I know El-Sayed said it as a joke but it’s been stuck in my head ever since. He really should introduce a Medicare for All plan and find someway to call it Trumpcare. I mean we’d all start calling it something else pretty quickly but fuckstick really wants a legacy and you know he’d sign anything with his name on it.

So, the enhanced credits were first born during Covid, during a budget reconciliation requiring a simple majority. They expired and weren’t renewed with the Big Beautiful Bill, also during a budget reconciliation requiring a simple majority. It would take at least four republican senators, counting our eggs MS and AK. We have like no midline republicans anymore, so divergence is highly unlikely. So we will probably have to wait till the next budget reconciliation.

Republicans really just spent two years doing nothing but tearing down what was painstakingly built in the previous administration.

Only the DNC can fumble this fucking hard.

Let's take the overwhelming goodwill and massive success and throw it in the dumpster by promising to return the exact conditions that got us here to begin with....

The voters didnt say medicare/medicaid subsidies. They said universal healthcare.

Yes, that’s what everyone wanted, a return to unaffordable for profit healthcare that only the upper class can access. Everyone douse your torches and cap your pitchforks, we can’t afford any accidents, and no one call for an ambulance, looks like we’re doubling down on wealth disparity because dem leadership is bought and paid for as usual.

Anyone who writes a story on this bullshit as a straight forward "dems fighting for you" puff piece is just as much of a public enemy as chuck and hakeem

uh huh. Sure they will. They will aim as low as they can and then fail to deliver on even that, with a small bit of theater. Thats all they are good for.

Notice how nobody talk about returning to the mou, the only thing that will end the war

Gridlock is better than the shit we have right now.

First thing the Dems need to do is bring in new leadership for House and Senate.

Hakeem and Chuck have long outlived their usefulness and will do more harm than good when it comes to pushing for what needs to be done in the future.

…and prosecuting the pedophile regime?

I doubt they’ll get anything past Trump.

It’s just gridlock for the next two years.

I think that there's a lot of potential routes to alter tariffs, if they want to make court fights out of things. Tariff setting is an enumerated power of Congress, not the President, and I think that there are good odds that SCOTUS will generally defer to Congress in a number of scenarios if there is a disagreement.

And more-broadly, a lot of what Trump has done has been in a situation where there is real question over whether he can do something without Congressional approval, but Congress hasn't actively objected to it. There are areas where even the Republican-controlled Congress hasn't signed off on things, like his ballroom, arch, AUMF in Iran, etc, but they haven't acted as a majority and taken issue with it.

You look at something like Goldwater v. Carter. There, Carter terminated a treaty when it was very questionable

though as yet unsettled in American constitutional case law

whether the President has the power to do so. Congress declined to take issue with it, and so it was essentially allowed to slide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

A majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument. Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist issued two separate concurring opinions on the case. Rehnquist claimed that the issue concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President, and was essentially political, not judicial; therefore, it was not eligible to be heard by the court. Powell, while agreeing that the case did not merit judicial review, believed that the issue itself, the powers of the President to break treaties without congressional approval, would have been arguable had Congress issued a formal opposition through a resolution to the termination of the treaty. (The Senate had drafted such a resolution, but had not voted upon it.[2]) This would have turned the case into a constitutional debate between the executive powers granted to the President and the legislative powers granted to Congress. As the case stood, however, it was simply a dispute among unsettled, competing political forces within the legislative and executive branches of government, and hence still political in nature due to the lack of majority or supermajority vote in the Senate speaking officially as a constitutional institution.

If Democrats want to establish case law establishing precedent limiting the Executive

and they may not, as in a non-Trump-in-the-White-House scenario, they might favor a strong Executive Branch

I'd guess that there are good arguments that in a number of cases, such as whether the President is using delegated tariff authority in the sense that Congress desires, a majority resolution from Congress of the sort that never happened in Goldwater v. Carter might change things.

Congress has the power to declare war; that's also an enumerated Congressional power. We haven't declared war as such since World War II, yet we have certainly engaged in things that would be considered war. But a lot of that is Congress being generally willing to let the President do something and just not object to it, or to attach themselves as little as possible to it. If Congress actually feels that the President is acting outside his authority on war without a declaration of war and doesn't like it and wants it to stop and is actively willing to take issue with it, I suspect that SCOTUS is also going to tend to grant discretion to Congress on the matter.

Trump's gotten a lot of mileage out of a Republican Congress simply being willing to let him do a number of things, or at least not actively oppose them. But to the extent that that window closes January 3, I think that he'll have to deal with some changes.

There are things that a Democratic Congress probably can't do. The President pretty much owns most foreign affairs, and if Trump wants to, he can keep calling Canada a 51st state or their prime minister a governor or threatening Greenland. That's pretty clearly in his scope of authority. There's nothing that a Democratic Congress can do about that, aside from applying indirect pressure using unrelated powers.

And if Trump wants to, he can veto laws unless Democrats can get some Republican legislators onboard. Generally, the US system is structured to favor maintaining the status quo.

But I think that there are a lot of things that a Democratic Congress can do or explore doing if it decides it wants to do so.

I think that a lot of what the Democratic Party is actually going to want to do is to stage-manage the next two years for a Democratic federal trifecta in 2028, which would let them do all sorts of things. But on policy over the next two years...I think that real things can happen there too.

Whoa what monumental goals! Restoring tax credits for healthcare to what they were a couple of years ago when healthcare was equally expensive and ending a war that's comprised of two sides occasionally lobbing bombs at one another every few weeks.

Nevermind all the corruption and crime coming out of the white house or all those people being illegally rounded up and locked in cages for being brown. Let's ignore the epstein files too. Let's also ignore the warrantless surveillance being conducted by Flock and Axon along with all the AI data centers going up along with them that siphon all our energy reserves away. Nope! Renewing tax credits to funnel tax dollars toward the medical industry is definitely our most pressing issue.

Don’t drag me into this!

About time the Dems should put in place more militant leadership instead of those two dimwits pandering to corpos and giving AIPAC the velvet glove treatment.

Just pass Medicare for All legislation and call it the Trump Saves America Act and the idiot won't be able to resist signing it no matter what is in it. Just give every bill a name that will appeal to our naked emperor. It's not like he actually reads any of the bills he signs.

House and Senate can override his vetos.

So prosecuting corrupt officials and eliminating the electoral college are what? Second? Just more of the same bullshit (I hope I am wrong, but I have seen the Democrats go from "radical change" to "now is not the time for radical change" too many times).

If they can send legislation which is popular to Trump for him to veto it, that sets the stage for a democratic president in 2 years to pass it then.

Love how the AP just pretends Hakeem Jeffries speaks for the Democratic party at this point without even questioning it a little bit

I'll hold my breath.

Or we could do those, release the files, start the trials, impeach the cabinet, expand SCOTUS, and kill the electoral college. Then start another list for week 2.

Raise income taxes on the top 1% to pay for it. Make it a minimum, mandatory tax.

I see them having lots of gridlock. Trump will veto everything they put forward and they don't have the supermajority to override his vetos.

I'm sorry but the gestapo are killing people in the streets, that war needs to take precedence.

So they’re not going to reverse project 2025, prosecute the Epstein pedophiles and jail all these criminals in the White House? Sign the petition to remove this clown Remove this traitor clown

Fuck all that. Trump/Epstein files before anything else complete and unredacted! Every branch and every party has promised these and the entire govement has failed!