Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

These-Days t1_itunr0k wrote

Reply to comment by keishathekat in If you were planning to vote for Fetterman prior to last night’s debate, are you still planning to vote for him after watching his debate performance? by Minute-Ad9621

One thing Oz keeps talking about is how John Fetterman was "bankrolled by his parents and given an allowance to live off of", implying he's some spoiled child. While it's true, John's parents help/ed him financially, what Oz doesn't like to point out is that the annual salary of being Mayor of Braddock is... $1800. John Fetterman probably comes from a wealthier family than you, but the amount he has gotten from his parents probably doesn't even equal out to one of Oz's 9 mansions across the world. How Oz can try not to be the "wealthy candidate" in this race is utterly hilarious to me.

Overall, to me, it barely matters anymore who the individual person is for Senate. The Congress is so hyper partisan that almost all Senators vote their party lines more than 95% of the time, and ones who don't like Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona (a very special case) are shunned by their party and unlikely to be reelected. My point is this isn't a governor's race, a senator these days is just a rubber stamp in Congress and exists to decide the majority party and therefore the majority leader. At the end of the day, all that ends up mattering is what party you want making decisions for you, and what party you want confirming Supreme Court Justices (maybe the most important consequence of retaining the senate right now).

9

Goggles_Greek t1_ituokk8 wrote

To be fair, Sinema gets shunned because she gets lobbied (bribed) by corporations to deliberately sink Democratic policies that would fairly tax and regulate corporations.

Fetterman in office and getting to 51+ Senators will make bribed Senators like Sinema much less powerful.

8

These-Days t1_ituoprr wrote

True, which makes voting blue no matter who that much more important, as much as "that's not how it should have to be".

4

Goggles_Greek t1_ituqlx8 wrote

Yeah. It's a crappy legislative system, and a two-party system has not been sustainable for our national health.

But those are the current rules. All we can do is make the best decisions based on the existing system.

Only way to change the system in my mind is for Democrats to win enough to gain a supermajority and get pressured and persuaded to change the systems for the better. And/or be large enough to split into two parties (that still each outnumber the right) that work as a coalition.

3