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.
- 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.
- 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
I wish the Dem party compromised as much with Dem voters as they did with trump supporters.
That's the best way to get Biden the votes necessary to prevent Trump.
Not the current strategy of:
Like, this should be an easy victory for any halfway decent candidate. Instead we get an 82 year old that won't stop shit talking his party's voter base for not wanting to fund a genocide rather than social services.
Ok I've had this conversation and realized that people can't do the math. So lets do it:
Let's evaluate the last say 24 years and when the Dems had all 3 of the House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency. Obama had it for 2 out of 8 years. Biden had it for 2 out of 4 years. Let's add it: That means Dems had control for 4 out of 24 years. Read that again, they had control for only 4 the last 24 years.
And that can still be filibustered. So if you want the filibuster proof majority, then Obama had it for 4 months. Not years, MONTHS. Biden never had it. Add it up: Dems had filibuster proof control for 4 months of the last 24 years.
Look at those stats again: Dems had control for 4 years of the last 24 years. For filibuster proof control, Dems had control for 4 MONTHS of the last 24 years.
This is why Dems compromise, because they basically never have control. To get literally anything done they need to compromise. Take your pick, either 4 years of the last 24 fucking years, or the 4 months or the last 24 years. And you wonder why they have to compromise? And why they go to the centre?
If you want progress you have to give Dems overwhelming and consistent victories.
[Want to add Bill Clinton? That goes to 6 years of the last 32 years, and still 4 months for filibuster proof for the last 32 fucking years. Want to add Bush senior? Then it's 6 years of the last 36 fucking years. Want to add Reagan? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years. That's right, 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years that Dems had control. And for filibuster proof majority they had 4 months of the last 44 fucking years.]
This is good context. Do you have any idea how much time republicans controlled all 3 houses in the same time frame? (Not arguing with you, just wondering if anyone’s really had any control this century.)
The thing with stagnation (or regression) is that you don't need to actually do much of anything. So the GOP doesn't need all 3 in order to sit on their ass and block things. They can do that with 1.
Thanks to centrist Democrats like Manchin, they can do it with 0.
It's almost like the source of our nation's most pressing problems is conservatism itself.
A plague of conservatism has never been cured by pacifism. Conservatives are doing their absolute best to oppress or kill the normal people. This disease is long overdue for a cure.
I'd be curious to see similar math for republicans. It's probably a similar amount of time where they had full bully powers to do whatever they wanted, right? Maybe it's just me, but I'm fine if that kind of power from a single party is rare. If it happened more often we would get much more volatility as laws were changed back and forth. This way change happens more slowly, but it's generally objectively good change rather than reactionary or populist.
The difference is that the left needs legislation for progress to happen. The right is more or less happy if nothing changes. The right wants to stop things like universal healthcare, good public schools, new environmental policies, etc etc. That's their main objective, to keep things status quo. So the left needs all three to pass legislation. The right need any 1 of those 3 because all they want to do is block things from happening. Very different.
Yep, and so we get very gradual change. It's not like the political environment is actually broken into left or right anyway. If the Republican party disappeared overnight, conservative Democrats would immediately become the new hurdles to progress, albeit shifted a bit to the left. "Progressive" policies would be more left, and the new "conservative" policies would as well, but they would still be conservative relative to the others.
The Dems can get rid of the filibuster today.
Besides that they can't because Manchin says no, that would mean congratulations Dems had control for 4 years of the last 24 years (/s). Are we still wondering why they have to compromise?
Unfortunately, the conservative Dems have already said they will not allow the filibuster to be abolished. Maybe next term, though, as Sinema and Manchin won't be with us anymore.
This is nearly a complete non-sequitur to the comment you are responding to. If Biden laid it out like you have, said "look we're in a bad position here, we need to compromise with the fascists even though they are wrong", if he presented a strong platform with goals people could get excited about, and make it clear who and what are the obstacles voters have to overcome to get there, he could bring out the voters to get those overwhelming and consistent majorities. The same goes for every Democratic president you named. Instead, Biden is absolutely obstinate about it. He acts like the fascists are decent and reasonable people, like the only hope the left can have is to slow down the slide to the right, and like we're the problem - not the Republicans, not the right-wing Democrats, no, the only problem is that some of us would like less murder and more food, housing, healthcare and education. That's exactly why the Democrats have only had control for four of the last twenty-four years.
And the filibuster isn't real. It's literally just a made up rule they all agree to pretend matters. It can be ended at any time by a simple majority. Doing so at the beginning of a session would look more legitimate, but frankly, the so-called "nuclear option" is far more legitimate in itself than the routine abusive use of the filibuster. They choose to let it restrain them specifically so that they can blame inaction on it.
It's not a non-sequitur. It's exactly why they compromise in Congress. They never have control so to do basic things like pass a budget they need to compromise. It's literally why they compromise. And why they go to the centre to win elections.
What you're doing is closer a non-sequitur by ? demanding that Biden saying they have to compromise? And by saying ? he's not getting people excited? Like talk about a non-response just so you can say "bring out voters" (like Fox doesn't exist) and "obstinate" and a whole bunch of other insinuations. And so you can try to turn it around and blame Dems. It's so twisted around there's not much responding to it.
And wow you think the filibuster isn't real. Well I think that say it all.
Your comment was, as I stated, nearly non-sequitur because you only responded to one word of the first sentence of givesomefucks' comment:
You responded to the word "compromised". You responded as if you were responding to a general senseless rant against the very idea of compromise at all, a position which is not even present in that first sentence, and has nothing to do with the rest of their comment, or the overall point they were making about the belligerent and dismissive attitude Biden takes toward Democratic voters, and what different approach would actually win elections - I'll quote the rest so you don't have to scroll back:
In my comment, I attempted to clarify and expound on what would work, what they are actually doing, and the great gulf between these, trying to bring it back to givesomefucks' actual comment, rather than what you imagined to respond to. Instead, you've responded, again, to a comment not actually made - accusing me of somehow "demanding" something. Where did I demand anything?
And yeah, the filibuster isn't real. A simple majority of the Senate can pass anything they want. They can drop the filibuster as a rule; they can carve out a general exception; they can even just choose to suspend it for that single piece of legislation. If a simple majority can pass any legislation they want, given that they actually choose to, then the filibuster is absolutely not real. It's smoke and mirrors so they can blame the other guys. In fact, it's probably not even constitutional - there's no constitutional support for it, and the founders were explicitly against including any kind of supermajority requirement.
They could have done away with the filibuster for good with a simple majority vote.
The filibuster is an excuse.
No because manchin and sinema said no. This was common news.
Yup. There's always someone to preserve the filibuster.
And for half that time we had it, we didn't get much done and instead wasted that time "looking into" stuff...
And two years later, you're surprised turnout is going to be low?
Do you not remember what we were promised if we got the Georgia runoffs?
How does this not make sense to you?
Biden and Dem leadership squandered a chance we get every few decades
I love this "they had control for 4 of the last 24 years, and we don't have the Jetson's life!! Why don't they do anything!?"
Dude, 4 fucking years in the last 24 (or 4 months if you want filibuster proof) and you're complaining about lack of Jetson's life. Do you hear yourself? It's unbelievable. I'm glad that I cracked the code to what you expect because now everyone can see it.
Actual progress takes time and effort to work out policies and get votes from your own party (you know, the party whip). The world can't change direction on a dime like you insist. So they need consistent and overwhelming victories.
Why go back so far?
We're talking about Biden's first term, and he had it for two years, during which nothing was actually done because he didn't "look into" anything until taking office apparently.
He just won the election and took a vacation.
In case you couldn't tell from midterms, voters didn't appreciate that...
"so far"? Dude that's not that far.
We've talked (pretty sure it was you) and I finally realized that I had to hammer home to you that Dems need consistent and overwhelming victories. So I'm looking at recent history of say 24 years.
I added to my previous comment, you have to figure out what your own party supports and will vote for. This is why you have a party whip. Dems presidents are not dictators that their own party will just blindly support. Not to mention that the bill usually starts in Congress, not the president. Congress needs to write it.
So you're back to expecting The Jetsons life out of two measly years. Dude. It's not how it works. Actual progressive legislation requires actual time, effort, and work. 2 years is next to nothing. The world can't turn around on a dime.
Took a vacation LOL. He's been doing absolute fuckton. But it's not enough for you, thus you wanting Jetsons. I cracked the code.
You're having a different conversation than everyone else, I think that's what's frustrating you.
We are talking about the last four years, two of which Biden had majorities, u til the inaction during those two years led to republicans taking the House.
I have zero idea why you're insisting we talk about the last 24 years.
I'm also not sure why you keep talking about the Jetsons.
Like, I'd try to explain this better, but it's impossible when you refuse to talk about anything rather than what you want.
It's like if two people were talking at a party and you walked up and screamed:
Sure, those people could try and explain all the ways your wrong and why it has nothing to do with what they were talking about.
Or they could just smile and nod politely and walk away.
The problem is you seem to think that is "winning" some "argument"...
Actually I think you're the one having a different conversation, or at least refuses to see anything except "but 2, or 4, years".
First thing, Biden is doing a fuckton, but it's not enough for you. So I'm pointing out that you demand Jetsons life/tech/change.
This is not limited to the last 4 years. You really want it to be, but it's not. None of this is one and done. If this is about effecting significant changes, real changes, real movement of the Overton window, over multiple aspects of life, that requires a ton of time, work, and effort. 2 years or even 4 years is nothing. Real, significant change requires consistent and overwhelming victories. This means by definition it is over several elections and over several Presidents.
I'm getting some serious "I'm 18 and think the world can change on a dime" vibes. 2 years is a long time for a 18 year old, I get it. But when you start working trying to effect serious change, you'll realize serious change requires a ton of time, effort, and work. Thus requires consistent and overwhelming victories. Thus far longer than 4 years or 8 years or one presidency.
And the only one of those we've expended is time.
What are you even on about? They basically never have control. 4 years out of the last 24 years, and you say they've wasted (?) it?
Yes, they have wasted it. Unless you consider preserving the filibuster, strikebreaking, killing bbb, and killing the public option to be accomplishments.
We gave them majorities, and they refused to use them.
Before you reply with the article about the IBEW being happy with Biden, we're talking about congress, not Biden.
You're all over the map with your replies. You just said "Thanks to centrist Democrats like Manchin, they can do it with 0." as in the GOP can block Biden and the Dems.
Biden is doing a fuckton. But anyway we're back to "Biden had it for 2 years, why don't we have Jetsons life!" See the whole post again, Dems have had control for 4 years of the last 24 years. But you want to say "why aren't they doing anything". It's unreal.
And when Republicans don't have a majority, just enough Democrats step in to block progressive policy for them, yes.
Your assertion that Biden is doing a fuckton is unsupported, and your bullshit about the Jetsons is an idiotic strawman. I'd tell you to do better, but if you had defensible positions, you wouldn't need to keep spamming bullshit.
Thank you for showing everyone who you are.
Which is?