1049
"We stood behind Obama" no you didn't
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
1049 points (97.9% liked)
People Twitter
5454 readers
972 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Obama's thanks for passing the ACA was to lose the House of Reps for years 3 and 4. Then lose it again for years 5 and 6. And then lose the House and Senate for years 7 and 8. Even the left didn't stand behind Obama.
If the dems wanted the left to stand behind them, they should have gotten rid of the filibuster and passed actual free, universal healthcare instead of the republican plan that just amounted to extra subsidies for insurance companies. Also they shouldn't have bombed a dozen Middle Eastern and African countries while bailing out the banks that just foreclosed on millions of homes and deporting more people than either Bush or Trump.
When you betray the voters who elected you by giving republicans half the discretionary budget and adopting their policy even when they're going to vote against it, you decrease turnout. When you improve people's immediate material conditions, you increase turnout.
If you want more, then vote in more Senators so Lieberman can't water it down. That's how it works.
Not to mention the oddity of "we didn't get exactly what we wanted in the first months, so we're just going to give up for the next 6 years and then let Trump in. Surely that will work!"
It doesn't work that way for republicans. When republicans are in power, they don't handicap themselves with the filibuster or the parliamentarian or PAYGO or let single members block everything without the threat of getting kicked off committee assignments and denied GOP funding/campaign resources.
They chose to let Lieberman be the villain of the week because they don't want the same things the left wants.
You can whine that people won't vote for politicians who don't do what they elected them to do, but that's not how democracy works. Doing things that are unpopular with the base and failing to do the things you were elected to do decreases turnout.
Dems manage to filibuster plenty.
Added this to my previous reply so you probably didn't see it: There's also the oddity of "we didn't get exactly what we wanted in the first months, so we're just going to give up for the next 6 years and then let Trump in. Surely that will work!" Want progress? Dems need consistent and overwhelming victories. Not 2 years out of every 16 years (the average of when the Dems have all 3 of presidency, house of reps, and senate).
Oh ml user. Why do I bother.
As soon as the republicans got into power they removed the filibuster.
Congrats, you understand how elections work. You do what you were elected to do and you don't do things the base doesn't want you to do or you decrease turnout.
Republicans removed the filibuster only on the issue of judicial nominations. That might seem nitpicky but it's a critical distinction.
Which, in hindsight it's obvious why they wanted to do that, and makes it clear they had a coherent strategy the whole time.
Not nitpicking at all, it's fighting disinformation.
Let me know when not voting in protest works! Any time now! [As Trump gleefully dismantles everything.] Ciao.
This is not a strategy it is a description of how elections work.
Is this lefty representation in the room with us right now?