politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Dems needs control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) to get much done. They have had that for, drumroll please, ........ 4 years of the last 24 years. 4 fucking years of the last 24 fucking years. And you wonder why improvement is slow? You want progress? Vote.
(If you include Bill Clinton, they have had it for 6 years of the last 32 years. Before that was Bush and Reagan, so 6 of the last 44 years.)
An interesting historical footnote: before Reagan won in 1980, Democrats had maintained control of both houses of Congress since the 1954 election. That's 26 consecutive years. Go back even further and Republicans had managed to take control of Congress only twice between 1932 and 1954. And it didn't matter whether a Republican or Democrat was President -- Congress was reliably controlled by Democrats, with only a handful of exceptions over nearly 50 years.
This is why we still talk about the "Reagan Revolution". It's not just about Reagan himself, but about the new ability of Republicans to win enough seats to have a say in Congress. And even then, Republicans couldnt win the House until 1995 and Newt Gingrich became the first Republican Speaker since 1955.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
I'd point out here that before 1980, and especially before 1970, Democrats were a completely different breed. Don't forget that the Democrats had the Dixiecrats as a major constituent. These people are now the core voters of the GOP, and have held the Solid South since 1865. So you could say racist shitheads have ran the congress since 1932.
So right when progress ended huh.
They had a supermajority under Obama, who had promised before hand that the first thing on his list was legislating abortion access.
Instead they helped pass a GOP crafted bill that forced people to buy private insurance.
The establishment democrats do not want progress, they want the appearance of progress while running in place and they will always pull a convenient Joe Manchin or Sinems out of their hat to avoid backing up their promises with actual, effective action that produces long-term change.
4 months under Obama. 4 MONTHS. Not years, MONTHS. 4 months the last 44 fucking years the dems have had super majority.
They used it for the Affordable Care Act. Nice attempt to reframe that. Even better than the right's Obamacare. All so you can set up a strawman that they secretly don't want progress. If the GOP liked ACA so much, then why have they spent the last 14 years trying to repeal it? Hint: they hate it.
So we're back to what I said. You want progress? How about giving them control for more than 4 fucking months out of the last 44 fucking years. Nah, you want to suggest they secretly don't want progress lol. You want no Manchin and no Sinema? Vote so that Dems consistently win and then more progressive candidates can win. (Besides the very obvious if there were more Dems in Senate, then Manchin and SInema wouldn't have any power.)
It should be reframed because very few people undersrand that the ACA is literally a massive gift to private insurers. It's why they were onboard. Not only was it great for them because it forced people into buying useless high deductible private insurance that covered nothing, it was a dead end that couldn't possibly lead to further reforms.
Trump eliminating the mandate was the one good thing that came out of his term.
The exact same reason they aren't accepting Biden's offer to help them fulfill their right-wing wishlist of border policies; it's more politically beneficial to pretend to oppose it. It's one of the oldest tactics in the book; stomp and scream and yell about the tiniest thing and your milquetoast "bipartisan" dipshit opponent won't dare to pushback.
The right is always framing in the way that benefits them most, and you're falling right into it.
They seriously tried to repeal it. There's no pretending.
That seems to be what you're into: everything from everyone is all pretend. All these people that can afford healthcare now? It's all from pretend. All those serious efforts to overturn it? Also pretend.
And for what end? Seems so that you can excuse yourself for not voting.
I'm gonna say it again, you want progress? Vote. Give Dems overwhelming and consistent victories. Not 6 years (or 4 months) every 44 fucking years.
And yet it wasn't repealed. Weird, huh.
I vote plenty, just not for corporate conservatives who give lip service to progressive policy but then when the chips are down conveniently hide behind whichever Dem gets to be the rotating villain this time around.
Ask yourself this; how much do you think republicans could get done with a 4 month super majority?
Corporate democrats will drag their feet as slow as they need to no matter how much time you give them because they aren't actually interested in change or progress. They're happy to play grab ass with their GOP buddies as Republicans slide the whole circus closer and closer towards fascism.
Its not even that Democrats are slowing our descent, we've slid all the way to the bottom of the hill already and Democrats are just there miming pulling on ropes to get us back up.
It barely scrapped by surviving, so obviously it was all pretend, right? Give your head a shake.
GOP doesn't need a supermajority. What the GOP wants is lack of progres, they more or less want the status quo. The vast majority of what they want to do is block things. Just block things. They can do that with, drumroll please, any one of those 3. Any one of those 3. Which they get all the time. They had that for 20 years of the last 24 years.
Or the things they do want to pass is mostly just overturning things and tax breaks. Which takes, drumroll please, fuck all effort. That's it. They could do a fuckton because what they want is repeal everything which requires no effort.
Progress takes actual effort, hard work, and time. Stagnation (or regression) requires next to nothing.
And you're back to Dems bad, so I'll repeat again that they had control for 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. But you expect everything done at the snap of a finger. So I say again that Progress takes actual effort, hard work, and time. To which you say "pretend" and Dems bad. Rinse and repeat Have we summed up this conversation? You're over your head in what's essentially conspiracy theories that it's all pretend. Give your head a shake. There's no talking with someone so deep in what's essentially conspiracy theories. Doubt I'll respond anymore because it's just more repeating.
You do understand that they already know how a vote will go when legislation is brought up, right? There is no "scraping by", it either has the votes or it doesn't.
Voting for or against something to virtue signal is not some crazy out there concept, it's routine practice from both parties. The Democrats do the same thing.
If I'm a GOP politician, and I've been railing against healthcare reform and demonizing the concept, going on Fox News talking about Death Panels and other stupid shit, to the point where now even my spineless "moderate" opponents have conceded the entire debate about universal healthcare and are ready to settle for a forced private insurance schemethat I created, why would I vote for it if I've convinced the Democrats to do it for me?
There's no downside to voting against, I get my forced private insurance bill and I get to go back on Fox and keep up my anti-healthcare reform schtick and dunk on the Democrats. There's no political benefit to voting for ACA and then having my base of dimwits go "Hey, wait a minute! Durrrr you spent the last 6 months talking about how Obama and the ACA are communism!"
Effort and hardwork? Yes. Time? No, not really. The lie about time is what has you so tripped up -- change doesn't necessitate generations and generations, that's simply speech design to pre-defeat an effort. The only thing standing in the way of change are those who buy into Democratic bullshit excuses.
Remember when Biden implemented Sanders' child tax credit and it instantaneously halved child poverty? Yeah, that is how quick change can be.
I'm not voting for people because I want a functioning healthcare system for my great great grandchildren, I'm voting for people who want to make it happen now, in my life time instead of making excuses to protect political failures like Biden and co.
Oh yeah McCain never shocked everybody by suddenly changing the vote. /S
Nobody said generations to write specific legislation. May take consistent victories to move the Overton window, that's not the same as writing specific legislation.
But yes it does take time to figure out exactly what you're going to do, who supports what in detail, because you do have to get House Representatives to vote for it (and they don't just fall in line like the gop), the funding, the million details, and then write it up. Do you know what a party whip is? Ever wonder why they need a party whip? Like tell me you've never worked on anything complicated, it's like trying to corral cats.
Inb4 but GOP. Repealing other legislation takes next to nothing. You don't have to craft anything in any detail. You just have to say no. I noticed you didn't respond to any of that.
So yes, it takes actual effort, work, and time. You live in a fantasy world if you think people just snap their finger and the world changes in every aspect on a dime.
Why am I bothering. You're ~~neck deep~~ way over your head in conspiracy theories.
Which democrats gave had. There was 0 excuse when Obama had a super majority to not gave abortion legislation ready. In fact they did. Talk about not knowing about the details.
Stop making excuses for them, you're not helping anyone by trying to deflect oressure, you're only actively aiding in the false narrative about "it requires time". If you continue to make excuses for the chronic, decades long failure to meet the mandate given to Democrats by the American people it can only be assumed you want to trend of abject failure to continue.
That is a two part problem.
The Dems only had the super majority because they were aligned with Independent senators, so they didn't actually have a supermajority.
At least one of the Dems was opposed to national healthcare because he was a piece of shit, and they feared getting rid of the filibuster to pass single payer because apparently Dems don't understand that the GOP is based on obstruction.
Dems need to get rid of the filibuster so they can actually accomplish things when they hold all three branches. Actually doing things would garner them more votes!