this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
2103 points (95.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3477 readers
47 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don't play dumb, she was unpopular with the left and did nothing to help with it. "Eat it up because otherwise it's trump" doesn't get you votes.
It wasn't a good reason not to vote for her, but unfortunately is one of the reasons some people didn't vote. She should have never gone negative and stuck to positive messaging about how they had real plans to help real people.
She should have focused on courting Democrats instead of being all chummy with a Cheney.
The problem with that is that Democrats' insistence on incrementalism in all things had destroyed their credibility when they say that they'll help people. No, they'll start some investigations, throw up a hurdle in their own path, gleefully announce that it's insurmountable, and then scream that everyone who saw what they just did doesn't know how government works.
You can't just ignore how the government works and the fact that Democrats never had a real majority in the Senate thanks to Sinema and Manchin.
We gave Democrats enough seats. They used them predictably.
No, we didn't. They had 48 seats, which is not enough to accomplish anything.
You're ignoring that 2 independents caucus with Democrats. It's dishonest to exclude them. But you're splitting hairs because it's convenient for your excuses.
Two independents from conservative states that barely align with democrats. Why do you handwave this away so easily???
One of the independents is Bernie Sanders.
Manchin and Sinema were both capital-D Democrats at the time they did everything you wanted.
They did NOT do everything. It fact we barely got them to do much. All this information is publicly available. Their voting records are available to see. None of this is hidden. They are the primary reason most of the bills that DID pass were almost completely neutered because they were negotiated down or stalled. This also happened only a few years ago. We are not talking about last decade.
God damn, you're bad at reading. First you act like Manchin and Sinema were independents when they were blocking shit for you, and now you're ignoring parts of my sentence to make it contrary to what I said.
Manchin and Sinema did everything that YOU WANTED THEM TO DO. They blocked legislation. That's all you wanted.
There is no point in arguing with you since you selectively pretend to be unable to read.
I'm not sure where the confusion is. My whole point in that those two shits (Manchin and Sinema) did not vote with the party and blocked legislation. They worked against progressive legislation. Many of the bills had progressive policies that were taken out because of those two idiots. I'm for progressive policies but even I recognize the Democratic party was held hostage by these two shits. I thought I was clear???
Right. We voted for Democrats. We gave Democrats the seats they needed. They didn't vote in the lockstep Democrats demand from their voters.
But you make excuses for the party that always finds the no votes to kill them.
Held hostage. Sure. Oh no. Just enough Democrats voted against legislation that party leadership didn't want. There are always enough Manchins.
Now selectively forget how to read again.
I don't know what your argument is any more. Sinema and Manchin were always moderates. Democrats can't perform miracles if they don't have enough votes. Do you have any suggestions how they could have done it with just a slim majority held back by two moderates? What's your plan? I'm listening.
This entire conversation has shown that this is a lie.
I don't understand. Did I lobby any insults at you at any point?
I just asked how could any meaningful legislation pass without a super majority and you accuse me of lying. My thesis hasn't changed since post #1. Do you have any suggestions for how the democratic party could have effected change without a super majority? I'm really curious. We'd all like to know.
We gave Democrats the 50 seats they needed to kill the filibuster forever.
I said you were lying about listening. Because you weren't listening.
So... Now we've pivotted to ad homs
No, I'm telling you that it's clear that you aren't listening and have no intention of listening. Talking to someone who makes endless excuses for democrats' deliberate failures is exhausting. I'm going to do something else.
If they didn't vote with the Dems when it actually mattered, why should they count?
THEY DID. Unlike Manchin and Sinema, independents caucused with the party.
The Democratic caucus had 50 seats. We gave them the seats. They used them like you wanted.
I am talking about Sinema and Manchin only. They may have had a D next to their name, but they were not on the side of Democrats when it mattered.
And we gave Democrats those seats.
Lying and saying that we only gave Democrats 48 just because 2 of them did everything you wanted doesn't mean that we didn't give Democrats what they needed.
You can write that all day today and all next week, they still won’t understand.