California’s governor is being touted as a successor to the Biden throne. Though he’s often imagined as a beacon of progress, his feckless record shows otherwise.
With all due respect, as I understand where this sentiment comes from, that is how Trump gained momentum and won.
Trump gained momentum and won because the people in this country don’t know their ass from their elbow in terms of what is happening, and their whole picture of politics is based on confusion and incredibly effective weaponized propaganda.
You presented a child with a pretty unappealing fast food burger that had gone cold anyway, and a big lump of shit laced with (and labeled as) rat poison, and then he selected the shit and ate the whole thing. And your reaction is, “Well the burger should have been better.” I mean, it’s not at all an incorrect statement. But I feel like the way it played out should be automatic proof that the burger quality wasn’t the core of the issue.
I would say the citizens that experienced the fall out from NAFTA that gutted blue collar jobs and created the rust belt would say “the big lump of shit with rat poison” was the Democrats that threw the working class overboard years ago.
Speaking of poison, it is the same reason residents of Michigan would rather vote Trump because the Democratic party and Obama would rather gaslight them about their water being safe to drink instead of charging the corporations that cut costs that polluted the water with federal charges. Obama also bailed out Wall Street and left hard working Americans with a shell of an American dream.
The core of the issue is the Democrats use to be for the everyday man and they lost their way and eroded trust, that will never be gained back. What that leaves voters in fly over states with is a choice to vote their better interest or have a candidate that “tells it like it is” aka lie and get back at the party that screwed them over.
It’s not as black and white when you’re in the thick of it, as difficult as it is to reason with that base.
The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing people he didn’t exist. The greatest trick the Republican party pulled was convincing people that its most unpopular ideas are entirely Democrats’ fault.
NAFTA was championed by, majority supported, and voted in by mostly Republicans. It was ultimately bipartisan, but Democrats were significantly more opposed to it than Republicans (of Republican Congress members, only 10 in the Senate and 43 in the House voted against it; of Democrats, 28 in the Senate and 156 in the House voted against it).
This isn’t to say that NAFTA is objectively bad policy; most economists argue that it ultimately benefited the whole country. However it did expose US manufacturing to significant competition, reduced bargaining power for manufacturing workers, and shocked communities which were solely reliant on the sector to support them. Larger cities were mostly unaffected due to their more diverse economies, and in many cases thrived off increased trade and lower prices for goods. As a reminder, urbanites trend Democrat, rural folk trend Republican.
The trope that urban liberals successfully screwed over rural conservatives just isn’t true. Instead it seems that, at screwing themselves over, urban liberals failed and rural conservatives succeeded.
The greatest trick the Republican party pulled was convincing people that its most unpopular ideas are entirely Democrats’ fault.
That’s called being politically savvy and out playing your competition which is why the Democratic party is always in free fall.
All this back and forth leads to this point: The Democrats are not equipped to handle a full assault of our democracy and thinking Gavin Newsom is the guy with some funny parrot tweets is not a real answer.
Oh, I’m not saying anything about Newsom, just trying to dispel some sadly common misinformation about NAFTA. I’ve yet to form a solid opinion of the guy, but I’m not without cynical biases, so he’s got an uphill battle to win in my mind.
When you don’t have a choice that didn’t back NAFTA then you vote for the ones who are currently saying it sucks. Not the ones pointing to obscure economic indicators and saying everything is fine.
Sure. But let’s set the record straight: blue collar jobs in the States didn’t suffer because “Democrat bad and hate workers!” That’s a myth perpetuated by politicians who would manipulate us for their own gain, Republican and Democrat alike.
In meantime we gotta figure out what to do with a ball of shit filled with rat poison.
It’s also relevant that Biden did more for blue collar jobs in the States than anyone since Lyndon Johnson. Along with climate change, it’s something he actually took seriously and fought for, and achieved some success with, which made him a massive outlier in the party of Clinton and Chuck Schumer and all those assholes. How he got that through our current congress, I have absolutely no idea.
And, of course, no one really noticed, because our media is awful and people on social media have no idea what they’re talking about. Even the “sophisticated” left has still been talking about it as if none of that or the climate action had happened.
… Biden did more for blue collar jobs in the States than anyone since Lyndon Johnson.
For fear of reminiscing “the good old days” … Yes, I did like a lot of his policies, especially regarding linking (ever-so-slightly progressive) climate policy with blue collar jobs. The theory was that red states would see enough of the benefits (or the hope of benefits) to soften on the Left. That clearly didn’t work out in the short-run. The Biden administration’s biggest weakness is Trump’s unfortunate strength: capturing media attention and driving a narrative, regardless of truth (i.e. bullshitting).
especially regarding linking (ever-so-slightly progressive) climate policy with blue collar jobs
Yeah, the branding of the whole thing was pure amateur-hour. But he spent about a trillion dollars on climate change and blue-collar jobs, which he raised by big corporate tax increases. It’s wild that no one knows that, and I’d call it a little bit more than ever-so-slightly.
A cold fast food burger would have been miles ahead of what we were offered. Democrats wouldn’t even say “Genocide is bad, and we shouldn’t support it”. They continuously gaslight Americans on the economy. They support the bombing of kids, and torture programs. They expand out the Republican’s surveillance programs.
It’s not a choice of a burger vs shit, it’s a vomit vs shit
I think a big issue is that money and religion have deep ties in the US. Taking a hard stance against Israel at that point in time would cost votes in purple states; it was the right thing to do, but it would have lost votes. Given there are full on pacs that track each candidate on how much they openly support Israel I have no doubt they would have used money and influence to push them on it.
I think the issues with the economy were that it was still rocked by Covid and the after effects of it. Not having enough votes in the Senate meant nothing could get passed to help the people. Having the Supreme Court stacked by Republicans meant that even student loan forgiveness was shot down.
Really it’s more like a burger that covered in crap. If we want the burger remade to taste right then Democrats needed to win big in 2024. The opposite happened. Democrats lost House seats, Senate seats, and the Presidency. Any positive change now pretty much requires big wins now in 2026 and 2028 to be big wins for the Democratic Party.
For some perspective on how bad the losses for us were: if Democrats won a big trifecta in 2024, we could have uncapped the House, expanded the Supreme Court and set term limits, done away with the Filibuster to get important legislation passed, and even implemented legislation to tackle Gerrymandering across the nation. Just the uncapped House bit would have made it so elections are won by the Popular Vote.
Not having enough votes in the Senate meant nothing could get passed to help the people.
Yet there seemed enough votes to spend more money on foreign wars, and bailing out their rich friends. There also seemed to be enough political capital to take away the highly popular covid-benefits.
Having the Supreme Court stacked by Republicans meant that even student loan forgiveness was shot down.
That’s why he took that route: So that he could look like the good guy, while not actually fixing the problem.
Really it’s more like a burger that covered in crap.
Only if you think there is nutritional value in the Dems. I sure don’t see any.
For some perspective on how bad the losses for us were: if Democrats won a big trifecta in 2024, we could have uncapped the House, expanded the Supreme Court and set term limits, done away with the Filibuster to get important legislation passed, and even implemented legislation to tackle Gerrymandering across the nation. Just the uncapped House bit would have made it so elections are won by the Popular Vote.
Why would you expect any of that to happen? They’ve had the chance to fix these things in the past, and chose not to.
Yet there seemed enough votes to spend more money on foreign wars, and bailing out their rich friends. There also seemed to be enough political capital to take away the highly popular covid-benefits.
You’re right, as there is always funding available when it comes to international conflicts that relate to US interests, especially when certain Congress members districts make money hand over fist from those deals.
2020 is a prime example of Republicans bailing out their rich friends since they demanded that there be zero oversight for the several trillions of dollars going out to stimulate businesses.
The public is the least likely to get any assistance if there is not a Democratic trifecta, since Republicans notoriously will not cross party lines if it means giving Democrats a “win”. Because Democrats did not have big enough majorities in 2021, they were unable to secure additional Covid aid for people. Namely, having Sinema and Manchin, who are both Independents, did not help as they both refused to join with Democrats on bringing more aid. Meaning it was 48 D - 52 R in the Senate. This gridlocked meaningful legislation from passing.
That’s why he took that route: So that he could look like the good guy, while not actually fixing the problem.
So Biden was trying any way he could to get it passed. Biden actually did manage to get some student loan forgiveness passed, but not the mass amount that was hoped for because of the conservative Supreme Court.
Only if you think there is nutritional value in the Dems. I sure don’t see any.
I see that there is some value because they are trying to vote in policies that would actually help people, but they lack the votes to actually pass these things. I don’t see that as a fault of the legislators so much as an issue of us previously having given land so much more power than people in this country. When small states like Wyoming have as many Senators as big states like New York or California we end up in these situations where your voice matters more based on where you live.
I do see the Democratic Party itself slowly becoming more progressive as well as with the new influx in voters generally being more progressive than their parents or grandparents. Establishment Democrats are trying to push back against the progressives, since they see it as a threat to their seats, but frankly many of those politicians deserve to lose their seats for being actual do nothings.
Why would you expect any of that to happen? They’ve had the chance to fix these things in the past, and chose not to.
Mostly because the circumstances have changed. There used to be more buddy, buddy-ness in Congress, it wasn’t so hyper-partisan or was not visible to the old guard Democrats in Congress. Any guise of playing by the rules disappeared when Republicans broke their own made up rule to let a Supreme Court justice be added to the bench during an election year.
They didn’t have the votes to change many of those things in the past, and up until more of the early-2010s Democrats were still doing Gerrymandering themselves at times.
You’re right, as there is always funding available when it comes to international conflicts that relate to US interests…
Agreed. That’s why Biden spent his time helping out his military friends, and bombing the shit out of innocent people, instead of helping American voters.
2020 is a prime example of Republicans bailing out their rich friends since they demanded that there be zero oversight for the several trillions of dollars going out to stimulate businesses.
Agreed, and Biden’s bailouts were another prime example of the Democrats helping their rich friends too.
Because Democrats did not have big enough majorities in 2021, they were unable to secure additional Covid aid for people…Namely, having Sinema and Manchin, who are both Independents, did not help as they both refused to join with Democrats…
Well, that was the excuse they used:
They should have tried negotiating, but couldn’t be bothered to. They were busy helping out their friends. Biden also could have extended the covid relief, but chose not to.
So Biden was trying any way he could to get it passed.
Except for all the ways that would have actually worked. He could have just sent out the money, like he did with Israel. But he slow-rolled it, and sent it to the Supreme Court so they could shoot it down, and he could look like the good guy, without actually doing anything
I see that there is some value because they are trying to vote in policies that would actually help people, but they lack the votes to actually pass these things.
No, they had plenty of votes, but chose to pretend that they were powerless so that they didn’t have to do anything. Once again, it was clear that they could get shit done when it came to bombing kids, and helping out their rich friends, but couldn’t seem to muster up the energy when it came to the voters.
I do see the Democratic Party itself slowly becoming more progressive…
lolwut? The same party that campaigned with the Cheneys? that said they would keep bombing people oversees? That said they wanted more border controls, and are already backing down on support for LGBTQ+ people?
They didn’t have the votes to change many of those things in the past, and up until more of the early-2010s Democrats were still doing Gerrymandering themselves at times.
Yes they did. They just didn’t care because it wasn’t what their donors wanted.
Agreed. That’s why Biden spent his time helping out his military friends, and bombing the shit out of innocent people, instead of helping American voters.
It’s unfortunate that that’s the society we live in where it’s incredibly easy to rubber stamp arms, but incredibly difficult to rubber stamp aid. The military budget alone is a red flag of sorts for where our priorities lie as a country. I mean, when we have the largest air force and the second largest air force then you know it’s pretty bad.
At the end of the day, Red States don’t want money going to aid, and Red States have a disproportionate amount of power in this country. If it was just Blue and Purple States voting on aid then it would have been passed. There’s a reason that Blue states have progressive programs within the states themselves, but Red states do not have those types of programs. If it was just up to Democrats then we would have more progressive programs in place already.
Agreed, and Biden’s bailouts were another prime example of the Democrats helping their rich friends too.
Is this in reference to the Silicon Valley Bank bailout or US/Israel funding?
They should have tried negotiating, but couldn’t be bothered to. They were busy helping out their friends. Biden also could have extended the covid relief, but chose not to.
Negotiating how though? It sounds like they tried again and again to get Sinema, Manchin, or the Republicans to agree to different stipulations but they were unsuccessful in getting to agree on several points. If they don’t have the votes, they don’t have the power to make those changes. Even if they had 51 votes on certain issues, the Republicans could Filibuster to stop them on specific issues. So there were two main issues stonewalling meaningful change from passing the Senate.
Except for all the ways that would have actually worked. He could have just sent out the money, like he did with Israel. But he slow-rolled it, and sent it to the Supreme Court so they could shoot it down, and he could look like the good guy, without actually doing anything
Biden sent out munitions which were already paid for is the thing, from my understanding. The President is not allowed to spend money unless told how it should be spent by Congress in funding bills. The fact that Trump is refusing to spend money how it was approved is blowing over 200+ years of rule following/checks and balances out of the water.
No, they had plenty of votes, but chose to pretend that they were powerless so that they didn’t have to do anything. Once again, it was clear that they could get shit done when it came to bombing kids, and helping out their rich friends, but couldn’t seem to muster up the energy when it came to the voters.
They had effectively 48 votes in the Senate from 2021-2024, that’s not enough to pass progressive legislation. I agree with you that there is broad agreement on support for munitions or for the military, but there is not broad support among the Republican legislators for more stimulus, aid, or progressive programs that help Americans. The fact that Republicans just passed a bill to take away funds for Medicaid should tell you everything you need to know about their platform and who has a majority in the House and Senate right now.
lolwut? The same party that campaigned with the Cheneys? that said they would keep bombing people oversees? That said they wanted more border controls, and are already backing down on support for LGBTQ+ people?
It’s becoming more progressive each year as more people become eligible to vote. The youth are generally much more progressive that the Baby Boomers or Gen Xers for instance. Both from a socially progressive perspective and from an economically progressive perspective. I’m not saying the people in Congress are more progressive overnight, but each election cycle we get a bit closer to people that vote and feel similar to AOC being in positions of power in the Democratic Party.
Yes they did. They just didn’t care because it wasn’t what their donors wanted.
I mean it’s a bit of both, some of the politicians were personally benefiting and others were being paid not to care or change things. There’s more of a consensus these days among Democrats as a whole to push back against gerrymandering, possibly because it’s become a more well known issue that the voters care about.
To be blunt, I’m not even going to continue this conversation with you. You keep saying that the Dems would do something if they had a chance, but they have had many chances, and chose to do things like bomb kids, instead of help out voters. I’ve provided the evidence above, and you keep pretending that they were powerless. Quit wasting my time unless you can provide evidence that they are actually trying.
I mean let’s be real here, why are we treating the Dem politicians like some collective that always acts in one uniform way and are all powerful to enact change? The reality of the situation is there is a lot of nuance, there is real difficulties in trying to enact change. There are barriers to getting legislation passed. I don’t like the reality of the situation as much as you don’t, but that’s why I feel we need to change things for the better.
Do I think lots of current old guard neo-liberals sign checks to fund the military without blinking, if it lets them keep their cozy job, uncontested? No doubt. Are there real people working within the Democratic Party to bring positive change? Of course.
Let’s not kid ourselves with sweeping generalizations though that don’t take that hard look at the harsh reality. Bringing positive change federally looks objectively bleak, Red states hold a lot of power and the fact that left leaning people are leaving these states in droves just concentrates the power in these states.
My point is that the Democratic Party is changing, albeit slowly, by virtue of the electorate itself changing. If you want faster change, then we’ll need a new voting system in each state like Alaska and Maine have done. That’s how we get more progressives like Mamdani in power and third parties as well.
Trump gained momentum and won because the people in this country don’t know their ass from their elbow in terms of what is happening, and their whole picture of politics is based on confusion and incredibly effective weaponized propaganda.
You presented a child with a pretty unappealing fast food burger that had gone cold anyway, and a big lump of shit laced with (and labeled as) rat poison, and then he selected the shit and ate the whole thing. And your reaction is, “Well the burger should have been better.” I mean, it’s not at all an incorrect statement. But I feel like the way it played out should be automatic proof that the burger quality wasn’t the core of the issue.
I would say the citizens that experienced the fall out from NAFTA that gutted blue collar jobs and created the rust belt would say “the big lump of shit with rat poison” was the Democrats that threw the working class overboard years ago.
Speaking of poison, it is the same reason residents of Michigan would rather vote Trump because the Democratic party and Obama would rather gaslight them about their water being safe to drink instead of charging the corporations that cut costs that polluted the water with federal charges. Obama also bailed out Wall Street and left hard working Americans with a shell of an American dream.
The core of the issue is the Democrats use to be for the everyday man and they lost their way and eroded trust, that will never be gained back. What that leaves voters in fly over states with is a choice to vote their better interest or have a candidate that “tells it like it is” aka lie and get back at the party that screwed them over.
It’s not as black and white when you’re in the thick of it, as difficult as it is to reason with that base.
The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing people he didn’t exist. The greatest trick the Republican party pulled was convincing people that its most unpopular ideas are entirely Democrats’ fault.
NAFTA was championed by, majority supported, and voted in by mostly Republicans. It was ultimately bipartisan, but Democrats were significantly more opposed to it than Republicans (of Republican Congress members, only 10 in the Senate and 43 in the House voted against it; of Democrats, 28 in the Senate and 156 in the House voted against it).
This isn’t to say that NAFTA is objectively bad policy; most economists argue that it ultimately benefited the whole country. However it did expose US manufacturing to significant competition, reduced bargaining power for manufacturing workers, and shocked communities which were solely reliant on the sector to support them. Larger cities were mostly unaffected due to their more diverse economies, and in many cases thrived off increased trade and lower prices for goods. As a reminder, urbanites trend Democrat, rural folk trend Republican.
The trope that urban liberals successfully screwed over rural conservatives just isn’t true. Instead it seems that, at screwing themselves over, urban liberals failed and rural conservatives succeeded.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1031/vote_103_1_00395.htm https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1993575
That’s called being politically savvy and out playing your competition which is why the Democratic party is always in free fall.
All this back and forth leads to this point: The Democrats are not equipped to handle a full assault of our democracy and thinking Gavin Newsom is the guy with some funny parrot tweets is not a real answer.
Oh, I’m not saying anything about Newsom, just trying to dispel some sadly common misinformation about NAFTA. I’ve yet to form a solid opinion of the guy, but I’m not without cynical biases, so he’s got an uphill battle to win in my mind.
When you don’t have a choice that didn’t back NAFTA then you vote for the ones who are currently saying it sucks. Not the ones pointing to obscure economic indicators and saying everything is fine.
Sure. But let’s set the record straight: blue collar jobs in the States didn’t suffer because “Democrat bad and hate workers!” That’s a myth perpetuated by politicians who would manipulate us for their own gain, Republican and Democrat alike.
In meantime we gotta figure out what to do with a ball of shit filled with rat poison.
It’s also relevant that Biden did more for blue collar jobs in the States than anyone since Lyndon Johnson. Along with climate change, it’s something he actually took seriously and fought for, and achieved some success with, which made him a massive outlier in the party of Clinton and Chuck Schumer and all those assholes. How he got that through our current congress, I have absolutely no idea.
And, of course, no one really noticed, because our media is awful and people on social media have no idea what they’re talking about. Even the “sophisticated” left has still been talking about it as if none of that or the climate action had happened.
For fear of reminiscing “the good old days” … Yes, I did like a lot of his policies, especially regarding linking (ever-so-slightly progressive) climate policy with blue collar jobs. The theory was that red states would see enough of the benefits (or the hope of benefits) to soften on the Left. That clearly didn’t work out in the short-run. The Biden administration’s biggest weakness is Trump’s unfortunate strength: capturing media attention and driving a narrative, regardless of truth (i.e. bullshitting).
Yeah, the branding of the whole thing was pure amateur-hour. But he spent about a trillion dollars on climate change and blue-collar jobs, which he raised by big corporate tax increases. It’s wild that no one knows that, and I’d call it a little bit more than ever-so-slightly.
When choosing between more worse and less worse, it makes sense to vote for less worse.
What’s infuriating is that we can’t vote for better because it doesn’t exist.
A cold fast food burger would have been miles ahead of what we were offered. Democrats wouldn’t even say “Genocide is bad, and we shouldn’t support it”. They continuously gaslight Americans on the economy. They support the bombing of kids, and torture programs. They expand out the Republican’s surveillance programs.
It’s not a choice of a burger vs shit, it’s a vomit vs shit
I think a big issue is that money and religion have deep ties in the US. Taking a hard stance against Israel at that point in time would cost votes in purple states; it was the right thing to do, but it would have lost votes. Given there are full on pacs that track each candidate on how much they openly support Israel I have no doubt they would have used money and influence to push them on it.
I think the issues with the economy were that it was still rocked by Covid and the after effects of it. Not having enough votes in the Senate meant nothing could get passed to help the people. Having the Supreme Court stacked by Republicans meant that even student loan forgiveness was shot down.
Really it’s more like a burger that covered in crap. If we want the burger remade to taste right then Democrats needed to win big in 2024. The opposite happened. Democrats lost House seats, Senate seats, and the Presidency. Any positive change now pretty much requires big wins now in 2026 and 2028 to be big wins for the Democratic Party.
For some perspective on how bad the losses for us were: if Democrats won a big trifecta in 2024, we could have uncapped the House, expanded the Supreme Court and set term limits, done away with the Filibuster to get important legislation passed, and even implemented legislation to tackle Gerrymandering across the nation. Just the uncapped House bit would have made it so elections are won by the Popular Vote.
Yet there seemed enough votes to spend more money on foreign wars, and bailing out their rich friends. There also seemed to be enough political capital to take away the highly popular covid-benefits.
That’s why he took that route: So that he could look like the good guy, while not actually fixing the problem.
Only if you think there is nutritional value in the Dems. I sure don’t see any.
Why would you expect any of that to happen? They’ve had the chance to fix these things in the past, and chose not to.
You’re right, as there is always funding available when it comes to international conflicts that relate to US interests, especially when certain Congress members districts make money hand over fist from those deals.
2020 is a prime example of Republicans bailing out their rich friends since they demanded that there be zero oversight for the several trillions of dollars going out to stimulate businesses.
The public is the least likely to get any assistance if there is not a Democratic trifecta, since Republicans notoriously will not cross party lines if it means giving Democrats a “win”. Because Democrats did not have big enough majorities in 2021, they were unable to secure additional Covid aid for people. Namely, having Sinema and Manchin, who are both Independents, did not help as they both refused to join with Democrats on bringing more aid. Meaning it was 48 D - 52 R in the Senate. This gridlocked meaningful legislation from passing.
They tried to pass regularly in the House and Senate, but they didn’t have the votes because Republicans voted against it and Independents like Manchin voted against it. That vote was 49 D - 50 R in the Senate.
So Biden was trying any way he could to get it passed. Biden actually did manage to get some student loan forgiveness passed, but not the mass amount that was hoped for because of the conservative Supreme Court.
I see that there is some value because they are trying to vote in policies that would actually help people, but they lack the votes to actually pass these things. I don’t see that as a fault of the legislators so much as an issue of us previously having given land so much more power than people in this country. When small states like Wyoming have as many Senators as big states like New York or California we end up in these situations where your voice matters more based on where you live.
I do see the Democratic Party itself slowly becoming more progressive as well as with the new influx in voters generally being more progressive than their parents or grandparents. Establishment Democrats are trying to push back against the progressives, since they see it as a threat to their seats, but frankly many of those politicians deserve to lose their seats for being actual do nothings.
Mostly because the circumstances have changed. There used to be more buddy, buddy-ness in Congress, it wasn’t so hyper-partisan or was not visible to the old guard Democrats in Congress. Any guise of playing by the rules disappeared when Republicans broke their own made up rule to let a Supreme Court justice be added to the bench during an election year.
They didn’t have the votes to change many of those things in the past, and up until more of the early-2010s Democrats were still doing Gerrymandering themselves at times.
Agreed. That’s why Biden spent his time helping out his military friends, and bombing the shit out of innocent people, instead of helping American voters.
Agreed, and Biden’s bailouts were another prime example of the Democrats helping their rich friends too.
Well, that was the excuse they used:
They should have tried negotiating, but couldn’t be bothered to. They were busy helping out their friends. Biden also could have extended the covid relief, but chose not to.
Except for all the ways that would have actually worked. He could have just sent out the money, like he did with Israel. But he slow-rolled it, and sent it to the Supreme Court so they could shoot it down, and he could look like the good guy, without actually doing anything
No, they had plenty of votes, but chose to pretend that they were powerless so that they didn’t have to do anything. Once again, it was clear that they could get shit done when it came to bombing kids, and helping out their rich friends, but couldn’t seem to muster up the energy when it came to the voters.
lolwut? The same party that campaigned with the Cheneys? that said they would keep bombing people oversees? That said they wanted more border controls, and are already backing down on support for LGBTQ+ people?
Yes they did. They just didn’t care because it wasn’t what their donors wanted.
It’s unfortunate that that’s the society we live in where it’s incredibly easy to rubber stamp arms, but incredibly difficult to rubber stamp aid. The military budget alone is a red flag of sorts for where our priorities lie as a country. I mean, when we have the largest air force and the second largest air force then you know it’s pretty bad.
At the end of the day, Red States don’t want money going to aid, and Red States have a disproportionate amount of power in this country. If it was just Blue and Purple States voting on aid then it would have been passed. There’s a reason that Blue states have progressive programs within the states themselves, but Red states do not have those types of programs. If it was just up to Democrats then we would have more progressive programs in place already.
Is this in reference to the Silicon Valley Bank bailout or US/Israel funding?
Negotiating how though? It sounds like they tried again and again to get Sinema, Manchin, or the Republicans to agree to different stipulations but they were unsuccessful in getting to agree on several points. If they don’t have the votes, they don’t have the power to make those changes. Even if they had 51 votes on certain issues, the Republicans could Filibuster to stop them on specific issues. So there were two main issues stonewalling meaningful change from passing the Senate.
Biden sent out munitions which were already paid for is the thing, from my understanding. The President is not allowed to spend money unless told how it should be spent by Congress in funding bills. The fact that Trump is refusing to spend money how it was approved is blowing over 200+ years of rule following/checks and balances out of the water.
They had effectively 48 votes in the Senate from 2021-2024, that’s not enough to pass progressive legislation. I agree with you that there is broad agreement on support for munitions or for the military, but there is not broad support among the Republican legislators for more stimulus, aid, or progressive programs that help Americans. The fact that Republicans just passed a bill to take away funds for Medicaid should tell you everything you need to know about their platform and who has a majority in the House and Senate right now.
It’s becoming more progressive each year as more people become eligible to vote. The youth are generally much more progressive that the Baby Boomers or Gen Xers for instance. Both from a socially progressive perspective and from an economically progressive perspective. I’m not saying the people in Congress are more progressive overnight, but each election cycle we get a bit closer to people that vote and feel similar to AOC being in positions of power in the Democratic Party.
I mean it’s a bit of both, some of the politicians were personally benefiting and others were being paid not to care or change things. There’s more of a consensus these days among Democrats as a whole to push back against gerrymandering, possibly because it’s become a more well known issue that the voters care about.
To be blunt, I’m not even going to continue this conversation with you. You keep saying that the Dems would do something if they had a chance, but they have had many chances, and chose to do things like bomb kids, instead of help out voters. I’ve provided the evidence above, and you keep pretending that they were powerless. Quit wasting my time unless you can provide evidence that they are actually trying.
I mean let’s be real here, why are we treating the Dem politicians like some collective that always acts in one uniform way and are all powerful to enact change? The reality of the situation is there is a lot of nuance, there is real difficulties in trying to enact change. There are barriers to getting legislation passed. I don’t like the reality of the situation as much as you don’t, but that’s why I feel we need to change things for the better.
Do I think lots of current old guard neo-liberals sign checks to fund the military without blinking, if it lets them keep their cozy job, uncontested? No doubt. Are there real people working within the Democratic Party to bring positive change? Of course.
Let’s not kid ourselves with sweeping generalizations though that don’t take that hard look at the harsh reality. Bringing positive change federally looks objectively bleak, Red states hold a lot of power and the fact that left leaning people are leaving these states in droves just concentrates the power in these states.
My point is that the Democratic Party is changing, albeit slowly, by virtue of the electorate itself changing. If you want faster change, then we’ll need a new voting system in each state like Alaska and Maine have done. That’s how we get more progressives like Mamdani in power and third parties as well.