Politics isn’t sportsball, so no. Breaking arbitrary stats doesn’t mean shit in terms of making material changes in the world, which is what politics is about.
the same way thurmond did it; you secure the votes behinds the scenes and then throw a filibuster when it’s time to vote to turn up the pain; not when there’s nothing on the table and no one around like booker did it.
I guess I’m just a little more cynical and you’re just a little more idealistic. If you review this thread, and the many other threads posted about this speech, in full you’ll see I’m not the only one who feels like this is bare minimum effort from Democrat leadership. Agree to disagree.
deleted by creator
Politics isn’t sportsball, so no. Breaking arbitrary stats doesn’t mean shit in terms of making material changes in the world, which is what politics is about.
deleted by creator
It is not unreasonable to ask why he didn’t use the filibuster to block actual legislation, instead of just I terupting procedure.
deleted by creator
It’s better than nothing. But that’s all it achieved.
deleted by creator
they elected oz in the very next session; using a filibuster to prevent his confirmation is how you use a filibuster effectively.
deleted by creator
the same way thurmond did it; you secure the votes behinds the scenes and then throw a filibuster when it’s time to vote to turn up the pain; not when there’s nothing on the table and no one around like booker did it.
deleted by creator
They shook hands and unanimously approved (booker too) more weapons for the genocide immediately after the performance.
I guess I’m just a little more cynical and you’re just a little more idealistic. If you review this thread, and the many other threads posted about this speech, in full you’ll see I’m not the only one who feels like this is bare minimum effort from Democrat leadership. Agree to disagree.
Best summation yet.