Still Got It

See they have to blame the Dems for shit the Republicans did because otherwise someone might ask who let the Republicans get into office to do it in the first place.

The argument is like having someone who is punching you in the face point at someone else and say "he let me do it!"
People that arent here

Wait lol, are you seriously blaming the Democrats for not stopping the Republikkklowns? Holy shit my dude, how was that pitcher of kool aid? This is sad. Would you also argue that if I shot and killed you, it's your fault for not stopping me? I shouldn't go to jail because you had your chance to do something about it and you didn't? Terrible take 1 outta 10.

Yes, the democrats are to blame for not stopping republicans. They barely scraped by in 2020 and have done everything in their power to depress voter turnout since. This same shit happened under Obama. In 2025 they will blame everything except their own failure to do what their voters are telling them to do.
- That is a hilariously bad take. I just dribbled coffee down my chin, It's your fault. You weren't here to stop me.
  
  Edit: If it wasn't clear, I'm going to blame the republicans for doing what the republicans did.
  
  Is it really that hard to understand that when politicians fail to do what they were elected to do, they lose elections?
  
  We'd have a 1-party state if the democrats passed free healthcare and college in 2009 or 2021 instead of spending billions bombing brown kids on the other side of the planet and putting migrants in concentration camps.
  
  We'd have a one party state if everyone voted too, why do you think the republikkklowns attempt to make it soooo much harder for the blue areas to vote?
  
  Why would people vote for a party that won't help them? Politicians aren't owed a vote, they must make a credible argument to voters that they'll improve their material conditions to be worth taking a day off work to vote. When they fail to carry out their promises, it's very hard for them to make that argument.
  
  Good question, why would anyone vote republikkklown? Credible??? Certainly not the right.
  
  The republicans do what their constituency wants them to do, which is punish their enemies (LGBT+, immigrants, black people, poor people) and reward (white) business owners.
  
  So it's very credible when republicans tell their base they're gonna do those things.
  
  It's not credible when democrats tell their base they're gonna protect roe v wade, because they're in power now, and didn't do it.
  
  Nothing the racist rapist with 34 felonies says is true. He has negative credibility. Don't go blaming Democrats for something the republikkklowns did. That ship has sailed.
  
  Are you saying you don't believe the republicans will hurt LGBT+, black people, immigrants, and help the billionaire class?
They had major chances to implement left wing policy during Obama's 8 year presidency, but they gave you a right wing healthcare plan courtesy of Mitt Romney (without the public option). He bailed out the banks and kicked 5.2 million families out on the street. He dropped a record number of bombs, used drones more than anyone else.
- They only had both houses and a balanced supreme court for two of those eight years, and getting the affordable care act, flawed as it is, across the line used up a lot of that.
- I'm going to call massive bullshit on that one bud. The racist rapist with 34 felonies had more drone strikes in four years than Obama did in 8 years. Piss off with your bullshit.
  
  Source for that? It's quite an open truth that Obama was a leading murderer. Not that every other US president since ww2 also would hang if they were put to the same standard as at the Nuremberg trails.
  
  Maybe 5 seconds of interwebs searching
  
  https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data Obama still holds the record. Both are murderers at least we can agree on that.
  
  Except Trump changed the reporting laws and a bunch of his aren't reported, and your data is "estimated". I'm going with the rapist with 34 felonies has more since that's where the proof is.
  
  Well the end results is of course exact for Obama but sure cheer on team go go
  
  No, I really don't think so. I'm sorry your bullshit doesn't add up.
  
  Fine, I forgot the words 'before him'. I did, however try to find the final numbers (all four years). That was not easy. If you find them, let me know.
  
  You won't find them. After the rapist with 34 felonies passed up Obama, he changed the rules of reporting so we don't get know just how much worse he was....After he said he wasn't going to use them at all.

B b b biden bad!1!

I didn't criticize biden, I criticized obama, because obama/democrats had the house and senate (fillibuster proof) and still did not deliver codified roe, even though he specifically ran on it...
- In 2008 no one expected roe to be overturned, it wasn’t even remotely a thought. The promise of the Obama administration was healthcare reform, which they burned all their political capital on.
  
  Additionally, the democrats never had their super majority because of the GOP challenging a senate seat/refusing to seat them and Al Franken’s subsequent departure.
  
  In 2008 no one expected roe to be overturned
  
  Why would they craft a bill to protect against that possibility if no one expected it?
  
  We thought we had time and could do other things like health care for sick kids.
  
  We didn’t realize what enormous fucking dipshit assholes the republiQans were fine with being.
  
  Were "we" asleep during all eight years of Bush?
  
  War for oil, yes. That we expected. Crimes against humanity, sure. Making a woman’s body the property of the state, just right-out; not as much. And every confirmation hearing they’d ask: what about Roe? And they’d all sheepishly whisper yeah we know it’s settled law, etc.
  
  Besides, if they did it - just out-and-out overturned fucking Roe v Wade can you imagine the shitstorm they’d face? Half the country would demand their heads on pikes!
  
  . . . Waitaminit . . . Statue of Liberty . . . gasp! That was our planet!!
  
  We thought we had time and could do other things like health care for sick kids.
  
  And "we" couldn't even do that. Just gave enormous subsidies to private insurance instead. Did nothing to control the price of medical care so that nowadays we have people dying because the price of insulin exploded (just one example). All because Democrats had to compromise with conservatives even with what should have been a fillibuster-proof majority.
  
  Huge populations of people who couldn’t see doctors before, now could. And it was moving mountains to get that. Yeah, it was Romneycare, that’s what we could get at the end of the day. Want H4A? Me too. Let’s vote in overwhelming majorities then ride them until they deliver.
  
  That’s why, when our precious progressiver-than-yous bitch about everything not being a literal paradise and therefore they can’t help progress I want to utter unspeakable unholy curses. It takes a lot of work. And it’s twice as hard when both the so-called-left and the right are against it.
  
  Democrats had an overwhelming when they passed obamacare.it was conservative Democrats who refused to vote for single payer. If Democrats had fallen in line and voted with their party it would have passed without any Republican votes needed, but the Blue Dogs said "no".
  
  Of course it's difficult. It's especially difficult when the party that claims to be progressive refuses to pass progressive policies when they have the opportunity to.
  
  Name the "Blue Dogs" who said no.
  
  (Also, please define Blue Dogs)
  
  Let me Google that for you
  
  Look particularly at the section "Role in the passage of the ACA".
  
  50%+1 is all that's required to overturn the filibuster. Pelosi chose to let the blue-dog democrats block single-payer because they were getting shittons of money from the insurance companies.
  
  Why did progressives craft the Green New Deal if they knew it wasn’t going to ever pass?
  
  Also it was in response to states passing restrictions. They were not worried about the Supreme Court overturning roe. Two different concerns .
  
  In bargaining you initially overshoot so that you have room to negotiate down and you can still achieve at least some of what you want. The Freedom of Choice Act is a different situation where it's defending a right that already exists.
  
  Existed*
  
  Did you not watch the four videos I linked. He specifically talks about roe.
  
  The healthcare plan came from Mitt Romney, so how they "burned all political capital" on that is gaslighting.
  
  Google obama filibuster proof
  
  No I did not watch 4 videos in their entirety just to respond to a comment.
  
  Yes we all know it was Romney-care. The democrats still burned their capital on it. I’m not sure why that doesn’t work for you. It’s not like any of that stopped the GOP from campaigning on it for a decade.
- Yeah I'm just making a generalization because it sounds better than b b b Democrats bad!1! It really makes no difference, all you want to do is say b b b but Obama/Dems/Biden/etc baddd!1!
  
  Don't memory-hole important parts of history, or you're bound to repeat it.
  
  The fuck is that even supposed to mean. Well I get the gist, which is b b b but Dems/obama/biden bad1!1 Yeah, that's all you can do.
  
  Yeah, cause they suck ass.
  
  Scathing rebuttal.
If you want to avoid another Trump term, yes.
Actually yes. Just because he clears the incredibly low bar of being better than trump, doesn't mean he's actually good.
- Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along 'party lines'). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine.
  
  But you want to say he's not good. Fucking lol.
  
  Yes, but other than that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
  
  Increased drilling permits, massive tariffs on green energy technologies, being a critical part in creating the $1.7 trillion student loan debt problem, was one of the biggest "tough on crime" proponents who imprisoned many of those people, blocked the rail strike, and infrastructure and CHIPS bills have just been maintenance and throwing money at corporations and hoping they make things better. The credit for drug price controls goes to Bernie Sanders who has done more good as a senator than Biden has as a president.
  
  Him giving a bit of relief to problems he created doesn't make him good. Him throwing money at corporations doesn't make him good. Biden has done some good things, but his achievements are overstated, inflated, and are far away from what would be considered good overall.
  
  Ah so the "the entire world didn't turn on its head in 2 years1!!1 I demand literally everything changes in the 2 years1!" Sorry but people that talk like this have absolutely no idea how much there is to change. Like how much industry, and policies, and fucking everything there is to change. Tariffs sure, but I don't really blame politicians for wanting to make domestic industry. This is not a one and done issue, this is a massive industry that will be going forever (and even more as we see AI increasing electricity demands). And helping the student debt isn't enough, you demand a time machine to go back in time and fix it back then too! Ditto for crime, more time machine! Fucking lol, it's changed from wanting everything to change in 2 years to demanding a literal fucking time machine. Rail union https://youtu.be/EM6jMtG_MB8 Oh maintenance is not good enough anymore! That means Dems bad! Fucking lol. Helping grow domestic industry is now a bad thing, fucking lol. Another important and growing industry. Drug control prices is now not an act of congress! Fucking lol.
  
  I can't fucking believe the mental gymnastics that you just went through to try to say Dems bad1!1!
  
  And it's 2 years because that's how long he had the house of representatives.
  
  Is this the conversation where I have to say how long Dems have had all 3 of the House of Reps, Senate, and Presidency? Because you need all 3 to do much of anything. Sure. Out of the last 24 years, Dems have had all of them for 4 years. The first 2 years of Obama, and the first 2 years of Biden. That's right, they've had control for 4 years out of the last 24 fucking years. And you wonder why progress is slow?
  
  Biden has been president almost as long as Trump has, yet when Trump was president, we apparently were moved from merely doing okay (after EIGHT years of Obama) to being on the brink of a fascist takeover. Meanwhile within almost the same span of time under Biden, things haven't noticeably improved. I'm not asking for a time machine, I'm just saying that you need to judge a person by their actions. For the vast majority of Biden's career, he's been milquetoast or outright harmful. What makes you think he has completely reversed his ways just by becoming president?
  
  If you're serious about wanting to fight fascism, you're going to have to fight much more aggressively than how Biden is now, who isn't really fighting at all, just being "not Trump" (but still like Trump in some aspects, like continuing his trade war with China). On the topic of this post, Obama had two years to protect reproductive rights, he even said, while he was campaigning, that he would sign the legislation within the first 100 days in office, but he did not.
  
  A reminder that the bill isn't new: "The bill was introduced to the Congress in 1989, 1993,[2] 2004[3] and 2007 (H.R. 1964/S. 1173)." Given such repeated actions of pretending to push for something but then not doing it when they have the power, what makes you think democrats are willing to actually push for more permanent solutions when they can just keep using such issues as a political bargaining chip?
  
  Ok lots to cover here.
  
  First: is that Dems need all 3 houses (house of representatives, senate, and presidency) to accomplish much of anything. Progress on the left requires actual work. You know things actually pass. That means you need all three of House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency.
  
  The right: They don't need to actually do any work. They don't need to actually pass much. They can just sit on their ass and block things. This is partly how they stacked the court, they blocked Obama's Supreme court appointment (only requires senate to block, and they were gleeful to do so) and then got their own pick under Trump.
  
  The most the GOP wants to do is repeal what was already passed, and give tax breaks. It takes fuck all effort to do that. They get one house and they can demand tax breaks or they shut down the government. Or they try to repeal the ACA. They didn't write a well thought out replacement which would have required actual work and thought. All they want to do is repeal. It takes fuck all effort to do that.
  
  Progress requires actual effort, work, and time. Stagnation (or regression) requires next to nothing. Don't overlook this concept.
  
  Second: How long did Obama have all 3? Obama had that for two years. Should I all caps that since you all caps eight? Sure: Obama had all 3 for TWO years.
  
  On to Biden. How long did Biden have all 3? He had it for 2 years.
  
  Add that up. Dems have had all 3 for 4 years of the last 24 years. Read that again, they have had control for 4 years out of the last 24 fucking years. Should I all caps that? Sure: FOUR years out of the last 24 years.
  
  Want to add Bill Clinton? Sure. Then it goes to 6 years out of the last 32 years.
  
  Want to add Bush senior and reagan? Sure. Then it goes to 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years.
  
  And that can still be filibustered. Want to discuss filibuster proof majority? Obama had that for 4 months. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS.
  
  Ok third I guess. Obama's 4 MONTH period to do things. He spent all the political capital and time on healthcare ACA. Spend time on the new thing progressive item that desperately needs to be done, that the country really, really needs. Or essentially back up what was already ruled a constitutional right. Hmmm. Hmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I barely blame him for tackling the new pressing item that had not been done before.
  
  Again, Obama having all 3 for two years means he should've been able to sign a bill for reproductive rights like he said he would in the first 100 days of his term. Last time I checked, 100 days is less than two years. I'm not buying the "it's easier to stagnate or regress" point when democrats don't put much effort into blocking republicans. Also, things like not supporting genocide, which should be an easy win and is as simple as not sending weapons and funding, has instead a ton of effort put in by Biden and team to push through weapons and funding while running a PR campaign pretending they're doing anything for Palestinians while also forcefully shutting down protests.
  
  Democrats could've nuked the filibuster, but they didn't, because they don't want to actually fight things. They like it when they're blocked because they can pretend they're trying without the threat (to their donors) of having to actually do something. That's why magically whenever democrats get a majority, they have one or two senators turn around and block their efforts. Democrats actively fund the campaigns of such senators while primarying actually progressive candidates.
  
  It would have been filibustered. So no he didn't have 2 years, he had 4 MONTHS. Just carrying on your all caps. He spent it on Healthcare.
  
  You could say they could get rid of the filibuster, and yeah the desire to keep it now is strange. But back then Obama wanted to unify, and get the country back on track, and work together, and all the jazz hands things. He was not keen on overthrowing long established processes (imagine the conspiracy theories if he had, they were bad with him just jazz hands). He wanted to work together because he had another 6 years to go and likely wouldn't have all 3 for those 6 years. So he wanted to come off as reasonable and could be worked with and all that. I barely blame him for that. Who knew that the GOP's heads would explode and they would become obstructionist to that extent.
  
  I’m not buying the “it’s easier to stagnate or regress” point when democrats don’t put much effort into blocking republicans.
  
  GOP by and large doesn't have much legislation they actually want to pass. So there's very little to block. This is the nature of it.
  
  Here's an old conversation I had (part of which I used but makes more sense in full).
  
  What the GOP wants is lack of progress. They want to hit the big giant pause button on society. They want to block progress from happening. That's why the GOP benefits more from blocking things. What the Dems want is actual progress - new bills, new laws, new measures. That requires legislation to actually pass. So no, it doesn't work the same both ways.
  
  The most the GOP wants to do is repeal what was already passed, and give tax breaks. It takes fuck all effort to do that. They get one house and they can demand tax breaks or they shut down the government. Or they try to repeal the ACA. They didn't write a well thought out replacement lol, all they want to do is repeal.
  
  To actually write and pass progressive legislation takes a ton of actual work, effort, support, and time. And all 3 houses to pass it.
  
  Ok Israel.
  
  The funny thing (that I see) with Israel is that support for Israel is a generational thing. Guess what generation Biden is in.
  
  Want a new generation in office? Guess how we do that? By voting for the left. Because when they lose they both go to the center and run their old candidates with their supposed wisdom and ability to win and all that. Want progress? Show them that it's safe to go left and that they won't lose when they do. (Is this where you say but Hillary? Then I say Obama lost the house in years 3 and 4. And again lost the house in years 5 and 6. And lost both the house and senate in years 7 and 8. No wonder the party thought they needed to be moderate to get voters. The thanks the party got for the ACA was immediately losing the house of reps.)
  
  Throw in some more 1s to give your strawman more power
  
  Having some fun, but they are not strawmans. Expecting/demanding that literally the entire world and everything in it turns on a dime is what this guy wants.
  
  This is upper elementary school strawmans. I aint seen people using 1s and !s to try and make someone sound dumb since early 4chan.
  
  Not strawmans, again he is literally demanding the entire world change end over end in 2 years. Are you/we going to play repeat now? Sounds like fun.
  
  Every part of that is a strawman. There are zero demands in the post, no references to the entire world or 2 years, in fact his specific accusations you are intentionally strawmanning away from span his very lengthy career as a politician. Do you know what a strawman is, are you aware you almost exclusively address arguments with a strawman? Its ingrained into how you type even
- Well, i mean, he is actually good

So… if I leave my door unlocked, who goes to jail if my house is broken into?

- Right. Blame the democrats because the conservatives are attacking women.
  
  This is the same logic conservatives use when they blame illegal immigrants for taking jobs. Jobs OFFERED to them by American companies.
  
  Really ? If you say one thing and not doing it when you are in power, is it strange if you loose the election? It obviously not the same.
  
  Why do you think the democrats haven't done anything since decades back?
  
  My take is that " republicans bad vote for us" is a stupid way of going about it.
  
  The us is a one party state but in true American extravaganza they have two.
Do you get anything from insurance companies if you don't lock you door?