this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
93 points (90.4% liked)
Asklemmy
47198 readers
861 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is dethroning the 67-year-long record of some racists' rant not good enough for you?
Politics isnβt sportsball, so no. Breaking arbitrary stats doesnβt 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.