8 ms·

Not even remotely the same. Democrats haven't had both chambers of Congress and the presidency since the first half Obama's first term, and even then, he didn't

Not even remotely the same. Democrats haven't had both chambers of Congress and the presidency since the first half Obama's first term, and even then, he didn't have the courts. The best they could do was pass Dodd-Frank to prevent the next financial crisis and ACA, which the courts promptly watered down. Obama's threat of a public option in the ACA had so much money against it that the Democrats lost the legislature in the midterm election. Trump has both chambers of Congress and the courts on his side. If you want to fix things, you need to educate voters. There are no procedures that can help you if all three branches of the government are against you.

tpmoney 2y ago
> The best they could do was pass Dodd-Frank to prevent the next financial crisis and ACA, which the courts promptly watered down. Why the heck are we ok with an entire wing of US politicians that even when they have total control over the government can only give us "watered down" "the best they could do" effort? And why are we ok with not holding them at least partially responsible for anything that happens when they don't have control over all parts of the government? Why do we have any faith at all that these objectively ineffectual and cowardly children are going to do anything to save us from would be dictators and mad men? If they're just going to lie back and watch the country slide into oblivion with only the mildest of protests, shouldn't we just fire them and at least save the tax money their salaries are costing us? I've long felt the DNC's fatal flaw was that a lot of the really important issues that they're strong on are also hyper local issues that just don't connect broadly. That is, gun control might be extremely relevant and important to the NYC "high crime is killing our children" contingent, and so far down the list for the Rocky Mountain "pollution is ruining my wildlife preserves" contingent that actually gathering and holding support at a national level on those positions is extremely difficult. Combine that with a messaging and broad set of policies that despite lip service to being about "unity" is continually asking us to divide ourselves into special interest groups (and sometime even be at odds with each other). That would explain why states that are "red" on the national elections often have "blue" state level governments. But I'm starting to wonder if the reality is no one actually believes they're capable of getting anything done at all. After all, if even their most ardent supporters believe that they can't get anything done without full control of the government, how is anyone else supposed to believe it? It's not just that the minority party is strongly disadvantaged, it's that the DNC is actually a terrible and ineffectual minority party and barely better as a majority party. God help us all if these are the people we need to rely on to fix things.
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  > Why the heck are we ok with an entire wing of US politicians that even when they have total control over the government They didn't have total control. That was the entire point of the GP post.
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    And my point is somehow the GOP managed to advance their agenda time and time again even when they didn't have total control. So why is the GOP an effective minority party and capable of disrupting the DNCs efforts even when they lack total control of the government, but the DNC is apparently incapable of the same?
    - Tadpole9181 2y ago
      I feel like you aren't being given a good answer on this, but I think I can explain. When Democrats wanted, say, the ACA, they followed the rules. Legislation was introduced, and Republicans used the rules of the legislation to fillabust. This could only happen because the party in power followed the rules that allow a party out of power to retain a semblance of representation. With the roles reversed, things have changed. Republicans, quite skilled at the former, do not want their own game used against them. They have done a few things differently, but there is one key one: Congress did not make the tariffs. Instead of following the rules of law, they have abdicated responsibility to Trump through inaction. Trump is, unconstitutionally, declaring national emergencies on topics and using emergency powers to put out edicts. Legislation has effectively stopped their required oversight so the minority party cannot participate. The minority party cannot force legislation or votes through, only the majority chairs can determine the schedule. The minority party cannot do anything to stand against votes for legislation that does not exist. Ergo, this time they are powerless. Republicans aren't playing by the rules, they have installed what is effectively a single-branch government (a monarchy of all things) as a loophole to the checks against their power. Notice that pretty much all opposition is now federal judges? That's by Republican design. All that can be done are raising lawsuits post-facto and hoping for an injunction. And that's why Republicans are now rallying behind ignoring or even firing federal judges. And the highest court is, essentially, owned by Trump himself now.

tpmoney 2y ago

> The best they could do was pass Dodd-Frank to prevent the next financial crisis and ACA, which the courts promptly watered down. Why the heck are we ok with an entire wing of US politicians that even when they have total control over the government can only give us "watered down" "the best they could do" effort? And why are we ok with not holding them at least partially responsible for anything that happens when they don't have control over all parts of the government? Why do we have any faith at all that these objectively ineffectual and cowardly children are going to do anything to save us from would be dictators and mad men? If they're just going to lie back and watch the country slide into oblivion with only the mildest of protests, shouldn't we just fire them and at least save the tax money their salaries are costing us? I've long felt the DNC's fatal flaw was that a lot of the really important issues that they're strong on are also hyper local issues that just don't connect broadly. That is, gun control might be extremely relevant and important to the NYC "high crime is killing our children" contingent, and so far down the list for the Rocky Mountain "pollution is ruining my wildlife preserves" contingent that actually gathering and holding support at a national level on those positions is extremely difficult. Combine that with a messaging and broad set of policies that despite lip service to being about "unity" is continually asking us to divide ourselves into special interest groups (and sometime even be at odds with each other). That would explain why states that are "red" on the national elections often have "blue" state level governments. But I'm starting to wonder if the reality is no one actually believes they're capable of getting anything done at all. After all, if even their most ardent supporters believe that they can't get anything done without full control of the government, how is anyone else supposed to believe it? It's not just that the minority party is strongly disadvantaged, it's that the DNC is actually a terrible and ineffectual minority party and barely better as a majority party. God help us all if these are the people we need to rely on to fix things.

lern_too_spel 2y ago
> Why the heck are we ok with an entire wing of US politicians that even when they have total control over the government They didn't have total control. That was the entire point of the GP post.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  And my point is somehow the GOP managed to advance their agenda time and time again even when they didn't have total control. So why is the GOP an effective minority party and capable of disrupting the DNCs efforts even when they lack total control of the government, but the DNC is apparently incapable of the same?
  - Tadpole9181 2y ago
    I feel like you aren't being given a good answer on this, but I think I can explain. When Democrats wanted, say, the ACA, they followed the rules. Legislation was introduced, and Republicans used the rules of the legislation to fillabust. This could only happen because the party in power followed the rules that allow a party out of power to retain a semblance of representation. With the roles reversed, things have changed. Republicans, quite skilled at the former, do not want their own game used against them. They have done a few things differently, but there is one key one: Congress did not make the tariffs. Instead of following the rules of law, they have abdicated responsibility to Trump through inaction. Trump is, unconstitutionally, declaring national emergencies on topics and using emergency powers to put out edicts. Legislation has effectively stopped their required oversight so the minority party cannot participate. The minority party cannot force legislation or votes through, only the majority chairs can determine the schedule. The minority party cannot do anything to stand against votes for legislation that does not exist. Ergo, this time they are powerless. Republicans aren't playing by the rules, they have installed what is effectively a single-branch government (a monarchy of all things) as a loophole to the checks against their power. Notice that pretty much all opposition is now federal judges? That's by Republican design. All that can be done are raising lawsuits post-facto and hoping for an injunction. And that's why Republicans are now rallying behind ignoring or even firing federal judges. And the highest court is, essentially, owned by Trump himself now.