134 points

In two ways. They also killed the chances of further good deals. When they aren’t in power why would democrats ever want to negotiate with them

permalink
report
reply
86 points

Because democrats are willing to do their jobs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Rolling over for republicans is in their job description?!

… that explains a few things…

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

When politics function correctly, that is what they are supposed to do in order to get concessions on other important things. Compromise leaves everyone unsatisfied.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Oh yeah, they should do what the Republicans are doing and use a scorched earth, no compromise strategy! I mean, geez, look at all these huge legislative wins accomplished by this congress using this strategy. Maybe we can even have a cool purity-test driven speaker role, that’s been working well for them! Anything else we should imitate that I’m forgetting? A demagogic, unrestrained president would definitely tie things up nicely.

Okay I’ll stop being a sarcastic jerk now, but you get the point. This strategy from Republicans works wonders when it comes to obstructing and shutting things down, but you’re never going to build anything with it. It’s destructive at its core.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

No, but Republicans convincing you it is, is the primary requirement in a Republican’s job description.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

And here I thought Democrats even participating in a BS, “bipartisan” bill that only served to validate the xenophobia being put forth by the opposing party was appalling and a clear example of the utter failure they represent.

Then again, illegals is common vernacular now, so what the fuck do I even know, really.

I’ve voted for Dems my entire life, but you’ll never catch me saying they “do their jobs”. The party embarrasses me at nearly every opportunity; any support I have for/give to the party is despite its leadership, not because of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Willing, and capable are different. They are politicians after all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Because you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Only until the instant the Senate takes a simple majority vote to lower it to 50.

While the Senate has historically been a useful bulwark for pushing back against the creeping fascism of the GOP, it’s also a matter of fact that it is an antidemocratic institution that in the longer term we’re better off minimizing or eliminating. It’s the House of Lords and we do not need a House of Lords in the modern era.

Though I would like to see proper reapportionment in the House of Reps first, including adding significantly more members.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

While the Senate has historically been a useful bulwark for pushing back against the creeping fascism of the GOP

Has it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But muh states rights!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Because corporate dems are basically republicans. Our whole political system is right of center. With a few outliers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I commented this a while back, and I believe it wholeheartedly -
The current U.S. system is set up so that only two political parties can exist. In a perfect world, they would be rational, and represent differing facets of the voters values/goals. But in addition to not having a perfect world, through manipulation, degradation of the laws, and just human error/unintended consequences, we’ve wound up with a system where the two parties in power are largely funded by corporations, or those who have the resources to create PACs and launder their money into politics, and those groups represent roughly the same values and political goals.

So the political ‘game’ now is to acquire money to campaign (so you can get the votes) by appeasing the donors while appearing to do things that attract voters, because voting has not quite been manipulated to the point where money equals votes, yet. (Save for gerrymandering, which renders the voting ‘problem’ moot.)

I now believe politics is largely theatrical, and the media, also controlled by the interests that fund the political campaigns of politicians that do their bidding, works very hard to keep folks divided and arguing, rather than facing the real problem of their systemic disempowerment.

I am increasingly disillusioned that a solution to this problem is possible.

But anyway - I guess I’m saying I agree with you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Have you ever listened to Democrats? The leadership keeps saying that they believe we need a strong Republican Party for some reason.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

For better or worse we have a two dominant party system, which totally breaks down when one party decides to go it alone and only advance causes they can win with their votes.

That is a weak party, so divided internally they don’t dare compromise externally.

If we don’t have at LEAST two functional parties, it all falls apart.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That sounds like an utterly stupid system that is fragile and easily manipulated… Go figure it’s ours…

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Imagine the soundbites if they said they wanted to destroy the opposition party.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

GOP talking heads say the same thing all the time

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The GOP had a sign that said “we are domestic terrorists.” Can we stop caring what these radicalized disruptors think? Anyone who claims to be a moderate at this point is not welcome in my house none the less would I want to be on the same side as them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They say this because their lobbyists want nothing to change and if the Republicans are too weak, Democrats may actually have to make peoples lives better or the whole charade falls apart.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points

The last time they had a majority (first mandate of Obama if I recall?) they tried to work with the Republicans in good faith and they got nowhere so fast that the public voted them out from dissatisfaction.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s how I remember it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

The health care bill contained a series of things that are broadly popular when they were laid out individually. Package them together and call it “Obamacare” in the media and it was suddenly unpopular.

Tea Party astroturfing can’t be understated, either. The GOP grabbed back power at just the right time to be able to gerrymander districts and then keep them gerrymandered up until now. We’re only beginning to erode that back.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

It was a one person majority in the Senate that only lasted for a brief amount of time and was gone once healthcare reform ate up all of the time before Ted Kennedy died. They basically took what Mitt Romney had done at the state level and applied it federally, which is what Republicans claimed to want before they decided to call it Obamacare and pretend they didn’t help craft it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Technically, during the Obama Admin the Democrats had a senate supermajority for I think less than 2 months. During that time no substantial bills hit the senate floor that I recall, but I remember they approved a bunch of USPS locations which seemed odd to me. Politics are crazy but they’re even weirder in retrospect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

why would democrats ever want to negotiate with them

For the sheer joy of capitulation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

The rest of us are admitting it in public, so maybe they should too.

permalink
report
reply

Pussies for Trump should be their catchphrase.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

They lack the warmth and depth to be pussies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Is this the only good deal that they’ve ever acknowledged? All the other good deals that’d benefit Americans just weren’t good deals in their eyes that they happily shot down, but this one was the exception to them?

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Yes. This was a wet dream for Republicans who want to dehumanize migrants. This was the only “good” bill in their evil twisted eyes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 385K

    Comments