El-Sayed for President!
When apparently you can just rename everything America and after yourself at whim as President, the never-ending excuses for getting nothing done during Democratic presidential administrations will not cut it for me this time.
also a supermajority dem had problems, they had too many DINOs in the party.
We need to organize twelve million Americans under a common manifesto.
If the Democrats don’t take power in 2029 (both houses of the legislature and the executive), if they fail to move quickly, overhauling SCOTUS and ironcladding elections to stop tampering and voter suppression cold, then the US public needs to occupy Washington by multiple millions with a list of demands.
Or general strike.
Or riot in multiple municipal areas hard enough to overwhelm responders.
Or go on a billionaire assassination spree.
If we cannot do that, then we’re all going to be packed onto the cattle cars. Not necessarily all together, but the US will fall to one-party autocracy.
US Dictatorship by 2033 is on the BINGO card.
The real trick: Republicans know their best shot of winning elections is to energize their base with “Democrats are going to destroy the country so you must go vote” while at the same time promoting the narrative “Democrats won’t do anything so you should bother voting” to de-energize the opposition.
It’s a very very obvious strategy being deployed here.
But go on and pretend you’re an edgy contrarian while spreading the exact narrative the fascists want you to spread.
This one is actually encouraging people to get involved and put in the work to fix the party. It isn’t like all the other posts I’ve seen that seem designed to discourage people from voting.
None of it discourages people from voting. Y’all are wilin out.
Vote for the lesser of two evils, but don’t tell me to stop calling them evil. They are. It’s disingenuous.
I’m starting to think you folk are the ones getting paid to squash talk of reforming the party. You on payroll for a corporate dem?
Or maybe calling everyone who disagrees with me a paid shill is idiotic. But hey, you all started it.
Conservatives will always be organized by bigotry and greed, which coincidentally are the things you need to be rich.
Dems fight over party ideals and nitpick each other to death.
In the primaries, be nitpicky. In the election, vote the guy who wont endanger millions of your neighbors and friends. Vote the guy who wont stuff money in billionaire pockets. Even if theyre pandering, a blue conservative is better than a red one.
My favorite Mamdani quote:
“For far too long, our party has seen its job as managing decline instead of delivering material change for working people,” Mamdani said at a rally headlined by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “It has seen its job as explaining why we cannot instead of showing how we can”
The Corpo-Establishment, MAGA Lite Dems are going to try to be losers again, but the new DemSocs aren’t going to allow it, and more importantly, neither are we. They will do their jobs this time, or they will be treated as harshly as MAGAs.
If they try to sandbag the next Dem administration again, in another transparent attempt to hand it back to the MAGAs, then they will be treated the same as MAGAs, and end up in prison or at the end a rope.
We’re nearly as fed up with Dems as we are with MAGAs, and it starts with Schmuck & Jeffries. They are the first to go, to make way for real Democratic Leadership, and not just Manchurian MAGAs.
Lol I already said a year ago that even if they gain a supermajority, they’ll still somehow fail to successfully impeach Trump.
For the third time.
I got the notion of this a long time ago. I mean like Obama expanding the Patriot Act. Like thanks for doing what I voted for you not to do. The opposite of progress is Congress. And there’s a whole lot of Cons.
I’ll be the first one to say that the current Democratic party needs replacing, but they’re not wrong.
Or did everyone forget that you need a supermajority in the Senate to get past the Presidential veto?
Is anyone truly naive enough to think that Donald Trump would sign anything the Democrats put forward? The man who told Republicans to tank legislation with things they wanted in it to avoid giving Democrats a win?
Unless you’re advocating for a revolution, you have to work within the system. And it’s not the Democrats fault that is easier to break a thing than to fix it.
It’s always easy to point out a problem. Solutions are what we need, and all this kind of post does is discourage left-leaning people from voting, which is what the Republicans want.
So unless you have something resembling an actual solution, this just seems like virtue signaling to me.
I will say that there’s immense value in symbolism, performative values, and simply being caught trying by voters. Yes the President will veto anything good, but fucking make him do it. Go on social media and the talk shows to rip him a new one for all of the good things that he’s actively preventing. Move the Overton Window. Change the terms of the public discourse.
Governing long ago moved beyond mere parliamentary procedure; it also needs to be a show that the people in the cheap seats (a.k.a. low-information voters) can watch.
Careful, that almost sounds like something a competent opposition party would do.
they’re not wrong.
Why can Republicans govern with a slim majority while Democrats consistently need a supermajority?
The democratic party accomplished all of its goals during the biden administration: they sold weapons for genocide.
People hate when you say it, but the Democratic Party is Controlled Opposition.
A bunch of them are just paid to lose.
“A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh… I’m sure there’s one more.
It’s easier to stop things than to pass things. You’ll notice Republicans aren’t getting a lot done right now, exactly. At least not through Congress.
They’re doing so many blatantly illegal things, largely with the blessing of the DoJ and the Supreme Court. But they can’t get the SAVE Act through to stop us from voting.
It turns out every bit matters.
“A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh…
If you can’t name more than two Senators… Jesus, dude. Maybe start with Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez. Ritchie Torres. Elissa Slotkin. Eric Swalwell. Josh Gottheimer. Do I really need to make you the full list?
Whenever there is a democratic majority, just enough Democrats will turn to make any actual change impossible, like a public option with Obama. Or when the blue dog Democrats fucked healthcare reform under Clinton. It’s happened every time and will continue to happen because the ratchet effect is a feature that always ends in facism and oligarchy, which is where you make your real money.
The ratchet effect is real, but it’s because when the Dems have a majority they’re relying on West Virginia. Republicans kiss the ring or they’re kicked from politics, just look at Ted Cruz.
Because they also have the office of the president.
Currently anyway.
If one party controls both houses of congress and the president and has a sympathetic Supreme Court majority they can do a lot more than if they only have one or 2 of those things.
Because they also have the office of the president.
“We need a supermajority” was a response Democrats gave in 2009 and 2021.
If one party controls both houses of congress and the president
Did Republicans pass legislation they supported between 2011 and 201
75? Did they pass legislation they supported between 2023 and 2025?So here’s some basics on how the American government works.
The house can pass a bill with a simple majority.
So can the senate. In the event of a tie, the vice president casts the tie breaking vote.
However, the senate rules are such that in order to get to a vote you need vote to close debate, which takes 60 votes.
There are exceptions to the 60 vote rule using what’s called budget reconciliation. Matters pertaining just to budgetary items can bypass the 60 vote threshold and be voted on by a simple majority. These items must be cleared with the senate parliamentarian.
Once a bill has passed both the senate and the house, the president can either sign it or just wait 10 days and do nothing, at which point that bill becomes a law. He can also veto the bills at which point it gets sent back to both the house and senate which can override his veto with a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate.
If you want to pass a bill over the objections of the president you need two thirds of both the senate and house to agree to do it. If you want to get a bill through the senate that goes beyond budget reconciliation you need 60 senate votes.
When people talk about a supermajority they may be referring to the 60 votes needed to pass unrestricted bills in the senate, which the democrats had in 2008-2010 when they got Obamacare passed. Or if they are talking about overriding a veto they may be talking about the 2/3 of the votes you’d need in the house AND senate.
I’m not interested in debating who said what about what when, it just seemed like some people were unaware of the actual rules of how the US federal government functions and hoped to clear that up. If you have any questions about how that stuff works I’m happy to address it with the best of my knowledge. But I have no interest in actually debating politics online.
So here’s some basics on how the American government works.
None of this seems to apply when a Republican is in office
Republicans historically do not fucking govern. They give tax cuts to the oligarchs and otherwise have a concept of a plan in two weeks. They lie and lie and lie. They are the ones pushing the “gummit is borken” lie - and making sure it appears to be true.
Probably because the Rs are more loyal overall.
Executive Summary
The evidence shows multiple plausible answers depending on how one defines “dominate.” Recent sources most commonly point to the Democrats’ control of both chambers during the 117th Congress (January 3, 2021–January 3, 2023) as the last time they held unified congressional control, while earlier notable periods include the 111th Congress (2009–2011) and historically larger majorities like the 89th Congress after 1964. The statement therefore requires clarification of terms—“dominate” can mean simple majority, large supermajority, or sustained multi-decade control—to be answered precisely
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/when-did-democrats-last-dominate-congress-1833b0
Contemporary records and syntheses within the provided analyses indicate the 117th Congress (Jan 3, 2021–Jan 3, 2023) as the latest period when Democrats held both chambers, with a House majority and a Senate majority realized through a 50–50 split and the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote. This configuration coincided with the Biden administration and enabled the Democratic leadership to pass key legislation during early 2021, illustrating functional control despite narrow margins. Reliable repositories of congressional composition and institutional histories corroborate this timing as the most recent instance of unified party control in Congress cited across multiple analyses, making the 117th the default answer when “dominate” is used to mean holding both chambers —————————————————-
That was after the republicans facilitated a global pandemic. The time before that was after the republicans destroyed the global economy. The time before that was before most of you were born: —————————————————————
3. Earlier high-water marks: 111th Congress and the 1964 landslide
If “dominate” implies a more comfortable majority or a legislative supermajority enabling broad agenda-setting, earlier periods fit better. The 111th Congress (2009–2011) provided Democrats with substantial House and Senate margins that facilitated major policy initiatives during the Obama administration, and analyses explicitly call this a recent example of decisive Democratic control [4]. Going further back, the 89th Congress following the 1964 electiondelivered the largest Democratic majorities since the New Deal era, enabling the passage of transformative legislation associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s agenda. Historical accounts position the 1964–1965 period as a classic instance of one-party dominance in Congress, distinct from the narrow 2021–2023 control
I don’t think that OP is expecting Democrats or Progressives to get things through the Trump administration without a supermajority that can override his veto. What we are hoping for/expecting is that Democrats and Progressives to say “Fuck you, we’re passing this bill and sending it on.”
Medicare for All? “Fuck you we’re passing this bill, veto it motherfucker!”. Taxing rich people? “Fuck you we’re passing this bill, veto this PDF”. Repealing the Medicare cuts? “Hey, asshole, we passed it, oh and go fuck yourselves”. Repeal the procedural filibuster? “Fuck it, we’ll do it live!”. Impeachment? “Hey, it’s Tuesday, this asshole just did something unbecoming of the office, guess it’s time to have another impeachment hearing, oh and fuck you, that’s why.”
Just try instead of rolling over on day one, what we’re asking for even if you know it’s destined to fail and show that you’re willing to do the work. Back your shit up with actions instead of just words of “Well it’ll never pass so we’ll never try”. Say what you will about Republicans, when they get in power, they do not give a fuck and will introduce every bad idea in their head and dare the President to veto it and that’s why their base votes for them consistently.
That’s what OP I think is asking people to remember.
The thing is that many people are looking too short-sightedly for the internal (non-revolution-like) reform path. The goal for change is 2028, but change in 2028 can’t get off the ground running, if a 2026 sweep doesn’t. (I wish you had a Westminster system with no-confidence votes, but alas).
What Congress can do is to compel Trump administration officials to get their asses into the chamber. They can put articles and lawsuits with appropriate standing to:
- Halt ballroom construction.
- Halt reckless and unnecessary tariffs.
- Halt the endless war spending on the unauthorized military adventure Iran.
- Halt funding for Israel.
- Abolish/stymie/revoke funding from ICE.
- Have the DoJ release the Epstein files.
- Assess Trump’s mental state and capacity to lead.
- Release funding that Congress allocated but the Trump admin is withholding or disbursing unevenly (e.g. FEMA)
- Collect evidence to make the case to impeach the justices or reform the Supreme Court in 2028.
Congress under leadership of feckless Republicans and sometimes Democrats haven’t asserted the power of the purse. For budgetary matters, votes can be held removing the cloture rule. And if Trump refuses to sign a bill voted on D-party lines to fund the government while implementing changes, the government will shut down once again and the bill will await him on the desk until he signs it. He will try to shift blame as he always does, but the government has shutdown led by Republicans or Democrats, the common thread is his incompetent ass in charge for most of the time since 2016.
They never, ever need a super majority. EVER.
That rule can be changed at any time by simple majority vote. That cloture rule is a parliamentary rule and is not law.
Don’t be duped. Please look at what they call “the nuclear option.”
There are over 180 exceptions to the super majority so far (last time I checked a few years ago).
(fun fact: the “nuclear option” was first called that by Trent Lott, a Republican, in the 2000s. Both parties immediately adopted the term because it scares the shit out of voters. What was it called before that? “the constitutional option”).
Don’t be a sucker. If they want to pass something, viola! It’s an exception (like our budgets). If they don’t want to pass something, but they want the voters to think that they do, “oh no, we need a super majority, super sorry we tried so hard!”
The solution is very simple. No other nation requires super majority votes for a reason.
No laws need to be changed.
You are thinking of filibuster, which I agree is just like you’re saying.
However, they were talking about overriding the presidential veto, which is specifically defined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution as needing a 2/3 majority in both houses. Not a simple majority. You also cannot adopt a rule that supersedes the Constitution.
Here’s the specific paragraph that I copied from Wikipedia
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
I remember how the current congress led us to a government shutdown only to fold like lawn chairs in return for a pinky promise that was later broken. There are options that don’t require overriding the president because congress has the power of the purse and the power to investigate.
you need a supermajority in the Senate to get past the Presidential veto?
And the threat of filibuster, it’s a double-whammy
They can make the filibuster be an actual Mr-Smith-Goes-To-Washington event again and fucking FORCE those fucking assholes to stand up there and talk for 24 hours straight. The change in filibuster behavior, which Republicans enacted, to just table anything that the other side said would be filibustered, should end. And spineless Democrats should do it and take credit for doing it, and look like they give a damn again.
I’m Alexander Daychilde, and I support this ↑ message.
If you think the only role of a political party is to pass laws, you are lost.
I don’t recall where I said that was the only role for a political party.
It’s really easy to point out a problem, like “the Democratic party has issues and hasn’t delivered in the past”
But unless you’re bringing solutions, too, then you’re just playing into the opposition’s plan: Get opposing voters to be apathetic so they don’t vote.
Giving people hope is not a legislative project, it is a political one, one which the corporate-led Democratic Party has remarkably and consistently and repeatedly failed at.
Leftist policy and, just as important, rhetoric is the solution. The Left can’t do world building without institutional support.
That’s either a strawman argument, or you have no idea how the US Constitution works.
The House and Senate make the laws, and the President enforces them.
If you think the only role of a political party is to pass laws, you are lost.
Whatever, dude.
A little reading comprehension would indicate that the current discussion is clearly talking about cases where Democrats also control the presidency. Your whole comment is a non sequitur.
You’re expecting a lot from people who’d rather stay home and claim some moral high ground while the world burns around them.
You’re just judging people based on your imagined stereotypes.
No, I’m judging people from their own actions I’ve observed myself. It’s the same ones who wouldn’t vote for Harris because of Gaza because getting Trump elected again has worked out so well for them. It’s the people who, when starving to death and presented with a bowl of dried dog shit or some overboiled broccoli, will choose to starve because the broccoli is too soft.
Very true. Dems had a supermajority and sitting dem president in 2009 and chose to sit on their hands instead of fixing healthcare in a materially significant way or codifying abortion rights. They left abortion in the hands of a lady that had more cancers than a lab rat.
Yeah but we need to vote for anyone in the end other than the fascist fuck pedo party.
I hate to break it to you but there’s a ton of Ds in the Epstein Files.
This traitor is all over this thread.
Me? 2 posts? All over the thread.
A traitor for noting that the Democrats are fascist pedophiles?
My fellow American, we were founded by fascist pedophiles. We were forged by fascist pedophiles. We fought a civil between factions of fascist pedophiles. We protected fascist pedophiles. We celebrated fascist pedophiles. We revered fascist pedophiles. We rehabilitated fascist pedophiles. We appointed fascist pedophiles. We empowered fascist pedophiles. We committed murder for fascist pedophiles.
If you think the other big party in the US isn’t chock full of fascist pedophiles, you’re delusional
We also need to keep protesting for them to do the things we need them to do.
Getting complacent when a D is elected won’t fix these problems.
Primaries are the time to do this. It’s the reason I moved from independent to democrat as PA only lets you vote in primaries with party affiliation.
Those things we didn’t get in 2024?
Democrat primaries, famous for listening to the voters and propping up who they vote for. Never any fuckery in a democratic primary
Just watch them do a full archeological expedition to excavate the word “bipartisan” and then watch them cherish it as the treasure most sacred to our failing democracy.
Suddenly they won’t do things because they’ll be worried about what the right thinks. They’ll throw their arms in the air when the but think of the possibility of not having getting the votes in congress. They’ll tell us they tried nothing to revert our wealth inequality madness and say they are all out of ideas. They’ll claim that the poor being absolutely miserable and their conditions worsening is the American way and the debt is too big to do anything about it. Suddenly a balanced budget will be back on the menu with a whif of austerity hanging in the air.
We’ve been there before.
What the fuck is this nonsense? I’ve been saying for years that one of the reasons Democrats aren’t doing more is because Republicans are able to shut them down.
That’s only one reason, yes:
- No supermajority means filibuster (which has been more like “the threat of a filibuster” or “someone whispers the word ‘filibuster’”) has real power and Republicans have used it effectively
- Yes, establishment Dems are centrist and not progressive, but they have tried to do things that got shut down, q.v. above
- Yes, plenty of Dems are also corrupted by oligarchs throwing money into the system
There are mulitple reasons we haven’t seen more progress, but this is not a new thing anyone is saying. Or maybe some people are just waking up to it, but OP’s image is full of bullshit if they think some of us haven’t been yelling about this for quite some time - because people think “Elect Democrat president = solve all problem” and this is VERY NOT TRUE. Same with Democrat majority in Congress.
And this is yet another reason why I think we’re beyond fucked.
We need to help Progressives take over the Dem Party, and replace the party leadership. We can’t allow the next era of Dem power to be managed by Schmuck & Jeffries. They already had their chance, and literally EVERYTHING they’ve done has helped MAGA gain strength and regain power. They are at least 50% of the reason that MAGA took over again, and they’ve done less than nothing to earn the opportunity at a second chance.
It’s long past time to make huge changes, from top to bottom. We can’t allow another term like the Biden term. The next Democratic term has to show substantial progress on Democratic policies, and massive rollbacks on MAGA treason, as well as criminal punishment for MAGA treason, corruption, and pedophilia, or it will be the end of America.
See, this is where while I might nitpick on a couple of things, I’m in at least like 90% agreement, and certainly 100% agreement on the conclusion. It irks me when so many are like “I know what we need to do, but some of the progressives that could help solve this are supporting one thing I disagree with, so fuck it, I’m out”.
Because you are right - we’ve got to have progressives in charge. And it’s not because “my team win, I win”, it’s because they win for EVERYONE. Progressive policies work for everybody except fascists.
It’s incredible how Republicans manage to do a lot of things, essentially damage, despite Democrats opposition. But Democrats can’t do anything, because Republicans won’t let them do.
Can’t you find COMPETENT Democrats?
The system is built so that it is much easier to prevent action than to take it. Republicans obstruct. And where they succeed, it is largely because it’s things the oligarchs want, and yeah, centrist Dems serve the oligarchs as well.
It’s the main reason I keep shouting that we need to solve the oligarch issue first, then deal with the political party once we cut off their corrupt funding.
Yeah - Biden tried that, and literally nothing impactful actually happened, and then they all just threw up their hands and said “well, we tried, that should be good enough”
The United States has a huge problem with presidential pardon power. Anyone serious about accountability needs to advocate for getting rid of it.
It’s not even just the pardons really, it’s the fact that so much of government runs on vibestm and the belief that elected officials will always act in good faith. So the pardons need to be reformed but a lot more things do as well. Like the fact it’s literally impossible to do a constitutional amendment now.
Biden delivered big wins that should be propelling us now except that trump destroyed all of it in six months.
Biden and his admin did some good things, for sure, but by and large he simply continued entrenching the status quo and didn’t meaningfully listen to the American populace - unless it was through the filter of the DNC/DCCC’s fuckwitted consultant class, who have been a cripplingly parasitic negative influence on the party for basically the entire span of time I’ve been politically aware.
Remember:
nothing will fundamentally change.
I believed him when he said it, and he sure as fuck followed through.
Not to mention, his whole full-throated, carte blanche support of Israel in their genocide of Gaza (and I do mean to include the decades-long lead up to Oct 7, as well as the IDF’s retaliatory / punitive / expansionist / ethnic-cleansing actions after that point). Schumer’s one of the few politicians off the top of my head who’s more of an Israeli sycophant than Biden.
I disagree with parts of the analysis, but this:
the DNC/DCCC’s fuckwitted consultant class, who have been a cripplingly parasitic negative influence on the party for basically the entire span of time I’ve been politically aware.
I am 100% on board for. Their consultants suck and need to be set adrift as soon as possible. Hopefully republicans will pick them up and start losing constantly.
Agreed. Don’t be fooled - Pete Buttigieg made his career as a McKinsey consultant.
Biden delivered weapons for genocide, and there is no other reason you support him.
Biden didn’t just deliver, he gifted them. Never forget his 40 beheaded babies statement, and never forget that Reagan had more balls against Israel than Genocide Joe.
