Senate passes legislation to regulate stablecoins, first of what industry hopes will be wave of bills to bolster legitimacy
And the grift goes on
US Senate Democrats cross the aisle to help Republicans
pass crypto billDemocratic senators that voted yes:
Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.); Cory Booker (D-N.J.); Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.); John Fetterman (D-Penn.); Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.); Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.); Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.); Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.); John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.); Andy Kim (D-N.J.); Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.); Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.); Alex Padilla (D-Calif.); Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.); Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.); Mark Warner (D-Va.); Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)
There’s Cory Booker yet again.
But he filibustered nothing earlier this year!
Filibustered stopping no bills, making it look like a big show, and then voting yes for Trump’s demands.
Yep, that’s Congress.
Alex Padilla, supporting the people who threw him to the ground and handcuffed him for asking a question, in order to help billionaires enrich themselves. As a Californian I am disgusted with my representation.
Here I was being proud of him for standing up and getting arrested. I got an email saying how he we stand for California and America.
I guess it was just for show, again.
How many crypto coins did they get?
“I will fight for California” but then votes yes for Trump’s demands as a Hispanic man, a senator in California.
Is there anything more Democrat? Verbally declaring that you care but when it’s time to do the actual meaningful part of the job you were elected to do, you cave into fascist-written bills.
This is why we needed purity tests.
No. This is why every politician. Incumbent of otherwise, should be primaried at every level of government. Purity tests will only help the worst get elected.
Isn’t getting all these candidates primaried just a form of purity tests? It’s a good form, but still seems to be one. After all why are you trying to primary them if not because they’re not pure so to speak?
How is more Choice a purity test? No one should run unopposed. More choice is better. Especially in the primaries. It keeps people fighting for their seats And respecting Those they represent. Incumbents running without a challenge Quickly lose any concern or respect for Their constituents, and fall into the same old patterns of how can this benefit me.
We had plenty of purity test in the last presidential election. And that really didn’t work out for us. It certainly didn’t help either that the Democrats ultimately didn’t hold primaries and handled the whole situation so badly. But I think it’s pretty safe to say. That we wouldn’t have and Gestapo charging into the fields and businesses. Seizing non-citizens and citizens alike. Making them disappear. As well as the emboldened attacks on our lgbtq allies.
And literally if all we focus on is Purity tests. Not actually running people in the primaries to challenge these people who would fail the Purity test. How are things going to get better?
No one should run unopposed.
While I definitely agree, you also need to have someone that wants to run for office in order to oppose a person.
Get into politics if you see an open position. Make the change you want to see.
Absolutely
You seem to be using the phrase primaried radically different than I’ve ever seen it used before. The verb to primary someone typically means to Target them specifically for removal by supporting a candidate who more closely matches your ideals. If that doesn’t sound like a purity test I don’t know what does. We’re not talking about choice. You specifically said that you wanted to primary them. You want to Target them for removal, presumably for their blatant corruption and voting with fascists. I agree with 100%. However what is that if not a purity test? Frankly it’s a purity test I think should always be applied I expect all of my candidates to not be fascists. There’s nothing wrong with certain Purity tests.
Yes its a more general general usage. But it still stands. Power that is secure is power to corrupt. What better way is there to get your concerns and philosophy out there. If you gain traction in the primary. Even if you lose, the winner of the primary will often adopt popular positions.
It’s got nothing to do with purity. It’s just about challenging power and promoting participation. Purity test implies pushing a specific agenda. But that isn’t what I was advocating for.
deleted by creator
And there needs to be easier ways to recall.
Definitely
This is why democrats need to run fair primaries. They successfully argued in court that they don’t have to.
Purity tests will only help the worst get elected.
Moving to the right at every last opportunity has done that.
This got downvoted, holy shit .world is beyond hope of questioning their blind loyalty.
What in particular is bad about this bill?
The comment wasn’t directed at the bill, but at Democrats. They can’t even represent a united front against corruption and fascism, the former if which is represented by this bill. There are a litany of other votes where BNMW/ Blue dogs/ Blue MAGA crossed the line to censure Al Greene, confirm Trump nominees like Kristee Noem or Miller, I mean the list is a mile long.
The issue isn’t just that these are TERRIBLE, indefensible votes for a democrat to have made, but also the huge damage it represent to our ability to retake power in mid terms or, if at all possible, in a 2028 presidential election.
With Democrats like this, why bother? That’s the question voters are going to be faced with. It’s the question neither Joe Biden or Kamala Harris could come up with an answer to.
Its far far more than just the damage and bloodletting they could be preventing with these votes. It’s that they’re setting themselves up to lose the next election as well.
That’s where you’re wrong. Democrats don’t lose if fascists win, because they’ll be working right alongside the nazis.
