dudeObama Is Now Not So Sure America Can Survive Under Trump
Well, congrats. Better than universal healthcare, right?
To give credit where it’s due, he did try:
theguardian.com/…/obama-administration-universal-…
Unfortunately, we dems actually honor the separation of powers.
This "plan" fell through due to the filibuster... which the senate could've chosen to remove if they wanted to. Given the sheer amount of progress the filibuster has prevented over the years, you'd think the dems would do away with the damn thing, unless of course they want it there as an excuse for when they don't want to do something.
Eh, it’s one of the few things left slowing Trump down. Personally I’m against further concentrated power, even when it holds up our progressive goals. We need to fight the battle of public opinion, not just try to ram our priorities down the public’s throats for their own good.
It’s not like they’d ever acknowledge we helped them if we didn’t get them at least somewhat on-board first.
Eh, it's one of the few things left slowing Trump down.
Most of his agenda does not, in fact, need Congressional approval. Decades of executive overreach have made sure of that. Like, do you think the filibuster is stopping Trump in any meaningful capacity? His dear ICE is running perfectly fine.
Personally I'm against further concentrated power, even when it holds up our progressive goals.
What's concentrated about a democratically elected congressional majority fulfilling its democratic mandate? Unless you want to devolve more power to the states, which is fine but that's another conversation, you need the federal government to do things. A dysfunctional and powerless legislature will inevitably be swept aside by expanding executive power, as we've seen happen in the US during the past few decades. You need your government to have the power to do things if you want to keep your system of government. You can't get out of this with high-minded democratic principles, again as we're seeing happen in the US right now. There's a reason no country in the world rules by consensus.
We need to fight the battle of public opinion,
That battle is already won, with more than 60% of Americans believing that the government should provide universal healthcare. The reason you don't see this reflected in the government is that the House is gerrymandered to hell and back and the Senate represents states rather than people.
It's not like they'd ever acknowledge we helped them if we didn't get them at least somewhat on-board first.
You don't need them to acknowledge shit; you only need to demonstrate your ideas work and get their voters to abandon them, which progressive politicians have historically been very successful at. Progress always happens against the wishes of conservatives, not after getting their permission.
True, but not requiring congressional approval does not mean scrambling to figure out how to pay soldiers makes his mobilization against Venezuela any easier, or having to figure out how he wants to deploy the USDA’s emergency fund any more convenient. This is making his life harder, which is why he’s now arguing to eliminate the filibuster on government funding bills.
I think you’re exaggerating how powerless the legislature is. Biden and Obama both were able to make some advancements, and Biden came within just a couple votes of passing much more impressive bills. Manchin is now retired too, thankfully.
Two thirds is not victory, we must continue.
Very successful? Bernie had some support from the right, but how common is that? I would like it if you were right, but I’m uncertain. Regardless, it frankly untrue that progress always happens against the wishes of conservatives. They’ve compromised numerous times throughout history, there’s often some horse trading that can be pulled to get them on board with something. Fascists are a bit of a different story though, they tend to be more uncompromising.
True, but not requiring congressional approval does not mean scrambling to figure out how to pay soldiers makes his mobilization against Venezuela any easier, or having to figure out how he wants to deploy the USDA's emergency fund any more convenient.
Okay? Like, you do realize the shutdown will have to end eventually right? Trump can just wait this shitshow out.
Biden and Obama both were able to make some advancements,
But neither was able to fundamentally fix anything, which is why both were followed by Trump. Like, you do realize the model you're defending has already failed right?
and Biden came within just a couple votes of passing much more impressive bills
It's those "just a couple of votes" that hold up almost all progress, so that's not saying much.
Two thirds is not victory, we must continue.
No, you think you should continue. People who can't get insulin without paying through the nose for it want healthcare and they want it now. You don't have the right to deny them their rights until they get a certain highscore in a popularity contest.
Bernie had some support from the right, but how common is that?
They've compromised numerous times throughout history
That’s why I said it’s slowing him down, and I did not say it’s stopping him. Slowing him down is still a very good thing.
I don’t think they were trying to fundamentally fix our problems, neither was interested in fundamental reform to the difficulties that are ultimately stemming from uncontrolled capitalism. If that sort of fundamental change is what we want, we’ll need more support for that sort of more radical change. If you’re equating “powerless” and “unable to offer fundamental solutions” though, I think you’re making an error. They do have power, and if enough people ask for fundamental change, then we can start getting it.
I see. So, you think had Obama managed to deliver universal health care instead of the patchwork he did deliver, he wouldn’t have had his system torn apart by the other party the way Obamacare was?
It’s not about denying anyone’s rights. It’s about the simple fact that the percentage we’ve achieved is not high enough yet. You yourself mentioned the gerrymandering, so you know that a higher percentage is needed if we want enough elected officials on our side.
Well, let’s take the most obvious example from recent history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is from wikipedia:
H.R. 1752 was brought to a floor vote in the chambers of the House of Representatives on February 10, 1964. The Republican Party voted 138 in favor, 34 against. The Democratic Party voted 152 in favor, 96 against. 5 members voted present, and 6 members did not vote. [37]
Note the overwhelming support from both of the parties at the time. Or we could go back further in history if you wanted, there’s a lot of legislative history from across the world we can look at for examples.
I know you’re angry, but try to think fairly. I’m getting the impression you’re just throwing the kitchen sink at me because you’re upset.
edit: Just saw this pop up in my feed, by the way. This is the trend we need to continue to get real reforms passed:
nbcnews.com/…/poll-views-capitalism-slip-socialis…
This is a fairly new condition, though. 10-15 years ago we didn’t have this sort of momentum yet.
Poll: Views of capitalism slip, but socialism is still unpopular as Zohran Mamdani gains prominence
The share of registered voters with positive views of capitalism has dropped under 50% for the first time in seven years of NBC News polling on the issue — a shift that comes as some democratic socialists, like New York mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani, gain prominence in the Democratic Party