you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 2 months ago (56 children)

they’re not wrong.

Why can Republicans govern with a slim majority while Democrats consistently need a supermajority?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    Republicans historically do not fucking govern. They give tax cuts to the oligarchs and otherwise have a concept of a plan in two weeks. They lie and lie and lie. They are the ones pushing the "gummit is borken" lie - and making sure it appears to be true.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Because they also have the office of the president.

    Currently anyway.

    If one party controls both houses of congress and the president and has a sympathetic Supreme Court majority they can do a lot more than if they only have one or 2 of those things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

    Because they also have the office of the president.

    "We need a supermajority" was a response Democrats gave in 2009 and 2021.

    If one party controls both houses of congress and the president

    Did Republicans pass legislation they supported between 2011 and 2017 5? Did they pass legislation they supported between 2023 and 2025?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

    So here’s some basics on how the American government works.

    The house can pass a bill with a simple majority.

    So can the senate. In the event of a tie, the vice president casts the tie breaking vote.

    However, the senate rules are such that in order to get to a vote you need vote to close debate, which takes 60 votes.

    There are exceptions to the 60 vote rule using what’s called budget reconciliation. Matters pertaining just to budgetary items can bypass the 60 vote threshold and be voted on by a simple majority. These items must be cleared with the senate parliamentarian.

    Once a bill has passed both the senate and the house, the president can either sign it or just wait 10 days and do nothing, at which point that bill becomes a law. He can also veto the bills at which point it gets sent back to both the house and senate which can override his veto with a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate.

    If you want to pass a bill over the objections of the president you need two thirds of both the senate and house to agree to do it. If you want to get a bill through the senate that goes beyond budget reconciliation you need 60 senate votes.

    When people talk about a supermajority they may be referring to the 60 votes needed to pass unrestricted bills in the senate, which the democrats had in 2008-2010 when they got Obamacare passed. Or if they are talking about overriding a veto they may be talking about the 2/3 of the votes you’d need in the house AND senate.

    I’m not interested in debating who said what about what when, it just seemed like some people were unaware of the actual rules of how the US federal government functions and hoped to clear that up. If you have any questions about how that stuff works I’m happy to address it with the best of my knowledge. But I have no interest in actually debating politics online.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    So here’s some basics on how the American government works.

    None of this seems to apply when a Republican is in office

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    All of this applies. It’s why republicans were able to pass tax cuts via reconciliation but not the SAVE act. They would have needed to change the filibuster rule and they couldn’t get the 50 votes needed to do it.

    If you want to make long term changes to this country you need to control both houses of congress and the presidency. 2026 elections can change the former but not the latter. Which means dems will be able to stop the insanity but they’re not going to be able to make major changes until they can overcome the veto power. They need to have a democratic president.

    Look, I’m sure you’re passionate about change and want to make a difference, but if you’re not going to get your facts straight and just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you with pithy comments then you’re never going to get enough people on your side to do that. Not enough people will take you seriously and you’ll just end up being spoiler votes that keep people like Trump in power.

    This will be my last post in this thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Because the Republicans break laws and get sympathetic judges to cover it up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago (40 children)

    The democratic party accomplished all of its goals during the biden administration: they sold weapons for genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (16 children)

    Petty concessions do not obscure the overt imperialist oppression.

    "I don't care about the fact we support genocide so long as I get better quality of life."

    What a fucked mentality. Go find your solidarity with the oppressed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    He doesn't care about quality of life as long as he gets his genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    You don't care who wins as long as anti-genocide candidates aren't on the ballot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (11 children)

    Abuse: for when centrists can't defend their only policy.

    You need to update your script. Criticizing biden isn't helping trump win. The election is over and genocide won like you want in all cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    You literally said I was helping trump win by criticizing the genocidal shit you worship after the election was over.

    I don't believe for an instant that there is anything in this world that you want but the extinction of the Palestinian people.

    Your "take your meds" gaslighting is what you use instead of actual arguments because your position is indefensible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    I’m arguing for preventing harm and saving lives

    It's neat how "preventing harm" always involves letting through the harm centrists want.

    not discouraging others who are trying to rally support for the better candidates, etc.

    There is no "better" when both available candidates support genocide. There's only "worst" and "second worst."

    You have decided no other approach than yours is acceptable

    Genocide is unacceptable. Not to you, though.

    and therefore everybody who makes you feel uncomfortable must be genocidal murderers.

    Not everyone is comforted by genocide like you.

    But the problem is that feeling of discomfort is caused by your own failure to understand the world.

    I understand it fine. My opposition to the only thing you stand for, have ever stood for, or will ever stand for is not a lack of understanding.

    Go delete your account, that’s the fastest way you can improve the world right now.

    Telling me to kill myself in veiled language so it's acceptable to the moderation team. Neat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Who the fuck is giving centrists what they want here?

    You're sinking the candidates who oppose genocide and then you fucking brag when things get worse "because at least I'M not responsible" when you share responsibility for giving Trump a chance to make it worse

    Well I'm sorry for understanding how the world works!

    You saw the deaths increase under Trump and feel comforted that the deaths have an (R) label.

    You told yourself that means you're against genocide. Newsflash, it's not. When you take actions that increase deaths while knowing your action will increase deaths, you're pro-death.

    And you knew, because you were told.

    That means the good conscience you have right now was comforted by your own actions contributing to genocide. You're just pretending you have no responsibility for it, again, because they have a different label.

    By insisting you oppose everything I stand for, you're declaring alignment with fucking Trump.

    You're fucking hallucinating. You can't accept you're wrong so everybody who calls you out must be evil. You can't imagine a rational compassionate person would want to act different than you, so they must be lying. Anybody telling you to stop must be a hateful person wanting you dead. And you feel comfortable lying about them in response because you're a fucking tribalist little shit that examplifies the horseshoe theory, you hold the exact same beliefs as MAGA types but with some fake leftist label on it. You think your actions are good by definition because you took them and my actions are bad by definition because I'm not in your tribe. That makes you a piece of shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    wrong flavor of progressive

    This asshole is calling genocide progressive.

    I probably criticized the support for Israel earlier than you and more vocally than you.

    And he's going around claiming Biden and Harris were anti genocide, and flat out lying about casualty numbers to defend them.

    insufficiently pure Democrat

    Genocide is sufficiently pure to him.

    And your purity check isn't even about their real actions and words

    Says the genocide apologist claiming Biden and Harris were anti genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    This asshole is defending Trump's genocide and blaming me for trying to stop it, because my flavor of stopping it is wrong

    https://www.military.com/trump-administration-israel-planning-28-billion-sale-of-2000-pound-bombs

    This is the future you wanted. More bombs to israel, it's what YOU were told would happen AND YOU WANTED THIS

    This is on you, not me. You're a hypocrite, liar, and insecure enough to lash out just from being told your approach is wrong. You have literally no justification whatsoever for believing I "support genocide", it's entirely exclusively based on you feeling uncomfortably with being called out so you have to frame me as a bad guy.

    WHO THE FUCK MADE NETANYAHU MAD? NOT TRUMP

    Netanyahu was outraged at Biden putting pressure on him and happy Trump won, extremely happy that Trump FUCKING JOINED HIM IN WAR AGAINST IRAN

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    I'm Palestinian. Israel stole my Homeland and I'm no longer allowed to go there. I've lost family in the nakba, I've lost family fighting in the Palestinian/Jordanian military fighting Israel, and I've lost family in the recent genocide. Biden's genocide that Trump is continuing.

    Fuck all these psychopaths that want to pretend Biden was against the genocided when to this day his short period of overseeing it still caused the vast majority of killing, destruction, racist rhetoric, and ethnic cleansing, just because they want to go back to the status quo of ethnic cleansing Palestine while having domestic stability.

    I have not once, not ever, defended Trump. This ghoul keeps bending reality to defend Biden. He deserves all the pain and suffering Trump brings him, and we (Palestinians) consider him the same as any Zionist, because their end goal is the same. Let us all die or become refugees, as long as they don't hear about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    People hate when you say it, but the Democratic Party is Controlled Opposition.

    A bunch of them are just paid to lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (19 children)

    "A bunch" is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh... I'm sure there's one more.

    It's easier to stop things than to pass things. You'll notice Republicans aren't getting a lot done right now, exactly. At least not through Congress.

    They're doing so many blatantly illegal things, largely with the blessing of the DoJ and the Supreme Court. But they can't get the SAVE Act through to stop us from voting.

    It turns out every bit matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    “A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh…

    If you can't name more than two Senators... Jesus, dude. Maybe start with Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez. Ritchie Torres. Elissa Slotkin. Eric Swalwell. Josh Gottheimer. Do I really need to make you the full list?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Whenever there is a democratic majority, just enough Democrats will turn to make any actual change impossible, like a public option with Obama. Or when the blue dog Democrats fucked healthcare reform under Clinton. It's happened every time and will continue to happen because the ratchet effect is a feature that always ends in facism and oligarchy, which is where you make your real money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Biden got more progressive change through

    He did not. He got more "bipartisan" changes, and we've lowered the bar for what that means

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Kutter points out that “Joe Biden is the first president in recent memory to press for significantly higher taxes on the very rich.”

    Individual tax rates did not change under Biden

    This couple with the tangible benefits provided through his America Recovery Act, the Building Back Better Initiative and Infrastructure Investment Act; could help Democrats in 2024 among swing voters

    None of these were progressive. They were all tax benefits and grants to big business, specifically in the tech industry. And these businesses were largely aligned with the Trump coalition.

    Also, Jesus Christ, please include a "Jump to Recipe" on this article so I can find your points without an hour of scrolling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Biden is only progressive to those who consider genocide to be progress.

    You support absolutely nothing but genocide and that will never change.

    Like every last centrist.

    Now bring the gaslighting and abuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The ratchet effect is real, but it's because when the Dems have a majority they're relying on West Virginia. Republicans kiss the ring or they're kicked from politics, just look at Ted Cruz.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    when the Dems have a majority they’re relying on West Virginia

    They're relying on a billionaire scion of a coal dynasty. Plenty of working class labor friendly people in WV. But the Dem Senate committee won't touch any of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    Jeffries, Schumer, Pelosi, Kaine, Booker… pretty much anyone not in the squad or otherwise on the AIPAC tiddy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    As far as you're concerned, their biggest crime is not supporting genocide even harder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    can you read I'm not American and have no dog in this fight apart from not wanting the USA to fuck the world worse than currently, but they literally mentioned genocide/Israel being their biggest crime

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Republicans are willing to use blatantly illegal tactics and control enough courts to make a mess, you know the whole "it's easier to break things" part.

    Democrats need a supermajority, then they need the courage to invoke 14A3 disqualification backdated to at least J6 and declare everything the admin did legally null and void. Make every Republican politician personally legally liable for everything, all the theft and destruction, as the immunity of the political positions gets fully erased.

    That's the only fast way to fix things. Anything less will mean it's going to drag out for decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago

    Executive Summary

    The evidence shows multiple plausible answers depending on how one defines “dominate.” Recent sources most commonly point to the Democrats’ control of both chambers during the 117th Congress (January 3, 2021–January 3, 2023) as the last time they held unified congressional control, while earlier notable periods include the 111th Congress (2009–2011) and historically larger majorities like the 89th Congress after 1964. The statement therefore requires clarification of terms—“dominate” can mean simple majority, large supermajority, or sustained multi-decade control—to be answered precisely

    https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/when-did-democrats-last-dominate-congress-1833b0

    Contemporary records and syntheses within the provided analyses indicate the 117th Congress (Jan 3, 2021–Jan 3, 2023) as the latest period when Democrats held both chambers, with a House majority and a Senate majority realized through a 50–50 split and the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote. This configuration coincided with the Biden administration and enabled the Democratic leadership to pass key legislation during early 2021, illustrating functional control despite narrow margins. Reliable repositories of congressional composition and institutional histories corroborate this timing as the most recent instance of unified party control in Congress cited across multiple analyses, making the 117th the default answer when “dominate” is used to mean holding both chambers —————————————————-

    That was after the republicans facilitated a global pandemic. The time before that was after the republicans destroyed the global economy. The time before that was before most of you were born: —————————————————————

    3. Earlier high-water marks: 111th Congress and the 1964 landslide

    If “dominate” implies a more comfortable majority or a legislative supermajority enabling broad agenda-setting, earlier periods fit better. The 111th Congress (2009–2011) provided Democrats with substantial House and Senate margins that facilitated major policy initiatives during the Obama administration, and analyses explicitly call this a recent example of decisive Democratic control [4]. Going further back, the 89th Congress following the 1964 electiondelivered the largest Democratic majorities since the New Deal era, enabling the passage of transformative legislation associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s agenda. Historical accounts position the 1964–1965 period as a classic instance of one-party dominance in Congress, distinct from the narrow 2021–2023 control

  • source
  • parent