Not having enough votes in the Senate meant nothing could get passed to help the people.
Yet there seemed enough votes to spend more money on foreign wars, and bailing out their rich friends. There also seemed to be enough political capital to take away the highly popular covid-benefits.
Having the Supreme Court stacked by Republicans meant that even student loan forgiveness was shot down.
That's why he took that route: So that he could look like the good guy, while not actually fixing the problem.
Really it’s more like a burger that covered in crap.
Only if you think there is nutritional value in the Dems. I sure don't see any.
For some perspective on how bad the losses for us were: if Democrats won a big trifecta in 2024, we could have uncapped the House, expanded the Supreme Court and set term limits, done away with the Filibuster to get important legislation passed, and even implemented legislation to tackle Gerrymandering across the nation. Just the uncapped House bit would have made it so elections are won by the Popular Vote.
Why would you expect any of that to happen? They've had the chance to fix these things in the past, and chose not to.
...if nothing else, they MIGHT be concerned about losing me if they go too far too fast to the right...
Why would they think this? You've openly stated that you will vote for them no matter what. They don't need to care about you, because you've already given up the negotiation.
Imagine you went to your boss and said: "Hey, no matter the outcome of this conversation, I'm gonna keep working here until the day I die. I will support you no matter what. Now, lets talk about giving me a raise."
lol, you mean the same DNC that said "...the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts." ?
The same party that openly rigged the past two elections for the candidates that they wanted?
I think our disagreement boils down to this: You think there's a higher likelyhood that the Democratic ledership changes their ways, than there is that a third-party gains power.
I'm in direct opposition. I think there's a higher chance that a third-party gains power, than there is that the Democrats start fighting for what I want.
Prove me wrong. I'd love to not be "politically homeless", and have one of the big-two fight for what I want. But the Democrats have been very clear that they'd rather lose, than fight for what I want.
lol, sure thing buddy. Housing was more expensive, education was more expensive, food was more expensive, healthcare was more expensive, wages weren't keeping up. But sure, they "fixed" inflation.
Yes, they are competing for GOP voters, rather than trying to pull in leftists. When leftists are on the ballot, they get a ton of votes, but the Democrats spend their time shooting down leftist candidates, because they don't want to actually change. They have a choice: Pick up the voters that aren't voting for one of the big-two parties, or pull in the right-wing voters. Which has been more productive in the past few elections?
They are a party of sociopathic individuals who spend more time fighting against their voters than they do fighting for them.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don't have my support until they start fighting for what I want. But they keep fighting against what I want, and are pretty open that they don't really care.
If you want to try to reform them, go ahead. I have no problems with that, but I also have no faith that you will succeed. I think you'll have just as much luck getting the Republicans to change as you will the Democrats.
In the meantime, I've long abandoned them, in favor of parties that are actually doing something for their voters.
If your "other parties" have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they're not viable alternatives...
And I've seen what happens when Democrats have power. They support the Republicans, build out the systems that the Republicans want, fight against meaningful change for the working-class, and screw over their voters. Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all. Why should I support them when they fight against the things that I want?
3rd parties have been fairly innefective at a national level, yes, but so have the Democrats.
Sure, that's why I said "When they had the power to". But they were responsible for the inflation under Biden and Obama, and instead of trying to fix that, they screwed over workers and gave handouts to their rich friends.
Protests, pushing for 3rd parties and politicians that have a record of actually doing something, funding anti-police and military groups, funding homeless-shelters and health-care for people in need.
By the way- this happens every single election year. Take note on all the change you fought for by doing jack shit.
I find this rich coming from some one who is defending the Democrats.
Who said to do that? I certainly didn't. I push for parties that and actions that are actually trying to do something against the current party. The Democrats are the ones that have spent their time propping up and actively supporting the current party.
Some do, sure. But the two major parties have only put monsters on the ballot for the past few decades, so we don't really know how many would pick a non-monster given the chance.
You mean the people from the DNC who pretty openly refuse to have fair elections? The same party that has shit on civil rights for decades? How is that not destroying our Democracy?
The top issues are among Democrats right now are inflation and civil rights
Then maybe the elected Democrats should have done something about those things when they had the power to. But they chose not to, and instead spent their time giving handouts to their rich friends, and bombing kids.
Who is doing nothing? We're fighting for change, we are pushing for parties that are fighting for the people. We were litteraly in the streets, when the Democrats were out to brunch, while the Democratic leaders were bombing kids, and backing genocides.
Your analogy is flawed, btw. A more apt analogy would be terminal-cancer, or less-severe-terminal-cancer. So... congratulations on supporting the cancer, instead of helping the people who are suffering from cancer.
Not "anything" the Democrats will do, just the great, vast majority of things. Like running terrible candidates, on unpopular platforms, screwing over the voters, fighting to keep popular politicians and polices from getting on the ballot...
I don't think that word means what you think it means.