Last year, before the election, I was on a group call with Angus King. I asked him whether he supported getting rid of the filibuster, at least for voting rights and abortion. He was against, but impressed me with a very thoughtful answer why he had moved from Yes to No.
Last year, before the election, I was on a group call with Angus King. I asked him whether he supported getting rid of the filibuster, at least for voting rights and abortion. He was against, but impressed me with a very thoughtful answer why he had moved from Yes to No.
I agree that he's real, but I don't get how you'd be impressed with a thoughtful answer on why undemocratic means should be usable in the Senate to sustain forced birth and discrimination against voters, if I understand you correctly.
Naturally he was strongly in favor of getting rid of forced birth, voter discrimination and suppression! No surprise there. Angus King’s point was how we would risk it being used against us when the shoe is on the other foot (if I have the idiom right). His answer was longer than that, but this was at the core of it.
Last year, before the election, I was on a group call with Angus King. I asked him whether he supported getting rid of the filibuster, at least for voting rights and abortion. He was against, but impressed me with a very thoughtful answer why he had moved from Yes to No.
I like the guy. Totally real.
I agree that he's real, but I don't get how you'd be impressed with a thoughtful answer on why undemocratic means should be usable in the Senate to sustain forced birth and discrimination against voters, if I understand you correctly.
Naturally he was strongly in favor of getting rid of forced birth, voter discrimination and suppression! No surprise there. Angus King’s point was how we would risk it being used against us when the shoe is on the other foot (if I have the idiom right). His answer was longer than that, but this was at the core of it.
Which is what every other Democrat with his position would say.