One side SAYS they align with their views, and then do the same shit as Republicans, and kind of just expect you to swallow excuses. Meanwhile we’ve watched Donald act unilaterally with near absolute power for two years, so we know objectively that the lack of power was (and is) never the problem. It was that they didn’t actually support what they said they did.
Still, this is very obviously the worse outcome. Democracy isn’t make a wish. You grow up and vote for the least shitty option to prevent the even more shitty options like an adult. Or you can keep crying about not getting your will like a child in the toy isle.
It was never about lack of power, but upending the democratic process.
Any president could plow through using executive orders, but no sane person would want that, and the fact that Trump is using that kind of power virtually unopposed because the GOP controls both senate and congress, should terrify everyone. Instead, here we are, asking why his predecessors wouldn’t resort to despotic measures.
People can’t pay their grocery bills, rent, get an abortion, and are being criminalized for being homeless and I’m still hearing people talking about norms as if that is the important issue.
It is a massive negative that Democrats, having had the power to change the (air quotes) “democratic process” at least twice in the last 20 years, across multiple economic calamities for workers, chose not to do so. (Conveniently while increasing their own wealth exponentially in the process.)
I want to understand what your playbook looks like here, because any executive order can be erased just as easy as it was signed.
But even more importantly, I want to know what the appeal is of a “Trump of the left”. Do people really think that a guy who believes that he has authority to hold both executive and legislative powers, is going to do better this time?
Someone that actually wants to disrupt the ills of the system could have tried effectively using the DOJ to imprison every pedophile, traitor, and corrupt politician currently in office, that would leave a nice heap of missing seats in the senate, getting a majority would be much easier. Remove the filibuster and pack the courts with a fresh set of folks like KBJ.
While you’re at it, use the DOE to enforce radical a climate agenda that disrupts the power of oil. You could even use the climate emergency to justify massive reductions in military presence around the world, letting the military budget go towards jobs programs for local green development. They could actually follow leahy laws and cut all military aid to Israel.
I would have hoped from the Trump presidency, more folks would realize the rules are largely built on biased interpretations and that you can bias those in other directions to make the country better. Now maybe you think I am absurd in my views, but maybe we can compromise a bit further than spending months with websites and means testing to slowly roll out partial student debt relief while giving all the time in the world for the right to send court cases against it. Put simply a Trump of the left would have done the effective thing of simply abolishing the debt unilaterally and giving the courts the much more difficult task of reinstating debt, rather than moving slow enough that it’s stopped before it starts.
See you say the same shit as repulicans but thats literally what the post is about. Democrats were never going to repeal abortion rights or the voting rights acts.they were never going to start an oil crisis or a trade war and tank the economy the same way. They were never going to support ice the same way (they actually just held out on a partial government shutdown and exceeded my expectations in doing so). Saying that they do the same is a straight up lie. And I’m not saying dems are perfect. The bar is in hell. But they aren’t doing the same.
By republicans. Clearly you’ve never had a civics course or you wouldn’t say stupid shit that shows you don’t understand how the US federal government functions.
You’re the only one bringing up an idea of “reinforcement”.
On the other hand, you do absolutely legislate law when abortion protections only had a SCOTUS case protecting them, especially since it was one that they’d been nibbling at for decades. Which is part of the reason that it’d been a topic for decades, and a campaign promise of Obama. One he decided later to just forget about.
a chronic lack of understanding how this government functions
It’s always funny to see the shitlibs show off the fantasy they construct to protect their sad worldview.
Look around at the US. This is your doing. You guys won. You drove the politics since the 90’s - and this is the result. None of this was a surprise to anyone but you.
I’m bringing up the correct terms here. When the supreme court decided something was legal there’s zero reason to reinforce those legal issues as they are settled law. Every conservative on the court also confirmed this was settled law during their confirmation hearings. They obviously lied. But you can’t legislate based off of Calvinball.
It’s always funny to see the shitlibs show off the fantasy they construct to protect their sad worldview.
Oh fuck off dude. I’m a shit lib? You guys don’t even fucking vote during the primaries so your candidates never make the general elections. All people like you do is snipe on the sidelines and never participate.
People like you are literally why the left loses so goddamn always.
How? By what mechanism could he prevent the supreme court from overturning established legal understanding? Because that’s not a thing the president gets to do, like what the fuck are you even talking about?
I’ll argue democract are ineffective to a fault, even ineffective in a weaponizable way to punish their consitutients for straying from the center. Again, the bar is in hell. But they did not repeal abortion rights directly and never would have.
It’s not though. The Democrats are feckless. You’ll see them in the dictionary when looking up weaponized incompetence (OK that has a vaguely different meaning but you know what I mean). But if the right had never gained power, the momentum to lose these rights never would have begun.
Donald acting unilaterally is not just a matter of a color map on the senate chart. It’s also a matter of a well-funded cult of worship that can never allow any dissonance.
Imagine a Democrat, in a majority, introduced a bill to make streets safer and add bike lanes. Imagine two Democratic senators rebutted “Hey, I don’t like that. I enjoy my F-150.” They probably wouldn’t be instantly kicked from the party and have their homes threatened to be burnt down. They’d have people gently try to negotiate with them.
On the other hand, let’s say a Democrat wanted a bigger change like jail time for use of a Nazi swastika, or the death penalty for ICE agents, or deploying troops to assist Ukraine. They wouldn’t really have a guarantee that every single senator in the Democratic aisle would stand against an impeachment action, because they don’t have that religious following; just general shared motives.
Democrats are allowed to disagree. It’s often a good premise that prevents all-out corruption or oligarchy, but it’s a notable weakness to account for when pushing landmark legislation off what people call a solid majority. Other comments have pointed out the original VRA passed with the help of Republicans because some Democrats stood against it.
False.
One side SAYS they align with their views, and then do the same shit as Republicans, and kind of just expect you to swallow excuses. Meanwhile we’ve watched Donald act unilaterally with near absolute power for two years, so we know objectively that the lack of power was (and is) never the problem. It was that they didn’t actually support what they said they did.
You don’t know his views, he could be really into fracking, small business owners, and war.
That last one for sure.
What do you think I include in that 30%?
Still, this is very obviously the worse outcome. Democracy isn’t make a wish. You grow up and vote for the least shitty option to prevent the even more shitty options like an adult. Or you can keep crying about not getting your will like a child in the toy isle.
It was never about lack of power, but upending the democratic process.
Any president could plow through using executive orders, but no sane person would want that, and the fact that Trump is using that kind of power virtually unopposed because the GOP controls both senate and congress, should terrify everyone. Instead, here we are, asking why his predecessors wouldn’t resort to despotic measures.
LOL
People can’t pay their grocery bills, rent, get an abortion, and are being criminalized for being homeless and I’m still hearing people talking about norms as if that is the important issue.
It is a massive negative that Democrats, having had the power to change the (air quotes) “democratic process” at least twice in the last 20 years, across multiple economic calamities for workers, chose not to do so. (Conveniently while increasing their own wealth exponentially in the process.)
I want to understand what your playbook looks like here, because any executive order can be erased just as easy as it was signed.
But even more importantly, I want to know what the appeal is of a “Trump of the left”. Do people really think that a guy who believes that he has authority to hold both executive and legislative powers, is going to do better this time?
Someone that actually wants to disrupt the ills of the system could have tried effectively using the DOJ to imprison every pedophile, traitor, and corrupt politician currently in office, that would leave a nice heap of missing seats in the senate, getting a majority would be much easier. Remove the filibuster and pack the courts with a fresh set of folks like KBJ.
While you’re at it, use the DOE to enforce radical a climate agenda that disrupts the power of oil. You could even use the climate emergency to justify massive reductions in military presence around the world, letting the military budget go towards jobs programs for local green development. They could actually follow leahy laws and cut all military aid to Israel.
I would have hoped from the Trump presidency, more folks would realize the rules are largely built on biased interpretations and that you can bias those in other directions to make the country better. Now maybe you think I am absurd in my views, but maybe we can compromise a bit further than spending months with websites and means testing to slowly roll out partial student debt relief while giving all the time in the world for the right to send court cases against it. Put simply a Trump of the left would have done the effective thing of simply abolishing the debt unilaterally and giving the courts the much more difficult task of reinstating debt, rather than moving slow enough that it’s stopped before it starts.
See you say the same shit as repulicans but thats literally what the post is about. Democrats were never going to repeal abortion rights or the voting rights acts.they were never going to start an oil crisis or a trade war and tank the economy the same way. They were never going to support ice the same way (they actually just held out on a partial government shutdown and exceeded my expectations in doing so). Saying that they do the same is a straight up lie. And I’m not saying dems are perfect. The bar is in hell. But they aren’t doing the same.
Roe v Wade was repealed under Biden
By republicans. Clearly you’ve never had a civics course or you wouldn’t say stupid shit that shows you don’t understand how the US federal government functions.
I’m well aware of how the US government functions, dipshit. You’re saying that because the results of your failed strategy are apparent.
Clearly you don’t.
You don’t ‘reinforce’ a law when there is established legal precedent because, there is legal precedent.
That’s like making more laws saying murder is illegal.
You accellerationists have such a chronic lack of understanding how this government functions.
You’re the only one bringing up an idea of “reinforcement”.
On the other hand, you do absolutely legislate law when abortion protections only had a SCOTUS case protecting them, especially since it was one that they’d been nibbling at for decades. Which is part of the reason that it’d been a topic for decades, and a campaign promise of Obama. One he decided later to just forget about.
It’s always funny to see the shitlibs show off the fantasy they construct to protect their sad worldview.
Look around at the US. This is your doing. You guys won. You drove the politics since the 90’s - and this is the result. None of this was a surprise to anyone but you.
I’m bringing up the correct terms here. When the supreme court decided something was legal there’s zero reason to reinforce those legal issues as they are settled law. Every conservative on the court also confirmed this was settled law during their confirmation hearings. They obviously lied. But you can’t legislate based off of Calvinball.
Oh fuck off dude. I’m a shit lib? You guys don’t even fucking vote during the primaries so your candidates never make the general elections. All people like you do is snipe on the sidelines and never participate.
People like you are literally why the left loses so goddamn always.
Sorry to burst your bubble, shitlib, but I am registered as a Democrat precisely to vote in the primaries, which I always do.
You’re really showing off that “understanding” too. Keep it up comrade.
The point is that Biden could’ve made it unrepealable, but didn’t
How? By what mechanism could he prevent the supreme court from overturning established legal understanding? Because that’s not a thing the president gets to do, like what the fuck are you even talking about?
Court packing, among others. Something the Democrats, who controlled both houses and the Presidency, chose not to do.
https://www.stevenslee.com/appellate/heeding-fdrs-cautionary-tale-biden-says-no-to-adding-supreme-court-justices/
That’s not something the president can do, that’s a power of Congress. Thank you for proving my point.
Are you unaware that Biden was elected with both houses of Congress in 2020?
That you don’t understand what political parties are, or . . .?
I’ll argue democract are ineffective to a fault, even ineffective in a weaponizable way to punish their consitutients for straying from the center. Again, the bar is in hell. But they did not repeal abortion rights directly and never would have.
No, they simply refused to do anything to stop the repeal, of course.
Why are you saying this like it conflicts with anything I’ve said?
I’m not. I’m saying the difference is meaningless in results though.
It’s not though. The Democrats are feckless. You’ll see them in the dictionary when looking up weaponized incompetence (OK that has a vaguely different meaning but you know what I mean). But if the right had never gained power, the momentum to lose these rights never would have begun.
Doing something =/= letting something happen
The Democrats being feckless guaranteed the right would gain power though. As many warned at the time.
Donald acting unilaterally is not just a matter of a color map on the senate chart. It’s also a matter of a well-funded cult of worship that can never allow any dissonance.
Imagine a Democrat, in a majority, introduced a bill to make streets safer and add bike lanes. Imagine two Democratic senators rebutted “Hey, I don’t like that. I enjoy my F-150.” They probably wouldn’t be instantly kicked from the party and have their homes threatened to be burnt down. They’d have people gently try to negotiate with them.
On the other hand, let’s say a Democrat wanted a bigger change like jail time for use of a Nazi swastika, or the death penalty for ICE agents, or deploying troops to assist Ukraine. They wouldn’t really have a guarantee that every single senator in the Democratic aisle would stand against an impeachment action, because they don’t have that religious following; just general shared motives.
Democrats are allowed to disagree. It’s often a good premise that prevents all-out corruption or oligarchy, but it’s a notable weakness to account for when pushing landmark legislation off what people call a solid majority. Other comments have pointed out the original VRA passed with the help of Republicans because some Democrats stood against it.