this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
624 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19594 readers
4266 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

He is a fascist, the rest of the Republican party are his enablers

The rest of the Republican party are his sycophants and subordinates. It's the "moderate" Democrats who are his enablers, through inaction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Republicans have the majority in both the House and Senate. To do something, you need power first.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago

Imagine winning an election and twiddling your fingers for 4 years straight

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Honest question: What should they have done, given the makeup of the House and Senate?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 days ago (1 children)
  1. Biden should've appointed an AG four years ago who would've actually been motivated to prosecute Trump with a sense of urgency, rather than sitting on his ass for two years before finally appointing a special prosecutor precisely and deliberately after the last moment. (Remember, Merrick Garland was only nominated for SCOTUS in the first place because Obama thought he was so conservative that not even Mitch McConnell could find an excuse to object. That should've made it obvious that he was exactly the wrong choice for AG.)

  2. Also four years ago (or two years ago, or six years ago, or any even-numbered years ago going back to at least before Bill Clinton's "third way" nonsense, if not the end of LBJ's "Great Society" programs or even the New Deal), the Democrats should've been running more economically-progressive candidates (e.g. Elizabeth Warran, AOC, etc.) instead of neoliberal pro-corporate toadies, so that they could have actually moved the needle on helping the working class instead of leaving them vulnerable to empty promises by fascist demagogues.
    To be very clear, I'm not saying that being socially-progressive was a mistake. In fact I will directly refute that: mainstream Democrats trying to scapegoat being too "woke" as the reason they lost are not only wrong, but lying. What I am saying is that the economic aspects of progressivism, not the social ones, are what would've actually made the difference.


As for what they should do now as opposed to in the past, other than "obstruct" I don't have a fucking clue because they've already comprehensively failed and it might very well be too late.