a generation of young Republican staff members appears to be developing terminal white nationalist brain. And they will staff the next Republican administration.

  • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is nearly a complete non-sequitur to the comment you are responding to. If Biden laid it out like you have, said “look we’re in a bad position here, we need to compromise with the fascists even though they are wrong”, if he presented a strong platform with goals people could get excited about, and make it clear who and what are the obstacles voters have to overcome to get there, he could bring out the voters to get those overwhelming and consistent majorities. The same goes for every Democratic president you named. Instead, Biden is absolutely obstinate about it. He acts like the fascists are decent and reasonable people, like the only hope the left can have is to slow down the slide to the right, and like we’re the problem - not the Republicans, not the right-wing Democrats, no, the only problem is that some of us would like less murder and more food, housing, healthcare and education. That’s exactly why the Democrats have only had control for four of the last twenty-four years.

    And the filibuster isn’t real. It’s literally just a made up rule they all agree to pretend matters. It can be ended at any time by a simple majority. Doing so at the beginning of a session would look more legitimate, but frankly, the so-called “nuclear option” is far more legitimate in itself than the routine abusive use of the filibuster. They choose to let it restrain them specifically so that they can blame inaction on it.

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s not a non-sequitur. It’s exactly why they compromise in Congress. They never have control so to do basic things like pass a budget they need to compromise. It’s literally why they compromise.

      What you’re doing is closer a non-sequitur by ? demanding that Biden saying they have to compromise? And by saying ? he’s not getting people excited? Like talk about a non-response just so you can say “bring out voters” (like Fox doesn’t exist) and “obstinate” and a whole bunch of other insinuations. And so you can try to turn it around and blame Dems. It’s so twisted around there’s not much responding to it.

      And wow you think the filibuster isn’t real. Well I think that say it all.

      • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Your comment was, as I stated, nearly non-sequitur because you only responded to one word of the first sentence of givesomefucks’ comment:

        I wish the Dem party compromised as much with Dem voters as they did with trump supporters.

        You responded to the word “compromised”. You responded as if you were responding to a general senseless rant against the very idea of compromise at all, a position which is not even present in that first sentence, and has nothing to do with the rest of their comment, or the overall point they were making about the belligerent and dismissive attitude Biden takes toward Democratic voters, and what different approach would actually win elections - I’ll quote the rest so you don’t have to scroll back:

        That’s the best way to get Biden the votes necessary to prevent Trump.

        Not the current strategy of:

        Fuck you, you’ll vote for me or get the fascist again

        Like, this should be an easy victory for any halfway decent candidate. Instead we get an 82 year old that won’t stop shit talking his party’s voter base for not wanting to fund a genocide rather than social services.

        In my comment, I attempted to clarify and expound on what would work, what they are actually doing, and the great gulf between these, trying to bring it back to givesomefucks’ actual comment, rather than what you imagined to respond to. Instead, you’ve responded, again, to a comment not actually made - accusing me of somehow “demanding” something. Where did I demand anything?

        And yeah, the filibuster isn’t real. A simple majority of the Senate can pass anything they want. They can drop the filibuster as a rule; they can carve out a general exception; they can even just choose to suspend it for that single piece of legislation. If a simple majority can pass any legislation they want, given that they actually choose to, then the filibuster is absolutely not real. It’s smoke and mirrors so they can blame the other guys. In fact, it’s probably not even constitutional - there’s no constitutional support for it, and the founders were explicitly against including any kind of supermajority requirement.