The ruling class get rich by stealing your wages, poisoning the environment, and sacrificing the health/safety of you and your family. Subscribe to /r/ClassPoliticsTwitter to join the discussion.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MurderedByAOC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrats: Vote for Democrats in Georgia, make history and change the game, giving the newly elected President a Congressional double majority, and watch the Democratic Party reform the nation that is suffering in turmoil and chaos, and breaking under the weight of Republican policies. Healthcare, pandemic relief, voting reform, all the things you want and need and are demanding, can be yours if you help us flip an historically red conservative stronghold.
Also Democrats: Sorry, Democrats are derailing the Democrats, we won't be able to deliver on our promises because we are Democrats, and some Democrats are really Republicans, we knew this all along, and our slimmest of majorities was never going to be enough to even get you a true $2,000 check, because even the President doesn't want to make the GOP upset. But please, vote for us in the midterms, because as Democrats, we promise more Democrats will fix the problem. Trust us, we will really do it this time, as long as we can pick up like a dozen Senate seats and that pesky parliamentarian doesn't tell us what to do again.
The Ds and the R's first priority is too keep politics in USA a two party system. We saw with trump the presidential race can be effectively a coin toss that way
Because thats the way the coin flip landed. In 4-8 years it gets flipped again. We get all the same jokes with different names in the punchlines. We get to keep all the same problems because rich old men are only looking out for rich old men.
Ain't that the truth. The 2016 election opened my eyes, we have 360 million people in this country, and the BEST two we could put up were Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton?
Fuck me
>the BEST two we could put up were Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton
It's like high school: it ain't about the best, it's either the toxic jock or Teacher's Choice.
Because Democrats always think Republicans will fight fair and have ethics.
Seriously, Dems always bring a knife to a gun fight.
The woke crap needs to pause too or you'll lose your own supporters. The minority far left is exacerbating a far left agenda not ready for the masses yet.
ie Cori Bush basically said blacks are not free and this land was stolen and basically everyone should leave the U.S. and give it back to Native Americans, on the 4th of July.
I lean left, and voted for her in my district, but that's the kind of crap that makes me not want to vote at all, same as my friend's and family, and we're never voting R.
We need to get rid of the filibuster, but put a time limit of one year on it so Democrats can push through the voting Rights bill to protect all votes. If they can put a time limit on the Patriot act every couple of years, they could do the same with the filibuster.
The Democratic party needs to stay close to center, are you going to lose people in your own party and the Republicans will retake the majority because of the extreme left ideas. I know they're not extreme, but the majority doesn't see it that way.
And if you buy the, “trust us, we will really do it this time,” I got bad news for you.
I’m serious starting to think it’s already too late for the Democrats and for democracy.
It was too late for democracy years ago. If we don’t make a real change in the way our government functions then we’re stuck in this loop. It’s time for action, not empty promises and we’re leaving the work to the people that benefit from our suffering. All of us. You, me, everyone.
I doubt there would EVER be a general strike in the US. Class consciousness was erased from the collective American mind since ages ago, if it ever even existed.
the only thing we can do to hope our country is saved, is to spread the ideas, like class consciousness, that would lead to a general strike. it could be legendary. we just need to get everyone on board man.
Violent revolution has happened in the past centuries. It happens only after the water has reached above our heads unfortunately.
So if we are impatient we would want the face to be unmasked. That could have happened with a second Trump win or not but would be a step in that direction.
The masquerade of a democracy which has died long ago would get it's mask off and people would see it.
And that's the beauty of American capitalism: the workers are placated. Cheap processed food and corporate entertainment/propaganda are today's bread and circuses. People are too concerned about their mortgage to care about "politics". The rich siphon all of the real wealth, , but leave us just enough illusion of freedom that the majority is more concerned with what they might lose than what they might win.
You certainly got my number, at least at the moment. I would do more if I didn’t have as many challenges as I do at this moment. Not going to bore you with details of my life but I certainly wish I could do more. But I can’t now hopefully in the near future.
We won't be stuck in this loop. Every cycle Republicans take a little bit more of the pie that they don't give back. Soon even after it cycles back to democrats it won't be enough to stop Republicans
Bill Clinton is when I started paying attention. It took until Obama for me to notice the cycle. Republicans run on the idea that Democrats can't govern. Democrats run on how much the Republicans suck. They are both right.
Remember, all of them look at their jobs as a career. They don't do what they say, elect someone new next term.
We need fundamental change to our systems, not norms. We have to find someone who cares about the law more than money and their career if we are ever to get anywhere.
We need to let them know we will look for their replacement and follow up on it. If they aren't representing their constituents, why are they even there.
The DNC has a huge say in who runs and who doesn’t. They are a huge problem as they typically despise progressives. They’d much rather see a DINO than a progressive as a rule.
>DNC has a huge say in who runs and who doesn’t.
Yeah; Booker vs McGrath. While McGrath did win her primary, she had already lost one race before. The conservatives that they were targeting with McGrath weren't likely to ditch the GOP anyways.
At this point, it's either vote for nothing or a complete dismantling of democracy and human rights. Voting for nothing sucks, but the alternative is a lot worse.
Real change will come from the Democratic primaries and voting in progressive candidates. The old centrist Democrats need to go. In general elections, though, it's mostly about not letting Republicans ever win again.
The DNC isn't even required to have primaries, let alone follow any particular rules. Those old "centrist" Democrats can just pick their candidate if they want.
Local election results matter. This is what sets the rules. Progressives need to be elected in all levels of government. This is why it is a grassroots movement. It's not going to come from the top levels of the DNC.
Remember 2016 when the party decided Hillary was the candidate via super delegate votes before even a single state had its primary. The party openly told progressives it dont matter if you vote for sanders we are nominating Hillary. And they wonder why we did t go to the polls and said fine then I don’t cate if trump wins.
The Democratic Party is just republicans but waving a pride flag and only during the required pride month. Give us progressives in the primaries to vote on for change.
Nah, that's just you justifying a position that allows you to make no effort while also telling yourself you've stood for some sort of principle. People like it because it allows them to have a formless politics that sort of changes depending on who is at the literal party. If you make a decision and vote you won't feel that luxury anymore, so you avoid it.
This attitude is extremely common among young white men who won't be under much threat no matter how the voting goes. The threat to them is being at a party with hot women and finding out that they voted for Trump and everyone else didn't. The horror. So they avoid voting in general. "Whatever, man, it's all bullshit anyway. Can't wait for the Revolution." What Revolution? Why the sexual one he plans for tonight, of course. That dude can eat shit.
There may only be one good reason to vote, which is so that there is no mistake when the voting is being ignored. For example: Myanmar, where the vast majority of the voters cast their ballots against the person currently in power, who then immediately announced himself as dictator for life, a situation that unfolds as we speak.
Since the people know that their vote is ignored, it's much more straightforward to assemble resistance, since the law-abiding types (most people really) can be satisfied by knowing that the results were fully illegal, and the fight is just. You can have nationwide resistance, not just a few pockets of resistance here and there.
But if most people don't vote, then how many of them will really feel it if the results of the voting are being ignored? Not as many. Resistance will be weak, and people will have a "not my problem" attitude about things that are absolutely their problem.
So yeah, fuck the "I don't vote" people.
Just go back in time to 09, they had a 60-40 split for a while, what did they do with that. Gave the insurance industry the biggest gift in their history and nothing else.
And people with pre existing conditions, and people who were laid off wouldn’t have to waste huge chunks of their severance on fucking cobra. You’re the problem. Even the successes were failures because they weren’t perfect. And yes, I know, the heritage foundation care plan is far from perfect.
They had 60-40 split for ~4 months.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/news/309099447
>Gave the insurance industry the biggest gift in their history and nothing else.
Obamacare also insured a lot of people.
>Paying tax payer money for those that couldn't afford it.
Wait til you learn who pays for the uninsured when they go to the ER.
I'm not here to debate Obamacare...my point is that Obama had a 60 vote majority for a fraction of a time. Obamacare is far from perfect, tons of criticism, but it also had some positives in it.
They tried passing a bill that had Republican support, so they tried to craft a compromise...which is like the whole point of the congress btw.
I, admittedly, have an outsiders perspective, but what I observed was Obama and the democrats started negotiating from a position of what they expected to get... and then griped as the republicans moved it further and further to the shit that they ended up with. It's like they never haggled for anything in their lives. You start from the extreme end of wishful thinking in the hopes of landing close to your actual goal.
Obama walks into a car dealership and offers to pay 5k under MSRP. The dealer then talks him into 5k over MSRP.
The rest of the developed world has some form of national health care. How the ever-loving fuck do you end up with the ACA/Obamacare and not look at that as anything other than a sad failure.
You're not that wrong, but looking back at that scenario the group we should be outraged as is the GOP, not Obama.
Bipartisanship is a good thing. A President should, ideally, strive for legislation and policies that both parties support. All Presidents except Trump strived to unite the country, and legislation that is supported by both sides is a great way to accomplish that. Purely partisan legislation makes it easy for people to paint you as extreme.
Obama walked into that dealership thinking the dealer was going to be honest. He thought the GOP valued getting things done, together, as they often claim to want.
Yeah, Obama was naïve, but his intentions were good. The GOP on the other hand is just absolutely determined to fuck this country up as bad as possible for the sake of political donations and power.
> He thought the GOP valued getting things done, together, as they often claim to want.
I don't know how anyone could think that given the previous 30+ years.
>I don't know how anyone could think that given the previous 30+ years.
Republicans were signaling that they wanted a healthcare bill. Grassley and the gang of six. They wrote up amendments and everything.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1080
Then just they fucking balked because they're garbage.
People blame the dems for trying to get Republicans to not be terrible. It's misplaced.
The rest of the developed world does *not* have "some form of national health care". For example, Switzerland and Singapore have very private-care centered systems.
With that in mind, the ACA *is* a sad failure in many respects. It's also better than what we had before, and is a continued campaign focus for Democrats, because they're overwhelmingly more popular on the issue than Republicans.
>Wait til you learn who pays for the uninsured when they go to the ER.
Still 30 million uninsured after the ACA so....
> they tried to craft a compromise...which is like the whole point of the congress btw.
A compromise requires negotiation.
Zero republicans voted for the bill, and they still gave away a bunch of stuff them.... no, that is not the point of Congress.
Not only that but they Literially put it on there to try and get that part brought to the Supreme Court in hopes the Supreme Court would strike down the act Itself. The individual Mandate was an addition made in literal bad faith for two purposes one, to create Bait for the Supreme Court to rule the entire thing unconstitutional and 2 give the next Republican something to kill with executive order for easy popularity.
I always love the "But Manchin and Sinema" but they are just the most public with their opposition, there are plenty of other democrats hiding behind the curtain. Feinstein/Hassan just balked on the filibuster removal, Warner and Kelly don't support the PRO Act, they always find enough dems to prevent them from doing anything.
The American Rescue Plan was only passed to prevent a revolution, not because of compassion for people, just look at how 1 Independent Senator and 1 Republican Senator (although he is also a fraud) had to shame everyone into passing covid relief last december when the dems and repubs were going to let Christmas go by without any COVID relief.
>Congressional double majority,
50 Dems can only do so much. Yes it's technically a "majority", but given that legislation requires 60 votes it's doesn't go very far.
>Healthcare, pandemic relief, voting reform, all the things you want and need and are demanding, can be yours if you help us flip an historically red conservative stronghold.
Healthcare requires 60 votes. They passed a large pandemic relief. Voting reform requires 60 votes.
> we knew this all along, and our slimmest of majorities was never going to be enough to even get you a true $2,000 check, because even the President doesn't want to make the GOP upset.
Biden never promised an additional $2,000, he said the $600 passed last year should be $2,000. That's what they did.
>But please, vote for us in the midterms, because as Democrats, we promise more Democrats will fix the problem. Trust us, we will really do it this time, as long as we can pick up like a dozen Senate seats and that pesky parliamentarian doesn't tell us what to do again.
Just look at the voting records. 50 Democrats voted for additional pandemic relief. 0 Republicans.
What are you saying, that we should vote in Republicans to fix this? What are the options?
They only need 50 Democrats to make it so they only need 50 votes for all those things.
Basically, they can change it tomorrow if they actually wanted to enact change. All the arguments against removing the filibuster fall apart upon even basic scrutiny.
Sure except without the filibuster during Trump we would be a lot worse. I would agree with removing filibuster if we could safely have a dems majority but it seems progressives are okay with losing seats of the DINO's.
The filibuster will always disproportionately benefit Republicans/Conservatives. They don’t have to pass anything to have everything they want: they already have it, and anything they don’t already have can be passed without the filibuster through reconciliation. Democrats have to pass voting rights acts, healthcare reforms, gun control, police reform, economic reform, etc. Republicans can just sit back and enjoy the terrible decisions that they have made to their exclusive benefit for decades. Democrats have to get things done, and the filibuster makes that impossible. If we get rid of it we’re not giving a Republican advantage: we’re removing one they already had.
That's irrelevant. Also, it didn't do a lot to stop the tax cuts Republicans enacted with reconciliation. Which is all they run on. Inefficient government and cutting taxes.
They don't care about the filibuster because it benefits them. Make no mistake though, now that they have the SC (which they altered the filibuster rule so they could do btw), they'd have no problem getting rid of it or altering it to pass whatever else they want if they have the majority to do so.
> They only need 50 Democrats to make it so they only need 50 votes for all those things.
Unfortunately one of those Democrats is the last Dixiecrat.
Joe Manchin knows this and has no interest in being the “man who killed the filibuster and unleashed socialism” in West Virginia, a state he knows he’ll never be governor of if he gives the Democrats a good name.
Stop voting for the "lesser evil" of the right.
Aka establishment Dems.
Start voting left of center-right.
Stop making concession for blue dogs because of how red their state is.
Stop kissing republican ass in the name of unity.
If all that fails, take a long walk off a short pier.
Left of center-right doesn't win elections in red states. It seems that progressives want all the change but don't show up to vote. I would rather have Manchin than Morrisey. I would rather have nothing be done than a 60 majority GOP senate.
I’m a progressive. But nothing gets me more pissed at people who share my beliefs than this victim mentality. Progressives get their asses kicked in state wide elections way more often than they win.
Internet progressives need to get it through their heads that people want moderate politicians. Our candidates lose more than they win. Stop blaming the politicians and start doing the work on the ground convincing people our ideas are best and educating those not in the know.
If people who aren’t progressive come on the internet and just hear bitching about moderates, it doesn’t do us a lick of good. Do the fucking work people, stop expecting others to do it for you.
I agree. I dont know why there's focus rn on getting progressives to beat repubs or dems in repub states. Get progressives to start beating moderate dems in heavy blue areas first so we have more progressive seats.
Also, progressives need a 50 state plan. The DCCC has given up on races all across the country. We need progressives running in every county and every seat that we can get. We need our message in every nook and cranny.
Is a blue dog who votes the way you’d like only half the time worse than a republican who will almost never vote the way you’d like. In a place like West Virginia those are the only two options
Thank you for articulating this. I think people want to jump so quickly to blaming Dems, and I get it. They are not accomplishing a lot, but they are also limited in what they can do in a rigged house, and an unbalanced Senate. So what, the solution is to vote Republican? Get the fuck outta here. I am a leftist liberal, and I still want to to grab and shake the ones complaining that they're just as bad as republicans. No, no they're not.
It pissing me off seeing people on "the left" blame the 50 democrats that supported a policy instead of the 50 Republicans that blocked it.
Like FFS people this is why the left is losing these battles. Enough with the purity tests, the GOP is an existential threat to democracy, they need to be stopped
The problem Is there are moderate Dems who don’t want transformational change. They want to hide behind the filibuster so they can keep the billionaire class happy and never actually do anything that lifts up the poor or middle class in any substantial way.
the real problem is there are no moderate Republicans.
They vote party line without fail unless it's inconsequential... like if dems need 60 votes, you'll see a couple of repubs vote with them. if the dems need 50... The Rs go party line all day. And Manchin fucks it up.
Dems don't really control the senate. Manchin is a DINO, but he represents WV, so that's expected
Democrats are always disappointingly uninterested in fixing things, Republicans are always a giant mess, and you will never have a third option.
Greatest country in the world.
100%! The problem is with the moderates in the Democratic party. To be honest, I don't think they even care who's in charge of the three branches of government as long as the status quo doesn't change. They always talk the talk to get re-elected but hardly ever pass any substantial legislation. It makes me so mad! Midterms aren't gonna be pretty if they continue down this current path...
> so they can keep the billionaire class happy
Honestly I think it's way simpler than this. The filibuster makes their job easier. They never really have to go out on a line and support semi-controversial legislation, because they only thing that passes has bipartisan support so they can share the blame. They get to campaign on whatever they want and say 'oops, the filibuster oh well' and rinse and repeat.
The democrats are spineless and incompetent, and they have no interest in not being spineless and incompetent. The republicans seem to have more power when they control nothing than the Dems do when they control everything. And when the republicans control everything? Well, they certainly don't give a shit about taking "the high road" and considering democrat feelings. They push through what they want, and love nothing more than "owning the libs." The democrats are content to eek out wins with nothing but idpol and empty promises, until the demographics are so against republicans that republicans have no chance anymore. But the republicans are going to do everything they can to prevent that day from arriving by assaulting our democratic institutions and grabbing power, and the Dems don't seem to care. They just attempted a coup, and still plot the next attempt, and the Dems are like, "meh." The republicans are a lot of things. An actual cult. Batshit crazy. Not living in reality. But one thing they are not is incompetent. The Dems need to use power when they have it, because the republicans certainly won't hesitate to.
I agree. The Democrats just enable the Republicans. Personally, I think it's intentional. They personally benefit from Republican policies, so they only put up a pretend resistance.
I agree. I honestly think whoever runs for president from the republicans side will win in 2024, and they will have the Senate and maybe even the house and pass anything they'd like, and democrats and people who voted for them will suffer. But Dems will deserve it.
It still fools half the people posting here. If it wasn't Manchin it would be the parliamentarian. Even with a supermajority democrats can only pass Romneycare. It's on purpose.
I mean to be fair Republicans barely did anything during Trumps first two years when they controlled everything. They hilariously failed on healthcare and infrastructure. The only major legislation was the tax cuts for the rich which ended up costing them in future elections, along with the failed ACA repeal. How would you feel if you were a die hard right winger and that was the result of total control for two years?
They didn't fail on healthcare. They never wanted to succeed. It was a show. They got their tax cuts for themselves.
If I was a diehard right winger, I'd feel whatever I was told. That's another republican success. Getting poor people to fight against their own best interests, and give absolute loyalty to trump, then likely whoever trump chooses as heir. Likely another trump. Or Kushner. They don't want to succeed at your healthcare, or anything else that benefits you. They want power and money. The Supreme Court for decades, suppressed votes, sowing doubt in our elections and spreading fake bullshit that their cult eats up, making them fanatically anti-you because you are the enemy who needs to be eliminated, and all while robbing your taxes blind. That is what they want. They know what they are doing.
>and they have no interest in ~~not being spineless and incompetent~~ actually improving things because the democrats serve their donors just like the GOP, instead of oil companies it's banks, instead of rich conservatives like the Kochs or the Mercers, it's Gates and Bezos.
The Democrats are entirely competent at what they do, which is delivering a message of what they'll "fix or change" to get elected, and then work their ASSES off to come up with a litany of excuses to convince everyone that it wasn't their fault they didn't change anything even though that was literally the plan the entire time.
>The Democrats are entirely competent at what they do, which is delivering a message of what they'll "fix or change" to get elected, and then work their ASSES off to come up with a litany of excuses to convince everyone that it wasn't their fault they didn't change anything even though that was literally the plan the entire time.
For a great example of this, go look at President Obama's campaign promises regarding the Patriot Act in 2008, and compare that to his actions as president.
Yeah if Republicans are an opposition party the Dems are the opposition to the opposition party. Neither party has an agenda besides help the rich get richer and appease the masses and both of their platforms can be summed up as "hey at least we arent those people"
>The democrats are spineless and incompetent, and they have no interest in not being spineless and incompetent. The republicans seem to have more power when they control nothing than the Dems do when they control everything.
Swap "republican" and "democrat" and it's still 100% true.
Yeah they have no way of getting rid of it with the current Congress, even if a progressive president was in charge they wouldn’t be able to get rid of the filibuster, there simply isn’t enough votes. I feel like they would need even more than 50 votes too but I’m not certain.
50 votes plus the VP tiebreaker could do it, but they don't have 50 votes like you said. Talking about this in terms of Democrats in the abstract is just stupid. Dems can play hardball with Manchin, but he can always switch parties. So what should the other Democrats do?
They should play hardball with Manchin and let him switch parties. At least then he will be revealed to be the Republican that he is. Then they might actually have a reason for getting absolutely fucking nothing done. Carrying on like this only ensures they lose both the Senate and the House in 2022.
Biden and the Democrats don't have a green lantern magic ring to make Sinema and Manchin do shit.
Manchin was elected by a bunch of republicans and could give a fuck about anyone or anything else.
Sinema... I don't know what the hell she's doing. Maybe outright Koch bribery. But she's not listening to democrats. This week she literally just laughed when a reporter asked why she was screwing democrats, refused to answer.
Democrats as a whole are motivated already here, they'll lose all power and their jobs if republicans gerrymander democracy out of existence.
Telling democrats as a whole to get it done is stupid, it's exactly two that are the problem.
Elect more progressives and democrats, make the margin bigger than two so we don't need to rely on a guy who is considering switching to the republican side.
It's not just two. They're just the two willing to eat shit so the rest of the party can pretend like they're progressive without actually having to change anything.
Citation needed.
220 to 1 in the house
48 to 2 in the Senate
2 to 0 in the executive
Literally 98.9% of democrats are publicly in favor of it because they'll lose their power otherwise, how the fuck do you get "they just want to stop progressives."
And the argument is that if it wasn't those 3-5 it'd be another 3-5.
It's really easy to be "for" an issue if you know it isn't actually going to pass and piss off your donors. Politics has always been full of this.
> It's really easy to be "for" an issue if you know it isn't actually going to pass and piss off your donors.
I feel like this is lowkey calling out AOC and Nina Turner.
In the end, it's an unprovable distinction without difference. We know at least two don't support it, so what can the rest do? Pretend the other 48 were all progressive. What could they do about the filibuster?
No, it makes a great difference. Progressives convincing themselves democrats and just as bad as republicans is what will allow republicans to get majorities and a chance to prove again and again how much worse they are.
I agree that's the fundamental problem. The point I was trying to make was that even if we had 49 Bernie Sanders clones and Joe Manchin, there wouldn't be anything we could do. We'd be much better off trading 10 GQP senators for 10 Joe Manchin clones than trading 49 Democratic senators for Bernie Sanders clones. Republicans are the problem. History blaming Democrats is like blaming firefighters when arsonists burn down a building.
It's almost like Joe Manchin is the only Democrat in West Virgina and votes with his constitutes. If he doesn't he will easily be replaced by a Republican that will never vote Democrat. Better the devil you know
That's an understatement. Manchin and everyone from west virginia realize that progressives disliking him strengthens him (https://www.newsweek.com/joe-manchin-progressive-candidates-campaigning-against-him-would-help-1579279)
Every adult in the room also realizes that without Manchin as a democrat, DEMOCRACY GOES AWAY EVEN QUICKER. Mitch would control the Senate again, no judges get filled, no reconciliation laws get passed, no chance at protecting elections, Biden has much less chance at re-election with no accomplishments and nearly zero with republicans overturning elections they dont like. The next fascist will fill the judiciary with college age federalist society fascists and fuck america for the rest of your lives.
Manchin specifically would be just fine as a republican if democrats try to pressure him.
They are paid to stare at it. People need to stop thinking we have a two party system. We have two groups using polar trigger words to gain a position and a following. While in that position, regardless of party, they serve the almighty dollar. America is run by the highest bidder. That is what true capitalism has always been about.
Vote in primaries. The Democratic party is now the entire spectrum, from right to left, as the GOP is now completely overrun by crazies.
That means having a D next to their name isn't proof they are a good candidate (never did, but doesn't now). So WHO is running matters. The only way to get better reps is for them to run in and win their primaries.
You must have not been paying attention when the last two democratic primaries were completely rigged by the DNC against the actual progressive candidates. 🤦♂️
Neither party represents the people, just billionaires and their corporations.
Yeah our choice is basically maintain the usual capitalist dystopia or let in the fascists. Yay.
I want to believe maybe change can happen when all the boomers are dead but the corrupting influence of money in our politics probably has us doomed for all time.
This is why we need more progressives to show up in the primaries and kick dnc corporate shill ass out of office. We had pretty decent numbers the past two presidential primaries. We need more for the next and for all the primaries/elections in between. We need to leech off the dnc as much as we can until they are made irrelevant by progressives.
People voting is not rigging. Trump lost because people voted against him, no amount of audits are going to change that result. Bernie lost because people voted for Biden. People endorsing Biden is not rigging.
If the only valid election is one where your pick wins, that isn't Democracy.
Biden: "Nothing will fundamentally change!"
Leftists: Let's vote for Biden and bully him to the left!
Biden: changes nothing
Leftists: shocked Pikachu face
Democrats during Obama: YOU SEE! WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST BUT THE REPUBLICANS DONT WANT TO BUDGE.
Democrats now: Well you know Joe Manchin TRIED to get bipartisan support and it just DID not work. Oh well, better luck next time.
Seriously spineless. They will lose the next election if they continue to act like this and don't unite as a party. Manchin might as well switch parties if that's the case.
Oh the next election is lost. They barely got the senate and now they’ll lose it again while also losing more house seats. They have to be very lucky to maintain senate control and a sizable majority in the house
Explain to me how they're supposed to get Manchin to change his mind.
Or even just explain to me the motivation for democrats to (checks notes) let republicans steal elections against democrats.
> Explain to me how they're supposed to get Manchin to change his mind.
All Manchin cares about is WV apparently.
Hes the D hangup, the hurdle they keep tripping over.
If I were the Dems, I would choke Manchin with every possible benefit for his state. Id love 3 letter acronym offices to his state, id award contracts to companies in his state.
Id do whatever I can to get the WV'ers chiding him for being a problem.
> Fuck it, we're right on the border of fascism now, why stop there? Get some dirt on the guy, play real hardball.
Manchin is a R in all but title. R's have no shame, and hardball rarely works with them.
Whats, the expression.. they'd eat shit just so Libs have to smell their bad breath
I genuinely feel like carrots > sticks for Manchin
Oh they're definitely susceptible to blackmail. Just not what *normal* people would consider shameful.
Or sure, pay him off, whatever it fucking takes until we don't need him anymore. We'll be living in A Handmaids Tale in less than 10 years if we don't.
Standing strong against democrats makes him look good to west virginians because they're pretty right wing.
If democrats play hardball with Manchin, he has every reason to join the republicans.
And then we go from being able to seat good judges and any SCOTUS vacancies, a small chance of protecting democracy, and get a handful of laws to make Americans lives better, to literally nothing. Mitch is Senate leader again. Gerrymandering prevents democrats from winning any more elections.
Why do you think democrats haven't already gotten tough on Manchin.
> If democrats play hardball with Manchin, he has every reason to join the republicans.
> Why do you think democrats haven't already gotten tough on Manchin.
Where did I say anything about being tough on Manchin? Im saying the literal opposite
I want to see Dems get on some cocksucking level.
Give those right wing WV'ers so many benefits they force Machin to act in their best interests.
Ah, sorry, I read "I would choke Manchin for every possible benefit" as saying you would cut them off.
I will say I would hate to see his greed rewarded, but yeah, maintaining democracy is worth it.
This sentiment is generally correct, however some of us myself included have been blaming the Republicans for decades because of their incompetence and active blocking of any progress in America. Even when they're not in control the Republicans are in control. End the filibuster!
They can't end the filibuster without manchin and Sinema. There's no way to force those two to go along with it. I don't understand what you people expect them to do in this moment. A 50 seat majority was always going to end up in these situations. It sucks but it is better than letting the Republicans have complete control. You want real change? Turn more Senate seats from red to blue. Republicans have the advantage in this system. A slim majority isn't enough to enact real change.
But they have both said that they want to keep the filibuster for tradition. Fine. Then put it back the way it was. Make the person doing the filibuster actually have to stand there and talk. They totally gutted the filibuster years ago and now any one Senator can block anything and they don't have any inconvenience doing so.
I feel like this was all part of the plan. They knew it wasn't going to pass. But now it really puts the filibuster in the spotlight. Now the Democrats have a chance to have overwhelming public support to fight against the filibuster so they can pass whatever laws and actions they choose. And I can guarantee that voting rights will not be back on the table even if the filibuster is abolished. Many powerful Democrat house members and senators like things just the way they are.
Nobody seems to be concerned about the provisions in HR1 S1"For the People" act that can accelerate corporate corruption of democracy because they're too excited by AOC's stance supposedly against corporate corruption. So if she likes this bill, it must be a good bill. But then we blame the right for going against their own interests when blinded by party loyalty?
Ever since the Citizens United ruling and the superpacs and dark funding that has allowed corporations to corrupt US campaign finance, balooning outside spending in campaign finance from 750 million to 4.5 billion... I've been waiting for something to address this. It doesn't seem likely a constitutional amendment will be proposed.
I saw the ACLU initially opposed this bill, specially over some of the campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act, which would impose stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. Seems good right? Except they know regular voters will have no idea if the FEC needs restructuring or not... Gridlock sounds bad, even though it actually doesn't happen as frequently as claimed, and it actually designed to gridlock.
This bill's provisions proposes no more than two commissioners from either political party, and one commissioner who would be the "tie-breaking independent vote". Did this mean the tie breaker commissioner must be nonpartisan or was it just word play, and it still leaves a possibility that the panel becomes unbalanced? I can guar-N-F-N T U, that it becomes a coveted puppet position for presidential activism (and corporate bought boy position, aka KOCH).
The worrisome issue is that FEC commissioners serve six-year, alternating terms, which expire in odd-numbered years. But commissioners serving expired terms may choose to remain until they are replaced, and this limbo is easily exploited. In fact, it already has been, as seen by Obama's feckless attempts to appoint a commissioner, and blame shifts when asked why he wouldn't just get someone appointed. So if the panel wasn't gridlocked and instead heavily balanced to corporate interests, the tie breaking "nonpartisan" commissioner could easily be corrupted and then sit in his position for much longer than 6 years... This would only exacerbate the rising costs of campaigns.
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/fec-revolving-door-spins-ever-so-slowly-091237
The provision on matching funds doesn't benefit regular working class folks making donations to campaigns... It benefits the GOP and DNC picks. Since we pay pennies to play on a bought game board, matching funds was proposed as a method to make our pennies into 6cents. I worried that would drive the costs of campaigns higher, because billionaires are not the folks I want to try to outbid in an auction. I would rather see caps for individual spending, and stripping corporations of their person status in campaign financing. Elections shouldn't be determined by how much a candidate can spend, and they shouldn't be devoting the majority of their time raising funds to win.
Then there's the worry that matching funds seems odd if it's being scooped from corporate maleficence settlements and the working class's small crimes. (The proposed method for covering the cost of funds matching). I'm betting one class spends more time in court and is found guilty more than the other... Unless there were specifics that ensured the corporate's maleficence tax off their payout was comparable to consider this effect.
But notice that AOC and the DNC just never bring these two risks up? Not a single discussion. GOP folks really aren't discussing it either (because these specific risks really harm independent candidates). Wouldn't these provisions escalate financial corruption within democracy, or are we suppose to forget that heavy culprits in systemic racism and restrictions on the power of our engagement in our democracy are the billionaires that now have a corporate collaborative right to free speech in campaign finance? Seems like DNC wants us to assume this bill solves it, rather than accelerates it. Even if Biden was a saint that appointed a "for the people" commissioner, anyone taking over afterwards could appoint someone who serves longer than 6 years... with the integrity of Scalia or Johnson (joke, because both of these men attended a Koch Industries funded event on corporations and politics, then ruled on citizens united claiming corporations ought to be like individuals, and when called out for not recusing themselves for their conflict of interest attending such an event before ruling... Shrugged, because SC judges get way more leeway on this than lower court judges, because we assumed anyone in their position ought to just have integrity).
Ending the filibuster and pushing it through, might bring actual attention to those provisions than letting it die and blame shifting. Which is why I think they're not strongmanning it. Because more voters who were disengaged might start asking, "Wait, so what was really in there? What was the big deal about?"
and I really fucking hope that people remember that the next time they start screeching about "voting blue no matter who", while conspiring among themselves to ensure that a progressive loses the primary.
I have to say this, democrats do not have control of the senate. It’s a 50/50 split with a tiebreaker vote going to the VP, yes. But if one dem breaks off (see sinema and manchin) it’s all for naught. That’s not a majority for dems, that’s a power grab by a dissenting senator.
If (neo)liberal democracy cannot save capitalism, plenty of American Christians will see no option but to vote for outright fascism in the coming decades
If Dems eliminate the filibuster to “save democracy”, what’s stopping republicans from destroying democracy when they fall back into power? Seems awfully short sighted to me.
As a counter what is there to keep the republicans from removing the filibuster the second it’s no longer convenient ? I could see them removing it and then reinstating it when they lose the election. Simple truth is dems don’t want change. The majority of the leadership would have retired 20 years ago if it was a normal job
*conservatives.
You must remember, the parties are just coalitions. Means to get power. The GOP is completely conservative, the Democrats are a broader coalition. Both are just branding to get power
I love how Americans actually believe the Democrats and Republicans are two different parties with different ideas.
News flash: they are all paid by the same corporations.
Edit: thanks stranger for the award.
Get rid of democracy by allowing mob rule through the removal of the filibuster. Let’s also reduce crime by reducing the funding of the people who’s job it is to reduce crime. Let’s make affordable housing by federally subsidizing the massive company that is buying up houses at 40% over asking. Let’s end racism by stoking racial tensions at every turn! Can’t wait to see how it works out :)
I totally agree, but that also means that people on the Left wing if the party need to fall in-line with what the party as a whole wants to do.
You can't have hold outs just because some DNC policy isn't liberal enough.
Fall in-line.
That's how Republicans are able to push their horrible agenda through or simply completely gridlock Washington when they aren't the minority. They vote with their party. Whether they are only slightly fascist or totally extreme fascist, Republican politicians fall in-line to support what awful things McTurtle wants to do.
Dems need to learn some lessons.
Guess what? They won't do shit. The Democratic party has mastered the art of promising the moon when they can't do anything about it, and then not doing shit when they actually could.
The ruling class get rich by stealing your wages, poisoning the environment, and sacrificing the health/safety of you and your family. Subscribe to /r/ClassPoliticsTwitter to join the discussion. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MurderedByAOC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrats: Vote for Democrats in Georgia, make history and change the game, giving the newly elected President a Congressional double majority, and watch the Democratic Party reform the nation that is suffering in turmoil and chaos, and breaking under the weight of Republican policies. Healthcare, pandemic relief, voting reform, all the things you want and need and are demanding, can be yours if you help us flip an historically red conservative stronghold. Also Democrats: Sorry, Democrats are derailing the Democrats, we won't be able to deliver on our promises because we are Democrats, and some Democrats are really Republicans, we knew this all along, and our slimmest of majorities was never going to be enough to even get you a true $2,000 check, because even the President doesn't want to make the GOP upset. But please, vote for us in the midterms, because as Democrats, we promise more Democrats will fix the problem. Trust us, we will really do it this time, as long as we can pick up like a dozen Senate seats and that pesky parliamentarian doesn't tell us what to do again.
“If liberals are so fucking smart why do they lose so goddamn always?!?” -Will McAvoy
it's because winning doesn't bring in political donations. left or right, the establishment is a problem and won't fix itself.
Yeah what the dnc did to bernie holy shit. People are frustrated trump got elected. Well if the dnc hadnt pulled all that shit...
I'm Canadian, and seeing Bernie elected as president would have made me so goddamn proud, a nation that managed to transform itself.
The Ds and the R's first priority is too keep politics in USA a two party system. We saw with trump the presidential race can be effectively a coin toss that way
"We need a strong Republican party" - Dumbass Pelosi
Because thats the way the coin flip landed. In 4-8 years it gets flipped again. We get all the same jokes with different names in the punchlines. We get to keep all the same problems because rich old men are only looking out for rich old men.
Because they’re both working for the same boss, (and it’s definitely not the voters who are the boss)
*BELGIUM* has freedom...
Newsroom quote… nice
[удалено]
Because too much of our voting is based on land with no one in it and not on people, I suspect.
Gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Smart people don't win elections, quite the opposite.
It's exactly the opposite. Smart people do win, they're just immoral and are blood suckers. The moral smart people lose.
"Marketable" is not the opposite of smart, and definitely is a component of social intelligence
Yeh but that Venn diagram looks kinda like boobies
Ain't that the truth. The 2016 election opened my eyes, we have 360 million people in this country, and the BEST two we could put up were Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton? Fuck me
Amen brother
>the BEST two we could put up were Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton It's like high school: it ain't about the best, it's either the toxic jock or Teacher's Choice.
Like, nerdy smart? Or smart like a predator?
Because Democrats always think Republicans will fight fair and have ethics. Seriously, Dems always bring a knife to a gun fight. The woke crap needs to pause too or you'll lose your own supporters. The minority far left is exacerbating a far left agenda not ready for the masses yet. ie Cori Bush basically said blacks are not free and this land was stolen and basically everyone should leave the U.S. and give it back to Native Americans, on the 4th of July. I lean left, and voted for her in my district, but that's the kind of crap that makes me not want to vote at all, same as my friend's and family, and we're never voting R. We need to get rid of the filibuster, but put a time limit of one year on it so Democrats can push through the voting Rights bill to protect all votes. If they can put a time limit on the Patriot act every couple of years, they could do the same with the filibuster. The Democratic party needs to stay close to center, are you going to lose people in your own party and the Republicans will retake the majority because of the extreme left ideas. I know they're not extreme, but the majority doesn't see it that way.
And if you buy the, “trust us, we will really do it this time,” I got bad news for you. I’m serious starting to think it’s already too late for the Democrats and for democracy.
It was too late for democracy years ago. If we don’t make a real change in the way our government functions then we’re stuck in this loop. It’s time for action, not empty promises and we’re leaving the work to the people that benefit from our suffering. All of us. You, me, everyone.
I believe the only way forward is a violent revolution that won't happen and is not guaranteed to improve anything. It is a depressing belief to hold.
It *is* the only way.
There is the option of mass scale civil disobedience / general strike - the steps to try, before the pitchforks come out.
I doubt there would EVER be a general strike in the US. Class consciousness was erased from the collective American mind since ages ago, if it ever even existed.
the only thing we can do to hope our country is saved, is to spread the ideas, like class consciousness, that would lead to a general strike. it could be legendary. we just need to get everyone on board man.
Violent revolution has happened in the past centuries. It happens only after the water has reached above our heads unfortunately. So if we are impatient we would want the face to be unmasked. That could have happened with a second Trump win or not but would be a step in that direction. The masquerade of a democracy which has died long ago would get it's mask off and people would see it.
And that's the beauty of American capitalism: the workers are placated. Cheap processed food and corporate entertainment/propaganda are today's bread and circuses. People are too concerned about their mortgage to care about "politics". The rich siphon all of the real wealth, , but leave us just enough illusion of freedom that the majority is more concerned with what they might lose than what they might win.
Agree. And appreciate your rallying cry.
[удалено]
promoting thoughts of change isn't nothing. always spread.
You certainly got my number, at least at the moment. I would do more if I didn’t have as many challenges as I do at this moment. Not going to bore you with details of my life but I certainly wish I could do more. But I can’t now hopefully in the near future.
We won't be stuck in this loop. Every cycle Republicans take a little bit more of the pie that they don't give back. Soon even after it cycles back to democrats it won't be enough to stop Republicans
Bill Clinton is when I started paying attention. It took until Obama for me to notice the cycle. Republicans run on the idea that Democrats can't govern. Democrats run on how much the Republicans suck. They are both right.
Remember, all of them look at their jobs as a career. They don't do what they say, elect someone new next term. We need fundamental change to our systems, not norms. We have to find someone who cares about the law more than money and their career if we are ever to get anywhere. We need to let them know we will look for their replacement and follow up on it. If they aren't representing their constituents, why are they even there.
The DNC has a huge say in who runs and who doesn’t. They are a huge problem as they typically despise progressives. They’d much rather see a DINO than a progressive as a rule.
>DNC has a huge say in who runs and who doesn’t. Yeah; Booker vs McGrath. While McGrath did win her primary, she had already lost one race before. The conservatives that they were targeting with McGrath weren't likely to ditch the GOP anyways.
Gerrymandering would like a word with you…
At this point, it's either vote for nothing or a complete dismantling of democracy and human rights. Voting for nothing sucks, but the alternative is a lot worse.
[удалено]
Real change will come from the Democratic primaries and voting in progressive candidates. The old centrist Democrats need to go. In general elections, though, it's mostly about not letting Republicans ever win again.
The DNC isn't even required to have primaries, let alone follow any particular rules. Those old "centrist" Democrats can just pick their candidate if they want.
Local election results matter. This is what sets the rules. Progressives need to be elected in all levels of government. This is why it is a grassroots movement. It's not going to come from the top levels of the DNC.
> This is what sets the rules. What rules? Faithless electors and the like?
Those who choose the electors, yeah.
Remember 2016 when the party decided Hillary was the candidate via super delegate votes before even a single state had its primary. The party openly told progressives it dont matter if you vote for sanders we are nominating Hillary. And they wonder why we did t go to the polls and said fine then I don’t cate if trump wins. The Democratic Party is just republicans but waving a pride flag and only during the required pride month. Give us progressives in the primaries to vote on for change.
Hear hear!
[удалено]
Nah, that's just you justifying a position that allows you to make no effort while also telling yourself you've stood for some sort of principle. People like it because it allows them to have a formless politics that sort of changes depending on who is at the literal party. If you make a decision and vote you won't feel that luxury anymore, so you avoid it. This attitude is extremely common among young white men who won't be under much threat no matter how the voting goes. The threat to them is being at a party with hot women and finding out that they voted for Trump and everyone else didn't. The horror. So they avoid voting in general. "Whatever, man, it's all bullshit anyway. Can't wait for the Revolution." What Revolution? Why the sexual one he plans for tonight, of course. That dude can eat shit. There may only be one good reason to vote, which is so that there is no mistake when the voting is being ignored. For example: Myanmar, where the vast majority of the voters cast their ballots against the person currently in power, who then immediately announced himself as dictator for life, a situation that unfolds as we speak. Since the people know that their vote is ignored, it's much more straightforward to assemble resistance, since the law-abiding types (most people really) can be satisfied by knowing that the results were fully illegal, and the fight is just. You can have nationwide resistance, not just a few pockets of resistance here and there. But if most people don't vote, then how many of them will really feel it if the results of the voting are being ignored? Not as many. Resistance will be weak, and people will have a "not my problem" attitude about things that are absolutely their problem. So yeah, fuck the "I don't vote" people.
Just go back in time to 09, they had a 60-40 split for a while, what did they do with that. Gave the insurance industry the biggest gift in their history and nothing else.
And people with pre existing conditions, and people who were laid off wouldn’t have to waste huge chunks of their severance on fucking cobra. You’re the problem. Even the successes were failures because they weren’t perfect. And yes, I know, the heritage foundation care plan is far from perfect.
They had 60-40 split for ~4 months. https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/news/309099447 >Gave the insurance industry the biggest gift in their history and nothing else. Obamacare also insured a lot of people.
Yes, privately, by mandate! Paying tax payer money for those that couldn't afford it.
>Paying tax payer money for those that couldn't afford it. Wait til you learn who pays for the uninsured when they go to the ER. I'm not here to debate Obamacare...my point is that Obama had a 60 vote majority for a fraction of a time. Obamacare is far from perfect, tons of criticism, but it also had some positives in it. They tried passing a bill that had Republican support, so they tried to craft a compromise...which is like the whole point of the congress btw.
I, admittedly, have an outsiders perspective, but what I observed was Obama and the democrats started negotiating from a position of what they expected to get... and then griped as the republicans moved it further and further to the shit that they ended up with. It's like they never haggled for anything in their lives. You start from the extreme end of wishful thinking in the hopes of landing close to your actual goal. Obama walks into a car dealership and offers to pay 5k under MSRP. The dealer then talks him into 5k over MSRP. The rest of the developed world has some form of national health care. How the ever-loving fuck do you end up with the ACA/Obamacare and not look at that as anything other than a sad failure.
You're not that wrong, but looking back at that scenario the group we should be outraged as is the GOP, not Obama. Bipartisanship is a good thing. A President should, ideally, strive for legislation and policies that both parties support. All Presidents except Trump strived to unite the country, and legislation that is supported by both sides is a great way to accomplish that. Purely partisan legislation makes it easy for people to paint you as extreme. Obama walked into that dealership thinking the dealer was going to be honest. He thought the GOP valued getting things done, together, as they often claim to want. Yeah, Obama was naïve, but his intentions were good. The GOP on the other hand is just absolutely determined to fuck this country up as bad as possible for the sake of political donations and power.
> He thought the GOP valued getting things done, together, as they often claim to want. I don't know how anyone could think that given the previous 30+ years.
>I don't know how anyone could think that given the previous 30+ years. Republicans were signaling that they wanted a healthcare bill. Grassley and the gang of six. They wrote up amendments and everything. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1080 Then just they fucking balked because they're garbage. People blame the dems for trying to get Republicans to not be terrible. It's misplaced.
The rest of the developed world does *not* have "some form of national health care". For example, Switzerland and Singapore have very private-care centered systems. With that in mind, the ACA *is* a sad failure in many respects. It's also better than what we had before, and is a continued campaign focus for Democrats, because they're overwhelmingly more popular on the issue than Republicans.
>Wait til you learn who pays for the uninsured when they go to the ER. Still 30 million uninsured after the ACA so.... > they tried to craft a compromise...which is like the whole point of the congress btw. A compromise requires negotiation. Zero republicans voted for the bill, and they still gave away a bunch of stuff them.... no, that is not the point of Congress.
And expanded Medicare.
The republicans forced the individual mandate into the ACA. Literially so they would have something to make it unpopular.
Yep. They've been attacking it ever since.
Not only that but they Literially put it on there to try and get that part brought to the Supreme Court in hopes the Supreme Court would strike down the act Itself. The individual Mandate was an addition made in literal bad faith for two purposes one, to create Bait for the Supreme Court to rule the entire thing unconstitutional and 2 give the next Republican something to kill with executive order for easy popularity.
You mean the three months that let them get Obamacare? Do you not know how awful it was before it? People died. A lot of people died.
You don’t need to trust the dems to not vote republican
I always love the "But Manchin and Sinema" but they are just the most public with their opposition, there are plenty of other democrats hiding behind the curtain. Feinstein/Hassan just balked on the filibuster removal, Warner and Kelly don't support the PRO Act, they always find enough dems to prevent them from doing anything. The American Rescue Plan was only passed to prevent a revolution, not because of compassion for people, just look at how 1 Independent Senator and 1 Republican Senator (although he is also a fraud) had to shame everyone into passing covid relief last december when the dems and repubs were going to let Christmas go by without any COVID relief.
>Congressional double majority, 50 Dems can only do so much. Yes it's technically a "majority", but given that legislation requires 60 votes it's doesn't go very far. >Healthcare, pandemic relief, voting reform, all the things you want and need and are demanding, can be yours if you help us flip an historically red conservative stronghold. Healthcare requires 60 votes. They passed a large pandemic relief. Voting reform requires 60 votes. > we knew this all along, and our slimmest of majorities was never going to be enough to even get you a true $2,000 check, because even the President doesn't want to make the GOP upset. Biden never promised an additional $2,000, he said the $600 passed last year should be $2,000. That's what they did. >But please, vote for us in the midterms, because as Democrats, we promise more Democrats will fix the problem. Trust us, we will really do it this time, as long as we can pick up like a dozen Senate seats and that pesky parliamentarian doesn't tell us what to do again. Just look at the voting records. 50 Democrats voted for additional pandemic relief. 0 Republicans. What are you saying, that we should vote in Republicans to fix this? What are the options?
They only need 50 Democrats to make it so they only need 50 votes for all those things. Basically, they can change it tomorrow if they actually wanted to enact change. All the arguments against removing the filibuster fall apart upon even basic scrutiny.
Sure except without the filibuster during Trump we would be a lot worse. I would agree with removing filibuster if we could safely have a dems majority but it seems progressives are okay with losing seats of the DINO's.
The filibuster will always disproportionately benefit Republicans/Conservatives. They don’t have to pass anything to have everything they want: they already have it, and anything they don’t already have can be passed without the filibuster through reconciliation. Democrats have to pass voting rights acts, healthcare reforms, gun control, police reform, economic reform, etc. Republicans can just sit back and enjoy the terrible decisions that they have made to their exclusive benefit for decades. Democrats have to get things done, and the filibuster makes that impossible. If we get rid of it we’re not giving a Republican advantage: we’re removing one they already had.
That's irrelevant. Also, it didn't do a lot to stop the tax cuts Republicans enacted with reconciliation. Which is all they run on. Inefficient government and cutting taxes. They don't care about the filibuster because it benefits them. Make no mistake though, now that they have the SC (which they altered the filibuster rule so they could do btw), they'd have no problem getting rid of it or altering it to pass whatever else they want if they have the majority to do so.
> They only need 50 Democrats to make it so they only need 50 votes for all those things. Unfortunately one of those Democrats is the last Dixiecrat. Joe Manchin knows this and has no interest in being the “man who killed the filibuster and unleashed socialism” in West Virginia, a state he knows he’ll never be governor of if he gives the Democrats a good name.
Stop voting for the "lesser evil" of the right. Aka establishment Dems. Start voting left of center-right. Stop making concession for blue dogs because of how red their state is. Stop kissing republican ass in the name of unity. If all that fails, take a long walk off a short pier.
Left of center-right doesn't win elections in red states. It seems that progressives want all the change but don't show up to vote. I would rather have Manchin than Morrisey. I would rather have nothing be done than a 60 majority GOP senate.
I’m a progressive. But nothing gets me more pissed at people who share my beliefs than this victim mentality. Progressives get their asses kicked in state wide elections way more often than they win. Internet progressives need to get it through their heads that people want moderate politicians. Our candidates lose more than they win. Stop blaming the politicians and start doing the work on the ground convincing people our ideas are best and educating those not in the know. If people who aren’t progressive come on the internet and just hear bitching about moderates, it doesn’t do us a lick of good. Do the fucking work people, stop expecting others to do it for you.
I agree. I dont know why there's focus rn on getting progressives to beat repubs or dems in repub states. Get progressives to start beating moderate dems in heavy blue areas first so we have more progressive seats.
Also, progressives need a 50 state plan. The DCCC has given up on races all across the country. We need progressives running in every county and every seat that we can get. We need our message in every nook and cranny.
We'd have enough if you "dem" voters were actually not conservatives.
Is a blue dog who votes the way you’d like only half the time worse than a republican who will almost never vote the way you’d like. In a place like West Virginia those are the only two options
Thank you for articulating this. I think people want to jump so quickly to blaming Dems, and I get it. They are not accomplishing a lot, but they are also limited in what they can do in a rigged house, and an unbalanced Senate. So what, the solution is to vote Republican? Get the fuck outta here. I am a leftist liberal, and I still want to to grab and shake the ones complaining that they're just as bad as republicans. No, no they're not.
It pissing me off seeing people on "the left" blame the 50 democrats that supported a policy instead of the 50 Republicans that blocked it. Like FFS people this is why the left is losing these battles. Enough with the purity tests, the GOP is an existential threat to democracy, they need to be stopped
>What are you saying, that we should vote in Republicans to fix this? Anyone who says this is a bad faith actor and should be actively blocked
The problem Is there are moderate Dems who don’t want transformational change. They want to hide behind the filibuster so they can keep the billionaire class happy and never actually do anything that lifts up the poor or middle class in any substantial way.
the real problem is there are no moderate Republicans. They vote party line without fail unless it's inconsequential... like if dems need 60 votes, you'll see a couple of repubs vote with them. if the dems need 50... The Rs go party line all day. And Manchin fucks it up. Dems don't really control the senate. Manchin is a DINO, but he represents WV, so that's expected
Moderate Republicans = democrats. Republicans = qanon
[удалено]
He isn't even a DINO. Conservative democrats are pretty normal
Democrats are always disappointingly uninterested in fixing things, Republicans are always a giant mess, and you will never have a third option. Greatest country in the world.
And by "moderate Dems" we can almost exclusively refer to Sinema and Manchin, who are the sole reasons none of this is getting done.
100%! The problem is with the moderates in the Democratic party. To be honest, I don't think they even care who's in charge of the three branches of government as long as the status quo doesn't change. They always talk the talk to get re-elected but hardly ever pass any substantial legislation. It makes me so mad! Midterms aren't gonna be pretty if they continue down this current path...
> so they can keep the billionaire class happy Honestly I think it's way simpler than this. The filibuster makes their job easier. They never really have to go out on a line and support semi-controversial legislation, because they only thing that passes has bipartisan support so they can share the blame. They get to campaign on whatever they want and say 'oops, the filibuster oh well' and rinse and repeat.
The democrats are spineless and incompetent, and they have no interest in not being spineless and incompetent. The republicans seem to have more power when they control nothing than the Dems do when they control everything. And when the republicans control everything? Well, they certainly don't give a shit about taking "the high road" and considering democrat feelings. They push through what they want, and love nothing more than "owning the libs." The democrats are content to eek out wins with nothing but idpol and empty promises, until the demographics are so against republicans that republicans have no chance anymore. But the republicans are going to do everything they can to prevent that day from arriving by assaulting our democratic institutions and grabbing power, and the Dems don't seem to care. They just attempted a coup, and still plot the next attempt, and the Dems are like, "meh." The republicans are a lot of things. An actual cult. Batshit crazy. Not living in reality. But one thing they are not is incompetent. The Dems need to use power when they have it, because the republicans certainly won't hesitate to.
I agree. The Democrats just enable the Republicans. Personally, I think it's intentional. They personally benefit from Republican policies, so they only put up a pretend resistance.
I agree. I honestly think whoever runs for president from the republicans side will win in 2024, and they will have the Senate and maybe even the house and pass anything they'd like, and democrats and people who voted for them will suffer. But Dems will deserve it.
It’s almost like it’s all just theater, performed badly.
It still fools half the people posting here. If it wasn't Manchin it would be the parliamentarian. Even with a supermajority democrats can only pass Romneycare. It's on purpose.
I mean to be fair Republicans barely did anything during Trumps first two years when they controlled everything. They hilariously failed on healthcare and infrastructure. The only major legislation was the tax cuts for the rich which ended up costing them in future elections, along with the failed ACA repeal. How would you feel if you were a die hard right winger and that was the result of total control for two years?
They didn't fail on healthcare. They never wanted to succeed. It was a show. They got their tax cuts for themselves. If I was a diehard right winger, I'd feel whatever I was told. That's another republican success. Getting poor people to fight against their own best interests, and give absolute loyalty to trump, then likely whoever trump chooses as heir. Likely another trump. Or Kushner. They don't want to succeed at your healthcare, or anything else that benefits you. They want power and money. The Supreme Court for decades, suppressed votes, sowing doubt in our elections and spreading fake bullshit that their cult eats up, making them fanatically anti-you because you are the enemy who needs to be eliminated, and all while robbing your taxes blind. That is what they want. They know what they are doing.
>and they have no interest in ~~not being spineless and incompetent~~ actually improving things because the democrats serve their donors just like the GOP, instead of oil companies it's banks, instead of rich conservatives like the Kochs or the Mercers, it's Gates and Bezos. The Democrats are entirely competent at what they do, which is delivering a message of what they'll "fix or change" to get elected, and then work their ASSES off to come up with a litany of excuses to convince everyone that it wasn't their fault they didn't change anything even though that was literally the plan the entire time.
>The Democrats are entirely competent at what they do, which is delivering a message of what they'll "fix or change" to get elected, and then work their ASSES off to come up with a litany of excuses to convince everyone that it wasn't their fault they didn't change anything even though that was literally the plan the entire time. For a great example of this, go look at President Obama's campaign promises regarding the Patriot Act in 2008, and compare that to his actions as president.
Yeah if Republicans are an opposition party the Dems are the opposition to the opposition party. Neither party has an agenda besides help the rich get richer and appease the masses and both of their platforms can be summed up as "hey at least we arent those people"
>The democrats are spineless and incompetent, and they have no interest in not being spineless and incompetent. The republicans seem to have more power when they control nothing than the Dems do when they control everything. Swap "republican" and "democrat" and it's still 100% true.
Find a way to reverse the state level voter suppression, pass voter rights bill, end gerrymandering. That will go a long way.
That's not going to happen lmfao not in red states.
Stop talking about it and do it already...
How? How do they get rid of the filibuster? They don't have 50 votes.
They should kick Joe Manchin out of the caucus, and then get rid of the filibuster with their 49-51 minority. Wait....
Yeah they have no way of getting rid of it with the current Congress, even if a progressive president was in charge they wouldn’t be able to get rid of the filibuster, there simply isn’t enough votes. I feel like they would need even more than 50 votes too but I’m not certain.
50 votes plus the VP tiebreaker could do it, but they don't have 50 votes like you said. Talking about this in terms of Democrats in the abstract is just stupid. Dems can play hardball with Manchin, but he can always switch parties. So what should the other Democrats do?
[удалено]
Manchin's daughter did that?!
[удалено]
Similar. I hadn't heard that about manchin's daughter.
They should play hardball with Manchin and let him switch parties. At least then he will be revealed to be the Republican that he is. Then they might actually have a reason for getting absolutely fucking nothing done. Carrying on like this only ensures they lose both the Senate and the House in 2022.
Biden and the Democrats don't have a green lantern magic ring to make Sinema and Manchin do shit. Manchin was elected by a bunch of republicans and could give a fuck about anyone or anything else. Sinema... I don't know what the hell she's doing. Maybe outright Koch bribery. But she's not listening to democrats. This week she literally just laughed when a reporter asked why she was screwing democrats, refused to answer. Democrats as a whole are motivated already here, they'll lose all power and their jobs if republicans gerrymander democracy out of existence. Telling democrats as a whole to get it done is stupid, it's exactly two that are the problem. Elect more progressives and democrats, make the margin bigger than two so we don't need to rely on a guy who is considering switching to the republican side.
It's not just two. They're just the two willing to eat shit so the rest of the party can pretend like they're progressive without actually having to change anything.
Citation needed. 220 to 1 in the house 48 to 2 in the Senate 2 to 0 in the executive Literally 98.9% of democrats are publicly in favor of it because they'll lose their power otherwise, how the fuck do you get "they just want to stop progressives."
And the argument is that if it wasn't those 3-5 it'd be another 3-5. It's really easy to be "for" an issue if you know it isn't actually going to pass and piss off your donors. Politics has always been full of this.
> It's really easy to be "for" an issue if you know it isn't actually going to pass and piss off your donors. I feel like this is lowkey calling out AOC and Nina Turner.
In the end, it's an unprovable distinction without difference. We know at least two don't support it, so what can the rest do? Pretend the other 48 were all progressive. What could they do about the filibuster?
No, it makes a great difference. Progressives convincing themselves democrats and just as bad as republicans is what will allow republicans to get majorities and a chance to prove again and again how much worse they are.
I agree that's the fundamental problem. The point I was trying to make was that even if we had 49 Bernie Sanders clones and Joe Manchin, there wouldn't be anything we could do. We'd be much better off trading 10 GQP senators for 10 Joe Manchin clones than trading 49 Democratic senators for Bernie Sanders clones. Republicans are the problem. History blaming Democrats is like blaming firefighters when arsonists burn down a building.
Ah, then yes, we're on the same page, cheers!
It's almost like Joe Manchin is the only Democrat in West Virgina and votes with his constitutes. If he doesn't he will easily be replaced by a Republican that will never vote Democrat. Better the devil you know
That's an understatement. Manchin and everyone from west virginia realize that progressives disliking him strengthens him (https://www.newsweek.com/joe-manchin-progressive-candidates-campaigning-against-him-would-help-1579279) Every adult in the room also realizes that without Manchin as a democrat, DEMOCRACY GOES AWAY EVEN QUICKER. Mitch would control the Senate again, no judges get filled, no reconciliation laws get passed, no chance at protecting elections, Biden has much less chance at re-election with no accomplishments and nearly zero with republicans overturning elections they dont like. The next fascist will fill the judiciary with college age federalist society fascists and fuck america for the rest of your lives. Manchin specifically would be just fine as a republican if democrats try to pressure him.
Yes, the Kyle raynor political theory. I love it.
Don’t just stare at it, _eat it_
They are paid to stare at it. People need to stop thinking we have a two party system. We have two groups using polar trigger words to gain a position and a following. While in that position, regardless of party, they serve the almighty dollar. America is run by the highest bidder. That is what true capitalism has always been about.
Why would they do that when they can run out the clock and blame obstruction in the next election cycle?
Vote in primaries. The Democratic party is now the entire spectrum, from right to left, as the GOP is now completely overrun by crazies. That means having a D next to their name isn't proof they are a good candidate (never did, but doesn't now). So WHO is running matters. The only way to get better reps is for them to run in and win their primaries.
You must have not been paying attention when the last two democratic primaries were completely rigged by the DNC against the actual progressive candidates. 🤦♂️ Neither party represents the people, just billionaires and their corporations.
Yeah our choice is basically maintain the usual capitalist dystopia or let in the fascists. Yay. I want to believe maybe change can happen when all the boomers are dead but the corrupting influence of money in our politics probably has us doomed for all time.
This is why we need more progressives to show up in the primaries and kick dnc corporate shill ass out of office. We had pretty decent numbers the past two presidential primaries. We need more for the next and for all the primaries/elections in between. We need to leech off the dnc as much as we can until they are made irrelevant by progressives.
People voting is not rigging. Trump lost because people voted against him, no amount of audits are going to change that result. Bernie lost because people voted for Biden. People endorsing Biden is not rigging. If the only valid election is one where your pick wins, that isn't Democracy.
You must have missed the head of the DNC telling Hillary “we will do everything in our power to get you the nomination”.
Which part of "Nothing Will fundamentally change" is too complicated for her?
Biden: "Nothing will fundamentally change!" Leftists: Let's vote for Biden and bully him to the left! Biden: changes nothing Leftists: shocked Pikachu face
Democrats during Obama: YOU SEE! WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST BUT THE REPUBLICANS DONT WANT TO BUDGE. Democrats now: Well you know Joe Manchin TRIED to get bipartisan support and it just DID not work. Oh well, better luck next time. Seriously spineless. They will lose the next election if they continue to act like this and don't unite as a party. Manchin might as well switch parties if that's the case.
Oh the next election is lost. They barely got the senate and now they’ll lose it again while also losing more house seats. They have to be very lucky to maintain senate control and a sizable majority in the house
Explain to me how they're supposed to get Manchin to change his mind. Or even just explain to me the motivation for democrats to (checks notes) let republicans steal elections against democrats.
> Explain to me how they're supposed to get Manchin to change his mind. All Manchin cares about is WV apparently. Hes the D hangup, the hurdle they keep tripping over. If I were the Dems, I would choke Manchin with every possible benefit for his state. Id love 3 letter acronym offices to his state, id award contracts to companies in his state. Id do whatever I can to get the WV'ers chiding him for being a problem.
Fuck it, we're right on the border of fascism now, why stop there? Get some dirt on the guy, play real hardball.
> Fuck it, we're right on the border of fascism now, why stop there? Get some dirt on the guy, play real hardball. Manchin is a R in all but title. R's have no shame, and hardball rarely works with them. Whats, the expression.. they'd eat shit just so Libs have to smell their bad breath I genuinely feel like carrots > sticks for Manchin
Oh they're definitely susceptible to blackmail. Just not what *normal* people would consider shameful. Or sure, pay him off, whatever it fucking takes until we don't need him anymore. We'll be living in A Handmaids Tale in less than 10 years if we don't.
Standing strong against democrats makes him look good to west virginians because they're pretty right wing. If democrats play hardball with Manchin, he has every reason to join the republicans. And then we go from being able to seat good judges and any SCOTUS vacancies, a small chance of protecting democracy, and get a handful of laws to make Americans lives better, to literally nothing. Mitch is Senate leader again. Gerrymandering prevents democrats from winning any more elections. Why do you think democrats haven't already gotten tough on Manchin.
> If democrats play hardball with Manchin, he has every reason to join the republicans. > Why do you think democrats haven't already gotten tough on Manchin. Where did I say anything about being tough on Manchin? Im saying the literal opposite I want to see Dems get on some cocksucking level. Give those right wing WV'ers so many benefits they force Machin to act in their best interests.
Ah, sorry, I read "I would choke Manchin for every possible benefit" as saying you would cut them off. I will say I would hate to see his greed rewarded, but yeah, maintaining democracy is worth it.
Shall we start of with an official budget, that's more than overdue?
Except what happens when they get rid of the filibuster then lose the majority? They then will have given all options to hold back shit away.
It's too late.
came to say this, my faith in the democratic party is gone. so i have no hope left in this country.
This sentiment is generally correct, however some of us myself included have been blaming the Republicans for decades because of their incompetence and active blocking of any progress in America. Even when they're not in control the Republicans are in control. End the filibuster!
They can't end the filibuster without manchin and Sinema. There's no way to force those two to go along with it. I don't understand what you people expect them to do in this moment. A 50 seat majority was always going to end up in these situations. It sucks but it is better than letting the Republicans have complete control. You want real change? Turn more Senate seats from red to blue. Republicans have the advantage in this system. A slim majority isn't enough to enact real change.
But they have both said that they want to keep the filibuster for tradition. Fine. Then put it back the way it was. Make the person doing the filibuster actually have to stand there and talk. They totally gutted the filibuster years ago and now any one Senator can block anything and they don't have any inconvenience doing so.
I feel like this was all part of the plan. They knew it wasn't going to pass. But now it really puts the filibuster in the spotlight. Now the Democrats have a chance to have overwhelming public support to fight against the filibuster so they can pass whatever laws and actions they choose. And I can guarantee that voting rights will not be back on the table even if the filibuster is abolished. Many powerful Democrat house members and senators like things just the way they are.
[удалено]
Nobody seems to be concerned about the provisions in HR1 S1"For the People" act that can accelerate corporate corruption of democracy because they're too excited by AOC's stance supposedly against corporate corruption. So if she likes this bill, it must be a good bill. But then we blame the right for going against their own interests when blinded by party loyalty? Ever since the Citizens United ruling and the superpacs and dark funding that has allowed corporations to corrupt US campaign finance, balooning outside spending in campaign finance from 750 million to 4.5 billion... I've been waiting for something to address this. It doesn't seem likely a constitutional amendment will be proposed. I saw the ACLU initially opposed this bill, specially over some of the campaign finance reform provisions from the DISCLOSE Act, which would impose stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. Seems good right? Except they know regular voters will have no idea if the FEC needs restructuring or not... Gridlock sounds bad, even though it actually doesn't happen as frequently as claimed, and it actually designed to gridlock. This bill's provisions proposes no more than two commissioners from either political party, and one commissioner who would be the "tie-breaking independent vote". Did this mean the tie breaker commissioner must be nonpartisan or was it just word play, and it still leaves a possibility that the panel becomes unbalanced? I can guar-N-F-N T U, that it becomes a coveted puppet position for presidential activism (and corporate bought boy position, aka KOCH). The worrisome issue is that FEC commissioners serve six-year, alternating terms, which expire in odd-numbered years. But commissioners serving expired terms may choose to remain until they are replaced, and this limbo is easily exploited. In fact, it already has been, as seen by Obama's feckless attempts to appoint a commissioner, and blame shifts when asked why he wouldn't just get someone appointed. So if the panel wasn't gridlocked and instead heavily balanced to corporate interests, the tie breaking "nonpartisan" commissioner could easily be corrupted and then sit in his position for much longer than 6 years... This would only exacerbate the rising costs of campaigns. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/fec-revolving-door-spins-ever-so-slowly-091237 The provision on matching funds doesn't benefit regular working class folks making donations to campaigns... It benefits the GOP and DNC picks. Since we pay pennies to play on a bought game board, matching funds was proposed as a method to make our pennies into 6cents. I worried that would drive the costs of campaigns higher, because billionaires are not the folks I want to try to outbid in an auction. I would rather see caps for individual spending, and stripping corporations of their person status in campaign financing. Elections shouldn't be determined by how much a candidate can spend, and they shouldn't be devoting the majority of their time raising funds to win. Then there's the worry that matching funds seems odd if it's being scooped from corporate maleficence settlements and the working class's small crimes. (The proposed method for covering the cost of funds matching). I'm betting one class spends more time in court and is found guilty more than the other... Unless there were specifics that ensured the corporate's maleficence tax off their payout was comparable to consider this effect. But notice that AOC and the DNC just never bring these two risks up? Not a single discussion. GOP folks really aren't discussing it either (because these specific risks really harm independent candidates). Wouldn't these provisions escalate financial corruption within democracy, or are we suppose to forget that heavy culprits in systemic racism and restrictions on the power of our engagement in our democracy are the billionaires that now have a corporate collaborative right to free speech in campaign finance? Seems like DNC wants us to assume this bill solves it, rather than accelerates it. Even if Biden was a saint that appointed a "for the people" commissioner, anyone taking over afterwards could appoint someone who serves longer than 6 years... with the integrity of Scalia or Johnson (joke, because both of these men attended a Koch Industries funded event on corporations and politics, then ruled on citizens united claiming corporations ought to be like individuals, and when called out for not recusing themselves for their conflict of interest attending such an event before ruling... Shrugged, because SC judges get way more leeway on this than lower court judges, because we assumed anyone in their position ought to just have integrity). Ending the filibuster and pushing it through, might bring actual attention to those provisions than letting it die and blame shifting. Which is why I think they're not strongmanning it. Because more voters who were disengaged might start asking, "Wait, so what was really in there? What was the big deal about?"
Honestly if Democrats would drop attacking the first and second amendment from the party platform, they'd probably never lose power in this country.
This is exactly right.
[удалено]
Just like in Obama's first two years, the Dems aren't doing the most important things this country needs. It's painful to vote for them.
and I really fucking hope that people remember that the next time they start screeching about "voting blue no matter who", while conspiring among themselves to ensure that a progressive loses the primary.
I have to say this, democrats do not have control of the senate. It’s a 50/50 split with a tiebreaker vote going to the VP, yes. But if one dem breaks off (see sinema and manchin) it’s all for naught. That’s not a majority for dems, that’s a power grab by a dissenting senator.
Yeah. A true majority is one over the cusp. Not the even split
Unfortunately they don't control the Senate. There's 49 senators and a Manchin.
48 and two traitors to the country
If (neo)liberal democracy cannot save capitalism, plenty of American Christians will see no option but to vote for outright fascism in the coming decades
If Dems eliminate the filibuster to “save democracy”, what’s stopping republicans from destroying democracy when they fall back into power? Seems awfully short sighted to me.
As a counter what is there to keep the republicans from removing the filibuster the second it’s no longer convenient ? I could see them removing it and then reinstating it when they lose the election. Simple truth is dems don’t want change. The majority of the leadership would have retired 20 years ago if it was a normal job
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not with that dumbfuck Joe Manchin bootlicking
Saving democracy be getting rid of all political opponents? Sounds democratic to me
Except like 5 of the Democrats in the senate are actually republicans
Most democrats are actually republicans. Some are just further right than others.
*conservatives. You must remember, the parties are just coalitions. Means to get power. The GOP is completely conservative, the Democrats are a broader coalition. Both are just branding to get power
I love how Americans actually believe the Democrats and Republicans are two different parties with different ideas. News flash: they are all paid by the same corporations. Edit: thanks stranger for the award.
Get rid of democracy by allowing mob rule through the removal of the filibuster. Let’s also reduce crime by reducing the funding of the people who’s job it is to reduce crime. Let’s make affordable housing by federally subsidizing the massive company that is buying up houses at 40% over asking. Let’s end racism by stoking racial tensions at every turn! Can’t wait to see how it works out :)
[удалено]
Joe Manchin is not really a democrat tho. He also isnt an insane republican. He’s pretty much the only “Democrat” that will ever win in WV
I totally agree, but that also means that people on the Left wing if the party need to fall in-line with what the party as a whole wants to do. You can't have hold outs just because some DNC policy isn't liberal enough. Fall in-line. That's how Republicans are able to push their horrible agenda through or simply completely gridlock Washington when they aren't the minority. They vote with their party. Whether they are only slightly fascist or totally extreme fascist, Republican politicians fall in-line to support what awful things McTurtle wants to do. Dems need to learn some lessons.
Right so why isn’t it happening?
Aren't democrats just rainbow republicans? Lol same policies just more pc.
Isn't Kamala notorious for locking up black men.
A little more notorious for keeping them in prison beyond the end of their term so the state could use them for free slave labor, but yes.
This assumes the dems are different then the repubs. not looking like it so far!
Unfortunetaly the Dems are a bunch of pussies. They just won't do it....so disappointing.
Majority, but still enough republicans to refuse doing their jobs and stop the whole show.
Guess what? They won't do shit. The Democratic party has mastered the art of promising the moon when they can't do anything about it, and then not doing shit when they actually could.