272
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] blazera@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

so most of this article was excuses as to why progressives supposedly cant achieve anything.

[-] Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

They are the ultra minority. I imagine the report points to that.

[-] blazera@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

yeah probably gonna stay that way with them following a non-progressive party

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

The progressive caucus is 100/213 house Dems, it's the largest Democratic caucus in Congress now. It's been growing steadily.

[-] Zaktor@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Eh, it is, but it's not really 100 members strong. It means the word has good branding among Democrats, but members like Hakeem Jeffries aren't going to go to bat to fight against business or do anything that might make the larger party uncomfortable if it doesn't accommodate a progressive demand.

[-] Sunforged@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The lack of actual political analysis in this thread is staggering. Thank you for being a reasonable voice.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I have yet to see any realistic paths suggested which would actually achieve all those policies. The most common one I see is to ignore the law and do it anyway and challenge Republicans to question it. Which, for some reason, they don't think Republicans will, despite a decade showing us to the contrary.

Even more ironically, they say that you are the fascist for disagreeing with them -- not, you know, the person actually suggesting they ignore the law to implement their agenda.

[-] Zaktor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I mean, making Republicans publicly block good things is good. Just because the Court is captured and Republicans are reliably awful doesn't mean the best course of action is just quietly accepting their power.

You're acting like the law is a hard and fast rulebook that you turn the crank and find the result. Our legal system is already full of gray areas, split decisions, and laws that are ignored because that's part of the role of the people enforcing it. Student loan forgiveness wasn't definitively illegal, it was only "illegal" because we knew the Republican court would find some way to stop it. They threw away the law to make that happen, and they'll do it again, but the first step in contesting their power is forcing them to wield it against public opinion, the next step is to remind the public of the limits of their power. Simply saying "good game, you got us, the Court gets to do whatever it wants" is just cowardice.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

democrats are currently at war with eachother which is most of what's preventing them from achieving anything progressive. Even if things like renewable energy, closing the wealth gap, gun control, healthcare reform are popular amongst democrats, they're far from unanimous. Even shit like ending the filibuster which would have given a democratic congress much more potency, was resisted by the same conservative democrats that poison the efforts of all progressive efforts.

Democratic fundraisers are pumping tons of money into both sides and getting nowhere. The path to achieving progressive policies is electing a progressive party, which does not currently exist.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think that's way more work than necessary. Look at what's still been accomplished the last several years. Democrats and Progressives have still passed COVID relief, an infrastructure bill, and the biggest climate change bill the US has ever had. Mainstream Democrats all agree we need a $15 minimum wage and national paid sick leave.

Look at the conservative Democrats that are holding up removal of the filibuster and mainstream Democrat policies. There's really just one, Manchin. Maybe Sinema too but I honestly have no fucking idea what's up with her. All we need is another Democrat senator or two, and we can kill the filibuster.

If you look at the composition of the Senate over time, Democrats have only had filibuster proof control of the chamber for 2-3 months of the last few decades. They passed Obamacare in that time -- which was originally going to have a single payer option, but a Manchin figure whose vote was necessary stood in the way.

The filibuster was also a bit less restrictive until recently. It used to be that you had to physically speak on the floor for a filibuster to happen, now you can just say it. The only appetite to really kill the filibuster has come very recently, in light of historic Republican stonewalling. We still have yet to send 50 Democrats who will kill the filibuster to the Senate. I think achieving that is much easier than creating a new progressive party, and it'll also let us get to passing left wing policy sooner.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Vote for Excuses/Distractions- 2024. “Make America the Same Again.”

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
272 points (90.5% liked)

politics

18894 readers
3175 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS