1003
Still Got It
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
1003 points (100.0% liked)
Progressive Politics
1035 readers
320 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Biden has been president almost as long as Trump has, yet when Trump was president, we apparently were moved from merely doing okay (after EIGHT years of Obama) to being on the brink of a fascist takeover. Meanwhile within almost the same span of time under Biden, things haven't noticeably improved. I'm not asking for a time machine, I'm just saying that you need to judge a person by their actions. For the vast majority of Biden's career, he's been milquetoast or outright harmful. What makes you think he has completely reversed his ways just by becoming president?
If you're serious about wanting to fight fascism, you're going to have to fight much more aggressively than how Biden is now, who isn't really fighting at all, just being "not Trump" (but still like Trump in some aspects, like continuing his trade war with China). On the topic of this post, Obama had two years to protect reproductive rights, he even said, while he was campaigning, that he would sign the legislation within the first 100 days in office, but he did not.
A reminder that the bill isn't new: "The bill was introduced to the Congress in 1989, 1993,[2] 2004[3] and 2007 (H.R. 1964/S. 1173)." Given such repeated actions of pretending to push for something but then not doing it when they have the power, what makes you think democrats are willing to actually push for more permanent solutions when they can just keep using such issues as a political bargaining chip?
Ok lots to cover here.
First: is that Dems need all 3 houses (house of representatives, senate, and presidency) to accomplish much of anything. Progress on the left requires actual work. You know things actually pass. That means you need all three of House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency.
The right: They don't need to actually do any work. They don't need to actually pass much. They can just sit on their ass and block things. This is partly how they stacked the court, they blocked Obama's Supreme court appointment (only requires senate to block, and they were gleeful to do so) and then got their own pick under Trump.
The most the GOP wants to do is repeal what was already passed, and give tax breaks. It takes fuck all effort to do that. They get one house and they can demand tax breaks or they shut down the government. Or they try to repeal the ACA. They didn't write a well thought out replacement which would have required actual work and thought. All they want to do is repeal. It takes fuck all effort to do that.
Progress requires actual effort, work, and time. Stagnation (or regression) requires next to nothing. Don't overlook this concept.
Second: How long did Obama have all 3? Obama had that for two years. Should I all caps that since you all caps eight? Sure: Obama had all 3 for TWO years.
On to Biden. How long did Biden have all 3? He had it for 2 years.
Add that up. Dems have had all 3 for 4 years of the last 24 years. Read that again, they have had control for 4 years out of the last 24 fucking years. Should I all caps that? Sure: FOUR years out of the last 24 years.
Want to add Bill Clinton? Sure. Then it goes to 6 years out of the last 32 years.
Want to add Bush senior and reagan? Sure. Then it goes to 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years.
And that can still be filibustered. Want to discuss filibuster proof majority? Obama had that for 4 months. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS.
Ok third I guess. Obama's 4 MONTH period to do things. He spent all the political capital and time on healthcare ACA. Spend time on the new thing progressive item that desperately needs to be done, that the country really, really needs. Or essentially back up what was already ruled a constitutional right. Hmmm. Hmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I barely blame him for tackling the new pressing item that had not been done before.
Again, Obama having all 3 for two years means he should've been able to sign a bill for reproductive rights like he said he would in the first 100 days of his term. Last time I checked, 100 days is less than two years. I'm not buying the "it's easier to stagnate or regress" point when democrats don't put much effort into blocking republicans. Also, things like not supporting genocide, which should be an easy win and is as simple as not sending weapons and funding, has instead a ton of effort put in by Biden and team to push through weapons and funding while running a PR campaign pretending they're doing anything for Palestinians while also forcefully shutting down protests.
Democrats could've nuked the filibuster, but they didn't, because they don't want to actually fight things. They like it when they're blocked because they can pretend they're trying without the threat (to their donors) of having to actually do something. That's why magically whenever democrats get a majority, they have one or two senators turn around and block their efforts. Democrats actively fund the campaigns of such senators while primarying actually progressive candidates.
It would have been filibustered. So no he didn't have 2 years, he had 4 MONTHS. Just carrying on your all caps. He spent it on Healthcare.
You could say they could get rid of the filibuster, and yeah the desire to keep it now is strange. But back then Obama wanted to unify, and get the country back on track, and work together, and all the jazz hands things. He was not keen on overthrowing long established processes (imagine the conspiracy theories if he had, they were bad with him just jazz hands). He wanted to work together because he had another 6 years to go and likely wouldn't have all 3 for those 6 years. So he wanted to come off as reasonable and could be worked with and all that. I barely blame him for that. Who knew that the GOP's heads would explode and they would become obstructionist to that extent.
GOP by and large doesn't have much legislation they actually want to pass. So there's very little to block. This is the nature of it.
Here's an old conversation I had (part of which I used but makes more sense in full).
What the GOP wants is lack of progress. They want to hit the big giant pause button on society. They want to block progress from happening. That's why the GOP benefits more from blocking things. What the Dems want is actual progress - new bills, new laws, new measures. That requires legislation to actually pass. So no, it doesn't work the same both ways.
The most the GOP wants to do is repeal what was already passed, and give tax breaks. It takes fuck all effort to do that. They get one house and they can demand tax breaks or they shut down the government. Or they try to repeal the ACA. They didn't write a well thought out replacement lol, all they want to do is repeal.
To actually write and pass progressive legislation takes a ton of actual work, effort, support, and time. And all 3 houses to pass it.
Ok Israel.
The funny thing (that I see) with Israel is that support for Israel is a generational thing. Guess what generation Biden is in.
Want a new generation in office? Guess how we do that? By voting for the left. Because when they lose they both go to the center and run their old candidates with their supposed wisdom and ability to win and all that. Want progress? Show them that it's safe to go left and that they won't lose when they do. (Is this where you say but Hillary? Then I say Obama lost the house in years 3 and 4. And again lost the house in years 5 and 6. And lost both the house and senate in years 7 and 8. No wonder the party thought they needed to be moderate to get voters. The thanks the party got for the ACA was immediately losing the house of reps.)