1451
Does it count twice if I raise them both? (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
233 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Dems deliver, but it's always "n n not good enough" for certain people.

Inb4 replies: The Dems need all 3 houses to pass anything. They've had that for, drumroll please, 4 years of the last 24 years. That's 2 years under Obama and 2 under Biden. Go back further to include Bill Clinton and it's 6 years of the last 32 years. Go further and it's 6 years of the last 44 years. And you wonder why progress is slow?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Bullshit. Conservatives have done just fine getting everything they wanted without all three branches of government. Democrats are bad at politics, and there are enough corrupt Dems to destabilize the whole party.

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for Dems. It means we should expect more from them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    GOP by and large wants to block things from happening. They want to hit the big giant pause button on society. And blocking things requires, drumroll please, only 1 of the 3. That's it. If the GOP has a single 1 of the 3, they can stop literally everything.

    Passing bills requires all 3. Stopping things from passing takes 1. Also known as: it's hard to build things up, and it's easy to tear things down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, agreed, it is easier to obstruct than it is to lead. But Conservatives have been far more effective at both. It's like a tug of war where one side isn't holding on to the rope. It doesn't matter if we're trying to gain ground or just minimize the damage, Democrats suck at both.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I'll point you back to the math. 6 years in the last 44 years.

    And yes cons fall in line. It's a saying for a reason. Left is an assortment of infighting and protest non voters. Want more? Then make sure then they can win without catering to the center. Again see the math.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You mean delivering NAFTA, sending all the US jobs oversees, which makes up a lot of the rot today, thanks to Clinton? Or do you mean Obama, who bailed out the banks for causing the biggest housing crisis, displacing people from their homes, who turned around and gave all their CEO's bonuses? The Obama who did nothing to help the people with no homes and did nothing to prevent round two, which analyst predict will happen again, soon? Oh yes, that slow progress.

    The uni-party system is corporate/oligarch controlled and corrupt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Clinton ran on it's the economy stupid. It's practically a miracle that anyone wins against an incumbent. But I have to mention this part "You mean delivering NAFTA, sending all the US jobs oversees" Lolololololol. In case you don't realize, Canada and Mexico are not overseas. China trade was Nixon. Clinton did what now seems impossible: balance the budget.

    Obama. Like it or not but bank failure would have turned the great recession into the 1930s depression. You being mad about this just tells me you want to rage instead of think logically. That's twice so far (nafta overseas was the first). But anyway, Obama delivered Healthcare which you conveniently leave out.

    Yeah it's clear you just want to rage, so this is my only reply. So I say it again: 4 years of control out of the last 24 years. Want more progress? Then you need to vote them in more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    Do they deliver? Did Biden "cancel all student debt for an entire generation" like he said he would? Did the Dems stop sending weapons to back a genocide? Did they get Medicare for All? Did they make housing affordable? Did they stop our overseas torture programs? Did they stop drone-striking children?

    Because I don't remember them delivering any of that.

    I don't wonder why progress is slow, as it is pretty clear: The Republicans are regressive, and the Democrats mostly impede progress.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Clinton delivered a balanced budget. Obama delivered healthcare - his reward was to lose majority for the next 6 years. Biden delivered most of Build Back Better, the first student debt relief was blocked by the court but another bill was passed that delivered a ton of debt relief. I thought you were just the nnnnot good enough, but honestly I think you're flat out ignoring everything. And that was with only 2 years each.

    But why didn't they just solve everything, everywhere, all at once, forever and always! Right? Like do you even hear yourself?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Obama delivered a terrible, watered down healthcare change. Biden could have pushed a lot more money out for student debt relief, but thought that spending the money on the border wall and weapons for Israel was more important.

    They could have done drastically more, but spent those 2 years sucking up to corporate doners, and giving consessions to the Republicans instead.

    You may think that "please don't bomb children", or "please stop giving our tax money to the rich" or "maybe medical debt shouldn't be the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US" or "please, make education affordable" is asking too much, but I think it's not asking enough, and the Dems wouldn't even deliver on those. They could have, but chose not to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    And back to n-n-n-n-n-not good enough. They were pretty good. Want more? Then vote in more reps so Lieberman can't water it down. Biden pushed a ton and got a ton of debt relief. First one blocked? He kept pushing. Honestly what are you on thinking he didn't push for it, it's back to ignoring.

    Yah you're all over the n-n-n-not good enough. Things take time to draft, write, negotiate, and pass. I seriously wonder what industry y'all work in that you think these things can be done easy peasy in no time flat.

    So we're back to: Want more? Then give them a majority more often than 6 years of the last 44 years. Seriously, let that sink in. 6 measly years out of the last 44 years. That's nothing. Want supermajority? Then it's 2.5 months out of the last 44 years. Not 2.5 years, 2.5 months out of the last 44 years. Since 1980. Frankly it's amazing that we're not in a worse situation.

    Ok this is going nowhere, I keep pointing out what they did and you keep ignoring/nnnot good enough. So the last bit I'll say to you: Nothing will ever be good enough for you. You have all your excuses lined up and keep at the same thing no matter what's said. This is why I think catering to the left is a fool's errand. They will never show up. Never have, and any conversation like this shows they never will. They will go after the center voter instead. Congrats on the biggest self own in history. Ciao.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Yes, I'm not ashamed to say that I think a party that backs a genocide, bombs children, and screws over it's voting base is not doing good enough. Especially when they seem to have plenty of time to help out the other party, and their corporate doners.

    They've had plenty of time and opportunity to fix plenty of things, but chose not to. You keep saying that they "only" had 2 years, but I saw them waste those years.

    You are also correct: I will never show up for a party that wants to bomb children, or picks a rapist as their candidate, or backs a genocide, or continuously caters to the rich instead of their voters. Why would I support a party that fights against what I want?

    edit: Also, when have the Democrats catered to the left? I see them consistently run to the right, but I usually only see them "cater to the left" verbally, on stage when they want votes. Once elected in, they immediately turn back to the right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Wow did I ever call it. No matter how much I point out what's delivered, you will ignore it. Ok I've pointed it 2 (3?) times and it'll be non ending. Out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I haven't ignored anything. They did a small handfull of good things, but they spent the majority of the time failing to deliver on easy wins.

    You spent a bunch of time pointing out why they haven't delivered. So which is it? Do they deliver? or do things keep them from delivering?

    From what I've seen, they've had plenty of chances, but mostly chose to throw them away to keep their doners and rich friends happy. Maybe you are happy with them, but it's clear that the voters are not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Wow ok last message to deal with the sheer bad faith, which that you even try to pull off in your last word game is incredible bad faith. I told you what they deliver while they have a majority, and why they obviously can't do anything when they don't have majority (in house of reps, Senate, and have the white house). That you try to hammer those together shows you with can't separate it yourself, or you're discussing in incredible bad faith. Ok I'm out, it'll be never ending whatever this is, like I already called.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    But they didn't deliver when they had the majority. I already pointed out the things that they didn't deliver on, and you keep ignoring them. I pointed out how they didn't deliver on the things you claimed, and you keep ignoring that as well. I always find it funny when Libs argue that others are arguing in bad faith, when they won't address the concerns brought up by others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent