3 ms·

>It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do. It would be nice if voters voted. It would be nice if voters actu

>It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do. It would be nice if voters voted. It would be nice if voters actually gave the Democrats enough power in Congress (and POTUS) to enact the legislation they want instead of being obstructed by Republicans at every single turn. Mitch McConnel famously obstructed Obama and prevented him from seating a SCOTUS judge because "it's too close to an election" that was a year away. So when you call out Democrats as doing nothing, please realize it isn't for lack of trying, it's for lack of power that the people didn't give them.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
The US has had antitrust laws on the books for more than a century. Obama was President for 8 years and Biden for 4. How many megacorps were broken up? Why are Visa and Mastercard still a thing? Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Republicans filibuster things that Republican constituencies have strong objections to, but they're not going to put up a strong defense of Hollywood or Facebook etc., so why didn't they go after the villains in their own house? Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden? Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? There are reasonable things Republicans want that it's the Democrats who strongly oppose, like school choice, or loser-pays for civil court cases against non-megacorps. If you're not willing to give any of that stuff up and you want them to give up things that their constituents oppose, of course they fight you tooth and nail. But if you could find a way to be objective for a moment, some of the things your side wants are bad or at least not great and you only want them because their interest groups are in your tent. Instead of finding a compromise where the public gets screwed to benefit the interest groups on both sides, you could find a compromise where the interest groups on both sides get screwed to benefit the public. Yet they don't.
- leptons 2y ago
  >Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Not for the full term, only 2 years, where he got ACA enacted. So don't act like he had completely free reign for 8 years, or that he didn't get anything done. >Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden? Nobody would pardon Snowden, he ran. Obama let Manning off pretty easily because she came to justice, and he said if Snowden wanted to face justice, he'd likely be free in the U.S. right now. >Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? ACA was good for millions of people. Republicans are set to erase that. No, both sides are not the same. >There are reasonable things Republicans want Like what? Ending birthright citizenship? Ending gay marriage? Ending a lot of things vulnerable people depend on? The damage Repulbicans are doing is a very long list. No, the Democrats do not have an equally long list. I'm going to go any further than this with you, it's pointless.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Not for the full term, only 2 years, where he got ACA enacted. The US still has about the highest healthcare costs in the world. If that's supposed to be what success looks like, it's not great. > Nobody would pardon Snowden, he ran. That's just an excuse. Demanding that he face a trial is conceding that he would be prosecuted, which only proves that he was right to run. Justice for what he did is a pardon. > ACA was good for millions of people. Republicans are set to erase that. ACA was incremental progress that barely made a dent, and could easily have been a bipartisan bill if bipartisanship was still a thing. Half the reason Republicans are always talking about repealing it is that it was full of their ideas and they want to "repeal and replace" it by making some minor tweaks so they can claim the credit for the modest benefits because neither party can be bothered to address the bigger problems with the US healthcare system. > No, the Democrats do not have an equally long list. The Democrats play coy. When they pass laws to enrich the megacorps or special interests, they tell you they're defending the little guy, as if simply claiming that conveys the right to be indignant if someone wants to subject their proposals to an analysis of qui bono.
    - leptons 2y ago
      As I said before, I'm going to go any further than this with you, it's pointless. Your opinions are not my opinions. I think you have a distorted perspective of reality, so it's not going to accomplish anything by trying to point out your errors. The Democrats voting record proves you wrong, but I doubt you've ever seen it. BOTH SIDES ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME.
adamc 2y ago
As things are going, the Democrats should be buliding an army and preparing to fight a war.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

The US has had antitrust laws on the books for more than a century. Obama was President for 8 years and Biden for 4. How many megacorps were broken up? Why are Visa and Mastercard still a thing? Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Republicans filibuster things that Republican constituencies have strong objections to, but they're not going to put up a strong defense of Hollywood or Facebook etc., so why didn't they go after the villains in their own house? Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden? Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? There are reasonable things Republicans want that it's the Democrats who strongly oppose, like school choice, or loser-pays for civil court cases against non-megacorps. If you're not willing to give any of that stuff up and you want them to give up things that their constituents oppose, of course they fight you tooth and nail. But if you could find a way to be objective for a moment, some of the things your side wants are bad or at least not great and you only want them because their interest groups are in your tent. Instead of finding a compromise where the public gets screwed to benefit the interest groups on both sides, you could find a compromise where the interest groups on both sides get screwed to benefit the public. Yet they don't.

leptons 2y ago
>Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Not for the full term, only 2 years, where he got ACA enacted. So don't act like he had completely free reign for 8 years, or that he didn't get anything done. >Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden? Nobody would pardon Snowden, he ran. Obama let Manning off pretty easily because she came to justice, and he said if Snowden wanted to face justice, he'd likely be free in the U.S. right now. >Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? ACA was good for millions of people. Republicans are set to erase that. No, both sides are not the same. >There are reasonable things Republicans want Like what? Ending birthright citizenship? Ending gay marriage? Ending a lot of things vulnerable people depend on? The damage Repulbicans are doing is a very long list. No, the Democrats do not have an equally long list. I'm going to go any further than this with you, it's pointless.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Not for the full term, only 2 years, where he got ACA enacted. The US still has about the highest healthcare costs in the world. If that's supposed to be what success looks like, it's not great. > Nobody would pardon Snowden, he ran. That's just an excuse. Demanding that he face a trial is conceding that he would be prosecuted, which only proves that he was right to run. Justice for what he did is a pardon. > ACA was good for millions of people. Republicans are set to erase that. ACA was incremental progress that barely made a dent, and could easily have been a bipartisan bill if bipartisanship was still a thing. Half the reason Republicans are always talking about repealing it is that it was full of their ideas and they want to "repeal and replace" it by making some minor tweaks so they can claim the credit for the modest benefits because neither party can be bothered to address the bigger problems with the US healthcare system. > No, the Democrats do not have an equally long list. The Democrats play coy. When they pass laws to enrich the megacorps or special interests, they tell you they're defending the little guy, as if simply claiming that conveys the right to be indignant if someone wants to subject their proposals to an analysis of qui bono.
  - leptons 2y ago
    As I said before, I'm going to go any further than this with you, it's pointless. Your opinions are not my opinions. I think you have a distorted perspective of reality, so it's not going to accomplish anything by trying to point out your errors. The Democrats voting record proves you wrong, but I doubt you've ever seen it. BOTH SIDES ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME.

adamc 2y ago

As things are going, the Democrats should be buliding an army and preparing to fight a war.