But a Republican tried to kill another Republican! And an old guy had a cold!
Yes it’s quite the collection of ultra-complex confusing and incomprehensible mysteries
It’s more like a school shooter whom Republicans refuse to do anything about in regards to restricting access to arms nearly killed their presidential candidate.
Covid is way worse than a cold
He had a “cold” at the debate. He got Covid later.
a bit on the nose isn’t it?
That’s pretty much how easy and obvious the choice is
What’s it say about our country that we have so many that want to vote republican?
That media has gone unchecked for many decades. They shouldn’t be able to spew lies and ignore key facts to create a false narrative like republicans have been doing for 50+ years.
Shit should’ve been regulated long ago so as to not have the current situation we’re in where a portion of the population has become brainwashed.
Also that public education is in the toilet. And has been for decades.
how great was “no child left behind”? 🤦♂️
Long ago, shit was regulated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_doctrine&diffonly=true
nothing that isn’t already well known
Whats it say about our country that so-called-progressives won’t vote Democratic.
Again and again you care more about progressives who want something better while still voting dem then the Republicans lol.
Studies have shown that dem positions are overwhelmingly popular when they’re not labeled as specifically dem. The problem is laws that allow media to blatantly lie to people who are desperate, stupid, or both.
What
He’s saying you give more attention to progressives who won’t kowtow to democrats in their speech, when they vote for democrats with their votes. The real issue is a system that let’s a R win when they don’t get the majority of votes (that last part is my addition)
The only thing I’m asking for is voting for Dems - specifically to stop trump and his evil horde of idiot rapists.
Speechify however one likes, I’m more than likely in agreement - but there is a significant number of commenters specifically positioning themselves as “left” or “progressive” who very specifically refused to vote Democratic despite necessarily punching themselves in the crotch out of ignorance.
If someone’s onboard with voting to defeat MAGA but wants to rag on the Dems or the administration for less-than-whatever, bring it. I 100% support that.
Exactly
Some people need help getting it
deleted by creator
boTh paRtIeS arE thE same!
Hmmm, the nice old guy or the nasty old guy, so hard to choose! If only there were some difference between them to help me decide.
The orange one that’s a racist rapist with 34 felonies states he’s going to be a dictator
But Biden’s son got found guilty and is trying to use the exact same defense Trump used to get off, I’m just so confused about which one is better. Biden’s son got done because of tenuous charges that republicans lied about and trump got done because of lies that republicans lie about. How to choose?! They’re so similar.
Did you mean to add a /s at the end?
Yes, definitely. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Lol, you never know here.
Yeah, Trump has gone beyond parody because there’s nothing that you could say that’s exaggerated that doesn’t sound exactly like his usual insane and uninformed ramblings and rantings.
That seems dependent on how a person feels about the specific tone of two old guys’ rhetoric.
No one really thinks Trump is nice, though, do they? Really?
What if the yanks had more than 2 parties, maybe it would be great. Before anyone says anything, yes i know that other parties can exist but they dont do really anything.
What if the yanks had more than 2 parties
We’re often lucky to have more than one party. States like Texas and Florida are so heavily gerrymandered that supermajorities for the prevailing party are practically assured. The Dems form a rump of opposition in these states, while Greens and Libertarians are barely an afterthought.
i know that other parties can exist but they dont do really anything.
Constituencies in Europe are significantly smaller and more regionally distinct. Hard to have a Scottish New Labor Party or a French Polynesia Party when our states are dominated by constituencies that moved in barely a generation ago. By all rights we should have a “Texas Party” and a “California Party”. But its worth noting that the modern Texas GOP was built up practically brick-by-brick through George HW Bush and the Standard Oil company, originally based out in NY/NJ/CT. Dallas, Houston, and Austin are dominated by families of east coast Republicans who came spilling in during the 80s/90.
We should probably have a “Christian Democrats” party or a “Tea Party” properly, but the major religious and ideological leaders of the past were fully wedded to the existing post-WW2 partisan establishment. The closest we ever really had to a break-away party in the last half-century was the Jim Crow Segregationists under George Wallace. And that fell apart in the face of Nixon’s Southern Strategy simply gobbling up all the Dixiecrats and turning them into modern day Republicans.
Technically we do, but only the Republicans and Democrats are ever given attention in the media so they’re the only two parties most people know about before seeing the other options on the ballot. Add to that you get guys like Vermin Supreme as alternative choices, which if you don’t know anything about them makes them look even crazier than the two big douchebags you do know about.
Not to mention that third parties CAN’T win with our current system except in extremely unusual circumstances. In order for viable third parties here we have to implement a different voting system like ranked-choice voting. A couple states have done this along with non-partisan redistricting but it’s not enough.
What if the yanks had more than 2 parties, maybe it would be great. Before anyone says anything, yes i know that other parties can exist but they dont do really anything.
That’s because the Electoral College says other parties, who will necessarily not get as many votes as the other two, will not get any electoral votes. Most states are winner-take-all. As far as Presidential elections go, that’s why there’s never a third party winner.
Locally, you’re likely to find “Independent” candidates who run without financial support from one of the two flavors of political soda, and occasionally other political organizations as well. Locally (city government, school board, etc.) it’s possible. But nationally no party has had the reach or interest from voters to overcome the hurdles to federal election. Many have tried.
That’s because of circumstances beyond the average voters control where the majority of people inevitably votes between 2 parties and a vote for independent gets essentially “counted” but “thrown away” because the pool is less than the other 2 main parties.
In our current voting system “first past the post”, It inevitably leads to a 2 party system regardless of if other parties exist.
This video is one of my favorites that explain this problem. https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=ri9DbpvXxjyRonN3
The only way I see that we can maybe break past this is to band together and convince more than half of one of the major parties to vote independent. It’s possible perhaps, but highly unlikely. ( the video kinda covers this as well. )
Or maybe convince the voter base to change voting systems. I personally like the sound of “ranked choice” voting. Granted it doesn’t fix everything but it would be alot better than what we have now. And it might give independents a higher chance of possibly winning.
In our current voting system “first past the post”, It inevitably leads to a 2 party system regardless of if other parties exist.
only if voters choose to vote strategically instead of voting their values. the solution to break the duopoly is to insist on values voting.
What if the yanks had more than 2 parties
Political parties represent the interests of the wealthy - for a third party in the US to be successful, it would have to cater to a moneyed interest that the current “good cop/bad cop” routine doesn’t cater to. As far as I can tell, the capitalist class in the US is perfectly happy with this duopoly - so no third party.
I’m afraid that a third party is no “silver bullet” - here in South Africa, we have a whole bunch of parties, and guess what… they still only end up serving the interests of the wealthy. Our largest two factions of political racketeers are neoliberals that will happily bend over backwards to sell South Africans out to foreign corporations, while the third-largest is literally just a front for a bunch of overmoneyed Zulu royalty - no surprises that our voter apathy is even worse than in the US.
Kamala Harris is also now the only candidate who won’t be fucking 80 while in office.
Fascists painted red prefer to pretend that both are the same, because they don’t actually give a fuck about any of the things they claim are important to them, except ‘owning the libs’.
You know, not unlike the fascists using an elephant as their logo.
Democrats are never going to codify Roe. Want to know how I know? Because on June 25th 2022 they controlled the presidency, the senate, and the house and Roe still isn’t codified. They’ll never say it out loud, but the democratic party is happy Roe was overturned because now they get to use it as a fundraising issue forever.
June 25th 2022
Joe Manchin is a coal baron pretending to be a Democrat and Kristen Sinema was bought by corporate interests. So Republicans unofficially controlled the Senate. This same bullshit gets trotted out every election.
The Senate is stacked against Democrats because it favors low population states. On top of that, there is a filibuster rule that makes most things take 60 votes to get passed. To get anything done, senators have to get rid of the filibuster for whatever they are trying to do, which requires a majority.
Democrats would much rather run on having codifying Roe v Wade. But their party is controlled by and full of neo-liberals who cling to institutional norms to their own detriment. There is not a conspiracy, just minority rule baked into our democracy, and ineffectual and flawed neo-liberal ideology entrenched in the minds of Democrats. edit: typo
Manchin and Sinema are like schrodinger’s democrats. They’re not real democrats, but you better shut the fuck up and vote blue not matter who or some shit.
One has accepted numerous corporate donations and the other is only interested in protecting his coal business. They aren’t Democrats whether being observed or not. But they have been observed to be DINOs so it’s not a question, it’s a fact. An argument that is based on facts from an alternate reality is not convincing. Believing alternate facts is how a person can be stuck thinking conspiracy theories are real though.
Democrats are never going to codify Roe. Want to know how I know? Because on June 25th 2022 they controlled the presidency, the senate, and the house and Roe still isn’t codified.
Firstly, the former is not a function of the latter. So it’s not so much “you know” as “making up a reason”.
Secondly, passing a federal law is not like getting a Coke from the vending machine.
Thirdly, this is a common strawman argument to pretend Democrats deliberately don’t care about liberal causes and it’s bullshit. A right-wing talking point. “Clinton had people murdered y’know.” Like that.
Fourthly - yeah, what they said.
Secondly, passing a federal law is not like getting a Coke from the vending machine.
No shit. Passing federal legislation is hard. But that’s literally their job and why we elected them. “The democratic party not doing what we elected them to do when they have a majority in both chambers and the presidency.” is not the winning argument you think it is.
“No shit. Passing federal legislation is hard, why aren’t they doing a very specific thing I personally have determined is the top priority really quickly and perfectly” is not the winning argument you think it is.
Hey, I got lots to bitch about with Democrats. Not being a shark-like machine to blitzkreig progressive legislation is one of them. But using a specific five-month window and one issue to complain that all of American Democracy is a joke and scam is utter bullshit. And also a favorite of the non-voting division-focus “left”.
The majority still doesn’t make it that simple. There are also conservative leaning dems making up that majority.
Such a fox “news” take
Do they, though? It’s not like they haven’t had the opportunity to do something, anything by now, and waving abortion in women’s faces is really good for motivating donors…
FFS this reads like russian disinfo. Yes. They do want that. And yes, they’ll get it done now that the SCOTUS has well and truly fucked us all such that states are criminalizing women’s health.
Could they have done it before??? Sure. What would you like to give up for it. Environment? Education? Health? Spending? Name the issue you will kill for it.
“DuMmYCrAtS wOnT LeGaLizE AbOrTiOn BeCAuSe ThEy MakE MoNey On iT” is a cheap and low-effort right-wing talking point. The “left” loves it for what should be obvious reasons.
deleted by creator
Could they have done it before??? Sure. What would you like to give up for it. Environment? Education? Health? Spending? Name the issue you will kill for it.
Seeing as the Dems have already given up basically all of these issues, I fail to see what would be changed if they had demanded to codify Roe. And even without Congress, there are other paths to the same goal - withold highway funding, put clinics on federal land, pack the Court - but the simple fact is that Biden himself is anti-abortion, which is why he bristles at his administration doing anything to provide access to care to women in red states.
I mean - No. That’s just wrong.
Then what do you suppose is the reason why Biden is so reluctant on the issue? And don’t say “because the republicans control congress”, because as I’ve outlined it is very much within Biden’s mandate to act on this issue unilaterally if that’s what he or his party want.
Why is he reluctant? Because he’s a life-long practicing Catholic.
He did just say they’d codify Roe in the first 100 days, so. I mean, he has personal reservations due to faith but I don’t think you can say he’s reluctant in a legislative sense.
Not that it’s relevant anymore.
He did just say they’d codify Roe in the first 100 days
You are Charlie Brown, and you are running at a football. The girl holding it, Lucy, has just promised you that she’s going to let you kick it this time.
edit: to be clear, the girl is the Democratic Party, not Biden personally.
You don’t think something about Roe is different this election cycle? Nothing at all? No critical change or nothin?
Or you still think federal legislation is easy and exists in a vacuum of spacetime, and Democrats are twirling their moustaches and muttering Muwahahahaa while they collect all those bleeding heart votes to . . . what, destroy freedom or something?
I think that’s a pointedly crooked way of looking at it. If you actually believe that, ok, I disagree.
Until the current court started trashing precedent there was little to no reason to prioritize a codification of reproductive rights. Since roe v. wade fell there’s been at least three attempts to restore reproductive rights and all were blocked by Republicans.
Until the current court started trashing precedent there was little to no reason to prioritize a codification of reproductive rights
This shows how ignorant you are on the issue. States had been fucking around with abortion clinic restrictions that made them effectively impossible to get for years before the current court. One of Obama’s campaign promises was to codify Roe into law way back in 2008.
Don’t kill the golden goose
Doesn’t they currently have the power? Democrats have had tons of opportunities to make sure republicans could not remove them. Why do you think it will be different this time?
No. Republicans control the House. Democrats cannot pass a bill without their support.
I don’t mean to be a jerk, but why don’t you know that?
There are people outside the USA, you know?
They were commenting with confidence about the current political situation. My first thought was non American, but their statement is quite definitive for someone that doesn’t have a basic understanding of our legislative process.
Like I said, I wasn’t trying to be a jerk. I really wasn’t.
Removed by mod
I live in a democratic society so I don’t know all the ins and outs of your 2party dictatorshipin in that shithole country
Where might that be? And if that’s how you feel, why do you care so much about our politics?
What does it matter?
Well I care because the US elections effects the world.
It’s also quite common to have a interest in things even if it does not directly effect me personally.
Such as the current ongoing genocide sponsored by your sitting president.
Lol admin is a baby.
Whaaaaat?
Edit: Where you from?
A vocal minority of “pro-life” Dems were openly hostile to enshrining abortion rights into law under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. Then a handful of “pro-life” Dem Senators killed an attempt to codify the tenants of Roe v Wade into law in 2017. Finally, the current President has refused any effort to add more justices to the SCOTUS in order to marginalize the sitting Conservative Catholic Califate dominating the branch.
So, on at least three notable occasions, yes. Dems have run away from abortion rights as an issue, while winking at their constituents and whispering “We’re the only ones who will protect you.”
Democrats have had tons of opportunities to make sure republicans could not remove them.
No. It wasn’t the legislature or the executive that removed those rights, it was the supreme court, stuffed with conservatives by the republicans.
Obama had the opportunity latest, are you lying to me or yourself?
I’m confused about what you mean. Obama was a while back. The republicans didn’t let him appoint a supreme court judge. Roe v Wade was overturned more recently under Trump by the supreme court judges he appointed. The Supreme Court overrules the legislature by interpreting the constitution. Passing a law, even if the republicans had allowed it, doesn’t stop the Supreme Court at all, they just declare the law unconstitutional. It used to work because there was balance in the Supreme Court and there were enough moderately honest judges that made judgement according to the law. It doesn’t work any more because it’s now just a way for the republicans to take full control of the country irrespective of established law. They recently ruled that the president is above the law and cannot make an illegal act as president and cannot be prosecuted afterwards for one. Democracy and the rule of law are now significantly less powerful than the president and will last only as long as whoever is president wants it to.
They need to win both houses. Obama was the last one to have that and he put his cards into the ACA. You really seem to only get one these days. As far as most people were concerned Roe v. Wade was settled and a long standing precedent that in no sane world could be overturned. I don’t think many people imagined we’d be here today. Let’s not blame the victims either. The left didn’t do this.
Haven’t the “left” warned about it since forever? Doesn’t Dems gi on elections using roe VS Wade? Seems most could imagine where we are today.
Haven’t the “left” warned about it since forever?
No? It was generally considered a settled issue until recently.
Recently ? Did not obama run on codifying RvsW?
No he ran on healthcare. That’s why we have the ACA now.
Must have been some other guy , an evil twin perhaps?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BdrOrwmk78Y
Nah, same guy. It’s just not what he “ran on”. That doesn’t mean it’s not an issue at all. Language matters, but if you want to fight over semantics you’re on your own.
Why are there only two options?
FPTP voting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
that video never addresses the elephant in the room or talks about the obvious solution: values voting. strategic voting is what leads to the party consolidation, but values voting prevents it.
I thought comics were supposed to be funny or poignant.
I mean maybe, but there’s a long history of political comics going back centuries and I think it’s a good fit for the Progressive Politics community.
You can probably add a couple 1,000 of years to how far political comics go back. Graffiti on town wall was a way to pass knowledge and express political opinions during ancient Rome. I’m assuming even before then, but we just have knowledge of it being done then.
Now THAT’S perspective!
A Protestant woodcut leaflet, commissioned in 1545 by Martin Luther
want to return them
But won’t actually.
Because republicans keep winning local elections and state elections and putting people in the supreme court, because Democrats don’t vote in all of the elections.
Hey now, if the Democrats win the presidency and a veto proof majority in both houses then they’ll do something and then take that proposal and compromise it with the right.
Anything less than the presidency and veto proof majorities in both houses and they’ll get nothing done at all.
So you disagree with Obama that the ruling party should consider all Americans’ perspectives when passing legislation?
I can see that, y’know. I’m still mad at Obama for constant capitulation. But I also don’t know everything he knew so - maybe it was the right way to do it. I dunno.
Assuming we’re taking about the executive branch, they’ve had two years to work on a fix for the overturn of RvW and they’ve done what exactly? What is another four years going to accomplish?
Make all the SCOTUS judges 4 years older and those senators that belive in the sanctity of the filibuster 4 years older.
Second vote should read “Democrats who let it happen”. Source:
The first thing I’ll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BdrOrwmk78Y
Im pro choice https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmzdkAbu8dY
Not my highest priority https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RxiDZejZFjg
parody… No https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1z4uhxpOnN0
See they have to blame the Dems for shit the Republicans did because otherwise someone might ask who let the Republicans get into office to do it in the first place.
The argument is like having someone who is punching you in the face point at someone else and say “he let me do it!”
People that arent here
Wait lol, are you seriously blaming the Democrats for not stopping the Republikkklowns? Holy shit my dude, how was that pitcher of kool aid? This is sad. Would you also argue that if I shot and killed you, it’s your fault for not stopping me? I shouldn’t go to jail because you had your chance to do something about it and you didn’t? Terrible take 1 outta 10.
Yes, the democrats are to blame for not stopping republicans. They barely scraped by in 2020 and have done everything in their power to depress voter turnout since. This same shit happened under Obama. In 2025 they will blame everything except their own failure to do what their voters are telling them to do.
That is a hilariously bad take. I just dribbled coffee down my chin, It’s your fault. You weren’t here to stop me.
Edit: If it wasn’t clear, I’m going to blame the republicans for doing what the republicans did.
Is it really that hard to understand that when politicians fail to do what they were elected to do, they lose elections?
We’d have a 1-party state if the democrats passed free healthcare and college in 2009 or 2021 instead of spending billions bombing brown kids on the other side of the planet and putting migrants in concentration camps.
We’d have a one party state if everyone voted too, why do you think the republikkklowns attempt to make it soooo much harder for the blue areas to vote?
Why would people vote for a party that won’t help them? Politicians aren’t owed a vote, they must make a credible argument to voters that they’ll improve their material conditions to be worth taking a day off work to vote. When they fail to carry out their promises, it’s very hard for them to make that argument.
Good question, why would anyone vote republikkklown? Credible??? Certainly not the right.
They had major chances to implement left wing policy during Obama’s 8 year presidency, but they gave you a right wing healthcare plan courtesy of Mitt Romney (without the public option). He bailed out the banks and kicked 5.2 million families out on the street. He dropped a record number of bombs, used drones more than anyone else.
They only had both houses and a balanced supreme court for two of those eight years, and getting the affordable care act, flawed as it is, across the line used up a lot of that.
I’m going to call massive bullshit on that one bud. The racist rapist with 34 felonies had more drone strikes in four years than Obama did in 8 years. Piss off with your bullshit.
Source for that? It’s quite an open truth that Obama was a leading murderer. Not that every other US president since ww2 also would hang if they were put to the same standard as at the Nuremberg trails.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data Obama still holds the record. Both are murderers at least we can agree on that.
Except Trump changed the reporting laws and a bunch of his aren’t reported, and your data is “estimated”. I’m going with the rapist with 34 felonies has more since that’s where the proof is.
deleted by creator
Fine, I forgot the words ‘before him’. I did, however try to find the final numbers (all four years). That was not easy. If you find them, let me know.
You won’t find them. After the rapist with 34 felonies passed up Obama, he changed the rules of reporting so we don’t get know just how much worse he was…After he said he wasn’t going to use them at all.
B b b biden bad!1!
I didn’t criticize biden, I criticized obama, because obama/democrats had the house and senate (fillibuster proof) and still did not deliver codified roe, even though he specifically ran on it…
In 2008 no one expected roe to be overturned, it wasn’t even remotely a thought. The promise of the Obama administration was healthcare reform, which they burned all their political capital on.
Additionally, the democrats never had their super majority because of the GOP challenging a senate seat/refusing to seat them and Al Franken’s subsequent departure.
In 2008 no one expected roe to be overturned
Why would they craft a bill to protect against that possibility if no one expected it?
We thought we had time and could do other things like health care for sick kids.
We didn’t realize what enormous fucking dipshit assholes the republiQans were fine with being.
Were “we” asleep during all eight years of Bush?
War for oil, yes. That we expected. Crimes against humanity, sure. Making a woman’s body the property of the state, just right-out; not as much. And every confirmation hearing they’d ask: what about Roe? And they’d all sheepishly whisper yeah we know it’s settled law, etc.
Besides, if they did it - just out-and-out overturned fucking Roe v Wade can you imagine the shitstorm they’d face? Half the country would demand their heads on pikes!
. . . Waitaminit . . . Statue of Liberty . . . gasp! That was our planet!!
We thought we had time and could do other things like health care for sick kids.
And “we” couldn’t even do that. Just gave enormous subsidies to private insurance instead. Did nothing to control the price of medical care so that nowadays we have people dying because the price of insulin exploded (just one example). All because Democrats had to compromise with conservatives even with what should have been a fillibuster-proof majority.
Huge populations of people who couldn’t see doctors before, now could. And it was moving mountains to get that. Yeah, it was Romneycare, that’s what we could get at the end of the day. Want H4A? Me too. Let’s vote in overwhelming majorities then ride them until they deliver.
That’s why, when our precious progressiver-than-yous bitch about everything not being a literal paradise and therefore they can’t help progress I want to utter unspeakable unholy curses. It takes a lot of work. And it’s twice as hard when both the so-called-left and the right are against it.
Why did progressives craft the Green New Deal if they knew it wasn’t going to ever pass?
Also it was in response to states passing restrictions. They were not worried about the Supreme Court overturning roe. Two different concerns .
In bargaining you initially overshoot so that you have room to negotiate down and you can still achieve at least some of what you want. The Freedom of Choice Act is a different situation where it’s defending a right that already exists.
Existed*
Did you not watch the four videos I linked. He specifically talks about roe.
The healthcare plan came from Mitt Romney, so how they “burned all political capital” on that is gaslighting.
Google obama filibuster proof
No I did not watch 4 videos in their entirety just to respond to a comment.
Yes we all know it was Romney-care. The democrats still burned their capital on it. I’m not sure why that doesn’t work for you. It’s not like any of that stopped the GOP from campaigning on it for a decade.
Yeah I’m just making a generalization because it sounds better than b b b Democrats bad!1! It really makes no difference, all you want to do is say b b b but Obama/Dems/Biden/etc baddd!1!
Don’t memory-hole important parts of history, or you’re bound to repeat it.
The fuck is that even supposed to mean. Well I get the gist, which is b b b but Dems/obama/biden bad1!1 Yeah, that’s all you can do.
Yeah, cause they suck ass.
Scathing rebuttal.
If you want to avoid another Trump term, yes.
Actually yes. Just because he clears the incredibly low bar of being better than trump, doesn’t mean he’s actually good.
Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along ‘party lines’). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine.
But you want to say he’s not good. Fucking lol.
Yes, but other than that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Increased drilling permits, massive tariffs on green energy technologies, being a critical part in creating the $1.7 trillion student loan debt problem, was one of the biggest “tough on crime” proponents who imprisoned many of those people, blocked the rail strike, and infrastructure and CHIPS bills have just been maintenance and throwing money at corporations and hoping they make things better. The credit for drug price controls goes to Bernie Sanders who has done more good as a senator than Biden has as a president.
Him giving a bit of relief to problems he created doesn’t make him good. Him throwing money at corporations doesn’t make him good. Biden has done some good things, but his achievements are overstated, inflated, and are far away from what would be considered good overall.
Ah so the “the entire world didn’t turn on its head in 2 years1!!1 I demand literally everything changes in the 2 years1!” Sorry but people that talk like this have absolutely no idea how much there is to change. Like how much industry, and policies, and fucking everything there is to change. Tariffs sure, but I don’t really blame politicians for wanting to make domestic industry. This is not a one and done issue, this is a massive industry that will be going forever (and even more as we see AI increasing electricity demands). And helping the student debt isn’t enough, you demand a time machine to go back in time and fix it back then too! Ditto for crime, more time machine! Fucking lol, it’s changed from wanting everything to change in 2 years to demanding a literal fucking time machine. Rail union https://youtu.be/EM6jMtG_MB8 Oh maintenance is not good enough anymore! That means Dems bad! Fucking lol. Helping grow domestic industry is now a bad thing, fucking lol. Another important and growing industry. Drug control prices is now not an act of congress! Fucking lol.
I can’t fucking believe the mental gymnastics that you just went through to try to say Dems bad1!1!
And it’s 2 years because that’s how long he had the house of representatives.
Is this the conversation where I have to say how long Dems have had all 3 of the House of Reps, Senate, and Presidency? Because you need all 3 to do much of anything. Sure. Out of the last 24 years, Dems have had all of them for 4 years. The first 2 years of Obama, and the first 2 years of Biden. That’s right, they’ve had control for 4 years out of the last 24 fucking years. And you wonder why progress is slow?
Biden has been president almost as long as Trump has, yet when Trump was president, we apparently were moved from merely doing okay (after EIGHT years of Obama) to being on the brink of a fascist takeover. Meanwhile within almost the same span of time under Biden, things haven’t noticeably improved. I’m not asking for a time machine, I’m just saying that you need to judge a person by their actions. For the vast majority of Biden’s career, he’s been milquetoast or outright harmful. What makes you think he has completely reversed his ways just by becoming president?
If you’re serious about wanting to fight fascism, you’re going to have to fight much more aggressively than how Biden is now, who isn’t really fighting at all, just being “not Trump” (but still like Trump in some aspects, like continuing his trade war with China). On the topic of this post, Obama had two years to protect reproductive rights, he even said, while he was campaigning, that he would sign the legislation within the first 100 days in office, but he did not.
A reminder that the bill isn’t new: “The bill was introduced to the Congress in 1989, 1993,[2] 2004[3] and 2007 (H.R. 1964/S. 1173).” Given such repeated actions of pretending to push for something but then not doing it when they have the power, what makes you think democrats are willing to actually push for more permanent solutions when they can just keep using such issues as a political bargaining chip?
Ok lots to cover here.
First: is that Dems need all 3 houses (house of representatives, senate, and presidency) to accomplish much of anything. Progress on the left requires actual work. You know things actually pass. That means you need all three of House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency.
The right: They don’t need to actually do any work. They don’t need to actually pass much. They can just sit on their ass and block things. This is partly how they stacked the court, they blocked Obama’s Supreme court appointment (only requires senate to block, and they were gleeful to do so) and then got their own pick under Trump.
The most the GOP wants to do is repeal what was already passed, and give tax breaks. It takes fuck all effort to do that. They get one house and they can demand tax breaks or they shut down the government. Or they try to repeal the ACA. They didn’t write a well thought out replacement which would have required actual work and thought. All they want to do is repeal. It takes fuck all effort to do that.
Progress requires actual effort, work, and time. Stagnation (or regression) requires next to nothing. Don’t overlook this concept.
Second: How long did Obama have all 3? Obama had that for two years. Should I all caps that since you all caps eight? Sure: Obama had all 3 for TWO years.
On to Biden. How long did Biden have all 3? He had it for 2 years.
Add that up. Dems have had all 3 for 4 years of the last 24 years. Read that again, they have had control for 4 years out of the last 24 fucking years. Should I all caps that? Sure: FOUR years out of the last 24 years.
Want to add Bill Clinton? Sure. Then it goes to 6 years out of the last 32 years.
Want to add Bush senior and reagan? Sure. Then it goes to 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years.
And that can still be filibustered. Want to discuss filibuster proof majority? Obama had that for 4 months. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS.
Ok third I guess. Obama’s 4 MONTH period to do things. He spent all the political capital and time on healthcare ACA. Spend time on the new thing progressive item that desperately needs to be done, that the country really, really needs. Or essentially back up what was already ruled a constitutional right. Hmmm. Hmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I barely blame him for tackling the new pressing item that had not been done before.
Throw in some more 1s to give your strawman more power
Having some fun, but they are not strawmans. Expecting/demanding that literally the entire world and everything in it turns on a dime is what this guy wants.
Well, i mean, he is actually good
So… if I leave my door unlocked, who goes to jail if my house is broken into?
Right. Blame the democrats because the conservatives are attacking women.
This is the same logic conservatives use when they blame illegal immigrants for taking jobs. Jobs OFFERED to them by American companies.
Really ? If you say one thing and not doing it when you are in power, is it strange if you loose the election? It obviously not the same.
Why do you think the democrats haven’t done anything since decades back?
My take is that " republicans bad vote for us" is a stupid way of going about it.
The us is a one party state but in true American extravaganza they have two.
Do you get anything from insurance companies if you don’t lock you door?
