I love how, in the same thread, you credit Republican opposition with stopping the Democratic agenda and then claim that Democrats are powerless to do the same.
Why are they powerless?
***Because they’re voting with Republicans and helping them steamroll us when they get a chance to withhold their votes and draw concessions or filibuster, which yes, is something they deserve full credit for doing as a party. ***
Because Republicans vote in lockstep but Democrats don’t. It was not some commentary on the ontological natures of the two parties, it’s just the reality of the two. Republican voters punish their politicians for not abasing themselves before Trump, Democratic voters reward candidates for breaking ranks.
I was under the impression that federal Republicans were voting in lockstep due to threats from Elon Musk to primary them if they don’t. Possibly interpretable as extortion.
As a lurker who ends up rubbing shoulders with right wing culture spaces, I have to disagree. The right has heresy tests for their politicians, the left tests for their voters. However the left expects competency in government (because they actually believe in it) and will sacrifice ideals or policies, while the right can afford the luxury of rejecting good governance because they’re expressly transactional when it comes to politics.
Rightwing voters are willing to cut off their nose in spite and become single issue voters - and it works for them. Pro-life or you’re dead to them. Pro-gun or you’re dead to them. Non-Christian? Dead. They get the political rhetoric and efforts they demand, which has left them severely ripe for opportunist political grifters who say whatever gets them access power. Like the MAGAs who build nothing, but hand out bones to voting blocs. Abortion overturned. No new gun laws. Ten Commandments in school and state houses. “Hurting the right people”. Migrants deported. Culture wars.
Or in the more extreme examples, they’ll just outright co-opt the structures of power and governance to fit the voters whims. It’s why we have the political maximalist lobbying NRA of today, instead of the humbler sportsman’s advocacy group of yesteryear. Or Trump.
Because Republicans vote in lockstep but Democrats don’t.
The point that (I think) they’re trying to make is that the democrats always have N+1 politicians who will be the ratfuckers of the party; your Machin, Sinema, Lieberman, etc. No matter how the numbers work out, there always seems to be juuuuust enough ratfuckers in the party that the big legislations never get through without getting the back broken for capital.
I don’t have to propose anything to point out the flaws in the party.
And I’m saying this as someone who generally votes for them. Stop treating every response as if we have to provide some grand solution when pointing out the shit they’re doing wrong. I’m not a policy wonk, so I don’t know the best path forward. But I can still recognize when a bed has been thoroughly shat.
I love how, in the same thread, you credit Republican opposition with stopping the Democratic agenda and then claim that Democrats are powerless to do the same.
Why are they powerless?
***Because they’re voting with Republicans and helping them steamroll us when they get a chance to withhold their votes and draw concessions or filibuster, which yes, is something they deserve full credit for doing as a party. ***
Because Republicans vote in lockstep but Democrats don’t. It was not some commentary on the ontological natures of the two parties, it’s just the reality of the two. Republican voters punish their politicians for not abasing themselves before Trump, Democratic voters reward candidates for breaking ranks.
I was under the impression that federal Republicans were voting in lockstep due to threats from Elon Musk to primary them if they don’t. Possibly interpretable as extortion.
As a lurker who ends up rubbing shoulders with right wing culture spaces, I have to disagree. The right has heresy tests for their politicians, the left tests for their voters. However the left expects competency in government (because they actually believe in it) and will sacrifice ideals or policies, while the right can afford the luxury of rejecting good governance because they’re expressly transactional when it comes to politics.
Rightwing voters are willing to cut off their nose in spite and become single issue voters - and it works for them. Pro-life or you’re dead to them. Pro-gun or you’re dead to them. Non-Christian? Dead. They get the political rhetoric and efforts they demand, which has left them severely ripe for opportunist political grifters who say whatever gets them access power. Like the MAGAs who build nothing, but hand out bones to voting blocs. Abortion overturned. No new gun laws. Ten Commandments in school and state houses. “Hurting the right people”. Migrants deported. Culture wars.
Or in the more extreme examples, they’ll just outright co-opt the structures of power and governance to fit the voters whims. It’s why we have the political maximalist lobbying NRA of today, instead of the humbler sportsman’s advocacy group of yesteryear. Or Trump.
The point that (I think) they’re trying to make is that the democrats always have N+1 politicians who will be the ratfuckers of the party; your Machin, Sinema, Lieberman, etc. No matter how the numbers work out, there always seems to be juuuuust enough ratfuckers in the party that the big legislations never get through without getting the back broken for capital.
So you propose…what?
I don’t have to propose anything to point out the flaws in the party.
And I’m saying this as someone who generally votes for them. Stop treating every response as if we have to provide some grand solution when pointing out the shit they’re doing wrong. I’m not a policy wonk, so I don’t know the best path forward. But I can still recognize when a bed has been thoroughly shat.
I started this by asking what people’s proposals for opposition were. You do have to provide one otherwise you’re not answering the question.
That’s all well and good for how it started, but we’re way down the thread and conversations evolve. And I responded where I did for a reason
If I had a response on what to do, I would have responded to your question instead of trying to expand on another posters point.