Yes it’s quite the collection of ultra-complex confusing and incomprehensible mysteries

Covid is way worse than a cold

Hmmm, the nice old guy or the nasty old guy, so hard to choose! If only there were some difference between them to help me decide.

See they have to blame the Dems for shit the Republicans did because otherwise someone might ask who let the Republicans get into office to do it in the first place.

B b b biden bad!1!

June 25th 2022

Joe Manchin is a coal baron pretending to be a Democrat and Kristen Sinema was bought by corporate interests. So Republicans unofficially controlled the Senate. This same bullshit gets trotted out every election.

The Senate is stacked against Democrats because it favors low population states. On top of that, there is a filibuster rule that makes most things take 60 votes to get passed. To get anything done, senators have to get rid of the filibuster for whatever they are trying to do, which requires a majority.

Democrats would much rather run on having codifying Roe v Wade. But their party is controlled by and full of neo-liberals who cling to institutional norms to their own detriment. There is not a conspiracy, just minority rule baked into our democracy, and ineffectual and flawed neo-liberal ideology entrenched in the minds of Democrats. edit: typo

Democrats are never going to codify Roe. Want to know how I know? Because on June 25th 2022 they controlled the presidency, the senate, and the house and Roe still isn't codified.

Firstly, the former is not a function of the latter. So it’s not so much “you know” as “making up a reason”.

Secondly, passing a federal law is not like getting a Coke from the vending machine.

Thirdly, this is a common strawman argument to pretend Democrats deliberately don’t care about liberal causes and it’s bullshit. A right-wing talking point. “Clinton had people murdered y’know.” Like that.

Fourthly - yeah, what they said.

What if the yanks had more than 2 parties

We're often lucky to have more than one party. States like Texas and Florida are so heavily gerrymandered that supermajorities for the prevailing party are practically assured. The Dems form a rump of opposition in these states, while Greens and Libertarians are barely an afterthought.

i know that other parties can exist but they dont do really anything.

Constituencies in Europe are significantly smaller and more regionally distinct. Hard to have a Scottish New Labor Party or a French Polynesia Party when our states are dominated by constituencies that moved in barely a generation ago. By all rights we should have a "Texas Party" and a "California Party". But its worth noting that the modern Texas GOP was built up practically brick-by-brick through George HW Bush and the Standard Oil company, originally based out in NY/NJ/CT. Dallas, Houston, and Austin are dominated by families of east coast Republicans who came spilling in during the 80s/90.

We should probably have a "Christian Democrats" party or a "Tea Party" properly, but the major religious and ideological leaders of the past were fully wedded to the existing post-WW2 partisan establishment. The closest we ever really had to a break-away party in the last half-century was the Jim Crow Segregationists under George Wallace. And that fell apart in the face of Nixon's Southern Strategy simply gobbling up all the Dixiecrats and turning them into modern day Republicans.

Technically we do, but only the Republicans and Democrats are ever given attention in the media so they're the only two parties most people know about before seeing the other options on the ballot. Add to that you get guys like Vermin Supreme as alternative choices, which if you don't know anything about them makes them look even crazier than the two big douchebags you do know about.

What if the yanks had more than 2 parties, maybe it would be great. Before anyone says anything, yes i know that other parties can exist but they dont do really anything.

That's because the Electoral College says other parties, who will necessarily not get as many votes as the other two, will not get any electoral votes. Most states are winner-take-all. As far as Presidential elections go, that's why there's never a third party winner.

Locally, you're likely to find "Independent" candidates who run without financial support from one of the two flavors of political soda, and occasionally other political organizations as well. Locally (city government, school board, etc.) it's possible. But nationally no party has had the reach or interest from voters to overcome the hurdles to federal election. Many have tried.

A vocal minority of "pro-life" Dems were openly hostile to enshrining abortion rights into law under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. Then a handful of "pro-life" Dem Senators killed an attempt to codify the tenants of Roe v Wade into law in 2017. Finally, the current President has refused any effort to add more justices to the SCOTUS in order to marginalize the sitting Conservative Catholic Califate dominating the branch.

So, on at least three notable occasions, yes. Dems have run away from abortion rights as an issue, while winking at their constituents and whispering "We're the only ones who will protect you."

No. Republicans control the House. Democrats cannot pass a bill without their support.

I don’t mean to be a jerk, but why don’t you know that?

Democrats have had tons of opportunities to make sure republicans could not remove them.

No. It wasn't the legislature or the executive that removed those rights, it was the supreme court, stuffed with conservatives by the republicans.

Make all the SCOTUS judges 4 years older and those senators that belive in the sanctity of the filibuster 4 years older.

I mean maybe, but there's a long history of political comics going back centuries and I think it's a good fit for the Progressive Politics community.