California’s governor is being touted as a successor to the Biden throne. Though he’s often imagined as a beacon of progress, his feckless record shows otherwise.
You’re right, as there is always funding available when it comes to international conflicts that relate to US interests…
Agreed. That’s why Biden spent his time helping out his military friends, and bombing the shit out of innocent people, instead of helping American voters.
2020 is a prime example of Republicans bailing out their rich friends since they demanded that there be zero oversight for the several trillions of dollars going out to stimulate businesses.
Agreed, and Biden’s bailouts were another prime example of the Democrats helping their rich friends too.
Because Democrats did not have big enough majorities in 2021, they were unable to secure additional Covid aid for people…Namely, having Sinema and Manchin, who are both Independents, did not help as they both refused to join with Democrats…
Well, that was the excuse they used:
They should have tried negotiating, but couldn’t be bothered to. They were busy helping out their friends. Biden also could have extended the covid relief, but chose not to.
So Biden was trying any way he could to get it passed.
Except for all the ways that would have actually worked. He could have just sent out the money, like he did with Israel. But he slow-rolled it, and sent it to the Supreme Court so they could shoot it down, and he could look like the good guy, without actually doing anything
I see that there is some value because they are trying to vote in policies that would actually help people, but they lack the votes to actually pass these things.
No, they had plenty of votes, but chose to pretend that they were powerless so that they didn’t have to do anything. Once again, it was clear that they could get shit done when it came to bombing kids, and helping out their rich friends, but couldn’t seem to muster up the energy when it came to the voters.
I do see the Democratic Party itself slowly becoming more progressive…
lolwut? The same party that campaigned with the Cheneys? that said they would keep bombing people oversees? That said they wanted more border controls, and are already backing down on support for LGBTQ+ people?
They didn’t have the votes to change many of those things in the past, and up until more of the early-2010s Democrats were still doing Gerrymandering themselves at times.
Yes they did. They just didn’t care because it wasn’t what their donors wanted.
Agreed. That’s why Biden spent his time helping out his military friends, and bombing the shit out of innocent people, instead of helping American voters.
It’s unfortunate that that’s the society we live in where it’s incredibly easy to rubber stamp arms, but incredibly difficult to rubber stamp aid. The military budget alone is a red flag of sorts for where our priorities lie as a country. I mean, when we have the largest air force and the second largest air force then you know it’s pretty bad.
At the end of the day, Red States don’t want money going to aid, and Red States have a disproportionate amount of power in this country. If it was just Blue and Purple States voting on aid then it would have been passed. There’s a reason that Blue states have progressive programs within the states themselves, but Red states do not have those types of programs. If it was just up to Democrats then we would have more progressive programs in place already.
Agreed, and Biden’s bailouts were another prime example of the Democrats helping their rich friends too.
Is this in reference to the Silicon Valley Bank bailout or US/Israel funding?
They should have tried negotiating, but couldn’t be bothered to. They were busy helping out their friends. Biden also could have extended the covid relief, but chose not to.
Negotiating how though? It sounds like they tried again and again to get Sinema, Manchin, or the Republicans to agree to different stipulations but they were unsuccessful in getting to agree on several points. If they don’t have the votes, they don’t have the power to make those changes. Even if they had 51 votes on certain issues, the Republicans could Filibuster to stop them on specific issues. So there were two main issues stonewalling meaningful change from passing the Senate.
Except for all the ways that would have actually worked. He could have just sent out the money, like he did with Israel. But he slow-rolled it, and sent it to the Supreme Court so they could shoot it down, and he could look like the good guy, without actually doing anything
Biden sent out munitions which were already paid for is the thing, from my understanding. The President is not allowed to spend money unless told how it should be spent by Congress in funding bills. The fact that Trump is refusing to spend money how it was approved is blowing over 200+ years of rule following/checks and balances out of the water.
No, they had plenty of votes, but chose to pretend that they were powerless so that they didn’t have to do anything. Once again, it was clear that they could get shit done when it came to bombing kids, and helping out their rich friends, but couldn’t seem to muster up the energy when it came to the voters.
They had effectively 48 votes in the Senate from 2021-2024, that’s not enough to pass progressive legislation. I agree with you that there is broad agreement on support for munitions or for the military, but there is not broad support among the Republican legislators for more stimulus, aid, or progressive programs that help Americans. The fact that Republicans just passed a bill to take away funds for Medicaid should tell you everything you need to know about their platform and who has a majority in the House and Senate right now.
lolwut? The same party that campaigned with the Cheneys? that said they would keep bombing people oversees? That said they wanted more border controls, and are already backing down on support for LGBTQ+ people?
It’s becoming more progressive each year as more people become eligible to vote. The youth are generally much more progressive that the Baby Boomers or Gen Xers for instance. Both from a socially progressive perspective and from an economically progressive perspective. I’m not saying the people in Congress are more progressive overnight, but each election cycle we get a bit closer to people that vote and feel similar to AOC being in positions of power in the Democratic Party.
Yes they did. They just didn’t care because it wasn’t what their donors wanted.
I mean it’s a bit of both, some of the politicians were personally benefiting and others were being paid not to care or change things. There’s more of a consensus these days among Democrats as a whole to push back against gerrymandering, possibly because it’s become a more well known issue that the voters care about.
To be blunt, I’m not even going to continue this conversation with you. You keep saying that the Dems would do something if they had a chance, but they have had many chances, and chose to do things like bomb kids, instead of help out voters. I’ve provided the evidence above, and you keep pretending that they were powerless. Quit wasting my time unless you can provide evidence that they are actually trying.
I mean let’s be real here, why are we treating the Dem politicians like some collective that always acts in one uniform way and are all powerful to enact change? The reality of the situation is there is a lot of nuance, there is real difficulties in trying to enact change. There are barriers to getting legislation passed. I don’t like the reality of the situation as much as you don’t, but that’s why I feel we need to change things for the better.
Do I think lots of current old guard neo-liberals sign checks to fund the military without blinking, if it lets them keep their cozy job, uncontested? No doubt. Are there real people working within the Democratic Party to bring positive change? Of course.
Let’s not kid ourselves with sweeping generalizations though that don’t take that hard look at the harsh reality. Bringing positive change federally looks objectively bleak, Red states hold a lot of power and the fact that left leaning people are leaving these states in droves just concentrates the power in these states.
My point is that the Democratic Party is changing, albeit slowly, by virtue of the electorate itself changing. If you want faster change, then we’ll need a new voting system in each state like Alaska and Maine have done. That’s how we get more progressives like Mamdani in power and third parties as well.
Demographic changes is the only thing going to change the Democratic Party. Either we wait another decade plus for the boomers and Gen Xers to hopefully not make up the majority, or we change the voting system away from First Past the Post. I’m strongly in favor of the later there since that is something we can do to get progressives in power this decade.
I will add that I would appreciate it if you gave me credit here. I’m trying to have a dialogue with you about this since these issues do affect all of us and I am personally trying to change things for the better through breaking down walls.
Agreed. That’s why Biden spent his time helping out his military friends, and bombing the shit out of innocent people, instead of helping American voters.
Agreed, and Biden’s bailouts were another prime example of the Democrats helping their rich friends too.
Well, that was the excuse they used:
They should have tried negotiating, but couldn’t be bothered to. They were busy helping out their friends. Biden also could have extended the covid relief, but chose not to.
Except for all the ways that would have actually worked. He could have just sent out the money, like he did with Israel. But he slow-rolled it, and sent it to the Supreme Court so they could shoot it down, and he could look like the good guy, without actually doing anything
No, they had plenty of votes, but chose to pretend that they were powerless so that they didn’t have to do anything. Once again, it was clear that they could get shit done when it came to bombing kids, and helping out their rich friends, but couldn’t seem to muster up the energy when it came to the voters.
lolwut? The same party that campaigned with the Cheneys? that said they would keep bombing people oversees? That said they wanted more border controls, and are already backing down on support for LGBTQ+ people?
Yes they did. They just didn’t care because it wasn’t what their donors wanted.
It’s unfortunate that that’s the society we live in where it’s incredibly easy to rubber stamp arms, but incredibly difficult to rubber stamp aid. The military budget alone is a red flag of sorts for where our priorities lie as a country. I mean, when we have the largest air force and the second largest air force then you know it’s pretty bad.
At the end of the day, Red States don’t want money going to aid, and Red States have a disproportionate amount of power in this country. If it was just Blue and Purple States voting on aid then it would have been passed. There’s a reason that Blue states have progressive programs within the states themselves, but Red states do not have those types of programs. If it was just up to Democrats then we would have more progressive programs in place already.
Is this in reference to the Silicon Valley Bank bailout or US/Israel funding?
Negotiating how though? It sounds like they tried again and again to get Sinema, Manchin, or the Republicans to agree to different stipulations but they were unsuccessful in getting to agree on several points. If they don’t have the votes, they don’t have the power to make those changes. Even if they had 51 votes on certain issues, the Republicans could Filibuster to stop them on specific issues. So there were two main issues stonewalling meaningful change from passing the Senate.
Biden sent out munitions which were already paid for is the thing, from my understanding. The President is not allowed to spend money unless told how it should be spent by Congress in funding bills. The fact that Trump is refusing to spend money how it was approved is blowing over 200+ years of rule following/checks and balances out of the water.
They had effectively 48 votes in the Senate from 2021-2024, that’s not enough to pass progressive legislation. I agree with you that there is broad agreement on support for munitions or for the military, but there is not broad support among the Republican legislators for more stimulus, aid, or progressive programs that help Americans. The fact that Republicans just passed a bill to take away funds for Medicaid should tell you everything you need to know about their platform and who has a majority in the House and Senate right now.
It’s becoming more progressive each year as more people become eligible to vote. The youth are generally much more progressive that the Baby Boomers or Gen Xers for instance. Both from a socially progressive perspective and from an economically progressive perspective. I’m not saying the people in Congress are more progressive overnight, but each election cycle we get a bit closer to people that vote and feel similar to AOC being in positions of power in the Democratic Party.
I mean it’s a bit of both, some of the politicians were personally benefiting and others were being paid not to care or change things. There’s more of a consensus these days among Democrats as a whole to push back against gerrymandering, possibly because it’s become a more well known issue that the voters care about.
To be blunt, I’m not even going to continue this conversation with you. You keep saying that the Dems would do something if they had a chance, but they have had many chances, and chose to do things like bomb kids, instead of help out voters. I’ve provided the evidence above, and you keep pretending that they were powerless. Quit wasting my time unless you can provide evidence that they are actually trying.
I mean let’s be real here, why are we treating the Dem politicians like some collective that always acts in one uniform way and are all powerful to enact change? The reality of the situation is there is a lot of nuance, there is real difficulties in trying to enact change. There are barriers to getting legislation passed. I don’t like the reality of the situation as much as you don’t, but that’s why I feel we need to change things for the better.
Do I think lots of current old guard neo-liberals sign checks to fund the military without blinking, if it lets them keep their cozy job, uncontested? No doubt. Are there real people working within the Democratic Party to bring positive change? Of course.
Let’s not kid ourselves with sweeping generalizations though that don’t take that hard look at the harsh reality. Bringing positive change federally looks objectively bleak, Red states hold a lot of power and the fact that left leaning people are leaving these states in droves just concentrates the power in these states.
My point is that the Democratic Party is changing, albeit slowly, by virtue of the electorate itself changing. If you want faster change, then we’ll need a new voting system in each state like Alaska and Maine have done. That’s how we get more progressives like Mamdani in power and third parties as well.
lol, sure Jan.
Call me when they stop funding:
and start funding:
Until then, I’m going to pretty openly continue to not take you seriously.
I’m talking about the electorate fam, the voters.
Demographic changes is the only thing going to change the Democratic Party. Either we wait another decade plus for the boomers and Gen Xers to hopefully not make up the majority, or we change the voting system away from First Past the Post. I’m strongly in favor of the later there since that is something we can do to get progressives in power this decade.
I will add that I would appreciate it if you gave me credit here. I’m trying to have a dialogue with you about this since these issues do affect all of us and I am personally trying to change things for the better through breaking down walls.