I have concluded that the Established Democrats would rather that Trump or somebody like him is POTUS than to concede to the Left on anything, even on a morally highly charged subject like the mass murdering of tens of thousand of children (in Gaza) which at least for some people would make the Democrat candidate so repugnant that they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for her even “to stop Trump”
Had Kamala genuinelly conceded to the Left on some things and not latched on to none other than the Cheney familly (honestly, I don’t thing the Israeli subject was by itself enough to cause that loss), she could very well have won, but that faction of the Democrats would rather loose than stop cozing with the hard-right, so they lost to none other than Trump.
If what the Democrat tribalists were parroting back them about how Trump was so horrible and the Democrats needed to win to stop his policies was indeed how the Established Democrats felt, they would NEVER had risked a Trump victory by adopting a Reject The Left strategy at all levels.
All this to say that these people will never undo what Trump did to the broader society (though the parts that make them less electable - i.e. that affect their own personal upsides - I’m sure they’ll undo) because they’re totally fine with it, as shown by how in the last election they would rather risk a second Trump presidency to keep on going Right politically than to pivot Left in the slightest of ways.
Without a Revolution inside the Democrat Party, the US will keep on going in the same direction as these Democrats will do nothing but talkie-talkie on reversing Trump’s policies and then in a few years another Trump character (or, worse, a genuinelly intelligent one) get in power again.
Right-to-work is just another bullshit anti-Union policy.
Republicans turn the wheel counter-clockwise while the Democrats don’t turn it.
The last time Democrats had a filibuster -proof legislative trifecta it was for 3 months and they passed Obamacare. When they don’t have Republicans blocking them every step of the way, they actually do work to improve things. They aren’t perfect by a long shot, but Democrats are the best of two options by far.
The ACA would have passed much faster if they didn’t try “working across the aisle” with the Republicans. If I remember, the original plan was to expand medicare to encompass more people who need it but negotiated to what Mitt Romney passed in his state while governor. Then the Republicans all voted against what they wanted. So the Democrats are either a paid opposition party or so absolutely naive to the dealings of Republicans and keep stepping on that rake. As well instead of making it a stepping stone they don’t really talk about improving it either. Also in that time they could have enshrined abortion rights into law that is harder to overthrow than a supreme court ruling.
No matter how your parse things, the Democrats aren’t good.
Then its time for a third option.
Obamacare was the implementation of a 1989 Heritage Foundation plan to implement an individual mandated health care system.
Also by no available metric did Obamacare “improve things”. Healthcare costs rose significantly above the pre-ACA trend, bankruptcy increased, and health outcomes plummeted across nearly all metrics.
When was the last time Republicans had a 60-vote majority in the Senate? Why do you need 60 votes to fix that which didn’t take 60 votes to break?
The Republicans have demonstrated that no, these things do not take time.
If America was a school we’d have one party full of bullies smoking in the bathroom who don’t give a shit if one of their ranks breaks the rules so long as it’s not messing with them personally, and we’ve got another party full of brown nosers who will run and tell the teacher any time someone even thinks about using the wrong kind of pencil. Neither is good for the student body as a whole, but in very different ways.
The teacher? John Roberts & co.
I asked for a gender inclusive restroom, was gaslighted those things take time. I then emailed CEO cc’ed chair of board of directors. It was converted in 2 days.
It was never about time, it’s about agency
Yep, it takes time for us peons but the dictators can do anything they please.
Add long as you brazenly break rules and laws, and your controlling party willingly does nothing about it
Let’s break some laws to make everyone better off.
The only law democrats are willing to break is the Leahy law.
No that would be terrorism put the bread down Mr valjean
Breaking things is a lot faster than fixing them…
Particularly when you’re not interested in fixing them.
Have you ever broken an arm? A window? A car? A heart?
Fixing things takes time.
That doesn’t excuse not starting when given a chance. The focus should be on establishment Dems’ failures to start fixing things, not on setting some unrealistic expectation that all it would take is a snap of the fingers and bippity boppity boo.
That doesn’t excuse not starting when given a chance. The focus should be on establishment Dems’ failures to start fixing things
And until they start fixing things, “fixing things takes time” holds within it the implicit lie that they’re trying.
not on setting some unrealistic expectation that all it would take is a snap of the fingers and bippity boppity boo.
You’re right. That’s only for netanyahu’s every whim.
Burning things down is easy, building them up takes time
If they truly get a majority to override the president, or in the future can then make the tri fecta again, it’s easy to fix shit. Just make it what it was before, blast it through committees like the Republicans do with hardly a word from someone else. The question then is are Democrats incompetent or complicit.
Excuses excuses.
Yes, Democrats like to whine that they only got 60 votes in the Senate for a short period during Obama’s term. You want to know the last time Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate? 1911.
It’s been over a century since Republicans had that kind of majority, and I think back then the filibuster had a larger threshold to overrule, so they probably didn’t even have a filibuster-proof majority even then. You probably have to go back to Reconstruction to find Republicans with that kind of majority.
Do you know how Republicans dismantle programs without a filibuster-proof majority? They do it by cutting funding. They cut funding to programs and zero out their budgets. The program still exists in legislation; it just isn’t funded.
To fix that damage does not require breaking a filibuster. It just requires properly funding those programs again. And funding can be passed with just a simple majority.
And of course, much of what Republicans do is done by executive order, and that can easily be reversed by the next Democratic president.
Burn down systems of oppression, then. Oh wait. That also magically takes time because this stupid platitude is just the latest in a long line of excuses from the pawl of the ratchet.
Then start burning what the republicans built or fuck off.
They’ll give Trump a golden parachute, wish him the best, then continue the ratchet effect. Neo-liberals are as much enemies of democracy as the reactionaries.
He already has his golden parachute. He’s been appointed the chair of “The Board of Peace” for the rest of his life.
we must move forward and heal which is why we won’t push for charges or do any investigations
Just like they did with the bushes and Nixon and Reagan
If you cannot blame racism you can blame Reagan.
Worse I’d say, they’re less upfront about it
Power is never given, it is taken.
I see a lot of discourse around this theory that when Democrats are in power they’ll reverse everything this regime has done. Yes this is a comforting thought but it’s way too much to expect from the Democratic Party as we know it now.
The Executive branch has been given (and has taken) an extreme amount of power to the point where the balance we once knew is now nonexistent. Does anyone think for one second the next president will just forfeit those gains? What incentive is there? And as we’ve seen and continue to see, who will hold them to account?
My bet is that we’ll see a few easy ‘gimme’ reversals that are enough to enable our slide back into the complacency we so desperately crave.
Spanberger is part of the paid opposition party. She will never do anything to take power away from capitol, and Republicans will do everything to give more power to capitol.
Conservative dems are just republicans.
deleted by creator
I like that lady
Removed by mod
No. Thank you, Renfield.
Instead of acknowledging liberal complicity in our oppression you deflect to 1950s style ‘Russia Russia Russia’ hysteria
Removed by mod
If liberals spent more time punching right instead of left we wouldn’t be were we are politically. But they know they have too much to lose by dismantling the status quo. The level of privilege you have by defending our common oppressors keeps you comfortable
deleted by creator
Is Igor a meme? ELI5 please.
They’re being racist and calling the op Russian bot/agent for simply posting a description of what’s currently happening in the usa
With another example https://lemmy.world/comment/23787088
Thanks, I’m used to Ivan as a slur for Russians
Igor evokes “hunchback mad scientist assistant” to me.
As in Marty Feldman from Young Frankenstein, but others as well
It’s too obvious when Ivan is used.
Agreed usually Igor for me too but I’ve seen Ivan and Igor used so much here by specific accounts it’s sadly be becoming interchangeable when on fediverse. Or honestly anything that is critical of democrats
deleted by creator
