109
Warren Lays Out How Democrats Can Deliver for the Working Class—Even With Trump in the White House (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 5 days ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 6 points 5 days ago (11 children)

So you "should" stop watching and call your own rep to demand they deliver.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 days ago (10 children)

    I think the inherent problem is that there is no real way to overturn a presidential veto without winning a super majority vote in Congress.

    Since Trump is termed out and is officially in his lame duck period, there's not a whole lot of leverage to force him to behave in any particular way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    “Now, Democrats must deliver,” the progressive senator wrote, urging her party to push Trump to live up to his vow to work with Democrats in the new Congress. “We should force him to do that on the affordability and corruption issues that drove this election—or call his bluff.”

    Warren is stating Democrats need to mandate the fuck up and pass the policies, that the American people want, send it on it's way to Trump and the Republicans and dare them to veto it.

    The fact that Trump will veto it or that the Republicans won't vote for the override don't matter to Warren and what we progressives have been saying this entire time. Just do it, show you are delivering, and then tell the story loud and proud that you pass the law and Republicans told the American people no, stop giving a fuck about what Republicans will do and just do you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago

    Just do it, show you are delivering, and then tell the story loud and proud that you pass the law and Republicans told the American people no, stop giving a fuck about what Republicans will do and just do you.

    Right.... But we're pretending that Democrats haven't attempted to do this in the past. The problem is that the constituents of the DNC actually hold their representatives accountable candidates the constituents of the RNC tend to not give a shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (7 children)

    There is plenty of leverage, the democrats refuse to play hardball. Idk how the democratic voters came to think they can't play hardball politics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (6 children)

    the democrats refuse to play hardball.

    What exactly would that entail? What kind of hard ball would effectively overturn or prevent an executive veto?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    For instance, relocating military bases in their state and moving them elsewhere. There are a lot of things they can do, the dems refuse to do them, the red states get more in fed taxes than they pay in, and the dem states are donor states, and our politicians don't change it back, it always ratchets to the repubs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (4 children)

    First of all, that would be insanely expensive. Secondly that's not going to prevent the executive from vetoing bills, it's not like trump actually cares about red states.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Reapportioning federal spending is indeed how to play politics. The republicans do it, and "our" democrats don't.

    Your refutation falls on deaf ears here, as if we had no levers to change the fact that blue states pay more in taxes, and red states get more than they pay, and the dems don't EVER even try to change it back.

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

    Reapportioning federal spending is indeed how to play politics. The republicans do it, and "our" democrats don't.

    Right, I never said that they shouldn't be more aggressive. Just that reapportioning spending doesn't affect veto powers.

    The simple fact is that the executive branch has allocated a lot of power over the last couple decades that the legislative branch will have a hard time countering even if they are acting in unison.

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

    The executive branch has been accumulating power long before a few decades back. All century if not sooner, and the feds have been accruing illegal power across the board. Interstate commerce is drawn so broad they have near unlimited authority. Prohibition for instance, not a fed power, that's reserved for the states barring intersate sales.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    The executive branch has been accumulating power long before a few decades back.

    Yes, but it's accelerated since the early 00s.

    All century if not sooner, and the feds have been accruing illegal power across the board

    I don't know if you could call it illegal, the supreme court kinda decides that.

    Interstate commerce is drawn so broad they have near unlimited authority.

    Are you talking about global trade......? Or is this some anti Federalist rhetoric?

    Prohibition for instance, not a fed power, that's reserved for the states barring interstate sales.

    Oh shit..... An actual anti-federalist argument being made in 2026. So rare to meat a person from the 1920s being able to use the Internet.

    Prohibition was legalized because it was made into a constitutional amendment and backed up by federal legislation. You could make an argument that it shouldn't have been done, but the supreme court at the time declared it was the law of the land.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent