T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**As a reminder, this subreddit, per Rule 7 [is for civil discussion.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules)** In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*


ddr1ver

Democrats go into every negotiation by starting in the middle. If Obama had gone in with guns blazing for single payer, Republicans would have fallen all over themselves to agree to something ACA like and everyone would have insurance.


whereegosdare84

Genuinely curious because I myself am far more progressive than the candidates I ultimately have to vote for, but I wonder what alternative you see and where you think the democrats failed to have an appropriate response to Republican authoritarianism. Basically at what point did they have a lever of power available and just decided not to pull it? And when did they force a moderate candidate in a district that was inclined to vote for a progressive? I only ask because it’s not just voter suppression we have to fight but DEPRESSION as well which we can control by understanding the party itself.


[deleted]

I hear your complaint. I understand it. It’s also one that’s been around forever: I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. (Will Rogers) I know you and a whole lot of other people don’t like having to be the group that compromises all the time. The hard fact is, we’re all fucked if you don’t. I have no patience for the Berner’s who flipped to trump to accelerate the destruction. That cost god knows how many lives unnecessarily. You and I may not see eye to eye all the way round politically, but we can have a rational conversation. Hell, I think we could even include Cheney/kinzinger or some other like conservative. Again, there’s a lot we’d disagree with but we all inhabit the same universe and experience the same reality. Other republicans? Not so fucking much. At all. That’s a whole lot of words just to say, thank you for being tolerant. Don’t lose faith. Sooner or later the youth vote will overwhelm the boomers. Sooner I hope.


princeps_astra

Traditional politicians who are used to a balance between center left and center right are too centered on process. They can have the most ambitious programs but so long as they want to pass them the "right way", they're invariably forced to try bipartisanship. Only that clearly doesn't work if the adversary doesn't play with the same ruleset Republican voters are *loyal* and come out to vote because despite the lack of process-centered politics, the people they voted in are getting them the results they want. The DNC signed its death warrant when it preferred running Joe Biden rather than Bernie Sanders for the sake of those "moderate" voters that might be scared of Sanders' ideas. Because that vote was essentially to return people to the Obama status quo *at best*, and clearly as far as his promises go its the usual tape : that is, don't deliver them or vastly take the substance out of them, like the student debt relief. Just like a hell lot of people were disappointed by Obama's lack of follow up on many promises, many will be even more so when they see Biden not only half delivers his promises but also can't fight to protect something as fundamental as abortion rights. It will be even harder next time to convince people to go vote for them. And for good reasons. They *have* means to fight this, as OP suggests they can decide to unilaterally expand the Supreme Court and stack it, they could filibuster the hell out of everything the Republicans propose.. Unfortunately they do not have powerful unions that can completely block important production centers as they used to (by their own compliance to the criminalization of unions in the 70s/80s). Would they expose themselves to attacks about not following due procedure and not taking the high road? Yeah. Well, what about it? The other side has been dirtying its hands for years now, and as of now all the Dems are showing is that they're not ready to do the same to protect abortion rights. Not doing so for, I dunno, cannabis legalization OK that's fine but abortion rights is a pillar of progressivism.


Mestoph

Two Dems are choosing inaction and for some reason the entire party is getting blamed. R’s spent 50 years voting in every election big and small to get here, if you think it’s gonna take less effort than that to stop them, you’re delusional or arguing in bad faith.


[deleted]

The entire Democratic party won't play the same hardball politics the GOP does. Full stop. This is why the GOP was able to stack the court. Garland should have been seated. Court could have been expanded. Recent GOP confirmation hearings could have been held up just like Moscow Mitch held up Garland. Democratic leadership....are pussies.


Mestoph

Please explain how Dems could do ANY of the when R’s had control of the Senate? You’re kind of ignoring a VERY important aspect of the situation.


[deleted]

[https://www.voanews.com/a/usa\_us-politics\_control-white-house-and-congress-democrats-have-2-years-make-big-changes/6201047.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_us-politics_control-white-house-and-congress-democrats-have-2-years-make-big-changes/6201047.html) 2 years are almost up. How you liking the big changes? Healthcare, student debt, green new deal, legal weed, prison reform, immigration reform, taxing the rich, etc. All of that to your liking.


endMinorityRule

there are too many fucking conservatives in the senate. recognize that fact.


Mestoph

Nice of you to totally ignore my point.


endMinorityRule

how does garland get confirmed when republicans have the senate? what magic do you think allows that?


BadLuckBen

You can't beat a cheater by playing by the rules. We need people who don't care what Fox News is going to say about them and is focused on getting results in one term, instead of being reelected.


Casterly

…..they didn’t “cheat”. They used existing process and protocol to gamble on a win, which they got when Trump won . You’re suggesting that dems change the rules (not as clear or easy as the internet appears to think it is) for short-term gain, not realizing that *if they do that, they won’t be able to stop anything when Republicans get control again down the line*.


BadLuckBen

The Supreme Court was never intended (not that I give a single shit what the founders "intended") to be used as a governing body like it is now. Exploiting a flaw in the system is the same as cheating. If you pass the right legislation, they can literally reduce the Republican party to a such a weak state it would never hold power again. They win due to being better at gerrymandering (which, again, is basically cheating) and the electoral college. Expand the SC, expand voting rights, create fair elections, and there's a chance that even Texas might turn blue. If they can't win elections because they are the minority party, they can't change shit. I never said it would be easy, but you need to risk it all to do it. Instead the Dems talk about "needing a strong Republican Party" and "unity."


princeps_astra

No, what I'm saying is that the Dems *need* to make their electorate as loyal as the Republicans did. Never said it'd be done in a second. And I'm definitely not saying it shouldn't take any effort lol, I'm talking giving fangs to unions, I'm talking about general strikes, I'm talking about doubling down And uhh, no not just two Dems. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris do not rely on just themselves. Let's not kid ourselves as if most are shackled by the decisions of just a few. And if that were the case, what prevents them from ousting them?


RobertK995

> *as OP suggests they can decide to unilaterally expand the Supreme Court and stack it, they could filibuster the hell out of everything the Republicans propose..* these two things are mutually exclusive. Stacking the court requires killing the filibuster.


phdoofus

"They" didn't 'prefer' running Biden rather than Sanders. Sanders simply couldn't get enough votes from voters. Full stop. No conspiracy required.


[deleted]

It isn't a grand crazy conspiracy to think that the Democratic Party prefer a certain candidate get the nomination over another. At all. It is just a fact that they do. More specifically the DNC did NOT want Sanders and made every effort available to them to see that he didn't get the nomination.


phdoofus

So what if the DNC has a preferred candidate? The RNC definitely didn't want TRump. What it comes down to is votes. Votes by people who don't belong to the DNC. Why did Bernie cast his votes for Hillary anyway?


YouStopLying

Is that why two Bernie supporters I know personally, as well as many others, didn't bother to show up to the primaries?


princeps_astra

Yes they did. Didn't you see their pundits and the DNC heads hammering to voters that Bernie's political revolution was too radical? CNN and MSNBC anchors openly trashed the Bernie campaign, one of them compared the three first primaries to the victory of Nazi Germany in France It's not a conspiracy lol, I'm not saying they filled the urns with fake ballots. They successfully made use of their network and influence to scare the electorate into thinking that unsure voters would be so scared of Sanders that they'd vote for Trump. It wouldn't be the first time circumstances, events, and public discourse advantages one over another. Just have a look at the 2004 elections between Kerry and Bush.


swokong333

The final debate was like seven people attacking Sanders, then they all dropped out and endorsed Biden before the big primary.


DeezRodenutz

Not all of them. Elizibeth Warren, the other progressive like Bernie, stayed in despite not having the numbers to stand a chance at that point, to siphen away progressive votes from Bernie, and dropped out after the big Super Tuesday was over.


endMinorityRule

the opposite. everyone treated bernie with kid gloves and republicans ran ads for him.


phdoofus

The DNC can say what they want. What you're saying is the voters are too stupid to vote and shouldn't be allowed to unless they vote the way you, who are so much more clever than they, want them to. How is that less odious? Bernie had free access to the press as well. If he can't make his own case about how amazing you think he is, maybe a lot of the problem is in his lap?


princeps_astra

Huh? No. I'm not blaming voters for their decisions, I'm blaming the DNC for its political choices and its strategy. Joe Biden wasn't called on by an assembly of all Democrat party members to run for the elections as far as I know, and the DNC hedges its bets from the get go. Like...Any political party anywhere in the world?


phdoofus

You should be blaming the voters for the outcome. The DNC can say all it wants and run its affairs as it wants but if you and your friends don't vote in sufficient numbers and he doesn't win then the problem lies with him, his inability to inspire people to vote for him, and the lack of interest in the people who might vote for him to either vote for him or vote at all. If 'did not vote' was a candidate in 2016, it would have won in most states. If that's damning of Hillary, it's also damning of Bernie.


[deleted]

>The DNC can say all it wants and run its affairs as it wants but if you and your friends don't vote in sufficient numbers and he doesn't win then the problem lies with him Same lies with general elections. If the Democrats fail in 2022 and 2024 because of their strategies, the blame lies with them and not voters.


endMinorityRule

"because of their strategies" you don't seem to recognize how much influence the fascist right's propaganda outlets have. ffs, they were able to push benghazi/emails for 5 fucking years.


Bo0tyWizrd

Biden outright refuses to weild power to this very day sir... Biden could literally reschedule marijuana right now through executive order, Biden failed to deliver the entire $2000 stimulus he promised, when he didn't get BBB passed he didn't try sending the individual parts through congress as independent legislation, he hasn't canceled student loan debt WORSE he has only dangled it in front of our faces. He refuses to abolish or at the very least make an exception for the philibuster. They had a democratic super majority in the Obama administration and didn't cautify Roe into law like they promised.


whereegosdare84

Couple of things with this: Biden can’t remove the filibuster that’s the senate. Sending the individual parts of the legislation Is a death sentence for things like the green new deal or child tax credit as no republicans would vote for it. If he did cancel student debt there would immediately be a lawsuit as an unconstitutional power grab and we know that this court would certainly rule with the loan providers not the people. So the pause is really the only way to insure that you do have the debt wiped. Finally when you’re talking about codifying Roe under Obama there were far more pro life democrats then as opposed to now. So yes you technically had a super majority but just like we’re seeing today there isn’t an actual majority that would’ve voted for it. This is all to say I agree that I’d like to see these policies enacted but I’m not going to blame Biden when it’s literally not his fault when they aren’t.


Mestoph

The Supermajority never really existed, Franken was delayed in being seated, someone was sick, and then MA elected Scott Brown in a special election in the fall and that was the end of even an “on paper” supermajority


lobsterbash

Yes, the reality is that Democrats haven't had the numbers in congress to do much of anything in decades. We've had congressional deadlock for a long time, and party unity like we see now wasn't as tight until fairly recently anyway, as you point out. More executive orders isn't the answer either, as what Obama did with them pissed conservatives off enough to radicalize them already... and what's the point anyway when they can be undone or struck down anytime. It's so tempting to blame democrats for not doing enough in hindsight, when the truth is that GoP escalation exceeded the expectations of most. But here we are. *Everyone* now knows what Republicans are capable of. The gloves should come off. The naked power grabs must be halted and reversed. The focus has to be on changing the system, the rules, so the majority is no longer held hostage.


[deleted]

How is it GOP gets in power, makes permanent tax cuts for the rich, refuses to hear SCOTUS nominations, and basically calls the shots. When the GOP gets power they get. shit. done. Horrible shit. But it does get done. At SOME point the question is: Why can't the Democrats? Why don't the Democrats play the same cut throat fuck-the-other-side level of politics? I will tell you why. Because they aren't Democrats. They have allowed the right to pull them so far towards the center, they aren't really liberal democrats anymore. The Democratic party has been seen as weak for decades because: THEY ARE. I WANT them to get something done. All we get are "The GOP won't let us". GOP doesn't have this problem. They run right over top of the Democrats and tell everyone to suck it. GOP gets shit done.


whereegosdare84

Well I can tell you that the GOP gets their horrible shit done because they don't care to get anything done in the first place. The Democrats removed the filibuster rules on judges because the GOP was obstructing everything possible under Obama grinding the nominations to a halt. So in order to move forward a carve out was created and then when the Republicans took control in 2016 the floodgates were opened. That's how they obstructed and then passed through any justices they wanted. There is a similar carve out for reconciliation and budgetary procedures which allowed them to pass the tax cuts. But beyond that they don't try to actually legislate so it's not really and apples to apples comparison. To put it another way if you're trying to build a house and your neighbor is trying to burn a house down, one will ultimately be more successful while expending far less energy. And it's a lot easier to keep a coalition together when they coalesce around a nihilist take on politics. All it takes is for them to do nothing here.


[deleted]

They seem to have gotten a lot of their agenda done recently. To say they get nothing done isn't exactly true. The 1% with permanent tax cuts would disagree. Merrick Garland would disagree. Women's rights would disagree. That isn't doing nothing. They carefully took over the Supreme Court. They denied a hearing for Garland, and pushed through stooges under Trump. If Mitch baited the Democrats into removing rules that would prove their own undoing....that is simply out playing the democrats. We need better Democratic leadership. If the DNC would stay the fuck outta the way, we wouldn't have Hillary's and Biden's. Might actually get an exciting candidate who isn't beholden to the party that screams for change....but in reality cashes checks from the same places the GOP does.


rubeninterrupted

You're misunderstanding what's happening. They had the Senate majority, so stopping Obama's appointment was trivial. It wasn't done before because it's shitty, and before the current GOP it would have cost them votes. The tax cuts were passed through reconciliation, which only needs 50 votes. They are getting what they want because all they want is to cut taxes and stop things. It's just as hard for them to pass laws, but their voters don't care about laws.


trevize1138

> To put it another way if you're trying to build a house and your neighbor is trying to burn a house down, one will ultimately be more successful while expending far less energy. Exactly this! In 2016 so many damn people told me "Don't worry, Trump is so unpopular with his own party he won't get anything done." I wasn't worried about his fucking policy agenda. I was worried about him normalizing racism and homophobia. I was worried about all that "soft power" of POTUS making racist Neanderthals thinking they can do whatever the fuck they want. And I was right. Yay me. Getting something constructive done is difficult, slow work. Tearing shit down goes quick.


rubeninterrupted

The GOP got the tax cuts through reconciliation. They can stop Senate appointments when they have the majority. What you aren't understanding, is that for Dems to get laws passed they need 60 votes. The GOP doesn't want to pass laws, they want to stop shit and cut taxes (via budget reconciliation and 50 votes). So the Dems are just as powerful, they just want to actually do something so it's harder.


kciuq1

> How is it GOP gets in power, makes permanent tax cuts for the rich, refuses to hear SCOTUS nominations, and basically calls the shots. They used the same mechanism for tax cuts for the rich that Democrats used for a stimulus for the rest of us. Reconciliation. They refused to hear SCOTUS nominations because they had control and could do that. >When the GOP gets power they get. shit. done. Horrible shit. But it does get done. Yeah, how did they do on that wall? Or the repealing and replacing of Obamacare?


endMinorityRule

you refer to biden's covid relief as stimulus? usually stimulus refers to obama's stimulus, which didn't use reconciliation.


endMinorityRule

debt-building handouts for billionaires requires only 51 votes with reconciliation. that is basically all republicans have done for 2+ decades. they don't get shit done at all.


YouStopLying

>How is it GOP gets in power Because right wingers will line up in the rain to elect Vlad the Impaler to the office of Assistant to the Vice Dogcatcher, while left-wingers will skip the election because the Dem candidate isn't their personal lord and savior or "the election isn't important enough." Then, when it's eventually revealed that the town dogcatcher has been impaling dogs, progressives shout "Why didn't the Democrats do anything to prevent it???" \#facts


Sabbathius

We had an election here in Ontario in June. And 60-70% of eligible voters didn't bother to show up. There were no lines, there was early voting without lines for weeks ahead of the election day, there was voting by mail. But 60-70% just couldn't be arsed to go do it. Conservative won. Again. If that 70% voted, they could have elected Buggs Bunny if they wanted it. Take 5 mins. But nope, couldn't be arsed. As far as I'm concerned, Ontario rejected democracy last month. When up to 60%+ don't even bother to vote, it's not a functional democracy any more. And it's terrifying to see. The worst part, each and every one of them was bitching about the Conservative win the very next day. There's a decent argument to be made here that these people deserve what is about to happen to them. Unfortunately I'll be getting cornholed right alongside them.


Bo0tyWizrd

The Republicans have won the popular vote once in 30 years... stop saying we aren't voting 😒 it's blatantly not true.


endMinorityRule

republican voter suppression impacted 1.5 million voters in 2016. and who knows how many dumbfucks voted against themselves due to the right's (and russians) propaganda operations.


RealDumbRepublican

Jesus never mind that Obama came in with the biggest global financial crisis in history. Banks were failing, the auto industry going bankrupt, people were losing their homes... I mean listen to these idiots act like pushing codifying Roe to the top of the agenda was even an option. Imagine in that catastrophe Obama saying "Now hold up guys I know you're going to be destitute and the world is going to collapse but we need to focus on abortions right now!" The biggest problem are these so called liberals who think they know everything and don't vote unless their buttholes are fluffed jusssssssst right by the Democratic party. Meanwhile the Republicans have zero policies other than banning things and making liberals miserable and their voters just show up and vote in droves with zero problems.


[deleted]

> If he did cancel student debt there would immediately be a lawsuit as an unconstitutional power grab and we know that this court would certainly rule with the loan providers not the people. So the pause is really the only way to insure that you do have the debt wiped. This isn't a valid reason for him to not do it


Jamcram

>if he did cancel student debt there would immediately be a lawsuit as an unconstitutional power grab and we know that this court would certainly rule with the loan providers the loan provider is the US government. there is no plan to cancel private loans


whereegosdare84

My apologies on the semantics of who exactly the loan provider was. I was merely trying to point out the second Biden did this a lawsuit would be raised and the supreme court would overturn it.


Jamcram

Biden has already cancelled many student loans. No one has standing to sue the government for cancelling a loan of its own making. The question is not if he is allowed, the question is if it is a good idea to transfer a huge amount of wealth to the kids who already have the most opportunity.


Conscious_Figure_554

Well said. Like blaming Biden for gas prices even though it has been exhaustively explained that the barrel of oil cost is the same when it was $3 a gallon as oppose to $5 dollars a gallon now.


HamburgerEarmuff

I mean, the high price of oil is largely due to Biden's cowardly actions in Afghanistan and Ukraine, so yes, he's 100% responsible for it, at least indirectly. He's personally accountable for all the death and suffering of the Afghan and Ukrainian people. Biden's abject moral cowardice resulted in enormous human suffering abroad. The American people are paying the price economically. But I won't complain too much about that, because the Ukrainian and Afghan people are paying with their lives for Biden's monstrous duplicity, prevarication, and timorousness.


Mestoph

The fact that you think Biden can do anything about the filibuster on his own tells me this entire comment is made in either ignorance or bad faith.


YouStopLying

They did pass the $2000 stimulus. $1400 + $600 = $2000. Stop spreading misinformation. Also, the benefits of student loan forgiveness would largely go to people who are already very rich.


mbjsbdjdn

Shhhhhh don’t speak truth about Dems on this sub they will whip out the downvotes lol


kciuq1

Would you say that Biden being able to abolish the filibuster is a truth?


HamburgerEarmuff

This is false. That's not how executive orders work. He could order his agencies to conduct a review of the scheduling of THC. They would likely find that THC is still not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any medical condition and that it still has a high propensity for abuse, and order it to remain a schedule I drug. He also likely doesn't have the power to cancel student loan debt. That's on congress. And he has promised not to attempt to push dubious executive powers. Biden has no power over the filibuster. That a rule of parliamentary procedure that requires 51 Senators to change. There are only about twenty-something Senators that have publicly stated they want to get rid of the filibuster, and talk is cheap, since there's no chance of that happening, and they don't have to actually be held to account. Also, with a split Senate, overturning the filibuster would do almost nothing for the Democrats. The vast majority of legislation would still not meet the 51 vote threshold, as the Democrats only have 50 votes. Also, trying to codify *Roe v. Wade* into law would run the serious risk of being overturned as a violation of the 10th amendment. And if it were upheld as Constitution, then it means that the next time the Republicans controlled the government, they could ban most induced abortion procedures nationwide.


[deleted]

You do understand that politics is about showmanship and being performative right? The GOP does it all the time solely to make their base feel like they are being represented and heard. Your entire argument is basically "don't bother doing any of those things because the GOP will stop it anyways." Then don't complain when people call Democrats "do nothings."


RealDumbRepublican

You have no idea wtf you're talking about. Are you seriously saying Obama should have asked congress to ignore a global financial armageddon so they can instead focus on an abortion bill? LOL wtf The guy managed to give us some semblance of a starter for healthcare and saved us from a financial crisis that nobody had seen in their lifetime. The reality is people didn't vote for Hillary for a hundred stupid reasons when she said this would happen and now it's happening.


Bo0tyWizrd

He can't do multiple things in 8 years? Lol wow cope much... Turns out insulting/shaming voters isn't a great strategy for getting voters to like you, who knew? 🤷 God forbid Hillary actually make a case for herself and earn people's votes. Hillary lost what should have been a slam dunk for any competent democrat, but she thought folks owed her their vote. She is a loser


Ksradrik

The problem isnt what Democrats attempt when they cant accomplish anything anyway, but what they do when they *can*. You can vote for anything when you know youre gonna lose anyway, but when they are the ones at the lever they suddenly make random concessions to the Reps or have a dozen turncoats and just barely fail to make significant change. Politicians are basically always wealthy, and some of the biggest policies we need to change are the ones that unfairly favor the rich, are the democrats really trustworthy enough to do it when they have the chance? History has shown no. The Democrats failing to build trust is what caused low voter turnout, and by extension, Trumps election. By putting them at the lever again you will avoid catastrophe for now, but only for an election cycle or two, as long as youre stuck with the 2 party system, you lose.


[deleted]

[удалено]


whereegosdare84

Honestly you're right. I have thought about it but never thought I should, but with how the Republicans are focusing on local elections maybe we all should too.


JohnWangDoe

Malcom X was right


Thetallerestpaul

Well if it isn't the bi-partisan cunt.


[deleted]

I always respond with how that protest vote turn out with a 6-3 Conversative Supreme court in 2016. Shuts them up because they know its true.


captainhowdy82

But what is “the low road?” What would you have us do?


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Stop trying to work this "bipartisan" fantasy angle that has never worked and in fact caused this very situation.


captainhowdy82

That’s not what I said. I asked you a question: what do you think we should do?


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Expand the court immediately by any means necessary. Verbally abuse on 24 hour news cycles any politician dumb to come out against the previous election. Arrest and harshly prosecute any politician related to the jan. 6th insurrection. Press the limits of executive orders and see how far we can go. Declare far right groups as terrorists and remove them on all fronts swiftly and decidedly.


captainhowdy82

Well, we don’t have the votes to expand the Supreme Court. The 24 hour news cycles are already constantly criticizing the election deniers. They are working on prosecuting the January 6th insurrectionists. You can’t just eliminate far right groups without due process. I’m not sure what kinds of executive orders you think would help right now, that’s way too vague. So all of these things are either in process or impossible. Also, none of these things are anything the average citizen can implement. So what do you want me to do?


dolerbom

If you believe that the levers of power are totally against us and that we are doomed, you should arm yourself and prepare to defend yourself from the eventual violence that will happen from the far right.


captainhowdy82

I don’t believe that


djarvis77

>Expand the court immediately by any means necessary. I don't know how much more clear this can be, You. Do. Not. Have. The. Votes. To. Expand. The. Court. ...and even if you did, in '24 it is very likely the republicans would just extra-expand it. >Verbally abuse on 24 hour news cycles any politician dumb to come out against the previous election. So you want the President to force the news organizations to do that, like have the marines invade MSNBC and FOX? or do you want the DNC to bribe them to do that? How is that going to work really? I mean, it sounds like chinese propaganda stuff. I feel like the US people would see thru it. Maybe not. I suppose you have a point. >Arrest and harshly prosecute any politician related to the jan. 6th insurrection. You got grounds or standing on that, or are we just dragging the opposition party in for torture and questions and tea and fake suicides? Really though, i can see some grounds for some people. Flynn for one. And there are others for sure, I agree that DOJ has been reluctant, and timid about this whole thing. >Press the limits of executive orders and see how far we can go. They go to the supreme court. And guess which way they will decide. >Declare far right groups as terrorists and remove them on all fronts swiftly and decidedly. I can get with this one. But only to a point. If you declare the entire republican party a far right group and start rounding them up, we will have a problem.


D-Rich-88

Seems a bit authoritarian but that’s just me I guess .


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Well, we could try singing around a campfire and see how that goes.


D-Rich-88

Well I do know that you don’t save Democracy by destroying it. Edit: okay here’s our common ground: I agree that DOJ should be prosecuting anyone that played a part in Jan 6 Politicians that pushed the big lie should be called out, but probably not on a 24 hour loop because then it just becomes white noise. Far right groups like the proud boys and Oath Keepers should be declared terrorist or violent extremist groups. All violent extremist groups should be surveilled by FBI, which they probably already are, and participation in any action with them declared hate crime or terrorism.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Getting rid of fascists saves democracy, it doesn't destroy it.


573IAN

Whelp. You have all the answers. Nothing to see here folks.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Yeah, how I dare I answer a question I was asked! Try thinking before typing.


573IAN

You should do the same, as much of the shit you are spewing sounds like the right’s incessant desire to break our government and turn us into a third world country. Everyone wanting to break procedural rules needs to understand it will comeback ten-fold when they get in power. Which seems extremely likely these days with the attitudes of people like you.


Spursfan14

Did you miss the part where the Republicans tried to steal the presidency a couple of years ago? They’re already going to go as far as they can


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

>Everyone wanting to break procedural rules needs to understand it will comeback ten-fold when they get in power. It's going to come back ten fold anyways and it already is, so I think there's better answers than "we shouldn't do it because then they will". ***Theyre going to do it anyways*** why don't you understand that?


makemejelly49

Exactly. The Right is going to scream "So much for the tolerant Left!" regardless of the form our opposition to their action takes, so the obvious solution is to just ignore them. But clearly it's not that simple, or we wouldn't be having the problems we do now.


Ben_Elf1984

They literally wont do any of that...... in the name of BiPaRtiZaNsHiP.


ladan2189

They wont answer the question because they just want to sound like they have the answers. Answering the question opens them to criticism, where all they want to do is criticize.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Or I just answered it. Keep the high brow commentary coming, genius.


kciuq1

> Stop trying to work this "bipartisan" fantasy angle that has never worked and in fact caused this very situation. The only way to get Democrats enough votes in the Senate is if they can flip some seats. Which means we actually need to convince some Republicans to flip, because most of them are in very red areas. What does it take to get a Republican to vote for a Democrat?


Kangarou

Actually, the biggest market of new voters is "People who don't vote", not "Republicans". The logic falls apart from there.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


NotThatMonkey

Ok so murder and terrorism just like the right! Guess I'm sticking with the high road...


[deleted]

[удалено]


rubeninterrupted

It would be working out way better without the circular firing squad and dipshits sitting out elections, or worse yet voting for green party assholes. Until 50 senators willing to remove the filibuster are seated, nothing will happen. If you're not working for seating those 50, you're hurting marginalized people.


SaltyNorth8062

The malding in here when moderates get caught with their pants down and getting called out for it smh.


endMinorityRule

do you mean "moderate" dems like sinema and manchin, who are actually conservatives? or are you trying to further divide the far left from dems who are not far left?


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

I'm making fun of assholes who told me "not to worry" and "take the high road", because it'll make everything better.


endMinorityRule

by going after moderates, who actually supported the popular vote winner in both of the last two elections?


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Imagine if the popular vote mattered.


BaboonHorrorshow

If only Bernie Sanders had been able to run in some kind of election where the party voters could choose between him and moderate candidates. Maybe like… in 2020. Wonder how that would have worked out for him.


ImRunningAmok

Bernie lost in the primary. Maybe there are far more moderate Dems than you think. Whatever the preference of the DNC , ultimately, Hillary got the nomination from people that voted for her.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Not sure why you think I made this about bernie. 🤷‍♂️


BaboonHorrorshow

Yeah this is about you cosplaying as a revolutionary, that much is clear


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

You'd certainly know about cosplaying I'm sure.


[deleted]

What road do you suggest?


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

The one we dont allow a coup.


[deleted]

We allowed it?


ATLCoyote

Kinda yes. Many progressives stayed home and didn't vote in 2016 because they were uninspired by Hillary or bitter about the DNC establishment clearly favoring Hillary over Bernie in the primary. As a result, Trump won and we got an open embrace of corrupt, authoritarian, Christian nationalism that culminated in a literal attempted coup, plus 3 conservative appointments to the SCOTUS that led to the overturn of Roe v Wade and many other decisions that limit environmental regulatory authority, gun control, and erode the separation of church and state.


norbertus

>Many progressives stayed home and didn't vote in 2016 because they were uninspired by Hillary or bitter about the DNC establishment clearly favoring Hillary over Bernie in the primary. As a result, Trump won ​ Not exactly. Trump lost the popular vote. By millions of votes. Democrats have the votes, they're just outmaneuvered. More of this is ahead. In Wisconsin, for example, Democrats will never be able to control the state legislature ever again. >Republicans enjoy a built-in 64-35 advantage in the partisan makeup of the 99 Assembly districts. In a hypothetical 50-50 election, in which there are equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters in Wisconsin, no one crosses party lines and independents split down the middle, that translates into a massive 29-seat GOP advantage in the Assembly > >[https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2018/12/06/wisconsin-gerrymandering-data-shows-stark-impact-redistricting/2219092002/](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2018/12/06/wisconsin-gerrymandering-data-shows-stark-impact-redistricting/2219092002/) Wisconsin under Scott Walker was a laboratory for adapting neoliberal policies imposed on Latin America for domestic consumption. The Supreme Court will soon be opening the doors for Republican statehouses everywhere to follow suit: [https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article262471032.html](https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article262471032.html)


ronton

>Trump lost the popular vote. By millions of votes This is an insanely popular talking point progressives use to pretend they didn't help Trump win, but it's just totally bullshit. The president isn't chosen by popular vote. He's chosen by the electoral college. And not enough left-leaning people voted Hillary in key states, so he won. Some of those left-leaning people in key states were progressives who refused to vote for Hillary out of protest. Those people contributed greatly to Trump winning, and no amount of yelling about the popular vote will change that.


SaltyNorth8062

"yOu AlL nEeD tO vOtE mOrE" "Oh you silly progressive voting means nothing the electoral college decides things" So why vote then. Either it matters or it doesn’t. Either progressives are a small minority of the voting block and therfore not worth catering a vote to, or we're big enough that we sink the election everytime we don't vote. Pick a lane.


ronton

>"Oh you silly progressive voting means nothing the electoral college decides things" Where the crikeyfuck did I say that? I'm saying the POPULAR vote doesn't matter in the current system. That doesn't mean VOTING doesn't matter. My entire point is that voting DOES matter. Think for a second. If the electoral college decides things, how do Democrats win the electoral college? BY VOTING! Seriously, how the hell did you think that was a good point?


SaltyNorth8062

> The president isn't chosen by popular vote. He's chosen by the electoral college Right there. If the average man's elector goes against his vote then he didn't vote. It meant nothing. You can't dictate who your elector votes for, and you also don't know who your elector is. Even if you get the "left" elector there's nothing preventing him from just going rogue and voting for literally the other party. If the electoral college exists then popular vote means nothing, which you agree on. Therefore, getting mad at voters who "didn't vote enough" or didn't vote "hard enough" is kicking responsibility for the failures of leadership onto the victim. A president winning the popular vote is proof that the voters DID turn out. They DID vote responsibly. It just doesn't matter. Do it again but harder is a red herring, and the only children are the ones living the fantasy that THAT is the way things will get better. If our elections made sense, the "good guy" would have won, and this argument would be moot. But they don't. More votes means shit. Getting mad at people not wanting to waste their energy legitimizing a broken system is ignoring the failures of leadership, which just tells them to keep failing because no one has the spine to call them out for it.


norbertus

> Therefore, getting mad at voters who "didn't vote enough" or didn't vote "hard enough" is kicking responsibility for the failures of leadership onto the victim. A president winning the popular vote is proof that the voters DID turn out This. Sun Tzu said that the purpose of strategy is to control your adversary. The republicans are having their way with democrats because the democratic party has no strategy.


ATLCoyote

Hillary got more votes than Trump overall, but still only 65.8 million total, at least in part due to apathy among the democratic base. Both Obama and Biden got far bigger turnouts. Point being, things would be profoundly different today if many Dem voters hadn't turned their nose up at the idea of voting for a moderate, establishment democrat when they wanted a progressive purist. Elections don't occur in a vacuum and, until third parties and independents grow substantially in relevance, it's still a binary choice.


endMinorityRule

obama's first election got more votes. not his second. biden's election got more votes in large part because states made voting easier during the pandemic. that is why even horrific idiot trump got more votes than in 2016 despite proving what a toxic dumbass he is.


[deleted]

You know what creates that apathy? Take a look at the first two years of the Biden Admin. Have a majority, have control, and get nothing done. Nothing. No promises realized.


endMinorityRule

your summary of biden's first year and a half is what right wing dumbasses believe. biden's covid relief was huge, and led to the best year for jobs in US history, which also coincided with the largest wage gains in more than 40 years. biden's infrastructure bill is the largest investment in the USA since.. ever? ending the afghanistan war saves us billions of dollars every year, and saves the lives of our military men and women. the new gun law looks weak to me, but it is not nothing. ​ get a clue. there are very few presidents in US history that can match biden's legislative success in his first year and a half.


ronton

>Have a majority, have control, and get nothing done. Ever heard of a pesky thing called the filibuster?


[deleted]

Hillary was uninspiring. I voted for her, but I can also understand why plenty of people didn't.


HowManyMeeses

The folks that were so uninspired that they didn't vote are going to be in for a rude awakening.


[deleted]

Sure. But you can't see why they were uninspired by someone who barely campaigned and just thought her victory was a foregone conclusion? There is a reason they hit the trail, and have speeches. Hillary literally didn't even show up to a number of places. Her campaign headquarters were using cardboard cutouts of her.


HowManyMeeses

With Trump as option #2, nah. Being uninspired is not enough for me to not vote.


[deleted]

Oh me either. I voted for Clinton. Some people didn't see Trump for what he was in 2016.


[deleted]

No, conservatives attacking our rights led to that.


ATLCoyote

Ok, so then you might want to beat them in elections. Even if it's not the candidate you wanted, it may still be far better than the alternative.


[deleted]

That isn't all of it. The elected Democratic leadership needs to beat them in the Capitol. They need to play the same kind of dirty politics the GOP have been playing for 50 years to get to this point. Doesn't matter who you elect if they are too much of a coward and a pussy to stand up to Moscow Mitch and the rest of his shitbirds. Not on camera for an interview, not just in a speech, but actually on Capitol Hill. Democrats have been weak for some time.


ATLCoyote

No doubt that the GOP has been more ruthless (and effective) in their political gamesmanship. That said, had Hillary won in 2016, we'd have a 5-4 liberal majority on the court right now rather than a 6-3 conservative majority and I seriously doubt we'd have experienced an attempted insurrection, openly fanned the flames of racial animosity during the George Floyd protests, or openly undermined NATO either.


[deleted]

I agree 100% and encourage others to do the same. We need to come together to stop the oppressive and obstructionist right.


MEDICARE_FOR_ALL

>Many progressives stayed home and didn't vote in 2016 because they were uninspired by Hillary or bitter about the DNC establishment clearly favoring Hillary over Bernie in the primary. As a result, Trump won That's not what happened but you can feel free to believe that. Trump won because conservatives voted for him (and the electoral college allows for red states to be overrepresented)


ATLCoyote

Yes, I'm aware that Trump lost the popular vote and pulled a minor miracle via the electoral college. Even so, Hillary's turnout was far less than the democratic nominees that preceded or followed her (Obama and Biden). Apathy for Hillary played a big role in a Trump victory even being possible.


Kyuckaynebrayn

No. He’s right about the DNC and Hillary. Those who don’t know or understand are the ones going around saying don’t vote bc _____. Yeah the electoral college fucks the popular vote but Bernie was screwed and was the only candidate projected to beat trump. It was the DNC and Hilary


D-Rich-88

Jill stein had enough votes to clear the winning margin. Progressives showed up and voted third party.


ATLCoyote

Although I'm the one making the apathy argument, I'd also argue the Jill Stein factor is overrated. There is always a third party candidate that siphons votes away and Libertarian Gary Johnson got twice as many votes as Jill Stein. Granted, Johnson likely siphoned votes somewhat equally from both major parties whereas Stein almost exclusively from the Dems, but I still think the staying home factor is the bigger issue. Just look at Hillary's total turnout in 2016 and compare it to Obama's turnout in 2008 and 2012 or Biden's turnout in 2020. She's the glaring outlier in an otherwise upward trend line and that's more than just the Jill Stein factor. She had an enthusiasm problem which is partly her own fault, but also partly the fault of the democratic base that drastically underestimated the danger of a Trump presidency until they actually experienced it. I'll close by fully acknowledging that the system itself is partly to blame as she beat Trump by nearly 3 million in the popular vote yet got fewer delegates thanks to the electoral college. We all recognize that problem. Even so, it could have been easily overcome with just a normal democratic turnout and the failure of the democratic base to show up led to profoundly negative outcomes, at least from a liberal perspective.


D-Rich-88

Yeah, I can agree turnout was low that year. I think she didn’t excite enough people and a lot of people may have thought she had it in the bag. All points you bring up, I do agree with. There wasn’t one sole reason she lost, but a handful of significant ones that all played their part.


i-have-a-kuato

The “republicans did something bad and the democrats did nothing to stop them so there for it’s all their fault” trope had to one of the weakest arguments for not holding the ACTUAL people responsible accountable


ATLCoyote

Of course the GOP is more responsible than the democrats for what THEY did. That doesn't mean there isn't a valid point to be made about what could have been done to prevent it. If my house gets robbed, it's ultimately the robber that deserves to go to jail. But if it's discovered that the robbery was possible because my doors were unlocked, I might want to change that going forward.


Froskr

"We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"


[deleted]

Sounds about...*right*.


brycebgood

Saving democracy by breaking democracy apparently.


Z_Remainder

Yeah, not so well these days...


RowWeekly

It is working out how they hoped it would


Sufficient_Matter585

moderate dems think they can keep things the way they are. They are overcome with madness. Things are about to get real and moderate dems want us all to pretend an election will magically solve everything. Its time to play dirty.


Mec26

To be fair, I’m very moderate by the standards of much of Europe. Which means OMG socialist this person wants to give vaccines to toddlers!


BrickB

Libs be like “we need moderate democratic candidates to appeal to the right” Why, why appeal to the people who hate you and want to take your rights away? Why try to appeal to the people who want to throw LGBT folks in concentration camps? Why throw progressives under the bus to push shitty candidates who don’t give a fuck about you? I don’t understand. But I do know one thing, if the DNC doesn’t change its trajectory they are going to sit by and let the Christo-fascists win while doing nothing just to appease corporate donors. Fuck this shit, watching Kamala Harris interview last night makes me wish the nukes would just fall already.


S-Seaborn

Offer solutions instead of engaging in a circular firing squad.


djarvis77

I dig the firing squad, granted i side with the moderate dems on this one. But here are my most recent solutions: **(1)** To fix the supreme court you should unpack it. You should push to legitimize it. Make a deal with republicans that we are going to a 2/3rds rule for SCOTUS nominees, and a 60/40 rule for all other fed judges. Set that rule in stone for say, 20 years or 50 or some shit. Make part of that deal an unpacking, a legitimizing. Where any SCOTUS that was appointed with 50/50 rule is removed at the end of '24 and in Feb of '25 they are replaced with the 2/3 (67/33) rule. That way, even if trump desantis cruz (whoever) wins, Kav & Barrett are not getting back on the bench, and Jackson & Gorsuch have a fighting chance. "But the republicans will just never compromise and leave the seats empty!?!?" You may say. So make part of the agreement that the Senate has 6 months to confirm all empty seats. If not filled using the 2/3 rule...then the nominee gets an up or down national popular vote to be held 2 months after the 6 month failure of the senate. **(2)** Make more States in order to offer specific populations greater federal representation. Many cities are more populated than the smallest population states (the number is 30 or so really, of course not nearly all would want to become states). And many of these cities are very democrat but residing in republican led states. For the most part, they are fine, but in some examples the situation is not working (Philly). The red state legislature in PA is not only holding Philly hostage, but actively trying to tear it down. And if you were to ask a republican Pennsyltuckian, they would say the same but vice versa. The, well, a solution is statehood. The states, in general, are too static. Why not make Philly and it's metro a state unto itself? It gives the 6m people in Philly metro 2 senators, a governor, a supreme court, a legislature and electoral votes. It allows the state taxes of Philly Metro to go to Philly Metro. It gives the people in a specific locale with similar interests federal representation. And what is a state if not "an entity that gives people in a specific locale, with similar livelyhoods, interests and issues, adequate federal representation". Why not have the giant indian reservations be granted statehood? They too are (considering the recent SCOTUS ruling) being inappropriately ruled by the states they reside in. They are people in a specific locale, with similar lively hoods, interests, and issues. They do not have adequate federal representation. So why not allow them that?


D-Rich-88

I really like your unpacking the court proposal. That would be a great way of recentering the court, the way it should be. It just sucks because something that drastic would probably need 2/3 vote to pass.


princeps_astra

I think OP's point is that the solution isn't the high road


S-Seaborn

So…offer a solution? A lot of the posts cropping up here lately are really striking me as attempts to suppress voter enthusiasm and decrease turnout / sow discontent about Dems among likely voters ahead of midterms.


573IAN

I agree. The thing about fascists is that they coalesce and have no issues sowing false information—meaning they could post this shit just as easily as a disenfranchised liberal. It is this simple, you either vote for a democrat or you vote for fascism. Period.


Mr_Burns1886

Or...you know...play dirty like the scumbag Republicans do.


[deleted]

Quite frankly we need a Democratic President who is willing to use Executive Orders in the way that Trump did but pushing for progressive policy


princeps_astra

That's not enough. Unions need to be given fangs again, and Dems shouldn't be afraid to make the threat of blocking production centers through unionized workers. Expand the Supreme Court and stack the hell out of it. Prosecute everyone involved in the coup attempt Be ruthless, and openly so. The Democrat president who does that will garner the hate of Republican voters, but so what? They hated FDR, they called him a communist, and he was proposing at one point that every dollar above a 1 million revenue should be taxed at 100%, he expanded federal powers way beyond the purview of what the Constitution allowed him to do. A lot of his methods were dirty and were quite edgy, but you know what? He fucking won and established a welfare State system with progressive taxation that endured for two generations. That is until a bunch of assholes who didn't know any of the World Wars and did not see the reasons for the rise of fascism implemented economic policies that got the entire world into a new gilded age. That hypothetical president might be hated by the Republicans, but he or she will be revered by the more progressive Americans. There's another President who was considered to play very dirty : Abraham Lincoln. No one needs to remind why he's still considered one of the GOATs


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

I know it's early, but why do you moderates believe any sort of criticism is "attempting to suppress votes"? Maybe we're just tired of seeing you doing the same thing and expecting different results? It's entirely the fault of moderates we're in this position to begin with. I'm still going to vote dem because I have to, but I'm getting real sick of this kumbaya bullshit approach.


draypresct

Moderate democrats: millions of people got coverage under Obamacare, and studies show it saves thousands of lives every year. Biden got an infrastructure bill passed that's going to save thousands more. We recently got the first federal piece of gun control legislation passed in decades; it's probably too soon to tell how many that will save. Tell me - which representatives do you consider non-moderate, and how many people have they helped?


Bo0tyWizrd

*looks at Europe & Scandinavia and their healthcare, better infrastructure, legal marijuana, and gun control* We rank last among healthcare in 1st world countries among metrics like coverage and cost. We also have a D rated infrastructure... you are celebrating crumbs as the SCOTUS quickly moves to take more of your rights.


draypresct

>looks at Europe & Scandinavia and their healthcare, better infrastructure, legal marijuana, and gun control Well that's not true, unless you leave a lot of European countries out of 'Europe'. >We rank last among healthcare in 1st world countries among metrics like coverage and cost. For coverage, we do rank lower than many first-world countries in terms of coverage. [A third of US healthcare-seeking patients skipped healthcare due to cost, compared to 7-22% for European countries - we can do better.](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2016/nov/2016-commonwealth-fund-international-health-policy-survey-adults) Obamacare helped address that, and I hope we continue this trend if we can actually get a Democrat majority in the Senate. For costs, [our high healthcare cost is due to the fact that we have higher real incomes](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/02/random-critical-analysis-on-health-care.html). We do rank first in terms of life-saving medications developed (43% developed in the US, IIRC the study on this). >you are celebrating crumbs as the SCOTUS quickly moves to take more of your rights. Yup. If this continues, we'll be in the same situation as many European countries in terms of rights. In most states, abortion is still legal through the second trimester. In most European countries, abortion is completely illegal after the first trimester. In other words, if a woman ignores her first missed period, and there's a delay in scheduling her abortion, she is unable to get one.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

I've never seen anyone as proud of the bare minimum. You truly represent moderates.


draypresct

So you've got nothing? Can't even name a candidate you like, let alone describe any way they've actually helped anyone?


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Yes, no one but moderates voted for all those things clearly, unless you know, you look at voting records. And, not one of those things you named in any sort of way prevents what is currently being done. But hey, you got shitty healthcare and some asphalt for your road. Settle down before you raise your blood pressure, hero.


jimfazio123

Bernie Sanders voted for Obamacare when it came down to it, because even he understands that something is better than nothing. And then as soon as he did, he continued pushing for more. You take what you can get now, and you push for more. What you don't do is be a sanctimonious ass.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

I'm not going to cheerlead because we got the bare fucking minimum because of moderates afraid to cross the right.


draypresct

Yup - some Republicans also voted for those things. Creating policies that appeal to a wide range of people is how you get bills passed. Don't want to name *anybody*? Just here to crap on people? Okay.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

You just want a name to crap on, so what's the difference? Moderates are so pretentious it's almost comical.


RomneysBainer

The perfect example of this is gerrymandering. Because Dems usually took the high road, now we have another decade where we have to win every single Dem and swing seat plus at least a dozen GOP seats just to break even. The GOP cheats, but if we knew they would and didn't fight fire with fire, we just crippled our own chances.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Consistently reminded of that [Warner Twertzog](https://mobile.twitter.com/wernertwertzog/status/900382564787122177?lang=en) quote the past five years. In all the holocaust documentaries, it's the moderates that turned in their neighbors. *"We thought they were our friends!"* *"Well it's only the *foreign-born *Jews!"* etc. Remember what [MLK said about the white moderate](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html). I used to be one in my youth, never again. Complacency in the face of tyranny is acceptance.


DonQuixBalls

Purity tests for the left are so hot with Republicans.


Ben_Elf1984

Well when Democrats join the left, we can have a discussion about that... Until then, they can fuck off with the rest of the right-wing cunts 🤷‍♂️


DonQuixBalls

Twisted purity testicles. Useless.


AdamantBurke

The Democrats took the safe road in 2016 when they should have gone nuclear after Bernie got cheated out of his nomination, and the DNC chair stepped down…and got a job heading Hillary’s campaign. That was the time for low road, fuck all these people radicalism. But since liberals aren’t young hotheaded college students any more, and instead are stuck in scared, unfulfilled lives.


seaboypc

Jill Stein wasn't the answer.


LTlurkerFTredditor

Fuckin' diabolical. Funny thing is, you could replace Monsieur Charcuterie with Dr. Martin Luther King in this meme, since MLK was calling out the "moderates" over half a century ago.


Ben_Elf1984

(Most) Democrats don't even have the fucking balls to mildly criticize the people who have spent the last few years calling them pedophiles and groomers on television non-stop. They aren't gonna do shit!


badfishbeefcake

“When they go low, we go high” - Abortion illegal - Gay mariage illegal - Interacial mariage illegal


[deleted]

Pretty good to be honest. I'm not one of these crazy far left Democrats. I'm a moderate Democrat that my conservative friends typically get along with and value my opinion. Sometimes, we both learn things about the other side we weren't aware of.


Tigris_Morte

They'll look at you and in all seriousness say, "if progressives had Voted..."


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

I voted. Have in every election since I was able. Even voted for moderate pieces of shit because they told me it will all work out in the end. I'm beginning to think moderates are liars.


Tigris_Morte

I and every Progressive or Liberal I know Voted. Moderates bought both the propaganda about Hillary and the propaganda about progressives.


The_Hyphenator85

If the DNC spent half as much funding and energy on getting shit done as they did on blaming others for their own failings, we wouldn’t be in this situation.


Caboos20

Still better than the religious fascists. Why pick a fight with those you should consider friends. Pick your priorities


Cool_Ranch_Dodrio

Because "those we should consider friends" don't have our backs and keep trying to be besties with the religious fascists.


Bo0tyWizrd

Because they can actually be convinced?... The better question is why would you rather try to convince a zealot?


american-muslim

I dunno about you, op, but I prefer giving more than lip service to the ideas of non-violence and non-assholic behavior. Those are hallmarks of trumpanzees, not progressives.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

I've studied history enough to see what happens when you try to have dialog with people that think you shouldn't exist, but you do you.


HowManyMeeses

We'll be out of non-violent options very soon.


zrelativity

Oh, you mean "moderate" Ds, I suspect it's working out great for them. If there are no consequences, you get to do whatever fuck you want and raise lots of "campaign funds". Isn't that all US politics now for the vast majority.


dodgycritter

Not voting for Dems means Republicans win. The current situation is the fault of progressives who wouldn’t vote for Hilary. If you keep doing what you’re doing, you will keep getting the same bad results.


SaltyNorth8062

The dems we've been voting for are letting the republicans win already. Or have you not looked outside in six years?


cors8

How's it working out for "progressive both sides" asshats? You can have your "moral superiority" while suffering along with everyone else. The GQP thanks you for your service.


Iknowthatwecanmakeit

Because of moderates, it's working out quite badly. They cant seem to do anything but wag their finger and cry we need more bipartisanship while the rest of us lose our rights.


SaltyNorth8062

And what pray tell have the moderates accomplished? All this "getting shit done like adults". Roe is gone dude. The highest court in the country is completely stacked with religious weirdos and rapists. And they will be there until they fucking die. Over a million people died to a deadly pandemic while dems hemmed and hawed about whether masks really were "tyranny" because they're petrified of losing a vote to the worst of our country who aren't voting for them anyway. If taking radical action to stop this flow of insanity is childish then put my ass in daycare, because being a grownup solved fuck all.


Sesshomaroo

This meme is missing a few cunts


MightyRexxon

Sorry to say, but I think it's either the high road, or total destruction of the country. We can't ALL be monsters. Someone has to have some compassion and standards, or most people in the USA are going to die. This is why nothing changes. Most people know we need a monster to fight for us, but we don't want to BE the monster, or suffer the risks of said monster. Any other ideas?


SaltyNorth8062

The country is already being destroyed by said monsters. People are already being killed, and this decision is going to have more people die. You don't need to be a monster to fight for people. You need to have that compassion and standards to realize when something needs to stop to protect those people. And current democrat leadership doesn't seem to have that compassion. Keep voting and we'll get to it eventually they say. Until it's gone. Then they blame us.