363
at the end of the day it's simple
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
363 points (87.7% liked)
Political Memes
5396 readers
2648 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Would be nice if they actually wanted to do it, instead of finding procedural excuses and rotating villains so it can't be done.
Or maybe those are actually obstructions getting in the way of the majority of the party that actively pushes for that stuff consistently?
You're alleging a party leadership conspiracy that would necessarily be of a size surpassing when a conspiracy will naturally collapse and be outed by its own members trying to save their own skin.
This isn't apologism, it's a mathematically proven fact of how conspiracies and secret keeping work.
Occam's razer, a big tent coalition party is naturally going to have at least one or two contrarian assholes and as a result needs to overperform winning mere simple majorities to be able to achieve the most points of their agenda.
We could turn around and call the Squad rotating villains for some of their symbolic votes against party policy, but we don't because those votes were rendered symbolic by there being a wide enough margin for those bills to pass anyways.
bro you don't have to have a conspiracy when your interests converge. where is this majority that's pushing for actual change and not just talking about it for campaign purposes?
Check the vote roles every time a bill's come up?
You say that as if a substantial portion of the fuckery (in general -- not about the Democrats or this issue specifically) isn't in the form of procedural machinations to stop things from coming up for a vote in the first place.
You say that as if it's not exactly what's kept happening. None of what's happening is new, just how often it keeps happening because Republicans have been taken over by the obstruction caucus completely.
Why are you so insistent on blaming the democrats for what the Republicans (and leftover Liebercrats) are doing to stop them from achieving anything?
What do you mean, "so insistent?" Check the username; that was my first reply to you in this thread.
Also, I said...
...and I meant it. I really am just pointing out the flaw in the "check the vote rolls" argument, not blaming Democrats!
dude you're the one making the argument. you're going to have to at least tell me what bills you're talking about
I'm not the one alleging a mass conspiracy to secretly hold back platformed legislation while appearing to support it.
bro you're replying to my comment that says there isn't a conspiracy. you can just say "I don't feel like providing sources for my claims" you don't have to try to act like you've got some moral high ground
They didn't codify Roe vs Wade when Obama had a supermajority, they could've raised the minimum wage any time between the 90s and now, etc.
They want to keep things on the table in order to be able to run on them.
You mean that super majority that lasted only long enough to get the Affordable Care Act done and even then only after like ten Joe Manchins had to be appeased first?
The dems have had all three branches for maybe ten percent of all that time since the 90s and even then only barely.
This would not be a problem if y'all spent half the energy turning out that you do complaining about what happened because everyone else did.
You say that as if they can't work on more than one piece of legislation at a time. They have aides and staffers! They have the manpower to do two things at once!
Thanks for affirming you don't know how fighting for votes on controversial legislation works.
Do you actually know for a fact that that's enough manpower to work on multiple major pieces of legislation at the same time, or do you just want to say that because you wamt be amgy?
You're kidding, right?
First of all, the Affordable Care Act was mostly just cheating off of Mitt Romney's paper.
Second, Federal legislation in general is ghostwritten by lobbyists most of the time to begin with.
Third, of course they have manpower: they control their own budget and can vote themselves as much help as they want. If they choose not to do that, it's hardly an excuse for failing to get shit done!
Fourth, even if the above weren't true and they really did have to choose between the ACA and the other things mentioned upthread, prioritizing further enshrining insurance industry bureaucracy in its privileged position was absolutely the wrong choice.
The passivity of regular folks is what allows fake grassroots interests to dominate the conversation on the Democratic side. Progressive people exist in the Democratic party, they aren't all Feinsteins. It's time to get the butts of people who are trying to enact change into seats of power, and let the ones who don't retire.
"let them retire"? Biden will never step down. Trump will never stop trying to be dictator. SCOTUS judges rule for life. Nobody with that level of power voluntarily retires. They need to be forced out of office. "let them retire" is the definition of passivity. Even if this is just about democrats, they're no less power hungry than republicans. No Democrat in a position of power would voluntarily retire unless they got caught in a big enough scandal, and even then probably not
When do you think they could have done it?
If only there had been a time in the past 15 years when the Democrats had the White House, the House, and the Senate. If only that had ever happened.
So the period of a few short months when they had a knock-down drag-out fight in their own party over public healthcare?
When that happened, were all the democrats voting together lock step?
The minimum wage was last raised by a Dem House, Senate, and President, all of which were arguably less progressive than the current incarnations. Why wouldn't they do it again if they had the votes?
Because then the "BOTHSIDES" narrative falls apart.