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.
And you are the arbiter of what’s meaningful to someone else? Spout off about “sportsball” all you want, but your lack of vision for what material change this might possibly inspire in others helps nobody. Someone, somewhere out there, is fired up over this, and they’ll enact more change than this dogwater attitude ever will.
No, of course it’s not unreasonable to ask that, and I never implied that it is. It would have been incredible if he had chosen a more potent time. But that’s not what is being said, nor was it what I’m arguing against.
No, that certainly is not all it achieved. It created awareness and engagement. It shows someone still has a spine. It gives those racist fucks that much more to choke on while they flail around with their dying ideals. Have some imagination.
And why bother being so outwardly dismissive of something like this? What does that achieve? A few upvotes from a few fellow dispassionates? God damn it, no wonder those assholes still feel like they are winning.
How would that possibly have prevented his confirmation? It still went through after Booker’s speech on a party-line vote, didn’t it? What could Booker have said that would have shifted their opinion? What would you have said during a filibuster that would have any other effect on the party that was bound and determined to confirm him?
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.
Come on, do you truly think there was any chance they’d be interested in shaking hands behind the scenes? These people bowed so low to their king that their pants split months ago. They can’t even stand up straight at this point. Yet somehow, I’m the idealist here.
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.
Is dethroning the 67-year-long record of some racists’ rant not good enough for you?
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.
And you are the arbiter of what’s meaningful to someone else? Spout off about “sportsball” all you want, but your lack of vision for what material change this might possibly inspire in others helps nobody. Someone, somewhere out there, is fired up over this, and they’ll enact more change than this dogwater attitude ever will.
It is not unreasonable to ask why he didn’t use the filibuster to block actual legislation, instead of just I terupting procedure.
No, of course it’s not unreasonable to ask that, and I never implied that it is. It would have been incredible if he had chosen a more potent time. But that’s not what is being said, nor was it what I’m arguing against.
It’s better than nothing. But that’s all it achieved.
No, that certainly is not all it achieved. It created awareness and engagement. It shows someone still has a spine. It gives those racist fucks that much more to choke on while they flail around with their dying ideals. Have some imagination.
And why bother being so outwardly dismissive of something like this? What does that achieve? A few upvotes from a few fellow dispassionates? God damn it, no wonder those assholes still feel like they are winning.
they elected oz in the very next session; using a filibuster to prevent his confirmation is how you use a filibuster effectively.
How would that possibly have prevented his confirmation? It still went through after Booker’s speech on a party-line vote, didn’t it? What could Booker have said that would have shifted their opinion? What would you have said during a filibuster that would have any other effect on the party that was bound and determined to confirm him?
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.
Come on, do you truly think there was any chance they’d be interested in shaking hands behind the scenes? These people bowed so low to their king that their pants split months ago. They can’t even stand up straight at this point. Yet somehow, I’m the idealist here.
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.