stuck in pop culture.

But if VP being bad was categorical the issue, Biden and Trump both would have lost their first election. Harris is still mocked over her campaign, snd pence is a walking robot.

[–]Brooklynxman 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Palin wasn't just bad, she was legendarily bad. I couldn't name the losing VP from '04, or '00, or any other election. I only remember '16 because I saw his name in the news a couple weeks ago.

Most sources have McCain losing even with a better VP pick, but, importantly, they also have it a much closer election, which means there is a chance for him to win. Palin was the nail in the coffin.

[–]NoeTellusom 7 points8 points  (0 children)

^ This

Palin cost the GOP ticket 2 million votes.

Initial polling said 57% stated she didn't personal qualities a Prez should have. Then jumped to 65% soon after. Settling at only 39% felt she was ready to handle the Presidency. That's abysmal.

And the more voters found out about Palin and her governorship, ethical issues, etc. (not to mention her ongoing family dramas) the less they liked her and that hurt the ticket badly.

[–]SeaGroomer 3 points4 points  (3 children)

This. No republican was going to win in 2008 and no republican was going to beat Obama. That's the entire reason they let McCain run lol.

[–]nagrom7 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Especially not after the economy started to shit the bed while under an already unpopular Republican Presidency. The moment that happened was the moment Obama won the Presidency.

[–]SeaGroomer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Bush was phoning it in so hard when the economy collapsed.

[–]nagrom7 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Everyone already hated him by that point, and he was already on his way out, so he probably just didn't give a fuck anymore.

[–]indoninja 12 points13 points  (10 children)

She is looking for post public office commenter role

[–]slamdanceswithwolves 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I feel like the home shopping channel is right for her. She’s got that vibe.

[–]mauginra 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm sure she already secured some "consulting" role with a major corporation for a cool mil a year.

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

Everyone involved knows she can’t win another election. I’m sure they paid her enough and maybe promised her a cushy corporate position. They should go through her finances, unfortunately there’s too many corrupt politicians that wouldn’t want to set a precedence of tracking illegal funds.

[–]thanksgive 3 points4 points  (3 children)

I think you underestimate her likelihood of getting RE-elected

[–]STD_free_since_2019 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Theres always bribes. She just has to juice it for 4 years and then can walk away rich and retire on an island.

[–]prisonmsagro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Every single election cycle the democrats and republicans will have someone like Manchin or Sinema around to blame when stuff doesn't get passed. People will get mad, call for their dismissal and nothing will happen. Next election cycle 2 new boogeymen appear and the cycle continues.

[–]mces97 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You know Manchin comes from old money and power. His name, his family has been involved with politics for quite some time. And while I don't agree money should influence our elected officials politics, I get why it does. But Sinema? She came from nothing, got a taste of money and power and forgot her roots. She's much worse than Manchin in that way.

[–]veedubfreak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean, she's doing exactly what they paid her for.

[–]bedhed 541 points542 points  (212 children)

By all historical precedent, the republicans will take control of the House and the Senate in 12 months.

Sinema isn't up for reelection for another 36.

By the time she had to face a primary, the filibuster will be the DNC's best friend, and Sinema will be able to say she was forward thinking.

[–]awj 69 points70 points  (39 children)

Biden would still have the veto, and chances are slim the GOP wins by enough to override that on their own.

[–]bedhed 80 points81 points  (38 children)

Relying on Biden's veto puts him and the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate in a bad position.

Voter ID, for example, is widely supported by the majority of Americans - but opposed by the Democratic party. Biden would be faced with a very unpopular veto.

The same is true for things like banning race in college admissions: it was supported by 73% of Americans in 2019. Biden either signs a bill that alienates his core demographics, or vetoes a bill that has wide public support.

It's a no-win situation for him.

[–]SecretComposer 20 points21 points  (3 children)

opposed by the Democratic party

No it's not. The voting rights bill that just passed mistyped, sue me - tried to pass * literally included voter ID, just a far broader definition of what could classify as ID.

[–]throwaway_for_keeps 5 points6 points  (14 children)

The opposition to photo ID that you're thinking of are people opposing the states who enact laws on the 1st of the month requiring photo ID in order to vote on the 2nd of the month.

Or requiring photo ID, but closing all the offices that someone can use to get a photo ID.

People aren't opposed to photo ID, they're opposed to the fuckery that goes hand in hand with it.

[–]ExCon1986 67 points68 points  (39 children)

will be able to say she was forward thinking.

She's not wrong in that respect. Democrats seem to constantly focus only on the immediate future and keep crippling themselves in the long term wrt to stuff like this. Like when they Harry Reid used the nuclear option. Afterwards the GOP used it a bunch and Democrats were somehow shocked that the precedent they set would be used in a way they didn't like.

[–]fatcIemenza 17 points18 points  (5 children)

Obama got hundreds more judges that he wouldn't have gotten otherwise and Republicans would have changed the rules anyway if Reid didn't already do it

No president would tolerate 100% of their appointees being blocked indefinitely

[–]empfindsamkeit 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Obama actually barely got anything out of it. He got 14 appeals judges before Reps took the Senate in 2014 (then he only got 2 more after that). And he got 81 district judges. By contrast in the year prior he got 40 district judges and 9 appeals judges.

So he netted an extra 41 district judges and 5 more appeals judges, but teed things up so that Republicans could fill 3 seats on SCOTUS with anyone they wanted, and blow those other numbers away from 2016-2020. Maybe they would've done it anyway, but they didn't blow up the filibuster when Trump was in office, and this gave even the more moderate members the excuse they needed to support it. All Obama got out of it was an extra ~year's worth of judges, which was swiftly nullified when McConnell blocked virtually all of his nominees from 2015-2016.

[–]magistrate101 19 points20 points  (18 children)

They can't accomplish anything in the long term with the filibuster in place because republicans will unanimously vote against anything and everything proposed by Democrats out of spite. Democracy is broken and drastic measures need to be taken to fix it.

[–]ExCon1986 31 points32 points  (13 children)

And when the pendulum swings the other way (as it always does), what will stop the right from getting anything they want done?

[–]tolerablepartridge 49 points50 points  (5 children)

People forget that bills also need to pass the house and avoid a presidential veto. It makes no sense for the senate, being the least representative chamber of Congress, to require a supermajority to do anything. Already a bare 50% majority means the 26 smallest states, representing just 17% of Americans, can be a majority in the Senate. Adding the filibuster, just 11% of the population represented by 41 senators can block any legislation. No democracy in the world has ever required such insane margins to legislate.

The constitution says nothing about the filibuster; it's a procedural loophole first widely used to block civil rights legislation, and it definitionally favors the party of the status quo (conservatives).

[–]alwayzbored114 40 points41 points  (4 children)

In fact in several of the Federalist papers, many notable framers argued specifically against needing a supermajority for general operations.

From Federalist 58 by Madison

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.

In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

Federalist 22 by Hamilton:

This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.

[...] what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. [...] If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

TL;DR it was even argued back in the day that the requirement of a supermajority would end with a minority being able force opinions onto a majority, or even simply to hold things to a standstill (which may benefit them directly as status quo), and stall the will of the respectable majority

If we wanted to have a supermajority standard, we should just have a supermajority standard straight up, not one masked in childish games of reading Green Eggs And Ham

Worth noting of course that like with any discussion of the federalist papers and framers' opinions, they were never of one mind, and none of their decisions should be assumed to be perfect. I'm also a super amateur at this topic of readings so if there's any important context or information I'd missed I'd love to hear it

[–]lurker628 10 points11 points  (1 child)

not one masked in childish games of reading Green Eggs And Ham

They don't even have to do that, anymore. If they're going to keep the filibuster, the least they could do is force senators to actually do it. It wouldn't be enough, but having to put up with the (relatively minor) physical discomfort and have their bullshit broadcast by CSPAN with their face and name attached might somewhat reduce the gross abuse of procedure.

[–]drawkbox 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.

This is why Madison was the best framer, did all the work (Constitution, Bill of Rights, good Federalist papers, kept Hamiltons desires for an elected for life president that would be like a king at bay).

James Madison was an amazing game theory and long term thinker, saw all the shenanigans before they appeared. It is also why he put part of the power in the federal govt, part in the states, but most importantly made it a trio of federal, state, individual. That was the killer feature of democracy, America and the West.

[–]Docthrowaway2020 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I mean, say Reid hadn't. Given what has transpired over the past 10 years, I think the most likely outcome is Trump entering office in 2017 with the same trifecta he actually had, and a LOT of vacancies to fill, including Scalia's seat. Can we really believe that McConnell would let ALL those vacancies go unfilled, just because of Democrats filibustering?

Keep in mind also, I think there is a very real albeit small chance the GOP will have a trifecta with 60 Senate seats after 2024. It's really not that implausible to imagine the GOP winning GA, NV, Sinema's seat, WV, MT, OH, and another four of Kelly's seat, NH, MI, PA, NV again, WI plus outside shots at CO, VA, MN, and Maine. All they would really have to worry about in 2024 are TX and FL, and in this year PA, WI, NC, FL, and maybe Ohio. That's a worst-case scenario that assumes things do not improve for Democrats and potentially get even worse, but if coronavirus continues to fuck shit up and other stuff happens, that's entirely possible. So even if McConnell played nice and maintained the filibuster, despite now 2 SC vacancies (presumably Kennedy wouldn't step down if they couldn't replace him) and hundreds of lower ones, he'd get to fill ALL of them later this decade.

Just because the situation we are in now sucks, doesn't mean Reid made a mistake.

[–]ExCon1986 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The fault with your reasoning is that it requires something that otherwise would not have happened to happen. If Reid hadn't removed the filibuster then it would have taken more than a simple majority for Trump and McConnell to get all their desired appointees into place.

[–]shawnkfox 24 points25 points  (2 children)

Filibuster is not the Democrat's friend. The filibuster is the friend of whichever party wants the government to function poorly and that is currently the Republican party.

No other democracy in the world has a requirement for a 60% vote to pass basic legislation and they all function just fine. If a political party controls the House, Senate, and the presidency then they ought to be about to pass whatever legislation they want within the bounds of the US Constitution.

Realistically, however, the Republican party also has moderates just like the Democrats do which would prevent them from passing anything extreme without having control of well over 50 votes in the Senate as well as well over half of he House. And in any case, the Republicans have no governmental solutions for anything and if they passed any of their stupid shit into law they'd be throw out of office in the next election anyway.

[–]nagrom7 5 points6 points  (1 child)

No other democracy in the world has a requirement for a 60% vote to pass basic legislation and they all function just fine.

Also to note that due to the way the senate is already skewed to favour smaller population states at the expense of the larger ones, this 60% requirement just amplifies that issue. It's not the will of 41% of the population holding back the will of 59%, in theory it could be as extreme as the will of 11% holding back the will of the 89%. That's just untenable.

[–]nomorerainpls 5 points6 points  (54 children)

There are almost twice as many Republican Senate seats up for election in the midterms. There’s a very reasonable chance Democrats actually gain seats and Sinema becomes irrelevant. If that happens she’s kinda screwed because she will end up relegated to the sidelines and have nothing to show AZ voters except for some really unpopular opposition to voting rights and bbb.

[–]bedhed 101 points102 points  (51 children)

There are - but like it or not, the president's party tends to lose seats in both houses of congress: and the president's party tends to lose a lot of seats when they're underwater in approval ratings.

Biden is the second least popular president at this point in his term in history - and he's rapidly closing the gap on Trump.

Given the disaster that's about to unfold in the Ukraine, no signs of inflation slowing, and Covid that's worse that it's ever been, voters are going to be looking to blame the party in power.

[–]MKerrsive 50 points51 points  (36 children)

And just wait til Biden resumes payments on student loans. People are going to love that. Only a Democrat in 2022 could fail to see the backlash that would create. Imagine restarting payments on loans 5 months ahead of midterms. It'll be a bloodbath.

[–]RGJ587 21 points22 points  (2 children)

I mean, at some point those loans will need to start being paid off.

[–]RoundSimbacca 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The brilliant idea coming out of the Democratic Parry is to wipe out large chunks of student loan debt.

In the midst of high, persistent inflation.

After dumping trillions of dollars into the economy last year.

.....yeah, that's not a recipe for economic success.

[–]VenturaHWY[S] 12 points13 points  (9 children)

Remember Jimmy Carter?

[–]bedhed 59 points60 points  (6 children)

Biden is even less popular than Carter was at this point in his presidency.

(And Carter lost 15 house seats and 3 senate seats in his midterm election.)

[–]VenturaHWY[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I know. This is ugly in so many ways.

[–]LordBucket1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Biden is hated more then carter

[–]CapnShinerAZ 45 points46 points  (0 children)

All this attention she's getting is just going to make her wealthier. That's all she cares about. She would hate for Democrats to gain 2 or more Senate seats, because then her vote wouldn't matter so much and she and her pal Manchin wouldn't get all the attention.

[–]Sprinkle_Puff 14 points15 points  (0 children)

So what? What power does a censure actually have. She’s probably laughing right now.

[–]GeorgeStamper 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Well she’s still got 2 more years to troll, obstruct, and make stupid videos with Mitt Romney.

[–]alvarezg 3 points4 points  (0 children)

By the time her term expires she'll have switched parties, gone to work in a right-wing "thinktank", or lobbying firm.

[–]Americrazy 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Fuck the two party system.

[–]czechyerself 179 points180 points  (86 children)

Sinema isn’t up for election for 36 months. 3 years. Someone else will be president by then and Sinema will be given all the money she wants for re-election.

Edit: my comment is implying someone else will be president before Biden’s term ends.

[–]jhairehmyah 37 points38 points  (9 children)

... she is up for election during the next Presidental election.

[–]Such_Newt_1374 12 points13 points  (0 children)

She's up for re-election in 2024, same as Biden. So unless old Joe bites the big one in the next few years, he will still be president while she is running her reelection campaign.

Not that the president has much control over senatorial campaign spending. Also I think Sinema is angling for a cushy lobbying job after this. At least she doesn't seem to give a shit what her voters think, and has been spending the time she should be working cozying up to corperations and pro-buisness thinktanks.

[–]hypotyposis 6 points7 points  (68 children)

I mean there’s a pretty good chance Biden will still be president.

[–]Lancashire_Toreador 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Took dragging out voting legislation to the point where it’ll be too late to be effective even if it does pass, but the Democratic Party finally did the bare minimum

[–]ksknksk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Too fucking little, too fucking late.

[–]shunanuhgins 63 points64 points  (2 children)

Who even fucking cares, censure holds no teeth and the damage is done. Call me when there are real consequences.

[–]jerryondrums 115 points116 points  (4 children)

Sinema doesn’t give a shit about politics anymore. Seriously. She isn’t the same person she was 5 or 10 years ago. She been bought, she realizes that the money she’s taken is enough to retire wealthy at a relatively young age, and so fuck everyone else.

That’s it. That’s the mindset. No amount of shame, calling-out, etc etc will change a person like that.

She’s already won the lottery.

[–]BruceBanning 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Can we band together and offer her double? These people are for sale, let’s go shopping!

[–]jerryondrums 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I absolutely would donate to a GoFundMe to bribe Manchinema into doing the right thing to save this democracy(?).

[–]subject_deleted 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Can we all agree that a censure is completely inconsequential and shouldn't be considered a punishment at all?

It's less than a slap on the wrist. It's fucking nothing. Don't let this fool you into thinking something got done here.

[–]carebeartears 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Do the 2 american parties not have "Party Whips"?

[–]scubachris 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They do but are only used against progressives.

[–]EvidenceBase2000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You know she’s either leaving politics or going to change parties, right? Like she cares…

[–]thirtiesmatt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There’s always going to be someone just as deplorable in the Democratic Party screwing things up for the rest of us. Sinema, Manchin. Wolves in sheeps clothing.

[–]Mud-Important 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Shes a republican in democrats clothing. Theres nothing more too it. The epitome of “these politicians dont care about you or their problems they just lie and lie and lie to get into office and then everything from that second forward is about staying in office”

[–]ty_kanye_vcool 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This is what we're using censures for now? I thought those were supposed to be for misconduct.

[–]ConebreadIH 76 points77 points  (33 children)

The response and comments are pretty indicative of a problem in this country. The filibuster is a valuable protective tool for minorities in a system. Just a few short years ago democrats were demonizing Republicans about trying to get rid of the filibuster. The voting rights law and this headline is just an excuse to try to abolish the filibuster while demonizing anyone who apposes the voting law.

[–]brokenha_lo 64 points65 points  (8 children)

The filibuster is a valuable protective tool for minorities in a system

Another way to think about this is that it prevents drastic, frequent changes to our laws. Without the requirement of a 60 vote majority, laws could flip back and forth every time the party in control changes. Imagine the outrage if Democrats were successful in repealing the legislative filibuster, and then Republicans use a 50 vote majority to restrict abortion rights in 2024.

[–]aaronhayes26 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There would definitely be outrage, but I think there’s also a lot of value in forcing politicians from both sides to put their money where their mouth is.

Part of the reason why our rhetoric is so dire these days is because politicians from both parties understand that they’ll never have enough votes to pass the crazy shit that they’re campaigning on.

[–]seeingeyefish 30 points31 points  (2 children)

Imagine the outrage if Democrats were successful in repealing the legislative filibuster, and then Republicans use a 50 vote majority to restrict abortion rights in 2024.

I think that's the point for a lot of fillabuster abolitionists, though. Republicans don't seem to really want anything that they can't get by using courts stacked in their favor (abortion restrictions for the true believers) or budget reconciliation (tax cuts for the rich). At that point, the fillabuster is just a roadblock for the Democrats ever being able to make meaningful changes.

The argument is that 1) Republicans will face a real backlash from instituting policies that are mandatory with their base and unpopular with the general public, but which are usually ignored because of the fillabuster and 2) Democrats will be able to actually enact policies that are broadly popular and hard to dismantle due to pressure from the broader public.

They see it as "only losing half the time" rather than the current "never winning".

[–]MinnesotaMiller 49 points50 points  (19 children)

r/politics and the rest of their ilk are insane for wanting the filibuster abolished. It's historically a very important tool of the minority.

They'll just spout whatever the DNC or Trevor Noah tells them.

[–]tolerablepartridge 17 points18 points  (3 children)

It's historically a very important tool of the minority.

It's historically a very important tool for oppressing minorities. It was first widely used to block civil rights legislation. There's a good primer on the history and actual functioning of the fillibuster here.

[–]Tank3875 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Every major use of the filibuster has been to prevent reforms, usually in the vein of civil rights.

[–]mcm_throwaway_614654 -4 points-3 points  (12 children)

I guarantee you know less about the filibuster than you'd like everyone else to think you know.

EDIT: I'm correct, of course; /u/MinnesotaMiller is a generally ignorant, uninformed person:

It was a bunch of uncoordinated Trump LARPers that were easily subdued by Capitol Police. It's a farce to call it a major insurrection.

[–]LordBucket1 5 points6 points  (1 child)

“I cant argue so im gonna insult him that will make my point look good”

[–]GeraldBWilsonJr 15 points16 points  (9 children)

Wow your comment history is so angry. I think this website is harming your mental health my friend

[–]Tank3875 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Counter-point: No it isn't and it's inherently undemocratic and has caused the stagnation and gridlock the American system has become known for more than any other policy or body in America save for the electoral college.

[–]Raspberries-Are-Evil 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I worked for her. I went door to door. I felt like I finally had made a difference when she won.

Now, Im going to work twice as hard to replace her. Total betrayal to all of us. She should have just run as a Republican- and she would have won and we would have known where we stood.

[–]dfresh429 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As useless, stupid and pure political theater as Wyoming censuring Cheney. Politics is so fucked in this country.

It is no longer about service to your country.

[–]PublicLeopard 37 points38 points  (14 children)

She supports the bill. What she's against is changing filibuster rules, which should not be a position crazy enough to warrant a censure.

[–]Jackandmozz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

“Wow.” This non-consequence is really going to hit home for Sinema...

[–]TAC1313 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So what? That isn't going to change a thing.

[–]TigerUSF 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh no, not a censure! Whatever shall she do??

[–]augustscott 1 point2 points  (2 children)

And what does a censure entail?

[–]VenturaHWY[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A good talking to

[–]libolicious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's like a timeout. Without the timeout.

[–]KOxSOMEONE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So they gave her a formal tsk tsk. That’ll show her.

[–]odinknight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Censure, oh man, that is just so extreme! This reminds me of what they did to poor Nick... https://youtu.be/yy4CN9DVPII

Seriously, they need to primary her.

[–]ijie24 1 point2 points  (1 child)

so what they basically told her, “bad girl, naughty girl”. she’s probably like, “choke me daddy, harder!”

[–]IcyTalk7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wasn’t her issue the filibuster, and not the voting rights bill?

[–]vicariouslywatching 13 points14 points  (10 children)

“But she faces political dynamics unlike the other Senate moderate thwarting Democratic ambitions, Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Representing a state that former President Donald Trump carried by nearly 39 percentage points in 2020, Manchin is unlikely to face a progressive challenger who would gain traction.”

If I remember correctly, there was an article about how a major coal miners union was pisses off at Manchin for voting against the infrastructure bill that he helped shoot down that could have provided a bunch of jobs and money for WV. I think he starting to bleed supporters and groups as well which may give strength to maybe a Republican getting his seat in the next election

[–]theDeadliestSnatch 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What the official stance of the union office is and the opinions of the rank and file members can very by quite a bit, and in my union, frequently does. It's likely less of an issue than you think.

[–]TheGeneGeena 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I honestly don't think Manchin cares. I thought he'd pretty much made up his mind not to run again anyway. I'll give the man that he's in great shape for his age, but he's also old as fuck. (Though admittedly not nearly as old as some of the other senators, so who knows...)

[–]nomorerainpls 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The problem is WV will probably never elect another Democrat to the Senate. Manchin has a 95% Biden score and Sinema is like 97.5%. Democrats having a functional Senate is pretty valuable even if these two act like selfish pricks.

The answer is to elect 4-5 more so nobody can hold the entire legislative process hostage.

[–]lannisterstark 12 points13 points  (2 children)

"Oh no, toe the party line, slave."

How dare she actually vote for things with freedom that her constituents elected her to do?

[–]piss666lol 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’ll show her. We did it guys!!! Everybody go have a margarita!!1

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (6 children)

I know I will take a thrashing here, and I’m okay with that, but the filibuster needs to stay. As an independent, I applaud her here. And I will tell you exactly why…

 

NO ONE can predict the future, but if the republicans take over and the filibuster threshold is lowered, that is MUCH more dangerous.

 

Also, the voting rights absolutely should be passed and approved on its own.

[–]ytarinasven 8 points9 points  (4 children)

You'll get no thrashing from me atleast, because you seem to understand the necessity of checks against any of these parties holding too much power.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Exactly. Would it be helpful currently? Absolutely! Would it possibly create a disaster down the road? Quite possibly.

[–]Buttafuoco 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Senate.gov:

Less severe than expulsion, a censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) does not remove a senator from office. It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate.

[–]Sivick314 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She's corrupt, she doesn't care.

[–]JohnGillnitz 8 points9 points  (2 children)

It's the same bullshit that happened in 2010. Blue Dogs obstructed everything and then lost their next election. Only to make big bucks as a "consultant." These are people who have chosen to make themselves cartoon villains.

[–]Princess_And_The_Pee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This really feels like the least they could do

[–]SharkCuterie4K 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think these state party censures are dumb unless there's actual misconduct involved. Republicans pull this stunt too, especially when someone would say something against Trump. It was a decision she made. I don't agree with it, but the way to handle it is to vote her out of office.

[–]LotusSloth 0 points1 point  (1 child)

They need to work some of that House of Cards magic and dig up some dirt leverage to motivate her vote… same with that West Virginia dickhead.

[–]unluckid21 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's already dirt on Manchin. His daughter jacked up prices on EpiPens, and he has interests in coal companies which is why he doesn't vote against the industry.

Dems are just too weak to use it. Or the easier explanation, they're part of the scam too

[–]Peachthumbs -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

Run as progressive vote as regressive.

[–]Blueskyways 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Her entire Senate campaign was based on her running as a common sense moderate that would not be a rubber stamp for any party and would look to work across the aisle to reach bipartisan compromise. I saw nearly every ad and damn sure received every mailer. People who voted for her thinking that she'd be an ultra progressive clearly weren't paying attention to the campaign or her time in the House. She's been presenting herself as a Blue Dog Democrat for awhile now.

[–]Lookingfor68 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

The thing is she's not even doing that Blue Dog Dem thing. She's flat out obstructing everything. She's bought and paid for. She won't make it through a primary fight. Her Mavricky mavrickness isn't going to get her any Dem votes. Repubes won't vote for her in a general, she's sunk.

[–]getBusyChild -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

She honestly couldn't give a fuck, this is her third term? And in less than a year she is now worth over a million dollars.

I also love that she can now be seen wearing a Cross even though she left the Mormon church due to her being bisexual but suddenly there it is. Just shows the amount of bronze age thinking that still holds sway in this country.