I don’t know that Republicans have ever had a 60 vote majority in the Senate. You need 60 votes to make fundamental changes to the system that the opposition will not support. Things like constitutional amendments.
Sure. But we need to come back to the original question. Why do Democrats need 60 votes to fix something that Republicans didn’t need 60 votes to destroy?
Yes, it takes time to rehire people and rebuild institutional knowledge. But again, let’s get back to the topic at hand. What the hell does that have to do with a 60 vote threshold?
Republicans can destroy a department by zeroing out the budget and firing everyone with a simple majority. Democrats can rebuild it just by refunding it with a simple majority. Obviously it is harder to build than to destroy, but that’s an irrelevant platitude here.
The problem is Democrats often refuse to rebuild things that Republicans destroy, and then folks like you defend them saying that it’s because they never have enough votes. They just need more power, and they’ll be able to solve it, there won’t be a rotating villain of the week this time, we promise!
Without a 60 vote threshold, non-financial bills can be filibustered and blocked. Financial stuff can still be passed through reconciliation, but it’s a much narrower scope.
With a filibuster-proof majority we can pass things like a new voting rights bill, expanding the supreme court, limits on presidential power. We can block the right from taking power undemocratically and strip away the power they have already seized. This is how we fight fascism head on.
You’re deflecting again. We’re not talking about improving things. The discussion is about why Democrats don’t lift a finger to reverse the things Republicans do, and you’re off waxing poetically about dream projects the Party is unlikely to achieve. Try to stay on topic please.
Just because you don’t agree with what I am saying doesn’t mean I am deflecting. Bush wrecked things with No Child Left Behind and Obama fixed a lot of things with ESSA. Did he fix everything? No, because that’s not a realistic expectation. NCLB didn’t cause all the problems of the education system either. Expecting one bill to fix everything is absurd.
Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement after Trump left it. Biden expanded the ACA, raising coverage and lowering prices, after Trump weakened it. Biden reversed Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO. Biden ended travel restriction enacted by Trump on Muslim countries. Hell, pretty much all of Biden’s presidency was undoing what the Republicans did.
I don’t know that Republicans have ever had a 60 vote majority in the Senate. You need 60 votes to make fundamental changes to the system that the opposition will not support. Things like constitutional amendments.
If you don’t even know the vote threshold required for a constitutional amendment, maybe don’t speculate on paths to political change…
I know you need 2/3. 60 votes isn’t the cap. It still allows wide systemic change, but 2/3 makes it more durable.
Sure. But we need to come back to the original question. Why do Democrats need 60 votes to fix something that Republicans didn’t need 60 votes to destroy?
Because it’s always easier to destroy than to build. It takes months to build a house, but one can be torn down in a day. That’s just life.
Yes, it takes time to rehire people and rebuild institutional knowledge. But again, let’s get back to the topic at hand. What the hell does that have to do with a 60 vote threshold?
Republicans can destroy a department by zeroing out the budget and firing everyone with a simple majority. Democrats can rebuild it just by refunding it with a simple majority. Obviously it is harder to build than to destroy, but that’s an irrelevant platitude here.
The problem is Democrats often refuse to rebuild things that Republicans destroy, and then folks like you defend them saying that it’s because they never have enough votes. They just need more power, and they’ll be able to solve it, there won’t be a rotating villain of the week this time, we promise!
Without a 60 vote threshold, non-financial bills can be filibustered and blocked. Financial stuff can still be passed through reconciliation, but it’s a much narrower scope.
With a filibuster-proof majority we can pass things like a new voting rights bill, expanding the supreme court, limits on presidential power. We can block the right from taking power undemocratically and strip away the power they have already seized. This is how we fight fascism head on.
You’re deflecting again. We’re not talking about improving things. The discussion is about why Democrats don’t lift a finger to reverse the things Republicans do, and you’re off waxing poetically about dream projects the Party is unlikely to achieve. Try to stay on topic please.
Just because you don’t agree with what I am saying doesn’t mean I am deflecting. Bush wrecked things with No Child Left Behind and Obama fixed a lot of things with ESSA. Did he fix everything? No, because that’s not a realistic expectation. NCLB didn’t cause all the problems of the education system either. Expecting one bill to fix everything is absurd.
Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement after Trump left it. Biden expanded the ACA, raising coverage and lowering prices, after Trump weakened it. Biden reversed Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO. Biden ended travel restriction enacted by Trump on Muslim countries. Hell, pretty much all of Biden’s presidency was undoing what the Republicans did.