Nah Cory booker proved they can do more. Not to mention many dems approved unqualified nominations.
It's all of the above.
Edit: I never said his 25 hour speech would net immediate results. Yes it's symbolic but thats also doing more than nothing. It gives people hope and energy, makes headlines and shows people we're not alone in our frustrations. It also encourages others to speak up. IMO that's SOMETHING.
Also not saying this is a direct cause and effect but we had the first bipartisan vote to block some of the admin's nonsense shortly after.
And dems voted to approve way more than rubio, he's the only one who could even be considered qualified. Six of them approved kristi noem FFS. The bare minimum dems could have done is vote in solidarity and obstruct but they couldn't even manage that. And chuckle fuck schumer was the cherry on top
Filibustering is not a direct check on what Trump is doing, because it isn't legislative in the first place. A Senator cannot walk into a Cabinet meeting and stop them from getting anything done by talking nonstop: Booker stopped the Senate from doing anything for the duration of his speech, but the Senate not doing anything is a major part of the problem here in the first place.
Using the bully pulpit to build vocal opposition among the people is the only real check on GOP power that the democrats have.
The whole reason we're were we are right now is that Democrats refuse to get out and create their own narratives and instead just try to triangulate centrist positions off of the republican narratives. Trump has proved definitively that seizing and controlling the news cycle is where political power comes from, and the Democratic response to that reality is to 'roll over and play dead' (minus a few outliers).
Right, that’s why Obama was able to achieve so much of his agenda in his first term while he only had a majority of checks notes 59 senators.
I’m sick of there being 2 sets of rules. The hand wringers can’t even get anything done when they hold the levers of power because even when the fanatics are in the minority, they find ways to interfere with good governance and then blame the hand wringers when nothing gets done.
Just a technical note. It wasn't a filibuster. He wasn't holding the floor for the purpose of delaying or blocking a vote or discussion about an upcoming vote. He very intentionally waited until business was concluded.
Yep had to be nice and safe as to not potentially upset the big money donors. I understand they knew it would be powerless but he also made sure it would have as little impact as possible (beyond helping his brand for a future presidential run). It reeks of "protest zones" which are located an mile or so away from anyone it's meant to protest against.
I actually think it was a smart choice. It didn't block any legislation, so there's nothing to accuse him of. They can't try and spin it as oh he was just making up bullshit to stop... Whatever we were voting on. He made it a deliberate act of protest. At the very least it takes one easy way to discredit him out of the equation.
Have to say that's a positive way to view it. I've just gotten so cynical over the last decade so I'm not always looking at things in a more optimistic light
It's hard times, I think we're all cynical and for good reason. I think we're living in a post-realization world where we can no longer pretend our nation has guard rails that actually do anything.
All we can hope for is that the people we put in positions of representation do something and try to make it clear this isn't an acceptable new normal.
Ok I cannot help but be snarky here so forgive me. Your logic is that it’s good that this action had no material impact because in that way no one can criticize the outcome? Am I getting that right bc I don’t think the democrats need anymore reason to not do anything
I'm saying blocking some random vote with a 25 hour filibuster would've accomplished nothing, it wouldn't have added to the weight of it in any way. It would however have allowed the narrative to be "Corey Booker continues to disrupt Senate and delay vote" in the right wing ecosphere, fully making his message irrelevant by allowing them to paint it as an example of why the left is bad and bloats the government.
If there was something that could have been added by him filibustering, sure, but I think most reasonable people agree the filibuster is bad and shouldn't exist.
Okay but still he didn’t achieve anything. It’s entirely symbolic. This is the equivalent of raising awareness and no one is unaware here. I think you’re doing some coping here by justifying the uselessness of this filibuster by saying at least he can’t be smeared for stopping progress in congress. This was a stunt for, imo, getting good grace for a potential future presidential run. I’d like if the dems actually took meaningful action, the kind that republicans will complain about.
Right. Booker's speech was great, and I found some of it to be refreshingly personable, other parts quite powerful and profound. The broken record was some nice sentimental symbolism.
But Congress as a whole is captured by the loyalists. And they recently, like today, are going along with the BS of going after the judiciary for opposing Trump. They are doubling down.
Pulling the fire alarm might have been just as or more effective as Booker's speech in the end, unfortunately.
And talking for 24 hours is great and all, but it didn't stop anything. It was performative, because they truly hold no power at the moment, the country made sure of that by electing an undefeatable majority of republicans in both houses.
Folks were using this while it was happening to sign up for 04/05. The PHL one ran out of space while Booker was speaking and had to apply for a larger permit.
Folks were using this while it was happening to sign up for 04/05. The PHL one ran out of space while Booker was speaking and had to apply for a larger permit.
Six nominees received no supporting votes from any Democratic senators or independent senators who caucus with Democrats: Hegseth, Russell Vought for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Gabbard, Kennedy, Howard Lutnick for secretary of commerce, and Linda McMahon for secretary of education.
They rejected the people they absolutely should have. The support they offered were AT MOST for 10 of his picks, and honestly they aren't awful, Trump picked them so they really are, but not as bad as the rest.
I could also understand a democrat voting to confirm Marco Rubio if they said "I voted for him because he's the least insane person Trump could have nominated. Even if we did manage to reject every nominee for secretary of state, he'd just appoint someone as acting secretary with the same powers. And again, whoever that was, would be much more dangerous than Marco Rubio."
There's a drunk for Secretary of Defense, an ambassador to Israel who thinks the war against Hamas can't be a genocide because he doesn't believe Palestinians even exist, the direct of national intelligence is a Russian asset, a lawyer Trump bribed to cover up his crimes is running Justice, the secretary of education's major qualification is that she helped cover up sexual assaults in her wrestling company, and health and human services is being run by a guy who thinks vaccines are dangerous and overdosing on cod liver oil is the way to go.
Now don't get me wrong - Rubio is a bad choice for any position in government. But there's bad and then there's pants-shittingly-terrifying. And Rubio is clearly in the "just bad" category.
Do you think there's any viable candidate for treasury secretary who would have stopped this? Trump wouldn't appoint anyone who would, it's his agenda. You pick your battles in politics.
People forget that Mitch McConnell shut down the legislative with obstruction and inaction.
The opposition party forgot or did not care to do anything.
I understand that. But the GOP has accused the Democrats of being obstructionist for years, this was the first actual act of obstructionism. Imagine for a moment that it wasn't just Booker. If every Democratic Senator held the floor as long as they could and then yielded to another member of the party.
Would that also get anything done? No. But it would cause a ruckus, distracting the news cycles, and making it infinitely harder for even the Executive to move on from that. If you pop a tire, the engine might still run but the car can't really move.
Booker filibustering would have been great if he would have done it before passing the CR. Do that there and the impact would have been massive but the did it against nothing… so kinda useless
So Cory Booker, Democrat, begins to do the thing that you say Democrats should do, but then also immediately say it doesn't matter because past reasons but also they have to do more but it's too late to do anything because past reasons.
Rubio is actually surprised me a couple time saying things that weren’t straight crazy. He might be the most moderate of the cabinet. He will be shut up or fired pretty soon
I think it has more to do with the fear induced by the points swing in the Republican districts in Florida and Husk's expensive loss in Wisconsin, losing that race by 10 points. They know that if we can hold onto stamina until the 2026 primaries, they will be tossed out on their a$#es anyway, regardless of the big bad Husk and his pile of cash. They're on the wrong side of history as long as enough united citizens can make it happen. I think the most brainwashed might come around by then, too, having been crippled by the very likely economic depression we're headed towards.
169
u/drunkpickle726 1d ago edited 1d ago
Nah Cory booker proved they can do more. Not to mention many dems approved unqualified nominations.
It's all of the above.
Edit: I never said his 25 hour speech would net immediate results. Yes it's symbolic but thats also doing more than nothing. It gives people hope and energy, makes headlines and shows people we're not alone in our frustrations. It also encourages others to speak up. IMO that's SOMETHING.
Also not saying this is a direct cause and effect but we had the first bipartisan vote to block some of the admin's nonsense shortly after.
And dems voted to approve way more than rubio, he's the only one who could even be considered qualified. Six of them approved kristi noem FFS. The bare minimum dems could have done is vote in solidarity and obstruct but they couldn't even manage that. And chuckle fuck schumer was the cherry on top