It’s almost like the system is designed to prevent the working class from gaining any headway while consistently capitulating to the whims of capital.
The intrinsic failure of arbitrarily hierarchical systems. When the working class demands change, it can’t happen because [arbitrary barriers we blindly obey] while anytime the owning-class demands it, suddenly we must make compromises for the benefit of the “county’s economy”
Never forget the state and the economy are intrinsically linked. The state is a tool of the ruling class to oppress the working class. It is fundamental to the system itself.
I’m not convinced they’ll regain power. The fucking president just promised to pay $5,000 per vote. He is trying to gain power over mail-in votes. He prevents interviews with democrats from airing on TV. He has friends that admit to messing with voting machines.
THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
if we were smart, we’d prosecute the centrists as accomplices. because they are.
the ones that keep siding with israel, or taking thier money and the ones getting money from people like koch, thiel and others.
that’s a constant in both sides of your uniparty.
americans are dumb AF
Id prosecute the people who stood by and did nothing when the fascists raved about what they were going to do.
That includes non-voters.
Does that include ShitLibs who split the anti-Trump vote by voting for Kamala Harris, even though it was obvious she couldn’t win and Gloria La Riva was right there?
“I’d prosecute anyone who wouldn’t vote for my genocidal fascist of choice”
Even if the progressive wing somehow replaces the rightist corpo Dems, the ruling class would never allow us to democratically make the changes we all want to see without a fight. They will respond with fascism, so our communities must be organized enough to pose a bigger threat than what they can buy/foment.
Jeffries already been bought off after his private meeting with Kushner the other day.
He was bought off long before that. He was just meeting with his boss to get his marching orders.
lib answer: let’s laughably try and fix this party
I don’t know what is considered a lib anymore but my answer is let’s have more than 2 parties. Reform electoral law, get rid of first past the post. Raked choice voting.
Ok, now how do you get that enacted within our current framework?
Some non-banana republics have tried this wacky idea of starting a different party, completely independent of any other party.
Which is a really good idea if you’re not satisfied with the 2 you stubbornly keep voting for and who have invariably done the same shitty things since the beginning. Some of us wild countries even have more than 3 parties!The US also has more than 3 parties, but the current system guarantees that only two can get enough votes. The entire electoral system is built to perpetuate this, including the media ecosystem. So sadly, it’s not as simple as just “have a third party.”
Personally, I think socialist revolution is the only thing that can bring positive change in this country, largely because it doesn’t try to change things within the system, it seeks to dismantle the system entirely.
The US also has more than 3 parties, but the current system guarantees that only two can get enough votes.
‘strongly favors’ yes, but not ‘guaranteed’.
It all comes down to the voters and the self fulfilling prophecy of not voting 3rd party because nobody does.And yes, socialist revolution is the far better option but then we’re back to my first comments.
You certainly can’t expect that from people who can’t even manage the voting 3rd party part.
They have zero class consciousness and perpetually voting against their own interests.
The olde bait and switch
Last time I looked AIPAC owned the Democrats as well. We can’t start putting things back together until American sovereignty is restored.
Did this person miss the Obamacare fight?
You mean the one where a Democrat argued for a republican created policy to perpetuate our healthcare misery for another few decades?
I liked the part where the democrats slow rolled every part of it, coming to the negotiating table over and over with concessions to get the republicans to support it, all for nothing.
For real, I don’t get why more people don’t talk about this. They literally dismantled their own plan to appease Republicans, the Republicand never supported it, and they pushed forward their gutted plan.
Like, if you are going to say fuck it and push the plan with Democrats alone at least use the original plan that wasn’t gutted. That shit was purposeful.
15 years and centrists are still coasting on a Heritage Foundation policy that they altered because it wasn’t far enough to the right for them.
If you think any of those explanations aren’t valid excuses, then you don’t actually know how the government functions. Sure everything is easier when a dictator like Trump does it because he doesn’t follow the law.
Oh, you think carrying out the will of your voters is good? Well have you considered that goes against the design of a system made by slave-owning rapists to maintain their class’s power?
-ChonkyOwlBear, probably.
It’s more complicated than you are presenting it. There are hundreds of representatives each with their own motivation on every different vote.
Yeah, sometimes they vote against the will of the voters (Israel). Other times, they can’t do the will of the voters because of the rules. For example budget reconciliation can be used to pass financial-only laws with a simple majority that would otherwise need a higher vote threshold to pass. The parliamentarian will say no if they try and squeeze something non-financial through that way.
Even Trump hasn’t been willing to fire the parliamentarian and blow up that system. It has a purpose.
You want to throw out the whole Constitution and start over? Fine. How many dead are worth it to you? There Conservatives are sure as hell not going to give up power without a fight and they are willing to kill to keep it.
There are hundreds of representatives each with their own motivation on every different vote.
And there’s a party whip and the power to take representatives off committees or remove their access to party infrastructure. The whole point of a party is that it can force its members to work together, without that ability you don’t have a party.
Even Trump hasn’t been willing to fire the parliamentarian and blow up that system. It has a purpose.
It hasn’t been useful for him because he appointed a parliamentarian who does what he wants. When Bush’s parliamentarian wouldn’t, he fired him and replaced him with one who would.
You want to throw out the whole Constitution and start over? Fine. How many dead are worth it to you? There Conservatives are sure as hell not going to give up power without a fight and they are willing to kill to keep it.
The literal only use any government institution is to enact the will of the entity that controls it. The conservatives understand this, the left understand this, only the liberals who don’t understand why they keep losing at calvinball have yet to figure it out.
And there’s a party whip and the power to take representatives off committees or remove their access to party infrastructure.
The whip can not take tepreststives off committees. The decision must go through the party’s internal Steering Committee or be voted on and approved by a resolution of the full House chamber.
The Speaker of the House has the authority to appoint and remove members from temporary select or conference committees at any time.
The whip can only make threats and offer new committee positions.
It hasn’t been useful for him because he appointed a parliamentarian who does what he wants.
Elizabeth McDonough has been parliamentarian since 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_MacDonough
The literal only use any government institution is to enact the will of the entity that controls it.
Unless that will breaks already established laws. If the majority wants to reinstate slavery, they shouldn’t be able to just ignore the 13th amendment and the essential civil rights of millions of people.
Your proving op’s point
No, not really.
Anyone who disagrees with your unthinking support for genocide and no other policy ever doesn’t know how anything works.
I don’t support genocide. I recognize the unfortunate reality that either Democrats or Republicans are going to be running the country right now. Maybe one day we can get better options, it is not an option here and now.
The way I see it, Democrats are convincible, Republicans aren’t. Republicans hate nonwhites and Muslims, Democrats don’t. That makes Democrats the better option.
The way I see it, Democrats are convincible, Republicans aren’t.
Democrats can only be convinced to move to the right. I think you know this.
No. All the protest against Israel is working. More Dems are pulling back on their support.
More dems are being supplanted by better dems.
These are all basically the same thing and, yes, you can’t pass a bill in the Senate if you can’t get 60 votes
And you never need the senate to sell weapons for genocide.
Yes that’s correct, you don’t need the Senate’s permission to sell things
In this case, selling “things”, specifically weapons that were actively being used for genocide, is against the Leahy law.
Funny how any excuse will stop centrist democrats from helping workers, but actual law won’t stop them from their only goal in life.
Good thing that it’s not a genocide, according to the UN definition and the ICJ, or some people might really be in trouble
You know better and you support it.
I’ll be the first one to say that the current Democratic party needs replacing, but they’re not wrong.
Or did everyone forget that you need a supermajority in the Senate to get past the Presidential veto?
Is anyone truly naive enough to think that Donald Trump would sign anything the Democrats put forward? The man who told Republicans to tank legislation with things they wanted in it to avoid giving Democrats a win?
Unless you’re advocating for a revolution, you have to work within the system. And it’s not the Democrats fault that is easier to break a thing than to fix it.
It’s always easy to point out a problem. Solutions are what we need, and all this kind of post does is discourage left-leaning people from voting, which is what the Republicans want.
So unless you have something resembling an actual solution, this just seems like virtue signaling to me.
Unless you’re advocating for a revolution, you have to work within the system.
I’d argue that even if you’re advocating a revolution, it absolutely helps to work within the system to control the damage and try to secure the most favorable conditions possible while you build the necessary organization to actually follow through on the revolution. It’s a lot harder to organize when everyone to the left of Fetterman is declared a terrorist and the gestapo arrests them for possessing leftist pamphlets.
One could propose actively letting things get worse to inspire a revolutionary spirit in the masses, but that involves the suffering of already marginalized people.
they’re not wrong.
Why can Republicans govern with a slim majority while Democrats consistently need a supermajority?
Republicans are willing to use blatantly illegal tactics and control enough courts to make a mess, you know the whole “it’s easier to break things” part.
Democrats need a supermajority, then they need the courage to invoke 14A3 disqualification backdated to at least J6 and declare everything the admin did legally null and void. Make every Republican politician personally legally liable for everything, all the theft and destruction, as the immunity of the political positions gets fully erased.
That’s the only fast way to fix things. Anything less will mean it’s going to drag out for decades.
The democratic party accomplished all of its goals during the biden administration: they sold weapons for genocide.
People hate when you say it, but the Democratic Party is Controlled Opposition.
A bunch of them are just paid to lose.
“A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh… I’m sure there’s one more.
It’s easier to stop things than to pass things. You’ll notice Republicans aren’t getting a lot done right now, exactly. At least not through Congress.
They’re doing so many blatantly illegal things, largely with the blessing of the DoJ and the Supreme Court. But they can’t get the SAVE Act through to stop us from voting.
It turns out every bit matters.
“A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh…
If you can’t name more than two Senators… Jesus, dude. Maybe start with Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez. Ritchie Torres. Elissa Slotkin. Eric Swalwell. Josh Gottheimer. Do I really need to make you the full list?
Whenever there is a democratic majority, just enough Democrats will turn to make any actual change impossible, like a public option with Obama. Or when the blue dog Democrats fucked healthcare reform under Clinton. It’s happened every time and will continue to happen because the ratchet effect is a feature that always ends in facism and oligarchy, which is where you make your real money.
Is that why Biden got more progressive change through than any prior president despite record breaking political resistance?
You need break the dependency on the idiots who talk about fake “bipartisanship”, like Manchin
When get only get small majorities, these damn idiots gets a say, you need to make those dumbasses irrelevant
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/21/politics/joe-manchin-nominees-bipartisan-support
The ratchet effect is real, but it’s because when the Dems have a majority they’re relying on West Virginia. Republicans kiss the ring or they’re kicked from politics, just look at Ted Cruz.
Cory big pharma bitchboy Nooker
Jeffries, Schumer, Pelosi, Kaine, Booker… pretty much anyone not in the squad or otherwise on the AIPAC tiddy
The neolibs are not responsible for the majority of our problems.
Their biggest crimes are Israel and not being aggressive enough on changes. They’re not the ones preventing most of the legislation we’ve tried to pass, such as the public option with the ACA.
As far as you’re concerned, their biggest crime is not supporting genocide even harder.
I like it when people focus on one thing and ignore all the actual accomplishments. Or maybe you aren’t ignoring them. Maybe you’re entirely ignorant of them.
Petty concessions do not obscure the overt imperialist oppression.
“I don’t care about the fact we support genocide so long as I get better quality of life.”
What a fucked mentality. Go find your solidarity with the oppressed.
He doesn’t care about quality of life as long as he gets his genocide.
Why are you helping Republicans guarantee the genocide continues?
You don’t care who wins as long as anti-genocide candidates aren’t on the ballot.
Why are you still beating your wife?
“Hitler made the trains run on time though!”
You like it when Palestinians die.
Because they also have the office of the president.
Currently anyway.
If one party controls both houses of congress and the president and has a sympathetic Supreme Court majority they can do a lot more than if they only have one or 2 of those things.
Because they also have the office of the president.
“We need a supermajority” was a response Democrats gave in 2009 and 2021.
If one party controls both houses of congress and the president
Did Republicans pass legislation they supported between 2011 and 201
75? Did they pass legislation they supported between 2023 and 2025?So here’s some basics on how the American government works.
The house can pass a bill with a simple majority.
So can the senate. In the event of a tie, the vice president casts the tie breaking vote.
However, the senate rules are such that in order to get to a vote you need vote to close debate, which takes 60 votes.
There are exceptions to the 60 vote rule using what’s called budget reconciliation. Matters pertaining just to budgetary items can bypass the 60 vote threshold and be voted on by a simple majority. These items must be cleared with the senate parliamentarian.
Once a bill has passed both the senate and the house, the president can either sign it or just wait 10 days and do nothing, at which point that bill becomes a law. He can also veto the bills at which point it gets sent back to both the house and senate which can override his veto with a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate.
If you want to pass a bill over the objections of the president you need two thirds of both the senate and house to agree to do it. If you want to get a bill through the senate that goes beyond budget reconciliation you need 60 senate votes.
When people talk about a supermajority they may be referring to the 60 votes needed to pass unrestricted bills in the senate, which the democrats had in 2008-2010 when they got Obamacare passed. Or if they are talking about overriding a veto they may be talking about the 2/3 of the votes you’d need in the house AND senate.
I’m not interested in debating who said what about what when, it just seemed like some people were unaware of the actual rules of how the US federal government functions and hoped to clear that up. If you have any questions about how that stuff works I’m happy to address it with the best of my knowledge. But I have no interest in actually debating politics online.
So here’s some basics on how the American government works.
None of this seems to apply when a Republican is in office
Or when netanyahu wants weapons.
Because the Republicans break laws and get sympathetic judges to cover it up
And the controlled opposition can’t break laws ofc, they might win otherwise.
The Leahy law is a law.
Centrist democrats break laws whenever they want. It just so happens that they only want to break one.
the US federal government functions
I know right, this is what lost me
I mean, it does function. Just not for the benefit of the working class.
All of this applies. It’s why republicans were able to pass tax cuts via reconciliation but not the SAVE act. They would have needed to change the filibuster rule and they couldn’t get the 50 votes needed to do it.
If you want to make long term changes to this country you need to control both houses of congress and the presidency. 2026 elections can change the former but not the latter. Which means dems will be able to stop the insanity but they’re not going to be able to make major changes until they can overcome the veto power. They need to have a democratic president.
Look, I’m sure you’re passionate about change and want to make a difference, but if you’re not going to get your facts straight and just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you with pithy comments then you’re never going to get enough people on your side to do that. Not enough people will take you seriously and you’ll just end up being spoiler votes that keep people like Trump in power.
This will be my last post in this thread.
Republicans historically do not fucking govern. They give tax cuts to the oligarchs and otherwise have a concept of a plan in two weeks. They lie and lie and lie. They are the ones pushing the “gummit is borken” lie - and making sure it appears to be true.
Probably because the Rs are more loyal overall.
Executive Summary
The evidence shows multiple plausible answers depending on how one defines “dominate.” Recent sources most commonly point to the Democrats’ control of both chambers during the 117th Congress (January 3, 2021–January 3, 2023) as the last time they held unified congressional control, while earlier notable periods include the 111th Congress (2009–2011) and historically larger majorities like the 89th Congress after 1964. The statement therefore requires clarification of terms—“dominate” can mean simple majority, large supermajority, or sustained multi-decade control—to be answered precisely
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/when-did-democrats-last-dominate-congress-1833b0
Contemporary records and syntheses within the provided analyses indicate the 117th Congress (Jan 3, 2021–Jan 3, 2023) as the latest period when Democrats held both chambers, with a House majority and a Senate majority realized through a 50–50 split and the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote. This configuration coincided with the Biden administration and enabled the Democratic leadership to pass key legislation during early 2021, illustrating functional control despite narrow margins. Reliable repositories of congressional composition and institutional histories corroborate this timing as the most recent instance of unified party control in Congress cited across multiple analyses, making the 117th the default answer when “dominate” is used to mean holding both chambers —————————————————-
That was after the republicans facilitated a global pandemic. The time before that was after the republicans destroyed the global economy. The time before that was before most of you were born: —————————————————————
3. Earlier high-water marks: 111th Congress and the 1964 landslide
If “dominate” implies a more comfortable majority or a legislative supermajority enabling broad agenda-setting, earlier periods fit better. The 111th Congress (2009–2011) provided Democrats with substantial House and Senate margins that facilitated major policy initiatives during the Obama administration, and analyses explicitly call this a recent example of decisive Democratic control [4]. Going further back, the 89th Congress following the 1964 electiondelivered the largest Democratic majorities since the New Deal era, enabling the passage of transformative legislation associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s agenda. Historical accounts position the 1964–1965 period as a classic instance of one-party dominance in Congress, distinct from the narrow 2021–2023 control
I will say that there’s immense value in symbolism, performative values, and simply being caught trying by voters. Yes the President will veto anything good, but fucking make him do it. Go on social media and the talk shows to rip him a new one for all of the good things that he’s actively preventing. Move the Overton Window. Change the terms of the public discourse.
Governing long ago moved beyond mere parliamentary procedure; it also needs to be a show that the people in the cheap seats (a.k.a. low-information voters) can watch.
Careful, that almost sounds like something a competent opposition party would do.
The thing is that many people are looking too short-sightedly for the internal (non-revolution-like) reform path. The goal for change is 2028, but change in 2028 can’t get off the ground running, if a 2026 sweep doesn’t. (I wish you had a Westminster system with no-confidence votes, but alas).
What Congress can do is to compel Trump administration officials to get their asses into the chamber. They can put articles and lawsuits with appropriate standing to:
- Halt ballroom construction.
- Halt reckless and unnecessary tariffs.
- Halt the endless war spending on the unauthorized military adventure Iran.
- Halt funding for Israel.
- Abolish/stymie/revoke funding from ICE.
- Have the DoJ release the Epstein files.
- Assess Trump’s mental state and capacity to lead.
- Release funding that Congress allocated but the Trump admin is withholding or disbursing unevenly (e.g. FEMA)
- Collect evidence to make the case to impeach the justices or reform the Supreme Court in 2028.
Congress under leadership of feckless Republicans and sometimes Democrats haven’t asserted the power of the purse. For budgetary matters, votes can be held without permanently removing the cloture rule. And if Trump refuses to sign a bill voted on D-party lines to fund the government while implementing changes, the government will shut down once again and the bill will await him on the desk until he signs it. He will try to shift blame as he always does, but the government has shutdown led by Republicans or Democrats, the common thread is his incompetent ass in charge for most of the time since 2016.
I don’t think that OP is expecting Democrats or Progressives to get things through the Trump administration without a supermajority that can override his veto. What we are hoping for/expecting is that Democrats and Progressives to say “Fuck you, we’re passing this bill and sending it on.”
Medicare for All? “Fuck you we’re passing this bill, veto it motherfucker!”. Taxing rich people? “Fuck you we’re passing this bill, veto this PDF”. Repealing the Medicare cuts? “Hey, asshole, we passed it, oh and go fuck yourselves”. Repeal the procedural filibuster? “Fuck it, we’ll do it live!”. Impeachment? “Hey, it’s Tuesday, this asshole just did something unbecoming of the office, guess it’s time to have another impeachment hearing, oh and fuck you, that’s why.”
Just try instead of rolling over on day one, what we’re asking for even if you know it’s destined to fail and show that you’re willing to do the work. Back your shit up with actions instead of just words of “Well it’ll never pass so we’ll never try”. Say what you will about Republicans, when they get in power, they do not give a fuck and will introduce every bad idea in their head and dare the President to veto it and that’s why their base votes for them consistently.
That’s what OP I think is asking people to remember.
They never, ever need a super majority. EVER.
That rule can be changed at any time by simple majority vote. That cloture rule is a parliamentary rule and is not law.
Don’t be duped. Please look at what they call “the nuclear option.”
There are over 180 exceptions to the super majority so far (last time I checked a few years ago).
(fun fact: the “nuclear option” was first called that by Trent Lott, a Republican, in the 2000s. Both parties immediately adopted the term because it scares the shit out of voters. What was it called before that? “the constitutional option”).
Don’t be a sucker. If they want to pass something, viola! It’s an exception (like our budgets). If they don’t want to pass something, but they want the voters to think that they do, “oh no, we need a super majority, super sorry we tried so hard!”
The solution is very simple. No other nation requires super majority votes for a reason.
No laws need to be changed.
You are thinking of filibuster, which I agree is just like you’re saying.
However, they were talking about overriding the presidential veto, which is specifically defined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution as needing a 2/3 majority in both houses. Not a simple majority. You also cannot adopt a rule that supersedes the Constitution.
Here’s the specific paragraph that I copied from Wikipedia
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
I remember how the current congress led us to a government shutdown only to fold like lawn chairs in return for a pinky promise that was later broken. There are options that don’t require overriding the president because congress has the power of the purse and the power to investigate.
Without a large majority they can only be annoying, not get arbitrary change
There is no majority large enough. There are always just enough Manchins.
you need a supermajority in the Senate to get past the Presidential veto?
And the threat of filibuster, it’s a double-whammy
deleted by creator
They can make the filibuster be an actual Mr-Smith-Goes-To-Washington event again and fucking FORCE those fucking assholes to stand up there and talk for 24 hours straight. The change in filibuster behavior, which Republicans enacted, to just table anything that the other side said would be filibustered, should end. And spineless Democrats should do it and take credit for doing it, and look like they give a damn again.
I’m Alexander Daychilde, and I support this ↑ message.
If you think the only role of a political party is to pass laws, you are lost.
I don’t recall where I said that was the only role for a political party.
It’s really easy to point out a problem, like “the Democratic party has issues and hasn’t delivered in the past”
But unless you’re bringing solutions, too, then you’re just playing into the opposition’s plan: Get opposing voters to be apathetic so they don’t vote.
Giving people hope is not a legislative project, it is a political one, one which the corporate-led Democratic Party has remarkably and consistently and repeatedly failed at.
Leftist policy and, just as important, rhetoric is the solution. The Left can’t do world building without institutional support.
That’s either a strawman argument, or you have no idea how the US Constitution works.
The House and Senate make the laws, and the President enforces them.
If you think the only role of a political party is to pass laws, you are lost.
Whatever, dude.
A little reading comprehension would indicate that the current discussion is clearly talking about cases where Democrats also control the presidency. Your whole comment is a non sequitur.
You’re expecting a lot from people who’d rather stay home and claim some moral high ground while the world burns around them.
You’re just judging people based on your imagined stereotypes.
No, I’m judging people from their own actions I’ve observed myself. It’s the same ones who wouldn’t vote for Harris because of Gaza because getting Trump elected again has worked out so well for them. It’s the people who, when starving to death and presented with a bowl of dried dog shit or some overboiled broccoli, will choose to starve because the broccoli is too soft.
Why are you griping? You got the only thing you ever wanted the instant there was no anti-genocide candidate.
The only thing I ever wanted was for you to pull your head out of your ass. Unfortunately, you lack the ability to do so.
When apparently you can just rename everything America and after yourself at whim as President, the never-ending excuses for getting nothing done during Democratic presidential administrations will not cut it for me this time.
Anything a president can do unilaterally can be undone by the next president. There’s a reason why the Afordable Care Act hasn’t been undone at the stroke a sharpie
Lets not do anything good because Trump might undo it.
Not the argument I was making, more the downs in strategy. The republicans going full send without consideration of the consequences and the Democrat taking taking time and being thorough
“Taking time and being thorough” looks a lot like “wasting time and doing nothing” when they’re doing anything other than selling weapons for genocide.
The consequences of doing the thing your voters want and disregarding your enemies telling you you’re not being civil is that you get reelected.
The consequences of listening to the people who are opposed to your voters is that your voters see that you are useless and check out of politics.
That reason is that it benefits the insurance industry and only helps patients as a lamentable side effect.
What a funny thing to hang your hat on. I can’t tell if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not.
Renaming stuff is probably the easiest thing in the world. It costs money down the road, but it’s significantly less intrusive and costly than doing almost anything else this admin has already done.
Dude it ain’t just the renaming.
I know everyone’s got the attention span of a fucking gnat, but this dude has done whatever the fuck he wants with impunity while most Democratic administrations look like they’re asking for permission to pee.
That’s because the Republican judges invent reasons to block what Democrats do and pretend there’s no standing to stop other Republicans. You guys need to get a large enough majority to enforce 14A3 and disqualify this lot for fucking treason and tear apart their ability to get in the way
Democrats invent excuses to break their own campaign promises.
I know! That’s why I thought renaming things was such a silly thing to break the camels back for someone.
The way your original comment reads, it reads like the recent renaming is what has really made you upset.
They don’t say “it’s too expensive”, they say “republicans won’t let us do it”.
But they let republicans do anything they want, including stupid petty distractions like renaming places. They are not on your side. Also they committed the majority of the genocide in Gaza. Democrats are not your friends, very few of them are decent humans.
Who lets them? The Republican courts you mean?
The majority of buildings destroyed is not the majority of lives lost. More people were killed faster under Trump. Somebody is lying to you if they’re telling you Democrats were easier on Netanyahu than Trump is. They are lying to you because they want you to hurt yourself.
Observe the acceleration under Trump
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1616501/monthly-gaza-fatalities-injuries/
https://infosec.pub/comment/23470753 - here’s a whole list of how Trump was worse in every way exactly as the warnings said
The recent slowdown in Gaza is caused only by increased killing in Iran and Lebanon, which does not play in your favor
Observe the acceleration under Trump https://www.statista.com/statistics/1616501/monthly-gaza-fatalities-injuries/
That’s cumulative you moron. The slope clearly drops after Biden did the majority of the damage. You can’t even comprehend the information you’re using, or you’ll do anything to twist reality to justify your support of genocide.
https://data.techforpalestine.org/
Under Biden, until 19th of January 2025, 47,724 killed. This number does not include the bodies never recovered or accounted for because they were vaporized, are still under rubble, or the entire family line was wiped off and noone was left to report them gone. The Lancet estimated 75 200 violent deaths between 7 October 2023, and 5 January, 2025 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00522-4/fulltext). But we’ll stick to the official number that Biden over and over called untrustworthy. 47,724
By the time Biden was out of office, over 90 fucking percent of housing in Gaza was damaged or destroyed, you ghoul.
As of 10 September 2026, the official number is 74,784. That’s only 27,060 under Trump.
If you want the daily rate under both that’s 101.3 killed ever day under Biden (again way under reported) and 44.95 per day under Trump.
The recent slowdown in Gaza is caused only by increased killing in Iran and Lebanon, which does not play in your favor
Are you suggesting Biden, who bypassed Congress twice to illegally send them bombs to destroy practically all of Gaza, almost all hospitals and clinics, and almost all farmlands while gaslighting us, lying about seeing beheaded babies, callously licking ice cream while stating there are “none” chances of a ceasefire, who’s administration had members of the press dragged out in cuffs for asking about it, who framed the terrorist pager attack in Lebanon as heroic, or Kamala who went on national television and said she can’t think of a single thing she’d do different, would have stopped Israel from carrying on their stated objectives of greater Israel from day one?
Fucking clown.
So your argument is that after killing increased for s while under Trump, the shift to killing in Lebanon and Iran instead of Palestine means putting Trump in power was a success?
You disgusting ripe banana brained piece of shit.
At no point during the Trump presidency did the rate of killing go higher than the first 150 days of the genocide under Biden. And we’re still not counting the excess unreported deaths that primarily occurred during the first 150 days, when Israel cut all power to the strip and rained bombs at night.
The data is right there, and you’ve been repeatedly informed how you’re misunderstanding it, but now I think you’re just counting on people just believing your lies.
We don’t support Trump, you moron. You’re defending democrats as a “lesser evil”, and in this demonstrable case, they actually are the “bigger evil”. They’re only better domestically, and that’s what bothers liberals (or straight up Zionists pretending to be progressive), that Trump affects your cushy life. Fuck you.
You can’t just condemn the democrats for committing genocide, you have to gaslight everyone and pretend like you give a shit about Lebanon or Iran just to say “look, republicans are the only baddies.”
In case it isn’t clear to your two braincells, we don’t support Trump, we didn’t want him in power, and we didn’t vote for him. But you not only voted for genocidal KH (presumably), but you’re still defending them despite the data showing clearly what they did.
https://www.military.com/trump-administration-israel-planning-28-billion-sale-of-2000-pound-bombs
This is what you voted for. More death
You literally can’t read your own charts
WHO THE FUCK MADE NETANYAHU MAD? NOT TRUMP
Netanyahu was outraged at Biden putting pressure on him and happy Trump won, extremely happy that Trump FUCKING JOINED HIM IN WAR AGAINST IRAN
I never said they are on our side, I just found your particular point about it silly.
Not even going to comment on the rest of your reply. You clearly live in a black and white world.
You clearly live in a world where suffering of others is negotiable as long as it benefits you, and you call that a colorful world.
What a weird way to attempt to insult me, yes genocide and imperialism are bad and their supporters are bad, there’s no room for gray in there.
You’re refusing to look at how the killing accelerated under Trump and you fucking dare to accuse us of not caring?
Everybody who looked and thought for 2 seconds predicted it would be worse under Trump, tried to stop Trump, and you didn’t care because you refused to believe it could be worse under Trump, and then you claim the moral high ground for rejecting evidence
There is more genocide and imperialism because Trump got another term
The killing factually decelerated under Trump.
That’s not to defend him or his plans of turning Gaza into a beachfront resort, but factually, the killing is no where near as bad as it was under Biden.
You predicted it in 2 seconds, we lived through the live streamed genocide from day one, you’re wrong, and it’s disgusting how smug you are about it.
LOOK AT THE CHARTS
You’re just blatantly lying here, the charts fucking jolt up under Trump, YOU HAVEN’T EVEN LOOKED and insists on just believing your gut!
YOU’RE the smug fuck for refusing to look
My favorite Mamdani quote:
“For far too long, our party has seen its job as managing decline instead of delivering material change for working people,” Mamdani said at a rally headlined by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “It has seen its job as explaining why we cannot instead of showing how we can”
The Corpo-Establishment, MAGA Lite Dems are going to try to be losers again, but the new DemSocs aren’t going to allow it, and more importantly, neither are we. They will do their jobs this time, or they will be treated as harshly as MAGAs.
If they try to sandbag the next Dem administration again, in another transparent attempt to hand it back to the MAGAs, then they will be treated the same as MAGAs, and end up in prison or at the end a rope.
We’re nearly as fed up with Dems as we are with MAGAs, and it starts with Schmuck & Jeffries. They are the first to go, to make way for real Democratic Leadership, and not just Manchurian MAGAs.
Exactly. Obama’s
Yes we can
Resonated with a lot of people and then it turned out he and the Democratic senators of the 111th congress had no intention on following through.
