7个月前

Why Didn't Democrats Do More When They Controlled Both Houses of Legislature, The White House, and The Supreme Court During Obama's First Term?

I've been wondering for a bit why during the time the Democrats controlled the legislature, executive, and judicial branches during Obama's first term in 2008 more wasn't accomplished. Shouldn't that have been the opportunity to make Row V Way law and fix the electoral college? I understand the recession was going on but outside of Obamacare getting passed which didnt go far enough it seems like they didn't really do much with all that power. Are there other important accomplishments from this time that didn't get the news they deserved? It seems like the voters have done their job in the past to elect people to fix things and yet we are still here begging people to vote to fix issues like abortion rights.

您正在查看单个线程.

87 留言

Routine abuse of the filibuster rules by Republicans was a big part of it. Not the only reason, but a fairly major one as I recall.
And while I am a Democrat and I vote that way, I very readily admit the Democrats often bring a book to a gun fight when it comes to politics. They have good intentions but then they get steamrollered on things like SCOTUS appointments....
- Democrats have been playing by the rules and norms for far too long. Norms only matter if both teams follow them. Same thing with the rules. If Republicans will change the rules so that they win Democrats have to follow suit or make it illegal. When one side plays dirty, the other can either play dirty or lose. Moral high ground gains us nothing.
  
  The main difference is:
  Republicans do stuff then Democrats challenge it thru the courts.
  Dems challenge their own stuff first, and if they think it's right after a year or two, they start talking about if they should do it. And Republicans will still challenge it thru the courts.
  You can argue over which path is morally the right one.
  But no one has a legitimate argument that says republicans aren't more effective.
  They're skipping steps that take us years to complete.
  I mean, Biden talked about all types of shit he would do when elected. And his first day he said he'd start looking into if he was allowed to do any of it.
  trump ain't waiting to ask anyone if he can do something. He's just going to do shit, and we're going to have to try and fight a bunch of battles at once, all the while his policies are in effect.
  It's not that they're fighting dirty and we're fighting clean.
  It's that when the gun goes off to start the race, we start stretching so we won't cramp up.
  Doesn't matter how slow Republicans are if we give them a 10 minute head start on a 100m sprint.
  
  This is it. Trump didn't give a flying shit at all if anything he did was legal, he just went for it, and it worked.
  
  That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
  -Karl Rove
  They know this is how it works and they abuse it freely and are open about what they're doing. Democrats are fucking pussies in the face of it.
  
  Turd Blossom is an evil little pigman but he's not stupid and he's not wrong. There's too much discussion and not enough action from the left side of the aisle.
  
  This is it. Trump didn’t give a flying shit at all if anything he did was legal, he just went for it, and it worked.
  The law is slow, but powerful.
  _Anti _{Commercial-AI} _license _(CC _BY-NC-SA _4.0)
  
  trump ain’t waiting to ask anyone if he can do something. He’s just going to do shit, and we’re going to have to try and fight a bunch of battles at once, all the while his policies are in effect.
  That IS fighting dirty
  
  "Things are kinda shitty so we should make them all the way shitty" isn't the argument you think it is.
- Democrats had the ability to change procedural rules and prevent filibustering - they chose not to.
  Unfortunately, the lack of progress when Dems controlled all three branches is because conservative democrats didn't want that progress. While Democrats controlled all three branches liberals did not.
  We need to understand that there's a strong conservative presence in the DNC or else we'll be blindsided by this issue again. The lack of progress was on Democrats - we can't shift the blame to Republicans (though they're definitely more shitty).
  
  One of things that annoys me most is people on the Left who act like the overwhelming majority of people in the country agree with them.
  According to the best estimate I've seen, 44% of the people "somewhat agree" with Socialism, and about 6% are "strongly" in favor of Socialism.
  
  I'm not certain what your point is - we're not talking about socialism here and that word is a misunderstood flashpoint to Americans. If you ask Americans if they want to live in a socialist country I wouldn't be surprised if only 6% said yes - but when you describe Scandinavian democratic socialism purely by stating policy stances it tends to be pretty popular.
  
  And yet, Obamacare barely passed and Trump managed to pass a huge tax cut for the rich.
  Look how many people were outraged when AOC wore a dress that said 'Tax The Rich.'
  I wish I was in the majority, but I know I'm not.
- Though if I recall correctly, filibuster rule can be removed with 51% majority but obviously Democrats are too nice to remove that.
  
  Less nice, more realizing that would remove their ability to stop the Republicans when the political winds inevitability shift the other way
  
  Right, which is why I've been saying that the Democrats should restore the filibuster. What they have now is not a filibuster, in practice, it's more akin to an administrative hold. One Senator indicates an intent to filibuster via email, and they move on to other business.
  Make 'em do it. Pick a popular issue, and lean into it. Make the Republicans actually stand up there at the podium and talk for hours. Get them on camera on the news every night as obstructionists, blocking the will of the people. Yes, it will waste Senate session time; that's a perfect opportunity for all of the Democrats to roast them non-stop to reporters. It'll be painful for a while, but at least has a chance of breaking the log jam. (And if the GQP doesn't take the bait, hey, popular thing gets passed!)
  
  Filibustering is dumb and it shouldn't exist - if we want the ability for a narrow minority to block law making we should just increase the threshold to pass laws - we shouldn't allow a weird procedural rule to block discussion of a law whether through talking a long time or just doing so by email.
  
  Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?
  Oh no they didn't. They went along with them.
  
  Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?
  Oh no they didn't. They went along with them.
  What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.
  When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post
  
  Crickets from the peanut gallery🤣
  
  Couldn't the republicans just do the same thing and remove it when they get a 51% majority
  
  I would imagine its a case of mutually assured destruction. Neither wants to repeal it because they know once they do, they open up Pandora's box and Congress will be even more of a disaster than it currently is
  
  While I disagree with it, there is a valid argument that getting rid of the filibuster would become an absolute disaster once Republicans gain the majority.
  
  It's an easy rotating villain they can pull out at their convenience
- Honestly, it’s not that they bring a book to a gunfight.
  It’s that they keep bringing a book to a gunfight, and expect a different result every time.
  
  It's almost like they're not really trying
  
  No, it's like the base expects perfection at every turn and it just isn't possible. A Republican fucks up and people rally to him, a Dem fucks up and they are expected to resign or recuse or whatever. The D always has to be the bigger person and our "big tent" is full of about 50 issues that can't sit the hell down for two minutes to let something get done.
  It's a bunch of whiny little removed kids that won't punch for the throat because precedent and social issue du jour. What is really necessary is to put on some teeth kicking shoes and step up to the plate, but my other compatriot Dems just don't allow that sort of behavior. They go low and we should start kicking... But we don't.
  
  I hear you, and I completely agree with your reasons WHY we can't compete, but at the same time, if and when we resort to lies and cheating, are we still the good guys or just more bad guys with a different color flag?
  Most of the Republican party thinks they ARE the good guys. They are protecting the rest of us from the evils of an oppressive gubment and/or a vengeful God.
  Obviously, you and I don't agree with that, but I feel more confident that I'm on the right side knowing that we're at least playing by the rules.
  
  But when playing by the rules guarantees that you’ll lose (perhaps permanently) because the other guy’s blatantly cheating… does that matter?
  To borrow a rather melodramatic quote:
  Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer.
  I get your point. I really do. But when the fight is existential, the constraints are radically different.
  Let’s put it another way: if this next election was a D20, it’s like generating crit fails on 9+D4, because the other team has been fucking with the rules behind our backs. And a crit fail means you have a 3/D4 chance of not being allowed to roll any dice ever again.
  In plain English: the structure of our electoral system means that the bar for success of one team is quantitatively lower than their opponents, and due to the extreme nature of the party that’s benefiting from that unbalanced system (Republicans), it’s very possible they’ll stop allowing any remotely fair elections to occur.
  
  I don't think it has to be lies and cheating, but there's a pre-emptive reaction on the left of "we can't do that, because what happens when the shoe is on the other foot?". But then what happens? Those issues are abused anyway on the right.
  IMO the first order of business ought to have been pack the courts, push the limits of gerrymandering, and anything else that guarantees easy wins until there's a lawsuit that leads to legislation that codifies the rules for bad faith situations in law.
  Basically force the grey out of grey areas and ride the easy wins. The slack in the system is the main thing that is being constantly abused. Unfortunately the electorate on our side is to interested making politicians "earn the vote" by chasing every car on the street and never catching any of them.
- The current state of US politics is a direct consequence of Mitch McConnell's campaign of obstruction and spin. When we go to civil war in November and your fellow Americans are bleeding out in the streets because we wouldn't get on board with support for Zionist genocide, think of him.

87 留言