this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
186 points (69.9% liked)
shitposting
1633 readers
520 users here now
Rules •1. No Doxxing •2. No TikTok reposts •3. No Harassing •4. Post Gore at your own discretion, Depends if its funny or just gore to be an edgelord.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Forgot to put the portion where Reps try and block every single fucking thing that Dems try to accomplish.
Wanna know why abortion wasn't enshrined into law when the Dems had the majority? Because they didn't have a filibuster proof super majority for the handful of weeks they had all the power.
We got the ACA instead.
They had the super majority at the start of that term. They couldn't have pushed something as complicated as the ACA through, but they could have moved on something small like affirming Roe. Besides, the Republicans always find a way to ram through legislation without a super majority (and I'd suspect we're about to see them abolish it entirely), but the Democrats never do.
For example, when the Senate parliamentarian tells the Democrats that they can't pass a $15 minimum wage through a simple majority, the Democrats give up. When the parliamentarian tells the Republicans they can't do something, they ignore them, and one time, they just flat our fired the guy.
You can argue about whether the Republicans are being unethical or underhanded, but at the end of the day, they achieve things, and the Democrats don't. The Democrats will tell you that they need 60 votes to do anything and that the parliamentarian won't allow them to pass non-budgetary items without one, but Senate filibuster rules can be changed, and the Parliamentarian has no real authority. Playing by the rules while your opponent cheats isn't noble, it's stupid.
The super majority at the start was those 4 weeks when Dems had any potential. When you get a time machine, go back and tell them to do Roe instead. Don't listen when they absolutely disbelieve Roe is at risk. We all thought Roe was safe back then.
No, we didn't. No one in the last 50 years thought roe was safe. Every single dem presidential candidate in that time campaigned on codifying roe.
I mean, the fact that they only had any potential with the super majority is the problem. In 2001, the Senate Republicans just fired parliamentarian Robert Dove because they didn't like the answers he was giving them. In 2010, Senate Democrats realized they only had four weeks to get their agenda through unimpeded, passed a single bill, and spent the rest of Obama's presidency comprising with obstructionists. In 2021, Biden let immigration reform and a $15 minimum wage get killed by the parliamentarian despite his party begging him to ignore her. Now, in 2025, a literal fascist will be in the White House and his allies will control both houses of Congress; do you really think he's going to care if someone in an advisory position gives a non-binding ruling saying he's not allowed to do something? The fact that Democrats can't get anything done without 60 Senate seats isn't an excuse, it's embarrassing.
There's also just a massive element of the Democrats no longer functioning as a coherent political unit. It wouldn't help in an instance needing a filibuster-proof majority, but since being a Democrat is mostly negatively defined as "We're not the Republicans" these days, it has grown to encompass a range of views that prevents them from having a cohesive platform backed by all members in the way the GOP largely operates today.
Yes, Republican obstructionism is a major element in the dysfunction of our government at the moment, but even before you run into that, you have a party that embraces the Joe Manchins, Kyrsten Sinemas and Joe Liebermanns of US politics, while also having your Bernie Sanders and AOCs. Even before you encounter the obstructionist tendencies of Republicans, you have Democrats who don't fall in line that can hold the party platform hostage, and no meaningful mechanisms to force them to do so.
The Democratic Party really needs to start defining itself positively, rather than the current "We're not the other guy, so at least we aren't so bad" stance, and presenting a unified front in the face of Republican obstinance. There should be a time a place for intellectual debate, but the Democratic status quo not only makes them look incompetent when they can't hold members to task for failing to support major elements of the party platform (see Manchin's stranglehold over Biden's agenda that left quite a bit dead on arrival prior to Republican efforts), it also demotivates would-be voters.
Also forget the portion where dems do not use their powers unless it is needed for Israel.
Yup the whole Republicans ignore the rules and Democrats don't thing hurts extra hard when you watch Democrats throw the rules out the window to support a genocide.
Democrats very much followed the rules when supporting Israel's settler-colonial genocide, that's been a part of the rules since the settler-colonial project started.
No they didn't. There are specific laws forbidding military aid to war criminals.
Yes, and Israel has always been guilty of war crimes, genocide, and settler-colonialism. That's its purpose.
Yes but until now there's been a veneer of legal occupation. That is gone and the Democrats doubled down after it was gone. After most people could clearly see the crimes being committed.
I’m not buying this anymore. Dems could do the same if they had balls. Enough of this when they go low we go high bs.
Here, have an actual teacher - who goes to insane lengths to find shit (including the fact that many Dems were quite conservative) - explain:
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8L9EfNx/