- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Ah, Dan Goldman, why?? Damn it.
Not projection, just a flat out lie.
New York resident here. Hakeem Jeffries has always sucked. As does Kathy Hochul. Complete garbage.
Ah, but if you said anything against the blue (but not in favor of red), you were the vile, evil… CENTRIST! (I.e. a label just applied to you to single you out for not blindly agreeing with the zeitgeist.) Seriously, the front page of Lemmy for a good while was just toxic political “VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO” and if you didn’t agree, you were just a problem.
The critical part of ‘vote blue no matter who’ is the voting part. That’s the game plan short-term when it’s election season.
That does not preclude criticizing the incumbents. Or even the candidates. But no matter how you feel about them, you vote for them to stave off misery, and encourage everyone around you to do the same.
Not voting for them sends a message, but it’s the wrong message - and that message is that the populace prefers the GOP. Stop fascism in its tracks and vote blue. Fight for actual progress by doing what you can to forward actual progressive candidates and policies. Like NYC is doing right now.
It boggles my mind how people seem to be incapable of wrapping their head around that concept, and instead continue to insist that we shouldn’t be voting for DNC candidates because — uh - it’ll make things better??? Somehow??? At this point, the willful ignorance is starting to smack of sealioning.
Not voting for them sends a message, but it’s the wrong message - and that message is that the populace prefers the GOP
Hard disagree on that. That’s assuming the intentions of the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us
If you’re argument is that we need to be doing what’s right and pushing for progress, then why is that cast as something ONLY the “blue” can do? I don’t know how old you are to see how many times the “blue” has absolutely failed at their job, failed the people, but for no other reason than they’re in the right party, they keep getting voted in. But I’ve seen several “blue” presidents do anywhere from fuckall to the bare minimum in terms of progress/change.
There are other options to vote for that don’t just include the GOP as you seem to suggest. The US isn’t supposed to be just a 2 party system. It’s supposed to be dynamic; these parties are supposed to die off when they no longer represent the people. If you want progress and change, but keep doing the same thing that doesn’t seem to be all that progressive… are you making any progress?
Hard disagree on that. That’s assuming the intentions of the people.
No it’s not. It’s acknowledging the fact that campaigning politicians largely view people as one of the following:
- With us
- Against us
- Someone we might be able to persuade to be with us
- Not relevant
If you don’t vote, they categorise you in that last one. It doesn’t matter what’s in your heart, what matters is how they perceive you. The only tool you have to change that is your vote.
I don’t know if you’ve been watching the current political climate in the USA, but ‘anywhere from fuckall to the bare minimum’ is drastically, ridiculously, absurdly better than what the GOP is doing when they are in power - and when first-past-the-post is the only voting method, and elections are as tight as they are, you can whinge all you want about the morality of voting for someone who doesn’t actually represent your interests, but not voting blue helps the GOP win.
The system is broken, yes, but harm reduction is the name of the game when it’s the only choice you are given.
Save the moralizing for primaries and local races. We’ve seen what happens when people withhold their vote, and what happens is fascism.
FPTP voting results in 2 parties unfortunately. until the system changes, voting 3rd party does fuck all.
This this this this this.
I keep saying this refrain. The time to reform the party is after elections, until the primary (NOW). The time to vote for the party is during the election period. Sure, state your grievances anytime or all the time to get your politicians to listen. But handing the win to chaos to state your case gives the way to fascism.
Not terribly helpful when the party just ignores us until the election when it’s “too late.”
Well Mamdani is a sign that they (billionaires and establishment politicians) aren’t just ignoring progressives (if that’s what you mean by us), they are actively campaigning against reform, we are pushing back. I know it can feel helpless, but don’t just assume nothing is happening.
In the general election, that’s what you should do. If establishment Dems don’t back their nominee, it doesn’t change how you should vote.
People who didn’t vote blue in 2024 actively chose a fascist regime. Anyone who doesn’t vote blue in all the upcoming elections (with a Fetterman exception, but he should be primaried) is endorsing the MAGA movement.
Hard disagree. If we continue the narrative that the US is a 2 party system, actively rejecting and backing other parties in fear “the bad guy will win” (a sentiment and view shared with the Dem/Rep parties), then we’ve entered a endless loop that only as we’ve seen over the decades, is a race to the bottom. We elected Biden because we didn’t want Trump and largely for no other reason. That’s not a good reason. And Biden even commented that he was perhaps too old (his words).
And it’s a fallacy, shared by the Dem/Rep, to fear-monger the “If you don’t vote for MY party, then it’s voting for the other party (the bad guys)”. This was a false narrative that was spread this election and several before it, to prevent anyone else from opposing the status quo. A vote for ‘not my party’ is not a ‘vote for the other party’. If I can’t vote how I want (speaking broadly here for everyone), then my vote doesn’t matter. And if my vote doesn’t matter, then I’m not being represented. And if you’re going to argue that, I’d like to point to the huge number of eligible voters who consistently don’t vote. If we cast non-votes as a vote of no confidence, we’d see a big change in things. But doing that means Dem/Rep would lose the seesaw swings in power they have come to enjoy.
So no, you shouldn’t just throw your vote blindly behind any side. Especially because the internet thinks you should (and again, that goes for Dem/Rep alike).
When the major party candidates include a literal fascist building concentration camps and sending people to torture prisons without due process and a wildly imperfect opposition party candidate, you for against the literal fascist.
People who chose not to vote for Harris because they weren’t “excited” to vote for her chose not to stand in the way of Trump, and they are responsible for him winning the election.
If you didn’t vote for Harris, you have blood on your hands and should be losing sleep over it.
I voted libertarian in the last election. Not because I thought they had any chance of winning, but because neither party had a candidate I would like to endorse and instead of not voting I gave it to the libertarians to help them stay over the threshold for the next election.
The two party system is going to be the death of America.
You voted for Trump, and you have blood on your hands.
Only if they’re in a swing state. If they in a safe blue or safe red state, eh, have at it.
i feel like the people on reddit that was blasting it all over, are propaganda(probably subterfuge from the right and tankies) i never felt a good vipe with those posts.
I dunno. I think a lot of regular people felt really strongly that it was critical that the Republicans not gain control of everything in this last election, and given how things are going at the moment, it’s really hard to argue that was wrong. Which is not to say that the folks criticizing the Democrats were wrong either! The Democrats’ feckless centrism and undermining of leftist candidates has been galling for years. The difficult truth is that the system has been so broken that really good people following genuine motivations were arguing on both sides of the leftist/Democrat divide. I was trying to cling to the hope that if we jollied the current system along, we could get reforms like ranked choice voting and the national vote interstate compact in place that would help shift the underlying incentives in the system away from the two-party system, but it’s probably really been irreparable for years now.
Of course bullying people was never going to be an effective tactic, and I never endorsed that. But that’s just regular tribalism and anger at the nonconformist. That’s just regular dumb human stuff.
Probably
With the current political climate USA is in, it might weaken him to get endorsements from the establishment.
Their masks are coming off. Voting in line with republicans and being vocal against anything progressive.
I was thinking the other day after NPR mentioned Elon’s recent spat that he could fund other candidates in mid terms. If he endorsed Democrats that might do more harm than good lol.
For sure. I would immediately be sceptical of any candidate, even progressives, if Elon endorsed them.
We’d end up with another Fetterman.
Removed by mod
I’m not any fan of Clinton, but a single off brand kkk member who claimed to be the highest of said off brand changed from trump to Clinton because she seemed more coherent, does not sound like a kkk endorsement to me.
If even a single kkk member (“off brand” or otherwise) approved of me, I would have to take a long look at my life and recent actions to see where it all went wrong.
“oh shit, this white supremisist likes ice cream. My political career is over”
I’m not ice cream. I couldn’t survive the desert if I was.
In fact I remember the KKK being the first organization’s to endorse Trump. I remember this because the second was Yueng Ling which I refuse to drink even though I love cheap lagers. This was early on, so not the common blanket endorsement of the party’s nominee, but genuinely working to sway the primaries when it wasn’t yet clear he’d win even the republican primary.
IIRC
You don’t.
VBNMW was always “we want to give you a shitty candidate, you’ll vote for it and you’ll like it.”
It’s always been the same fear mongering strategy dems and Repubs have always used. Today it’s just very effective.
Huge correlation with AIPAC being their top donors, fyi.
Find me a politician on the US national stage who isn’t funded by AIPAC.
Massie doesn’t count.
Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee, AOC (though she’s compromised with the party leadership on Israel’s genocide to an abhorrent degree nonetheless), Ayanna Presley, Cory Bush (successfully primaried over it) and Jamaal Bowman (ditto), and everyone else not listed here.
They’re a small minority for sure, but they exist and pretending otherwise just feeds into the manipulative establishment “electability” narrative that they use to poison the public against progressive candidates.
I find it incredibly ironic and enlightening that the one Jewish congressperson I can name off the top of my head is on this list.
What do you mean national stage? Because I can think of at least a handful.
I mean someone who’s actually been featured in national news, and would be known across the country.
For example, there is a New York state congress versus the US Federal Congress, they probably meant a distinction there because obviously state congressmen won’t get very much PAC money.
Oh of course; in that case then Sanders, AOC, Warren, Jayapal, Omar, Tlaib.
There are some others who have really low amounts of donations, like Tim Walz which I’ll let slide; but if looking at FEC reports of the top offenders like Jeffries and Schumer, they’ve got millions from AIPAC.
Can you please explain the last line? I’d like to be more informed.
the last they want is non-aligned democrat to israel.
They’d rather throw the election to the republicans than see a democrat who isn’t pro-Israel.
NYC has a habit of choosing a REPUBLICAN quite alot.
And that right there is the the key! Is Sirius about serving their corporate masters and their deep pockets
ORIN?
If you primary these establishment fucks out you don’t have this problem.
This. We’ve seen what republicans want to do. We need to stop them and vote ‘not-republican’ when we can before the ability to do so is gone. The problem is we cannot stop there and only vote every 2-4 years for the least-bad option, we need to make better options. “Both sides” is reductive and hides the problem.
Get involved: find and support people who have your views for all offices: city, county, state, federal, maybe even HOA. Most of these are important. If the incumbent is not working for us, we need to fight them and suggest someone better. If the incumbent is unchallenged, then that’s a travesty and they need a primary, if the same party, or an opponent.
For the a while now we’ve seen the ‘left’ chase the ‘center’ and people like OP are mad at this. The solution is not ‘vote blue no matter who’, but that is a bandage to slow the bleeding and will resonate with the less-involved allies we have. The solution is to prove that we are the majority and push our own into leadership roles where they can make things better.
If you’re angry right now, run for office or canvas for someone who is. Being mad, depressed or just bitching online isn’t fixing anything. You can make things better, and it starts with finding a ‘blue’ worth voting for.
Okay, just hear me out for a second… I completely agree they should endorse him, but rather than just saying they are irreverent (though this may actually be the case) I would like to know in clear and concise terms WHY they are waiting/failing to endorse the man whom was chosen by the people. I think knowing why they won’t endorse him is very relevant to the discussion. Eith
TLDR; their silence is very telling.
Honestly, I don’t want their endorsement. Fuck em. This party is getting taken over by the left or we’re burning it down.
I think they see the inevitable rise of fascism and don’t want to get grabbed by Trump’s brown shirts. They’re liberals that are being scratched and looking for a safe place in the future.
They didn’t even do their typical. “Oh we’re against the bombing of Iran but because he didn’t go through Congress”. I literally was waiting to roll my eyes at all their liberal “following procedure for our war crimes” but they even stayed quiet about it mostly.
We had two parties. Fascist and Liberals. Now we just have fascist and Liberals looking for a safe place in the new power structures. They’re kind of confused I think. A little caught off guard with how much Trump is following through on actual policy. They’re use to both parties lying and giving working class dollars to the rich. The conservatives are no longer playing the game of politics they all use to love that got nothing done.
Fuck the party leaders and most of these shits in Washington. They have no place now. We don’t need their endorsement.
We can win with the momentum. We don’t need to win power back through votes. We just need to give this countries people enough hope to build class consciousness. Decades can happen it weeks.
I don’t know about the rest of them, though I certainly have my suspicions, but with gillibrand it’s very clearly just racism. That interview she gave was extremely telling.
It’s rich people. The reason is rich people.
Rich is a symptom of reduced empathy
The willingness to exploit systems & labor for fun & profit
Guess which other party apologizes when they’re wrong
Notice how she apologized for “mischaracterizing” and for her tone? Yeah. Because she know she would do that.
The entire point is to mischaracterize the position and spread racist xenophobia. Why can liberals know exactly what this is when conservatives do it to black people but when racist Zionist do it to brown people they think “well, they apologized by saying ‘it wasn’t totally accurate’”
Don’t believe these people trying to fight progress by trying to appeal to Americans racism and xenophobia. They aren’t your allies. They aren’t good people. They are trying to keep them and their corrupt friends in power. That’s it.
That’s quite a conspiracy theory you got there. Is it not possible she was wrong and then admitted it?
It’s not a conspiracy theory mate. Republicans do it all the time. Signal racism and then say “oh I didn’t mean it like that”.
That’s all she’s done. She just did it with the liberal aesthetic you enjoy.
she isnt sorry said she said that, she sorry she got called out.
Disagree
Yes she’s very sorry the mask came off.
Well, and she admitted she was wrong. Publicly. So.
I mean b0tH SiDeZ and all that but still.
Every politician will eat shit when they have something that they want
“Rubio apologizes for ‘below the belt’ remarks about Trump’s appearance”
Oh so she’s going to back him now then?
Gillibrand and Mamdani had previously spoken by phone on Wednesday when she congratulated him the day after winning the Democratic mayoral primary.
Mamdani campaign spokesperson Andrew Epstein confirmed the Monday night call, adding that the apology was accepted and the two agreed to “set a path to move forward productively.”
Gillibrand’s readout said the two “discussed the need to bring down the temperature around the issue” of the war between Israel and Hamas, and that she “regretted not separating her own views from the radio show caller’s more clearly.”
“Gillibrand said she believes Mr. Mamdani is sincere when he says he wants to protect all New Yorkers and combat antisemitism,” the readout continued. “She said the GOP attacks on him are outrageous and unacceptable.”
Gillibrand’s team said the pair agreed to meet in person in New York City in the near future to discuss other issues including affordability and public safety.
Mamdani has worked to consolidate support from Democratic Party power players in the last week as he looks ahead to the general election after a heated primary where he was repeatedly attacked for his anti-Israel positions, such as saying the country was committing “genocide” in Gaza. Ranked choice results released Tuesday showed Mamdani growing his lead over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, winning 56 percent of votes counted.
I read that… but it unfortunately did not answer the question. But they play vague on purpose.
They’ve given interviews. According to them, Mamdani hasn’t yet proven his viability among the general population, he only won a primary where 15% of the DNC participated with a plurality vote of 43%. Furthermore, some of them represent districts that hardlined against Mamdani such as neighborhoods in the southeastern part of Brooklyn. Mamdani won Brooklyn overall but the difference between neighborhoods he won and lost were very stark.
I agree with you, though, that they should endorse Mamdani. Any concerns about his type of socialism can be easily quelled with Mamdani’s clear opposition to “communist countries”.
Not endorsing Mamdani is just asking to split the vote and give Republicans the chance to fuck everything up.
I don’t like ‘viability among gen pop’. It’s like assessing his electability. Doesn’t matter, he was chosen in a democratic primary vote. He’s the democratic candidate for mayor. If they expect us to fall in line and vote blue, they need to fall in line and endorse blue.
Rich fucks
“electability” was always a sham. It is exclusively used by millionaire news pundits and NYT writers to tell primary voters not to vote for the candidate with the policy that immediately improves the material conditions of the most people because of an imaginary cohort of “centrists” and “moderate republicans” who are terrified of anything good like free healthcare, child care, college, rent-control, and taxes on billionaires, but will totally vote for the version of those policies that will help nobody.
I agree but you have to focus on outcomes. Does endorsing him help or harm him? Does endorsing him help or harm themselves? The answer to these questions might very well be “I don’t know”.
If some general polls shine a big awesome light on Mamdani being the best possible candidate to defeat the Republican nominee, then hopefully that is more than enough reason for these few Democrats to fall in line behind him. If he polls at like 25%, it’s going to start being time to look at other options.
However, the people chose him. I think maybe I have a naive/idealistic view of what a democracy actually is
That kind of reasoning makes sense to not endorse him in a run off.
But in the general election? He’s got your party’s nomination, so back your party. Your Cuomo boy got primaried, get over it. (Edit: the ‘your’ in this sentence applies to the party members listed in the OP, not the commenter and/or OP)
This is just money talking. Rich people don’t like the ones that look like they won’t bend to them. Hopefully he continues to not.
Also, this is yet another reason I don’t associate with political parties. Super not a fan of them. It’s the system we got, and I do vote with the dual party power structure in mind, but you’ll never see me signed up in one.
That map makes New York look like a pelican rubbing its belly next to a rock.
Just looked up the bright blue square on Brooklyn - it’s Borough Park: “home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities outside Israel, with one of the largest concentrations of Jews in the United States”
Hmm! I don’t think it’s his policies they are against…
I don’t know much about Judaism but I wouldn’t be surprised if among Jewish philosophers, religious and spiritual thinkers and community activists that standing up against injustice especially if it is easy to ignore is a form of expressing your love of god/spiritual practice.
It is the same with all the actually legitimate teachings in all major religions (quantified crudely by number of practicioners and length of history the religion has been practiced), how could it be otherwise? We are all human beings after all.
sigh countless jews know this, what you are seeing is US colonialism using judaism as a toy to be violently discarded later, it is a tale as old as time, one that the conservative authoritarian elements of spiritual movements always fall for like it is catnip.
Mamdani just makes it painfully obvious this is the game pretend conservatives hiding as religious leaders always ALWAYS play.
Yeah it should come as no surprise, he’s very openly pro-palestine and during the primaries the media framed a perfect picture of Mamdani for Palestine and Cuomo for Israel.
We’re not talking about the mayor of Canon Beach, OR [randomly selected] with its cute chocolate shops, bed-and-breakfasts and small population. We’re talking about going from state assembly advocate of the MTA to the whole shebang of one of the biggest concentrations of money and power in the world.
Admittedly, Eric Adams is the incumbent, so - wtf do I know. I’m all for Mamdani winning, I just think it’s understandable to say “I’d prefer someone with more experience”. That’s not an excuse to shout him down, but I could understand not promoting him.
Plus - again, not a native New Yorker so wtf do I know - but I’d imagine someone who’s publicly associated with what I’m guessing many people understand to be Muslim terrorism (I know that’s not true, I’m saying many people think it is) would be difficult in most cities but in NY there’s some reason it’s an extra touchy subject.
According to them, Mamdani hasn’t yet proven his viability among the general population, he only won a primary where 15% of the DNC participated with a plurality vote of 43%. Furthermore, some of them represent districts that hardlined against Mamdani such as neighborhoods in the southeastern part of Brooklyn. Mamdani won Brooklyn overall but the difference between neighborhoods he won and lost were very stark.
What they’re really mad about is how badly the Democrats planned, thinking they’d waltz in past the wreckage of Adams with Cuomo and seeing how shit his campaign was. Now they’re going to lose the SDNY office leverage they had AND get painted as radical leftist tankies AND lose the moderate votes.
My first thought is; do these people normally endorse Mayoral candidates?
For NYC? Of course they do. Not a small town in Suburbia friend, this is the biggest city in the country. The mayor of New York is more important and more powerful than a good amount of Governors.
https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Chuck_Schumer
I can’t say that this list is comprehensive (there are only 4 endorsements) but filtering through Chuck’s messages for the last 16 years is too much for me to do for a single comment on Lemmy.
Why the fuck is schumer still in office?! Hes the very definition of a dickless, useless democrat. Fuck that guy, just get lost useless boomer, let someone who gives a shit take the seat.
He’s WORSE than useless. Not only is he a Manchin level shill for fossil fuel interests, he’s said that his job is to “keep the left Pro Israel”, a statement so blatant that he’d call out anyone ascribing that sentiment to him for using the antisemitic “dual loyalty” trope.
There’s literally REPUBLICANS in Congress right now that are less awful than he is! Imagine that: the Senate leader of what the Dem leadership pretends to be the Left being worse than some actual fascists 🤬
Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against the BBB, for example
Though tbf, Paul is such an ancap shithead that his objection is that it doesn’t kill ENOUGH poor people, women, minorities, and combinations of more than one of the above.
That’s not how HE puts it, of course, but he’s smart enough to have gotten a doctorate and has been in politics more than long enough to recognize social mass murder and codified bigotry when he sees it.
And Thom was the only person in the world who voted for Ted Cruz’ amendment to the BBB that would have outlawed state-level AI regulation. And Susan Collins played dumb as bricks to justify not voting for justice in Trump’s impeachment. Schumer is Cheney level heinous (already a high bar). These fuckers are just broken clocks
There’s literally REPUBLICANS in Congress right now that are less awful than he is!
You had me til here.
AOC will probably primary him. Schumer is at something like a 2 decade low in approval while AOC polls much higher state-wide.
money. same as the rest who vote pro-fascist
Schumer is not the worse one, he’s trying to endorse Mamdani without using the word endorsement to not upset his donors: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5368933-schumer-jeffries-mamdani-nyc/
Comparing the mild cynism with the backstabbing idiots that are going to implode the Democratic Party puts him on “just a bit shitty” list in this case.
Definitely not as bad as Gillibrand and her racist tirade she went on.
Fuck his donors. He should run with the money and endorse Mamdani if he’s such a good person
Who said anything about good person? He made it to lead senator of an unholy big tent coalition of a party. Of course he is a spineless butt kisser. Which is still better than a hypocritical backstabber.
Did those politicians say “vote blue no matter who” or was that people online in an effort to avoid gestures broadly?
Genuine question, they’ve always been massive disappointments who would benefit from that.
I specifically said “vote blue no matter who”, because while yes, there are Establishment Democrats that exist, Extermination Republicans are quite objectively fucking worse.
Because if Fascist 47 wasn’t in office, we could at least try to get shit done, instead of putting out 17+ daily fires.
Rebrand: Vote Blue, because what else can you do?
A lot actually but that would require people to get politically educated and we all know how well that has worked out.
Vote blue it’s the least you can do?
Lol, no. Miss me with that “blue MAGA” talk
And leave the house
I mean it might work with Luigi pic in the background. But we all know that won’t happen.
So what were we doing for the last 50 years?
Fascist 47 hasn’t been the president that long, and anyone with a brain knew he would tear this country down.
How was he able to do that? How does he have so much more power than democratic presidents? Genuine question bc all my brain says is that the dem potus’ don’t want change. 45/47 was able to really rock the boat the wrong way, why couldn’t 46 make this much change in the other direction? 44?..
Because after Trump’s first term, including the failed coup, when nothing happened to them, the republicans came to a startling realization: no matter what they do there are no consequences, because the democrats refuse to enforce any.
For decades they’ve worked to be either technically within the law, or carefully over the line in ways that are both deniable and difficult to prosecute. But during Trump’s first term, it became apparent they don’t need to do that anymore. They can do whatever the fuck they want and no one will impose any consequences. Even if someone stops them in the moment, they just get to try again.
And it’s all because democrats are too concerned with decorum and looking polite.
So why can’t democrats do the same? Cause you bet your britches the republicans will hold them to account if they start doing whatever they want. Republicans would love that. They would be thrilled to lock up most of the democrats. But given the opportunity and very real justification for doing so, the democrats just…didn’t do it to the republicans.
How was he able to do that? How does he have so much more power than democratic presidents?
Dems and the Dem base run on the idea of an actual government with laws and standards. Dems sometimes violate those laws, but with plausible deniability in the vein of lawyers.
The GOP and the GOP base runs on the idea that hurting people is the highest good, and that laws are just a means to an end. They used to have more of the “lawyerly plausible deniability” strain about them, but Trump and his ghoulish following have dispensed with that, as they’re convinced that laws are a secret liberal plot to stop America from becoming a White Man’s Country once again.
Basically, the GOP doesn’t give a fuck about all the rules the Dems follow, and the GOP base won’t electorally punish them for it, because the GOP base is made of fascists.
One side is trying to govern, the other side is trying to win…
Democratic voters usually punish politicians that violate laws and rule of law (see: Mayo Adams of NYC popularity dropping after his indictment), while republican voters don’t care about criminal activities, not even after 34 convictions with strong evidence.
Three things.
-
Trump is doing a lot of things that are technically within his powers as long as there is an emergency. Trump is declaring everything an emergency.
-
A lot of what Trump is doing is trying to tear down parts if the executive branch. The only real recourse to that is an active Congress, but the House and Senate are governed by his party and can choose not to act while the President tears down everything.
-
A lot of what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional, but he’s got a neutered Supreme Court and would probably quote President Jackson if the Court consistently ruled against Trump.
-
Because half the shit he’s doing is illegal and 46 would not break the law so fragrantly and repeatedly, and when shot down he listened to the courts.
Republicans have control of every branch.
Well for starters we haven’t had a Democrat senate supermajority without caucus since 1979, we haven’t even given them 50 since 2012-2013, and now everything is going to shit, so…
Democrats need to grow a spine and abolish filibuster. republicans already removed the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations, might as well go all the way so maybe we have a chance of fixing things.
fascists can just ignore the parliamentarian anyways.
I’m gonna repeat this again.
Have not had more than 50 in over a decade. Why would you allow the simple majority rule when you’re literally outnumbered?
You can’t possibly be equating the current situations with anything in the past
The present doesn’t exist without the past. Our current situation is just as much about the Dems failure to significantly alter the course of our country as it is the GOPs efforts to undermine democracy. One does not follow without the other.
Not specifically, no. Though in 2020 and ‘24 they were definitely on about party unity
Anyone who has ever used that phrase un-ironically is politically tone deaf, or a Republican agent. I get the sentiment, and even agree with it, but it doesn’t communicate what people who use it think it does. The kind of people who use that phrase are the ones I blame most for gestures broadly.
Add them to the list.
Vote blue so, Maintain the status quo!
