I'm totally fed up with the way things are going...

[apcalc]

Democrats-stop trying to work with the R’s!!!!!

Dump the filibuster
Eff bipartisanship

Do whatever is required. Manchin is a lost cause.

We need to get this country moving.

[MineralMan]

1. See, the thing is...

Things have to have majorities to pass in Congress. There's that small sticking point, and we don't always have one we can use.

So, how does the filibuster get dumped, and how do we pass bills in the Senate? Manchin is one of the Democrats who gives us 50 seats in the Senate. Sinema, too. Without them, McConnell would still be Majority Leader. How would that work out, do you think.


You're frustrated. We all are, but we can't change how the system works. Not without a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, and we're not even close to that.

We're all going to have to be patient and communicate with our lawmakers, of whichever party. They don't read DU, either, so you'll have to communicate with them in some other way.

[Hortensis]

11. +1000. Thank goodness the adults are back in office.

Though, what we'd be doing with just a few more than our voters gave us....
https://images.thestar.com/aMsP20D6dD8VAzGvWrXMSlSOpt8=/650x672/smart/filters:cb(1614371326779)/

[Lonestarblue]

19. Good cartoon, but Trump should have a crown of thorns with MAGA on it--

and “Down with Democracy” on his sash.

[Hortensis]

25. :) Take a look at those faces. They're what grabbed me.

For many Trumpism is heavily tied in with end times and the second coming; and for others it's about SAVING not just democracy from our evil votes, but America itself from us. WE are the forces of evil for these types, and he is their savior.

To me they're scarier even the vicious fascist types who demand their leaders attack, attack, attack and never stop until we're destroyed. And they're scary as hell.

[Maru Kitteh]

53. "WE are the forces of evil for these types'

Indeed, that is what more and more of them are openly vocalizing "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" like that Cowboys 4 Trump clown.

It makes it psychologically acceptable for their rabid followers to proceed with disposing of us. Murdering us. They're doing it for "God" because we are the handmaids of the devil or some other such spiritual, mystical nonsense. All comes down to the same thing - kill liberals because Trump rolls with Jesus.

[Hortensis]

55. As you say, they're getting worse. Psychologists say many of our

coworkers and neighbors are just a quick, inciting situation away from turning into a murderous mob. Thank goodness they typically much prefer to attack in packs. And this isn't 1930s Germany; trumpzis who attack here can count on being arrested. But stay far away from hostile groups, and neighbors.

I always knew it could happen here but didn't think it would get even this far.

[Progressive Jones]

2. I say the Democrats need to GOP on the GOP.

Get them on the ropes and start punching fast and hard. Don't stop punching until the screaming stops.

[wryter2000]

17. How do you propose to do that?

Lock them up until they behave? Kidnap their children? Pour sugar in their gas tanks? How, exactly, are we going to get them on the ropes and slug away? What would that look like?

[Caliman73]

22. Thank you.

When people start up with how Democrats need to start acting like the GOP, my questions are exactly as yours are.

What do you mean "act like the GOP"? What does that look like in your view?

Cause you know, the GOP cheats. They use the rules in place to be destructive, because they are trying to show that Government, as we know it to be right now, does not work. Because they do not care about democracy and governing by consent of the governed. That is how the GOP operates and WHY they operate how they do.

They have 62% of the leadership within our Federal system of government while representing around 35% of the people in the country. They did not get where they are through consent of the majority.

So again, what does "acting like the GOP" look like? Do we use the same tactics? Create gridlock and blame the GOP? Make up crazy conspiracies about pedophilia? Do we pass voter suppression laws?

How is it that we "go GOP on the GOP"?

[StarfishSaver]

45. Thank you

I'm realizing that many people.on our side have no problem with authoritarian leaders who break rules and abuse power - as long as that's done in pursuit of what WE want.

[Amishman]

78. I'll second that

I'm alarmed by the number of people who are OK with shredding the checks and balances built into our system, just because they are blocking our agenda.

Not even Trump and the Republicans were willing to blow up the filibuster and pack SCOTUS.

[Hortensis]

26. Interesting variation for DU. I'm pretty sure this isn't what

Sanders "progressivism" is supposed to be about, and for sure it's not Biden liberalism.

The call to answer ruthless far-right tactics with the same does sound a whole lot like the aggressively antagonistic populists who were drawn to both the RW populist movement under Trump and the currently relatively moribund LW populist movement. Nina Turner types.

Progressive Jones, populists are far less concerned with what their leader would do after the takeover than with just plain winning. We've seen that in the trumpists, and by the behavior of the bernistas who claimed to be progressive but decamped to the victorious anti-Progressive leader in 2016.

But you're here!

So I'm guessing your progressive ideals are much stronger than whatever prompted this post. All I can say, is hang in. Frustrating as the tactics our leaders choose may be, we're the only game in town for progressivism.

[Demsrule86]

37. I love this sort of post...seriously...you suggest nothing that is particularly useful. Punch

fast and hard indeed...how exactly do you do that?

[CrackityJones75]

3. Your post reads like you need a civics class.

Not to be rude but the things you talk about can’t happen without the other.

[apcalc]

9. No. Do not need a civics class...

I know how things work. Tired of them NOT working and Republican obstructionism . This country has great needs.

There must be a solution. Creative people need to find ways to out-maneuver R’s. McConnell seems to always find ways.

[hamsterjill]

13. Great response!

To a rude comment.

I totally agree on that it’s way past time that the Dems start getting creative. I think all of us expect the results that were promised to us, and we have every right to do that.

[CrackityJones75]

59. It wasn't rude.

It was what needed to be said. What should we do that isn’t outside the bounds of basic civics to accomplish our goals? Because we simply do not have the numbers to do it. What should we do that is legal and moral?

Would love to hear some suggestions aside from do this or that without a concrete method of getting it done.

[StarfishSaver]

60. Get TOUGH! Grow a BACKBONE! FIGHT BACK!

Or something.

Actually it's all nothing but talk ...

[CrackityJones75]

65. Right.

I agree that it would be great to end the republicans bullshit. But how do we do that given our situation? If people are saying use stronger rhetoric I guess I agree with that.

[StarfishSaver]

66. Stronger rhetoric may be good

But I'm not sure how that's going to help Republicans end their BS

[CrackityJones75]

67. Agreed.

[hamsterjill]

63. I feel it's rude to say someone needs a lesson.

But if I say anything more, I’ll probably get alerted on. Again. Hmmm…

Have a great afternoon and thank you for your opinion.

I won’t be responding further.

[kcr]

77. It's not rude to state facts

It's clear the OP doesn't fully understand how it works.

[hamsterjill]

79. Wow! This thread dates back a while.

I thought the post was rude. Different strokes for different folks.

[CrackityJones75]

23. We can pressure Manchin but ultimately

We can pressure Manchin but ultimately there is not much we can do. He is likely getting a ton of money that we don’t even know about and/or other compensation that is off the books. Possibly we could give his state a massive cut in the infrastructure bill but I don’t know of even that would sway him. We need more Senate Dems. That is the answer.

[lagomorph777]

51. It does appear to be all about money with Manchin.

So...does that not point us in the direction of solutions?

I'm not clear whether he is interested in the money for personal gain, or for political survival.

We figure that out, address it, and we are on the way to restoring democracy. Well, except part of the solution might be rather distasteful - if we have to recruit our billionaires to outbid the GQP billionaires. We should stay within the law, but should not disarm ourselves. This is not a middle school soccer match.

[CrackityJones75]

57. I think Manchin cares about

I think Manchin cares about his and his family’s legacy and furthering his bloodline to be involved in politics.

[lagomorph777]

61. OK - so political survival, versus a bigger yacht.

Since political contributions are now legally unlimited, we need to divert some significant resources into outbidding the Coke Bro machine.

[CrackityJones75]

62. I don't think that is possible.

We will not compete with that and perhaps nor should we. It could possibly be done by using pork in an infrastructure bill but even that I am not too keen on. It may be time to accept that he is what he is and not let him be the political resource distraction that I am sure the Kochs, the chamber of commerce, and other investors want us to be obsessed with. We should tru to change hos mind. I just don’t know how much of the war chest is worth depleting to accomplish that goal.

[ck4829]

4. This is how it works every single time. Republicans just have to run out the clock and they know it

Last edited Tue Jun 29, 2021, 12:00 PM - Edit history (1)

The less effective they can make the government, the more of a chance they can get a majority.

They are running on things not being done.

Critical Race Theory

[apcalc]

8. Agree

[StarfishSaver]

12. Easy to block. Hard to build.

[bearsfootball516]

5. Unfortunately, those things don't go together.

You can’t dump the filibuster and tell Manchin to eff himself at the same time.

[quakerboy]

16. Could have many years ago

Early in the Obama administration. Could have dumped the filibuster and enacted a set of Obama policy that would have set the course of the nation for many decades and cemented the power of what Democrats do when they are in charge

But we squandered the majorities we had.

And now we are in a pickle.

But also.. there will ALWAYS be an excuse why it cant happen now. And that excuse will always fall flat when the voters get their ballot.

If Biden/Schumer/Pelosi cant find some way to get Manchin on board.. I dread the fallout over the next few elections.

[StarfishSaver]

30. LOL!

You seen to have forgotten that the Democrats did not have the votes to get rid of the filibuster early in Obama's term.

You also may have forgotten that the Dems got rid of the filibuster for lower court judges - but only over the strong objection of many in the progressive community who were afraid that this would come back to bite us if Republicans took power again. And then when the GOP came in and got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, lots of progressives blamed Harry Reid for "opening the door" - as if Mitch McConnell needed the Democrats to do something before he tried it.

And you probably don't remember how in 2005 and 2006, Republicans were threatening to blow up the filibuster (the "nuclear option&quot and progressive groups - particularly civil rights groups - and the Democrats fought like hell to keep that from happening since, at the time, the filibuster was the only thing we had to stop Bush's judges from being rammed through.

So you can talk about what the Democrats SHOULD have done or repeat that tired, ahistorical claim that Democrats "squandered the majorities we had," but you can't change what actually happened.

[quakerboy]

39. Except for being backward, right on

I pretty clearly remember Progressives that I was aware of were in the "its about time to get this done" camp. And more timid "centrists" being the ones fearful that it would "come back to bite us".

Also Obama was at that point on record speaking in favor of the filibuster. So of course they didnt get the votes.

Re 2005-6.. Gee. instead of some Bush judges, we got 8 years of Obama appointees being blocked, and then a Big ol Load of trump judges. Trump judges are sooo much better than Bush and Obama judges.

I wish we could change what actually happened. Imagine a world where Obama administration policy was mostly enacted, helping the majority of citizens, instead of being blocked at every turn. Where people had the benefits of the ACA in action before the 2010 elections and Democrats had that to campaign on instead of being beaten about the head with a boogeyman stick that they could misrepresent any way they wanted. Where we had 8 years of Obama with continued democratic majorities, and now were entering our second term of Biden, with the same? Geez I wish we could change from the massive destruction that we experienced to that.

[StarfishSaver]

41. In 2005-6, Progressives fought like hell to keep the filibuster

in fact, one of the things we were frustrated about was that too many moderate Democrats were reluctant to use it.

And when the Democrats got rid of the filibuster for lower court judges, there wasn't a lot of opposition from any quarter in the party. It was Republicans and the media who banged the "be careful what you ask for" drum, not Democratic centrists.

Reid had fifty-five Democrats in the Senate—enough for a majority but not enough to beat back Republican filibusters. So, in December, 2013, Reid invoked what became known as the nuclear option. With Reid’s blessing, Senate Democrats changed the rules so that only a majority would be required to move lower-court judgeships to a vote. Freed from the threat of filibusters, Reid pushed through thirteen appeals-court judges in 2013 and 2014, a group of exceptional quality. They included Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard, and Robert Wilkins on the D.C. Circuit. For the first time in decades, that court now has a majority of Democratic appointees. Other confirmations included such luminaries as Pamela Harris (a noted professor and advocate) on the Fourth Circuit, Jill Pryor on the Eleventh, and David Barron (a Harvard law professor and Obama Administration lawyer) on the First. None received more than sixty votes, meaning that they would not have been confirmed had Reid not changed the rules. In future decades, many of these judges will be candidates for promotion if a Democratic President has a Supreme Court vacancy to fill. At the same time, Reid pushed through more than a hundred district-court judges in his last two years as Majority Leader. Of course, almost all of these judges will serve long after Barack Obama and Harry Reid have left office.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-harry-reid-changed-the-federal-courts

Also, you're right that at one point, Obama strongly supported the filibuster - but that was as a Senator. After he became president, he changed his mind on this and called for a major overhaul of the filibuster.

Ten years later, from the vantage point of the White House, Obama's take on the filibuster has changed sharply. In an exclusive Vox interview, I asked him what America needed to do to remain governable, given the deep divide between Democrats and Republicans. His answer turned quickly to the filibuster, and it's worth reading in full:

Probably the one thing that we could change without a constitutional amendment that would make a difference here would be the elimination of the routine use of the filibuster in the Senate. Because I think that does, in an era in which the parties are more polarized, it almost ensures greater gridlock and less clarity in terms of the positions of the parties. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires it. The framers were pretty good about designing a House, a Senate, two years versus six-year terms, every state getting two senators. There were a whole bunch of things in there to assure that a majority didn't just run rampant.

The filibuster in this modern age probably just torques it too far in the direction of a majority party not being able to govern effectively and move forward its platform. And I think that's an area where we can make some improvement.
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/9/8006121/obama-filibuster-elimination

[quakerboy]

42. I thought i responded to this.,.. guess it didnt post

the gist being..

Democrats opposed ending the filibuster.. during the bush administration, when republicans had a majority? how shocking. And progressives were frustrated that moderates kept giving bush and the Reps what they wanted without a fight?

You did notice where I specified "early in the obama administration". Back when we had 59 senators in the democratic caucus, a huge house majority, and the presidency.


And yeah.. 7 years into his two terms, President Obama came to terms with the fact the republicans were never going to work with him, no matter how much he was willing to give them. Think what could have been if that had happened early in his first term, and pushed to end the filibuster and end the blockade. His policy could have been enacted, been in place helping people, before the next election. Think of the losses that could have been prevented by an ACA enacted, helping voters, a real thing people could actually interact with, not a future bogeyman the reps could define however they wanted?

[betsuni]

68. Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority (60) from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010

and that was the only chance to pass the ACA, which was signed into law March 23, 2010.

"Think of the losses that could have been prevented by an ACA enacted ... ." Impossible without the votes, which Democrats had in the Senate for four months and ten days. That they could've passed everything they wanted to and "squandered" imaginary majorities is a fantasy.

[quakerboy]

69. Um.. 51 senators could have removed the filibuster

And then passed the ACA with 51 votes. And we had 59 senators. By my math, thats 8 to spare. 9 if you count the vice presidents tie breaking ability

If the Senate majority leader and the President had been pushing for that, with 59 senators in the democratic caucus, it was entirely possible.

They chose to attempt bipartisan for a truely painful amount of time, with a painful amount of compromise, a huge delay on enacting it, and still didnt get any buy in from the republicans.

And now we have a 50/50 senate and a meager house majority, and it looks like we are about to do the exact same thing that cost us dearly the last time.

Its frustrating. And it could have been avoided.

[betsuni]

70. Um, they couldn't tell the future.

There was little reason to believe they'd lose in midterms when the Republican Party was so deeply unpopular because of destroying the economy and war. Republicans scared the hell out of people with death panels and socialism, Democrats didn't turn out to vote in large enough numbers (and not because they were disappointed or whatever with the Obama administration, they just don't turn out to vote in midterms), and criticism of the administration began immediately, as it always does with a Democratic administration.

Stop trying to make "squandered" happen. Republicans are responsible for refusing any bipartisanship unlike a normal political party.

[quakerboy]

72. If a scorpion stings you because you were playing with it

Do you blame the scorpion or yourself?

Republicans are responsible for their actions. But Democrats keep wanting to play with them. I dont care to excuse that.

As for the "little reason to believe"... A lot of us predicted it. Democratic and centrist voters turn on you if you dont get results.

[betsuni]

73. "Play with it"? It isn't a game.

Obama came into office during the Great Recession which could've turned into another Great Depression. Stock market crashed, people losing jobs and homes, auto industry heading for bankruptcy, war. His administration prevented that Great Depression, steady growth for eight years, no bubble economy or stock market crash, the ACA, etc.

So what did those "Democratic and centrist voters" expect? The Senate had a filibuster-proof majority for four months and ten days during Obama's first two years. They didn't know that? How was the Obama administration supposed to "get results" with not enough votes and a 100% obstructionist Republican Party? The Democratic base isn't stupid and they don't "turn on you if you don't get results" if it's clearly impossible. Those are other people, not the base.

[quakerboy]

74. Then our electeds shouldnt treat it like a game

Games have nice rules and fair play. Thats how it seems democrats treat government. But seeing as our lives and our country are not, as you say, games, maybe they should step back from "gentleman's" agreements like.. having a filibuster to let the minority block anything they like?

And the voters expected their government to get things done. Just like they expect every time. And then punish failure regardless of given reasons. Knowing that extremely predictable pattern, maybe Democrats should treat it like it matters and get things done, rather than Playing a game.

Or we can just do it again. I wonder how many seats in the house and senate Manchin is costing us in the next election.

[betsuni]

75. Blame Democrats is a game. What's the point?

Democrats do not overwhelmingly reject getting rid of the filibuster. It's just a few. Don't have large majorities, a few can prevent progress. If the voters expected their government to get things done, they'd vote for Democrats and not fall for propaganda that blames Democrats for not having enough votes. "Maybe Democrats should treat it like it matters" -- what do you mean by that? Lets hear it. Why blame the entire party for a few people? What's that about?

[quakerboy]

80. The party lets it happen

We HAD large majorities. We still didnt deal with the problem.

And the vast majority of people arent watching every bit and piece of what they try to do and who is standing in the way. I find that the majority of folks are at best fuzzy on how government works at any level, let alone the technicalities of how the legislative branch does business.

[betsuni]

81. When did we have large majorities? Seriously, when? Please answer.

Last edited Fri Jul 2, 2021, 07:26 AM - Edit history (2)

1930s, 1960s? Everybody knows the Obama administration had a filibuster-proof Senate majority in his first two years for four months and ten days. Everybody knows Republicans had majorities in Congress until 2018 and still controlled the Senate. Democrats don't have large majorities now. When?

[Demsrule86]

38. We didn't have the votes in the Obama administration...I suppose you forgot about Mary

Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln...or Harry Reid to name a few.

[quakerboy]

40. We didnt have the will

If we'd had the will.

We had 57 dems and two independents who caucused with dems, as I recall.

Thats a pretty nice margin, you can afford to lose a landrieu or 9.

If you have the majority leader and the president pushing for it, anyway. When you dont have that, it probably doesn't matter how many votes you have.

And then you lose access to those votes.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Bull

We can have all the will in the world, but in the Senate, without the numbers, will means nothing.

Of course, in fantasy politics, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and attack the people who were actually responsible for functioning in the real world because they didn't achieve the impossible.

[quakerboy]

64. 59

And one in the wings.

[LizBeth]

6. Dump filibuster. Dems don't have the votes. Now what

[apcalc]

7. Yes, I know # of votes are an issue

So frustrated….
W VA voters want programs passed… Manchin is not even representing them.
But he is sure to make Chambers of Commerce happy.

[Politicub]

10. I'm frustrated, but I always get frustrated with politics.

I celebrate the wins and steps forward. But I've been around long enough to know how the best laid political plans do not come to fruition.

I got wrapped up in believing that the Equality Act would pass congress, but, in hindsight, that was a naïve view. I also believed that we would have a pathway to a public option in the ACA.

I don't fault President Biden. I don't think his agenda changed. He's not all-powerful, though. And that's the thing that frustrates me.

Dreams are deferred again. And they will be next time, too.

Congratulations to families with kids who get the tax credit.

[yaesu]

14. Dems trying to work with the fascists falls right inline with McTurtles plan. nt

[wryter2000]

15. If Manchin is a lost cause

There's nothing we can do without a Republican, and that's not going to happen . I'm Fed up, too, but I don't see how we can do anything besides what we're doing.

[Mr.Bill]

18. But if Manchin is a lost cause,

that means we can't get rid of the filibuster. He's holding all the cards.

[OnDoutside]

21. Jason Kander made a great point on The New Abnormal podcast. Lots of people want him to run for

Senate in 2022, (which is he isn't going to), but he said that Democrats need to stop looking for the super candidate/magic bullet. What they should be doing is investing in building up organisations/infrastructure in the (currently Red) States, because there are plenty of fine candidates out there but the Democratic infrastructure there isn't going to deliver results,

This isn't an instant fix.

[Lonestarblue]

29. Absolutely agree.

Some of these ideas may already be in the works or being done, but I think over the past decade or so, national Democrats focused only on winning federal elections and didn’t do much at the local and state levels to support Democratic candidates. Some of that is changing since I know my own once-moribund state Democratic Party has come alive. A lot of this takes money, of course, but I think we have the money but not a coordinated effort.

Building for the future:
—Many colleges have Young Democrats clubs. Loop them in to local campaigns, and financially support their efforts. Explore starting Young Democrats Clubs in high school.
—Provide speakers for HS and college classes on government. More subtle, but still identifies a Democratic affiliation. Definitely a local initiative.
—There is a national college student government association called the American Student Government Association. What kind of outreach might the DNC do to provide information and resources for student government leaders?
—Hold voter registration drives near or in schools if possible.

Addressing today’s needs:
—Register new voters and provide them with information at the same time that helps address voter restrictions as well as their rights when they go to vote. Some people who are not frequent voters or are new voters may not understand or know their rights.
—Talk to voters and find out what THEIR issues are. Sounds simple, but there’s a reason Hildago County here in Texas, reliably Democratic in the past, voted for Trump in 2020. I don’t know that reason, but I suspect it was his strong anti-immigrant stance. We need to find out why.
—As we’re talking to voters, find out whether they regularly vote and if not what the barriers are to their voting so we can increase turnout. Beto’s listening tour as he traveled to every county in Texas had an impact and came close to a win for him. People deserve to be heard.
—The DNC needs a 50-state plan, and it needs to help craft a consistent message of what Democrats offer. I hope Jaime Harrison is working on one. And in turn state Democratic leaders need to be supported financially in working to create a statewide plan, working with local leaders, for registering voters, making connections with voters, and following up with voters.
—We know some big issues (climate warming, healthcare, good jobs with benefits, drug addiction, homelessness, immigration), but how we talk about them makes a big difference. For example, we need to talk about how to replace the fossil fuel jobs with clean energy jobs rather than just getting rid of fossil fuels. Some do this better than others. And we need to tackle labels head on. Democrats do not stand for socialism, but many people actually don’t even know what socialism is. This is where national messaging can really help local candidates.

Painting a picture for the future:
—What kind of country do parents and grandparents want for their children? One of Reagan’s successes was painting the US as a feel-good shining city on a hill. Democrats rarely seem able to help people envision what the US could be and then identifying what it will take to create that goal.
—We need to identify the challenges facing the nation—internally as well as globally—and then offer ways to address those challenges, whether with better education, more affordable college, job retraining, and so on. We do a lot of this, but are we as effective as we might be?
—And, finally, we need to deal with the right-wing propaganda machine. I confess I have few ideas here because it is so pervasive throughout this country, especially in rural areas. The best idea I can think of is to use communications similar to corporate efforts to keep employees apprised of what is going on. Each major agency within the Biden administration might be tasked with a monthly news blast explaining what it is doing and how it benefits citizens. For example, I get a weekly email from my utility company telling me how my electricity usage has changed from the preceding week—and praising me when I use less electricity! How can we use different communications tools to spread the message since we do not own a propaganda network?

Ideas for thought. Feel free to challenge or add your own!

[apcalc]

32. Excellent response.

[TraceNC]

24. Dump the filibuster but Manchin is a lost cause?

That leaves 49 Democratic votes. Nothing will happen.

We need to get some wins, which will likely increase the approval rating of the President and he’ll have some political capital to spend going into the 2022 off-year election. If we pick up a couple of Senate seats and increase the House margin, THAT is when the big stuff can happen. It will take a LOT to get this done. Not easy.

But…

Do nothing, close off all chance of legislative victories, and we could take a beating in 2022.

[apcalc]

31. We could take a beating given all the GOP voter suppression laws.

We have to work extra hard to win some races.

[mcar]

27. How are Democrats going to dump the filibuster?

Please be specific.

[apcalc]

28. We likely can't...just frustrated.

[mcar]

33. Yeah, I am too

But I hate to see all the posts slamming Democrats. Biden is off to an amazing start but let's be real - with a 50-50 senate there was never much chance of getting everything done.

My focus is on getting more Democrats elected, like Val Demings in the Senate and Nikki Fried as FL Gov!

[apcalc]

35. Agree

[StarfishSaver]

44. You want specifics?

Good luck.

[mcar]

46. ...

[Poiuyt]

34. Republicans look at politics as a fight to the death, an all out battle.

They are united and use whatever tactic they can to achieve their goals. Their goals, BTW, have nothing to do with helping America and everything to do with maintaining their power.

[apcalc]

36. Agree

Basically , I think we (Dems) believe in government working for the people. You are right, the R’s view it as a fight to the death to remain in power. To that end, they basically help the wealthy, some of whom
to keep them in power so their taxes are low.

[Paladin]

47. We're not going to beat the Republicans until we get just as vicious.

It's just that simple. We can hand out Good Conduct Medals sometime in the future.

[StarfishSaver]

48. Once we "get just as vicious" as Republicans, how will anyone be able to tell us apart from them?

Here's a clue - when we give up our principles in order to achieve what we think is a worthy goal, there IS no "sometime in the future." We become what we despise and there's no turning back.

It's like people who embezzle a few dollars from the company for what they think is a good reason (I REALLY need to pay that bill), certain they'll "pay it back later." Later never comes and they just become a thief.

[Paladin]

50. You must enjoy continuous losses a hell of a lot more than I do.

This country didn't "give up its principles" when we fought the Nazis in WWII. I never heard a veteran of that conflict, whimpering about "becoming what we despised."

We're in a life-or-death war, now. The Republicans threw away the rule book a long time ago. We either fight them on the terms they've adopted, or we face certain defeat. We can fight such a war and emerge victorious, with our principles intact.

[StarfishSaver]

52. Let's see

We just won the White House, kept the House, and took back the Senate (picking up two seats in Georgia that no one thought we had a snowball's chance in Hell of grabbing).

If you ignore the times we win, I guess you would believe that we are enduring nothing but "continuous losses."

And, fyi, we beat the Nazis in WWII by staying true to ourselves and our principles, not by turning into Nazis or emulating their behavior. That's the point.

It's impossible to "emerge victorious, with our principles intact," if we throw away our principles in order to win.

[Hortensis]

54. Most who admire vicious find their way to the huge, inflamed mobs

who do vicious extremely well and enthusiastically. They're just not here.

[Efilroft Sul]

56. I'm amazed by how many people don't see the looming existential threat.

All we have to do, many argue, is simply "get out the vote," or "elect more Democrats," or "make DC and Puerto Rico states." But you and I know that if the Senate doesn't change the filibuster rules to enact legislation that protects the right to vote, it's game over, even if Democrats win races. The Republicans at the state level will overturn the results they don't like, and when we protest their fraud in DC and at state capitals, they'll round us up for sedition. Because they will.

Meanwhile, our allies respond to our frustration about Manchin and Sinema, and the lack of any meaningful legislation for protecting voter rights, with a shrug and no better advice than, "Well, what're you gonna do? That's politics, kid." And the fascists smile.

[brooklynite]

49. So if Manchin is a lost cause, how do you dump the filibuster?

[CrackityJones75]

58. DO IT BECAUSE I SAYS SO!!!!

If you haven’t noticed the Dems ARE trying to dump the filibuster. But there is a problem in that Manchin and likely Sinema are standing in the way of that happening. So it isn’t “DEMS” unless you are talking about those specific dems.

[Raine]

71. You ff bipartisanship which is what is needed most

to get what you want!

[Kaleva]

76. Get it moving then. Nobody here is stopping you.

Maybe you could tell us what you've accomplished in the past few months in your local area? Probably nothing.