4 ms·

What makes you think they don't?

burnte 1y ago
The complete and total lack of any plan (or even the appearance of the desire) to combat the damage is a good indicator they haven't done anything. Half our leaders are tearing down the government and the other half are wringing their hands about it.
- steve_adams_86 1y ago
  "Strongly worded letter" will be imprinted in my mind for a long time. Schumer couldn't have tried to be much more disappointing in that moment. It was a clear sign of the inaction and impotency to come.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    I laughed so hard at that when it happened, and I just did it again reading this.
- nonethewiser 1y ago
  Elections have consequences
- shostack 1y ago
  This. The fact that democracy is up against an extremely organized, centralized, and well resourced effort decades in the making with seemingly nothing comparable to combat it has those opposing this on completely reactive footing. It is hard to see how a reactive group can come out on top in such a case.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    The problem is we got rid of "democracy" a long time ago. The original premise was you have a lot of elected officials and then they act as checks and balances on one another. So, for example, to pass a law against something it has to be voted on by the House (elected officials), and the Senate (originally elected by state legislatures, giving the states, an independent elected body, a voice in the federal government; not anymore) and then signed by the President (another elected official), and then as a final check it had to be upheld by the courts (elected by the President and Senate for lifetime terms). Then we effectively replaced most of that with administrative bureaucrats that act only within the executive branch. They're not only not directly elected, they're not even indirectly elected by the Senate; the President appoints them -- or they're hired by other unelected bureaucrats -- and then they tend to stick around between administrations because there are so many of them that you can't plausibly replace millions of people every time the constituents want to change who is in office. Meanwhile they make the rules and enforce them and bypass the courts through coercive plea bargaining. But we call an attack on this system an attack on democracy?
    - _0ffh 1y ago
      An attack on the result might be interpreted as an attack on the cause. Maybe a system's purpose is what is does, after all.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  What was the party that continually lost all the important elections supposed to do? The law is very clear that they are not in power in any way. There's no such thing as a power that the losing team has. The people with authority in the US come from the majority party. You want the DNC to do stuff, to solve problems, to execute plans that grow this country, you have to put them into power first Republican voters understand just fine that if republicans don't win the election, their will does not become law. Why is that so hard for Democrat supporters and voters to understand?
  - RangerScience 1y ago
    Because notionally, the “game” isn’t supposed to be winners-take-all. And democrats believe in the game even when they’re not winning.
    - krapp 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - shigawire 1y ago
        It's a big tent, good luck getting agreement on what football we should be kicking.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    > What was the party that continually lost all the important elections supposed to do? They're supposed to write a coherent plan with specifics on what they are going to do once they are in power. The (R) side did this with Project 2025. It was detailed and specific and they are executing on it like a checklist. Where is the (D) checklist? > You want the DNC to do stuff, to solve problems, to execute plans that grow this country, you have to put them into power first I'm not going to help vote them into power unless I see what their plan is. Even a one-liner that says "We have a list of what Trump did and we're going to revert each commit!" is better than nothing. Their party platform from 2024 is vague and talks more about principles and what they're not going to do rather than specific things they are going to do.
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  Dems under biden had a plan. Manchin nixed it, they didnt have the votes in the senate without him
  - burnte 1y ago
    And the fact Biden didn't use the bully pulpit is a real indictment on the administration. LBJ knew how to whip up support from recalcitrant congresspeople.
patmorgan23 1y ago
Send me the link to the Democrats equivalent to Project 2025. Here the link to Project 2025 for reference https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  The Heritage Foundation is a think tank, not the RNC. Project 2025 no doubt has plenty of supporters in the RNC thanks to how influential the think tank is, but it's not an official party position. Any left of center think tank could cook up a Project 2028 document and claim it's the DNC's equivalent – it'd have just as much (official) standing as Project 2025.
  - trealira 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - krapp 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - nozzlegear 1y ago
      To be clear, I'm not defending Project 2025, Trump or the RNC. I don't need any convincing that Trump and republicans are following the plan, it's plain to anyway who's passingly familiar with it. What I'm trying to point out is that there's a strange trend for people to place all of the blame for our current state of affairs squarely on democrats and the DNC, ostensibly because of their failure to precisely match the steps of the RNC – steps the RNC didn't even take, in this case.
      - trealira 1y ago
        > steps the RNC didn't even take, in this case. What steps are you referencing? I don't get your comment. Also, the DNC and RNC just choose people and fundraise. It's strange to me how people refer to the parties like this.
softwaredoug 1y ago
Running Biden in 2024 was a pretty clear sign they didn’t take the threat seriously.
bobmcnamara 1y ago
Seems like the plan is to keep throwing unpopular candidates into the bike wheel of elections until there's only good candidates left. It's all part of the show folks.

The complete and total lack of any plan (or even the appearance of the desire) to combat the damage is a good indicator they haven't done anything. Half our leaders are tearing down the government and the other half are wringing their hands about it.

steve_adams_86 1y ago
"Strongly worded letter" will be imprinted in my mind for a long time. Schumer couldn't have tried to be much more disappointing in that moment. It was a clear sign of the inaction and impotency to come.
- dylan604 1y ago
  I laughed so hard at that when it happened, and I just did it again reading this.
nonethewiser 1y ago
Elections have consequences
shostack 1y ago
This. The fact that democracy is up against an extremely organized, centralized, and well resourced effort decades in the making with seemingly nothing comparable to combat it has those opposing this on completely reactive footing. It is hard to see how a reactive group can come out on top in such a case.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  The problem is we got rid of "democracy" a long time ago. The original premise was you have a lot of elected officials and then they act as checks and balances on one another. So, for example, to pass a law against something it has to be voted on by the House (elected officials), and the Senate (originally elected by state legislatures, giving the states, an independent elected body, a voice in the federal government; not anymore) and then signed by the President (another elected official), and then as a final check it had to be upheld by the courts (elected by the President and Senate for lifetime terms). Then we effectively replaced most of that with administrative bureaucrats that act only within the executive branch. They're not only not directly elected, they're not even indirectly elected by the Senate; the President appoints them -- or they're hired by other unelected bureaucrats -- and then they tend to stick around between administrations because there are so many of them that you can't plausibly replace millions of people every time the constituents want to change who is in office. Meanwhile they make the rules and enforce them and bypass the courts through coercive plea bargaining. But we call an attack on this system an attack on democracy?
  - _0ffh 1y ago
    An attack on the result might be interpreted as an attack on the cause. Maybe a system's purpose is what is does, after all.
mrguyorama 1y ago
What was the party that continually lost all the important elections supposed to do? The law is very clear that they are not in power in any way. There's no such thing as a power that the losing team has. The people with authority in the US come from the majority party. You want the DNC to do stuff, to solve problems, to execute plans that grow this country, you have to put them into power first Republican voters understand just fine that if republicans don't win the election, their will does not become law. Why is that so hard for Democrat supporters and voters to understand?
- RangerScience 1y ago
  Because notionally, the “game” isn’t supposed to be winners-take-all. And democrats believe in the game even when they’re not winning.
  - krapp 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - shigawire 1y ago
      It's a big tent, good luck getting agreement on what football we should be kicking.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  > What was the party that continually lost all the important elections supposed to do? They're supposed to write a coherent plan with specifics on what they are going to do once they are in power. The (R) side did this with Project 2025. It was detailed and specific and they are executing on it like a checklist. Where is the (D) checklist? > You want the DNC to do stuff, to solve problems, to execute plans that grow this country, you have to put them into power first I'm not going to help vote them into power unless I see what their plan is. Even a one-liner that says "We have a list of what Trump did and we're going to revert each commit!" is better than nothing. Their party platform from 2024 is vague and talks more about principles and what they're not going to do rather than specific things they are going to do.
HDThoreaun 1y ago
Dems under biden had a plan. Manchin nixed it, they didnt have the votes in the senate without him
- burnte 1y ago
  And the fact Biden didn't use the bully pulpit is a real indictment on the administration. LBJ knew how to whip up support from recalcitrant congresspeople.

patmorgan23 1y ago

Send me the link to the Democrats equivalent to Project 2025. Here the link to Project 2025 for reference https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...

nozzlegear 1y ago
The Heritage Foundation is a think tank, not the RNC. Project 2025 no doubt has plenty of supporters in the RNC thanks to how influential the think tank is, but it's not an official party position. Any left of center think tank could cook up a Project 2028 document and claim it's the DNC's equivalent – it'd have just as much (official) standing as Project 2025.
- trealira 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - krapp 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - nozzlegear 1y ago
    To be clear, I'm not defending Project 2025, Trump or the RNC. I don't need any convincing that Trump and republicans are following the plan, it's plain to anyway who's passingly familiar with it. What I'm trying to point out is that there's a strange trend for people to place all of the blame for our current state of affairs squarely on democrats and the DNC, ostensibly because of their failure to precisely match the steps of the RNC – steps the RNC didn't even take, in this case.
    - trealira 1y ago
      > steps the RNC didn't even take, in this case. What steps are you referencing? I don't get your comment. Also, the DNC and RNC just choose people and fundraise. It's strange to me how people refer to the parties like this.

softwaredoug 1y ago

Running Biden in 2024 was a pretty clear sign they didn’t take the threat seriously.

bobmcnamara 1y ago

Seems like the plan is to keep throwing unpopular candidates into the bike wheel of elections until there's only good candidates left. It's all part of the show folks.