I am kind of too scared to ask here, but what did it actually achieve?

  • TTH4P@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s better than nothing. But that’s all it achieved.

    • Bophades@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        they elected oz in the very next session; using a filibuster to prevent his confirmation is how you use a filibuster effectively.

        • Bophades@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          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?

          • eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • Bophades@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

              • eldavi@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                They shook hands and unanimously approved (booker too) more weapons for the genocide immediately after the performance.

      • TTH4P@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.