I can’t pin it on Biden, but Democrats had the majority in the House and Senate for the first 2 years of his presidency. They had the opportunity to protect LGBTQ+ people. The catch is that they would have had to end the filibuster forever. They chose to protect the filibuster.
There was a majority in the House, and it was 50-50 in the Senate. With Harris being the tiebreaker, that’s a majority.
I also remember the line from 2022 being “If you want to pass things progressives are clamoring for, we need more Democrats.” So we elected an additional Democrat. Then Sinema left the party. Then Fetterman was like “Sucker!” and sprinted toward the center. And now Manchin has left the party.
So we need MORE Democrats. That’s the point. If you only give us a slim majority we’re beholden to the 2 or 3 blue dog conservative Dems. 2 additional progressives and we could have told Manchin and Sinema to pound sand.
2 additional progressives and we could have told Manchin and Sinema to pound sand.
Please. We elected an additional progressive in '22 and wound up with two fewer Democrats and the progressive we picked up turned out to be a centrist.
It doesn’t matter how big a majority we give Democrats. There are always just enough Manchins.
That’s absolutely not true. That one time you fickle fuckers gave us enough Democrats for like 4 months, we got Obamacare. Imagine what we could get with 4 years or so.
We gave Democrats a supermajority. They killed the public option with it. They made damned sure to bail out their owners in the banking industry and make sure the only one of them who saw any consequences was the guy who scammed rich people. And had no interest whatsoever in codifying Roe.
And just like Biden’s first two years, they could have ended the filibuster forever with a simple majority, so your “four months” argument is just another pro-failure excuse.
I can’t pin it on Biden, but Democrats had the majority in the House and Senate for the first 2 years of his presidency. They had the opportunity to protect LGBTQ+ people. The catch is that they would have had to end the filibuster forever. They chose to protect the filibuster.
Are you sure? I thought it was just a slim majority in the house. At no point were both majority Dems.
There was a majority in the House, and it was 50-50 in the Senate. With Harris being the tiebreaker, that’s a majority.
I also remember the line from 2022 being “If you want to pass things progressives are clamoring for, we need more Democrats.” So we elected an additional Democrat. Then Sinema left the party. Then Fetterman was like “Sucker!” and sprinted toward the center. And now Manchin has left the party.
So we need MORE Democrats. That’s the point. If you only give us a slim majority we’re beholden to the 2 or 3 blue dog conservative Dems. 2 additional progressives and we could have told Manchin and Sinema to pound sand.
Please. We elected an additional progressive in '22 and wound up with two fewer Democrats and the progressive we picked up turned out to be a centrist.
It doesn’t matter how big a majority we give Democrats. There are always just enough Manchins.
So long as we perpetuate this system of legalized bribery, aka “campaign finance donations,” there will always be just enough Manchins.
Don’t forget the magic Senate parliamentarian
That’s absolutely not true. That one time you fickle fuckers gave us enough Democrats for like 4 months, we got Obamacare. Imagine what we could get with 4 years or so.
We gave Democrats a supermajority. They killed the public option with it. They made damned sure to bail out their owners in the banking industry and make sure the only one of them who saw any consequences was the guy who scammed rich people. And had no interest whatsoever in codifying Roe.
And just like Biden’s first two years, they could have ended the filibuster forever with a simple majority, so your “four months” argument is just another pro-failure excuse.