How many of those could be done with the amount of control the Dems have had in the past 8 years? They had full control of the government with the barest of majorities for 2 years with 2 senators that were basically liberal Republicans. You got Gaza, but besides that the rest require Congressional action. While in control they did get the biggest investment in green energy ever, they did get substantial increases for infrastructure (including public transport), and they substantially increased the amount of tech that will be made in the US.
Why didn’t you get those things done? Because you didn’t have the power to do it, just like Dems didn’t.
You are about to find out just how much and how fast Republicans get things done when they have all three branches, as opposed to the Dems who are ALWAYS held up by just one vote from their own party or “the parliamentarian”.
What policies changed when they courted Republicans? Because as far as I can tell nothing changed for that but they did say that even with our policy differences, Republicans advocated voting for Dems. Dems have lgbtq+ and black people and immigrants and unions and many other groups that don’t have a single unifying cause. Republicans have Christian white people for the most part.
What policies changed when they courted Republicans?
They didn’t need to, because the Democrats have already been governing like Republicans. Pro-fracking, pro-genocide, pro-“States Rights” to deal with trans people as they see fit, etc.
Because as far as I can tell nothing changed for that but they did say that even with our policy differences, Republicans advocated voting for Dems.
Admitting that the Democrats are good enough for some right-wing talking heads is a damning indictment of the Democrats.
I’ve heard the argument from practicality for decades, but it just doesn’t pass the laugh test. When George Bush started the Iraq War, was that practical? No. When Donald Trump did everything Donald Trump does, was that practical? No. But they made big changes. Bad changes, but big changes.
So why is it that only the Republicans can make big changes? I think it’s because your position is the coward’s position. If you never try to make the country better in a major way, because you’re convinced it’s impossible, of course you’re always going to fail. And voters know this. We understand why people are afraid to take big steps, but we don’t respect it.
The war didn’t take Congressional action to start. Bush started it unilaterally and was later authorized in a bipartisan manner.
Republicans almost always act as a unified block regardless of what’s happening. There was one or two that acted like they might not vote with them but still had a 95%+ voting record. That’s why it was so amazing when John McCain prevented the killing of the ACA.
3.The Senate heavily favors Republicans because of the number of small states so it’s much easier for them to get 50+ members and the house mildly favors the Republicans because of gerrymandering.
It’s easier to kill things and change the tax code than pass positive programs/laws. Because funding/tax bills have to originate from the House, the Senate historically just requires an up/down vote instead of requiring 60 votes like normal. This in association with 2 means programs can be starved of funding and tax changes are much easier for Republicans.
Democrats will vote for Republican sponsored things if it benefits the people. Like keeping the government open or the minor crime reform bill the was passed during Trump. The reverse largely isn’t true.
This isn’t defeatist. It’s a realistic understanding of how the systems work. The fact that we got so many major things passed with such a tiny amount of control and in such a small amount of time is amazing.
Those likely wouldn’t have gotten through Congress but that’s a poor excuse to abandon the efforts entirely. Embrace those changes as part of the platform, fight for them, make the Republicans publicly oppose what the people want instead of taking the accountability for doing that yourself.
The Democrats’ insistence on working across the aisle with a coalition that has abandoned good-faith bipartisanship only cedes power to the Republicans.
Obama won in 2008 with a message of “yes we can” but since he left office the Democrats’ most consistent message to voters has been “no we can’t”.
Since when did Dems abandon those things? They have repeatedly had them in the platform or at least verbally supported them and have pushed bills in Congress to get them done. The complaint was that they weren’t done under Dems control not that Dems didn’t support the issues.
Dems will make compromises to get incremental change. I don’t fault them for that. They fight for every inch they can get. That’s not a flaw it’s a feature. Giving up something that is minor for bigger progress on something else can be worth it. Just like when Pelosi and Schumer gave up minor concessions to Trump for significant protection on the budget fight.
Their propensity for approaching issues with small, incremental change is why they’re losing to a populist while their constituents are being eaten alive by runaway capitalism.
So that’s why 15 Million less people voted this year for the democratic candidate? All because the Biden administration could only acomplish some of their goals? That 15 million would have voted if they were more stubborn and further left on policies, or if they had managed more of the goals? I don’t understand how that makes sense.
I think it’s common knowledge that there are significant coalitions of people who won’t turn out for the Democrats because of things like Gaza/controversial presidential nominations/general disillusionment with the party. My own Dad, a lifelong Democrat voter, likely voted for RFK Jr. this time around because he isn’t satisfied with what the Democrats are delivering and lives in a safely blue state. I don’t agree with his decision, but as with the many others like him I can’t stop him from making it.
That’s fair. I’m just trying to decide what I can do living in a country more concerned with populism than policy, and really don’t like the reality of that situation. I should probably speak with some Punk artists and musicians.
What tactic should they have used to get those big things passed? Shutting down the government is pretty much the only thing they weren’t willing to do.
Again incremental change is the only thing that could get done with the power they were given. They still support major change but they don’t have enough power to get it done. Yes it sucks that one party is trying to improve things and they can’t get more done. But what else would you have them do with the amount of power they were given?
Marijuana probably could pass. They didn’t really try. It’s supported by most Republican voters. It’d be a death sentence for a lot of the Republicans to vote against it.
It helps maintain the status quo though, so they didn’t want it gone.
Again requires Congressional action and there have been multiple bills that have passed through a democratic controlled house or Senate but stalled in the other half of Congress because Republicans wouldn’t vote for it and there wasn’t a large enough majority of Dems to get it done. Go check out mpp.org for more info.
It doesn’t take but 10-15 minutes of looking up information to find out Dems attempted to get it done but once again Republican obstruction (like has been happening since 2008) prevented real reforms.
How many of those could be done with the amount of control the Dems have had in the past 8 years? They had full control of the government with the barest of majorities for 2 years with 2 senators that were basically liberal Republicans. You got Gaza, but besides that the rest require Congressional action. While in control they did get the biggest investment in green energy ever, they did get substantial increases for infrastructure (including public transport), and they substantially increased the amount of tech that will be made in the US.
Why didn’t you get those things done? Because you didn’t have the power to do it, just like Dems didn’t.
You are about to find out just how much and how fast Republicans get things done when they have all three branches, as opposed to the Dems who are ALWAYS held up by just one vote from their own party or “the parliamentarian”.
I don’t disagree. Different parties have different makeups. Dems are big tent and Repubs are unified single issue voters.
Dems are absolutely NOT “big tent”; that is only a marketing term
They stopped trying to be “big tent” when they started courting Republicans instead of their own voting bases.
What policies changed when they courted Republicans? Because as far as I can tell nothing changed for that but they did say that even with our policy differences, Republicans advocated voting for Dems. Dems have lgbtq+ and black people and immigrants and unions and many other groups that don’t have a single unifying cause. Republicans have Christian white people for the most part.
They didn’t need to, because the Democrats have already been governing like Republicans. Pro-fracking, pro-genocide, pro-“States Rights” to deal with trans people as they see fit, etc.
Admitting that the Democrats are good enough for some right-wing talking heads is a damning indictment of the Democrats.
I’ve heard the argument from practicality for decades, but it just doesn’t pass the laugh test. When George Bush started the Iraq War, was that practical? No. When Donald Trump did everything Donald Trump does, was that practical? No. But they made big changes. Bad changes, but big changes.
So why is it that only the Republicans can make big changes? I think it’s because your position is the coward’s position. If you never try to make the country better in a major way, because you’re convinced it’s impossible, of course you’re always going to fail. And voters know this. We understand why people are afraid to take big steps, but we don’t respect it.
Few things here.
3.The Senate heavily favors Republicans because of the number of small states so it’s much easier for them to get 50+ members and the house mildly favors the Republicans because of gerrymandering.
This isn’t defeatist. It’s a realistic understanding of how the systems work. The fact that we got so many major things passed with such a tiny amount of control and in such a small amount of time is amazing.
Those likely wouldn’t have gotten through Congress but that’s a poor excuse to abandon the efforts entirely. Embrace those changes as part of the platform, fight for them, make the Republicans publicly oppose what the people want instead of taking the accountability for doing that yourself.
The Democrats’ insistence on working across the aisle with a coalition that has abandoned good-faith bipartisanship only cedes power to the Republicans.
Obama won in 2008 with a message of “yes we can” but since he left office the Democrats’ most consistent message to voters has been “no we can’t”.
Since when did Dems abandon those things? They have repeatedly had them in the platform or at least verbally supported them and have pushed bills in Congress to get them done. The complaint was that they weren’t done under Dems control not that Dems didn’t support the issues.
Dems will make compromises to get incremental change. I don’t fault them for that. They fight for every inch they can get. That’s not a flaw it’s a feature. Giving up something that is minor for bigger progress on something else can be worth it. Just like when Pelosi and Schumer gave up minor concessions to Trump for significant protection on the budget fight.
Their propensity for approaching issues with small, incremental change is why they’re losing to a populist while their constituents are being eaten alive by runaway capitalism.
So that’s why 15 Million less people voted this year for the democratic candidate? All because the Biden administration could only acomplish some of their goals? That 15 million would have voted if they were more stubborn and further left on policies, or if they had managed more of the goals? I don’t understand how that makes sense.
I think it’s common knowledge that there are significant coalitions of people who won’t turn out for the Democrats because of things like Gaza/controversial presidential nominations/general disillusionment with the party. My own Dad, a lifelong Democrat voter, likely voted for RFK Jr. this time around because he isn’t satisfied with what the Democrats are delivering and lives in a safely blue state. I don’t agree with his decision, but as with the many others like him I can’t stop him from making it.
That’s fair. I’m just trying to decide what I can do living in a country more concerned with populism than policy, and really don’t like the reality of that situation. I should probably speak with some Punk artists and musicians.
What tactic should they have used to get those big things passed? Shutting down the government is pretty much the only thing they weren’t willing to do.
Again incremental change is the only thing that could get done with the power they were given. They still support major change but they don’t have enough power to get it done. Yes it sucks that one party is trying to improve things and they can’t get more done. But what else would you have them do with the amount of power they were given?
Marijuana probably could pass. They didn’t really try. It’s supported by most Republican voters. It’d be a death sentence for a lot of the Republicans to vote against it.
It helps maintain the status quo though, so they didn’t want it gone.
Again requires Congressional action and there have been multiple bills that have passed through a democratic controlled house or Senate but stalled in the other half of Congress because Republicans wouldn’t vote for it and there wasn’t a large enough majority of Dems to get it done. Go check out mpp.org for more info. It doesn’t take but 10-15 minutes of looking up information to find out Dems attempted to get it done but once again Republican obstruction (like has been happening since 2008) prevented real reforms.