• Baron Von J@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s very disingenuous to say the Democratic party controlled the Senate while having the House majority. The Senate was 48 Democratic, 2 Independents who caucused with the Democratic Senators, and 50 Republicans with the VP casting tie-breakong votes. Very little legislation could be passed because of the filibuster, which needed 51 votes to reform and both Machines and Lineman stating they absolutely would not go along with that. The Senate could approve most nominees, and pass reconciliation (ie 3 types of budget-related bills) once a year. They had no path the expand the court or codify Roe or anything like that with the “majority” they had. We need either 51 Senators who will amend the filibuster (or get rid of it) or 61 Senators to overcome the filibuster to really have the ability to get anything substantial done.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Then why was Biden saying he could work with a Republican controlled Senate 4 years ago?

      Why say that the Georgia runoffs would get the whole platform?

      What number do we need for any current campaign promises to come true? And if the deciding factor is House and Senate, shouldn’t we do ch Biden for a candidate that would help down allot races?

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Then why was Biden saying he could work with a Republican controlled Senate 4 years ago?

        Probably because he did have a history of bipartisan work as a Senator.

        Why say that the Georgia runoffs would get the whole platform?

        In 2020? We didn’t know yet that Sinema would do a 180 after being elected or that Manchin would be such a dick.

        What number do we need for any current campaign promises to come true?

        I already addressed that.

        And if the deciding factor is House and Senate, shouldn’t we do ch Biden for a candidate that would help down allot races?

        Anybody who supports the Democratic platform relative to the Republican platform and says they won’t vote if Biden is on the ticket is, quite simply, failing our society most egregiously. Protest voting does nothing but lose.

        Historically, a contested convention or not running the incumbent is a losing proposition. But I don’t care who the Democratic party nominates in this election, I will vote for them up and down the ballot. The presidential nominees are going to be shitty until we can collectively get our heads out of our asses and turn up it overwhelming numbers in the primaries to get progressives in state legislatures to overhaul our election process. It will take a constitutional amendment to unshitify the presidential election.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Probably because he did have a history of bipartisan work as a Senator

          Oh ok…

          So despite Biden spending 8 years in Obama’s White House and getting a literal front row seat…

          Biden was just too stupid to realize shit changed?

          Or you think he knew and intentionally lied about it in that primary so he’d be the candidate even tho he knew the only reason to go with him was bullshit?

          Like, you get that’s where your logic leads right?

          Biden is either:

          1. Dumb as shit and if ignorant of modern politics
          2. He knew what reality was like, but lied to become an ineffectual president on purpose. Not just bad because he put himself over the country, but he did it in the middle of a fascists takeover. Literally, there was a failed insurrection days before he took office.

          Neither of those options makes people energized to vote for him again, and this election is too important to risk Joe.

          • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            My dude, Biden has had more bipartisan success than Obama did. So I really don’t think you have a winning point here.

            Like, you get that’s where your logic leads right?

            No, but I get that it’s where you insist on taking it.

            Neither of those options makes people energized to vote for him again, and this election is too important to risk Joe.

            You have it wrong, this election is too important to risk not voting Democratic regardless if it is Joe. O will vote blue regardless. Will you?

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              , this election is too important to risk not voting Democratic regardless if it is Joe

              There are 10s of millions of voters Biden needs to convince, and every indication is he’s not going to be able to convince enough, especially not the tens of thousands up for grabs in battleground states.

              It’s easier to switch out Biden while there’s still time than to convince all those people.

              You’re worried about forcing everyone into making a smart decision. We’re talking about the American public here. We don’t have a good track record with that.

              So rather than gamble on the intelligence of the American public, why not give them a better candidate?

              What’s the benefit of sticking with Biden? How many people already willing to vote for Biden isn’t voting D regardless of candidate?

              You’re right that everyone should vote Biden.

              But that doesn’t matter. The American public does the wrong thing almost constantly, have you been in public lately?

              • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                What you don’t seem to be understanding is that I’m not arguing for Biden being the nominee. I’m arguing against not voting Democratic in the event the Biden is the nominee:

                Anybody who supports the Democratic platform relative to the Republican platform and says they won’t vote if Biden is on the ticket is, quite simply, failing our society most egregiously. Protest voting does nothing but lose.

                I’m not objecting to people asking for a better candidate. I’m concerned that those people will fuck over the rest of the country and not vote Democratic if they don’t get one.

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I’m arguing against not voting Democratic in the event the Biden is the nominee:

                  To who?

                  Who are you arguing against?

                  No one that’s here…

                  • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I’m arguing with you, because you’re out here misplacing blame on Biden for things that are under the purview of Congress and declaring that the Democrats will lose even the down-ballot races if he’s the nominee. If you’re going to vote Democratic regardless who the nominee is, then please make that statement alongside everything else you’re stating. Otherwise you sound like you’re going to protest vote if Biden is the nominee.