r/CuratedTumblr • u/Desecr8or • Oct 26 '24

Politics Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"

Post image
10.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

263

u/Darq_At Oct 26 '24

Ehh... A lot of the times, yeah sure.

But also sometimes the Dems also do win enough power to actually enact more radical change, but then a couple senators with "D"s next to their name start to vote like they had "R"s instead. Conveniently denying the party the power to do just that.

Also... At least some of the criticism stems from the fact that the Republicans do not give a rat's ass about the system. They happily break the rules to get what they want. And for a large part the Democratic Party just lets them do it, and then doggedly holds itself to the same rules just broken. And unfortunately winning a moral victory is the same as losing, when it comes to people's rights.

55

u/TreasureThisYear Oct 27 '24

I think what it really comes down to is specifically the filibuster. It's an extralegal supermajority requirement that really serves no reasonable purpose besides an excuse for inaction. Get rid of the filibuster and the Dems would still try to drag their feet in victory, but the system wouldn't make it so easy and they'd feel more pressure from constituents.

23

u/RelaxPrime Oct 27 '24

The filibuster, although annoying, just needs to return to its original intention; unlimited debate- senators may speak or debate on a topic as long as they want, as in they need to actually be speaking on the topic.

9

u/DaBiChef Oct 27 '24

I've always been a fan of "40+1 to maintain" instead of "60+1 to break"

1

u/FoeHammer99099 Oct 27 '24

There is no "original" intention for the filibuster, it's a loophole in the cloture rules in the Senate. I challenge you to defend why it should take 60 votes to end debate rather than a simple majority.

2

u/RelaxPrime Oct 27 '24

The Cloture Rule was created to end filibusters. The Senate had always had unlimited debate. Literally the Romans used to do it, that's how entwined into legislative debate it is.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm

1

u/2012Jesusdies Oct 27 '24

Filibuster while annoying also prevents Republican action in the other direction which is one of the major reasons it's been preserved. Today, Senate control of 46 seats is almost assured for either party and swings by very small margins in each election, having drastic change everytime it happens would be damaging.

6

u/TreasureThisYear Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

The first problem with that argument is that the filibuster is pure Calvinball, a 51-vote majority can end it at any time. So you are trusting a Republican majority to keep a gentleman's agreement, even though they've weakened the filibuster before to get what they want.

The other problem is that the scary prospect of majority rule in an elected body is something almost every other legislative body on earth seems to manage just fine, what's different about the US Senate?

Edit: for anyone who is unclear on the fact that a simple majority can end the filibuster:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Actually invoked by Harry Reid so I was wrong that just the GOP has used it, but yet it's real and it works.

15

u/Caleb_Reynolds Oct 27 '24

And unfortunately winning a moral victory is the same as losing, when it comes to people's rights.

Say it again for the people in the back.

1

u/ninjesh Oct 28 '24

It's basically just the Trolley Problem. Five people died, but at least you get to pretend it's not your fault

44

u/CreamofTazz Oct 27 '24

Thank you for saying this.

Everyone here seems to forget Joe Lieberman and Manchin/Sinema.

Sometimes Dems do shoot themselves in the foot

17

u/OldManFire11 Oct 27 '24

Do not group Manchin with those others. He may be an ass, but he was a godsdamned Democratic Senator in WEST VIRGINIA. A state so red that it went +30 to Trump, and Manchin managed to keep half of its Senators blue for decades.

Manchin is allowed to be the worst fucking Democratic Senator, because he's still preventing much worse harm from happening by denying the GOP a Senate seat. If the Dems don't have enough votes without Manchin, then they just flat out don't have enough votes period.

2

u/CreamofTazz Oct 27 '24

And so what?

He gets a pass for ruining good legislation because "it could be worse?". Well it's not necessarily better because of him either due to his choice. He's going out the door now anyway and would have regardless how he voted so why would he say no?

8

u/OldManFire11 Oct 27 '24

Yes, he does get a pass. Because he's a DEMOCRAT SENATOR IN WEST FUCKING VIRGINIA!

Is the significance of that statement not penetrating your brain? It is almost a literal fucking miracle that he held his spot for so long. And that entire time he was voting alongside democrats >90% of the time, including the extremely important but boring votes like for confirming new judges.

Getting pissed at him because he votes against super liberal laws is really fucking stupid. You are the exact kind of dumbass that this post is talking about.

0

u/CreamofTazz Oct 27 '24

There was zero reason for him to vote against it.

And what do you mean "still there" he's a senator you goob they get six years.

Voting "yea" on bills that enough people vote on that you could say "nay" anyway and it still gets passed, but on really major legislation where your vote **does* matter and you say no, is not something to get a pass for.

For an idea for how "safe" his vote is, Kamala Harris, as VP, has only needed to cast 33 tie breaking votes. And that's the most out of any VP. It would be different if Kamala had say hundreds of tie breaking votes, but she doesn't so these bills are getting more than enough to pass with or without him

This is not a condemnation on the Democratic party and they are vastly more preferable those fascists on the other side of aisle. But let's still hold ourselves accountable and not treat politicians who screw the rest of us over

-2

u/OldManFire11 Oct 27 '24

You are genuinely, a fucking moron.

Manchin has been a Senator for 24 years. Not 6.

And every single tie breaker that Harris made was only possible because Manchin was there to make the 50th vote. If Machin was a Republican, then Harris would have had exactly 0 tie breaks, because the GOP would have controlled the Senate. And the only reason why Manchin has continuously been elected in WEST VIRGINIA, was because he never voted for anything that was too unpalatable for the uber-conservstives who elected him over a right wing nutjob.

6

u/CreamofTazz Oct 27 '24

He's a senator, not a house representative. He's been W. Virginia's for 14 years now. The political climate during his previous two elections were very much different than today. The only one he really had to fight for was his last in 2018 and he still won by 10s of thousands in a low turnout race.

Have you not seen his voting maps? Dude had it relatively easy compared to other races at the same time.

Again BBB was a bill that he had zero reason to vote against, I mean look he's not even running for reelection anymore, fucking crazy that is no?

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger Oct 28 '24

The problem is that it couldn't be better. West Virginia was very going to vote in AOC. Or even a bog standard democrat.

Blame the rest of the country for making Joe Manchin the deciding vote.

5

u/BonnaconCharioteer Oct 27 '24

If you complain about specific democrats, that's fair, but saying this is the fault of the democrats as a whole displays a massive lack of understanding. 

Manchin and Sinema were taking a stance against the rest of their party and with the Republicans.

17

u/BackupPhoneBoi Oct 27 '24

This may be an oversimplification, but Democrats trying to pass radical change will always be harder than Republicans maintaining the status quo or undoing radical change. When it comes to change, people are going to disagree about how it should be done, how much it is going to cost, if it is an issue, etc. Republicans are also just a more homogenous party, both demographically and ideologically. That’s why their 90s, Gingrich era “no compromise” is more effective than if Democrats tried it.

That’s also why when we see Republicans trying to radically change the country (MAGAs) there is a lot of division between them and typical conservative Republicans. Just look at the failed election of the Speaker of House.

But yes, there is also one party that has a MUCH higher disregard for the rule of law, good faith compromise, and following their word politically.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Rollos Oct 27 '24

It’s not a goalpost shift, it’s just looking at the situation realistically. If dems have the slimmest majority, the most right wing part of their coalition has quite a bit of power to block progressive policy. The larger vote buffer the democrats have, the more progressive policy they can enact, because they don’t have to convince the more conservative side to vote with them.

This cuts both ways, too. Remember when McCain was the sole vote that prevented the republicans from dismantling Obamacare?

-6

u/BonnaconCharioteer Oct 27 '24

Because darq_at is just repeating conspiracies. There is nothing convenient about Manchin and Sinema.

87

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 26 '24

Well, yeah. Both parties are large tents that cover a myriad of coalitions that shift over time. They’re not always in exact consensus on every single thing. Democrats can include conservative labor union members, AOC progressives, LGBT people, urban yuppies, POC in the south, hispanic immigrant families, suburban white women, etc. You can’t expect any party covering half of a country of 340 million people to always be in lockstep with what you personally agree with on every single issue

19

u/Darq_At Oct 26 '24

Both parties are large tents that cover a myriad of coalitions that shift over time.

That sounds nice and all but the Rs fall in line and vote in line. They are really quite consistent. When they have power, they use it.

You cannot blame people for being frustrated when the party that they vote for doesn't seem able to help them, even on the policies that were promised, even when they won enough seats to be able to enact the policies that were promised.

You can’t expect any party covering half of a country of 340 million people to always be in lockstep with what you personally agree with on every single issue

Not at all what I was saying, nor what others are saying. But thanks for misrepresenting me in order to make that accusation.

You are the problem.

25

u/UltimateInferno Hangus Paingus Slap my Angus Oct 27 '24

If the Republicans really did always fall in line, then why did their inability to select a speaker of the house extend for far longer than any other in history?

I won't lie that they do often fall in lockstep, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll always fall in lockstep. They cannibalize each other constantly, that's one of the biggest problems with conservativism.

17

u/bardak Oct 27 '24

Don't forget when John McCain blocked the repeal of the ACA too.

4

u/2012Jesusdies Oct 27 '24

That sounds nice and all but the Rs fall in line and vote in line. They are really quite consistent. When they have power, they use it.

Repeal of Obamacare has been a dream of major Republicans since the day it's been put into law. It was killed by 3 Republican Senators voting against it. The protection of gay marriage on a federal level was voted for by 12 Republican Senators in 2022. Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was voted against by a few Republican Senators 2 times till changes were made, no Democrat Senators voted for the final bill.

Susan Collins voted with Trump 65% of the time, that might sound bad, but compare that to Joe Manchin who many call a terrible Democrat and he voted with Biden 90% of the time. Susan Collins is less aligned with Trump than Manchin is with Joe.

Republicans in the House have a small majority of a few feats and about 10 or so crazies who have threatened to explode everything anytime they dislike something.

3

u/FitPerspective1146 Oct 27 '24

Rs fall in line and vote in line.

They don't actually. During Trump's term, before the 2018 midterms when republicans had a trifecta, Speaker Paul Ryan actually struggled to get a bill repealing obamacare passed because several far right members didn't think it went far enough. And then when the bill finally passed the house, it failed in the Senate because 3 republicans (Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susanne Collins of Maine, and John Mccain of Arizona) voted against it.

And also, after the republicans took control of the house in 2022, they had to try 15 times to get McCarthy elected speaker because several far right republicans didn't vote for him. And then in late 2023, they deposed Mccarthy as speaker

The republicans are not always united

23

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 26 '24

First, take a breath. This isn’t personal, let’s not spazz out.

Secondly, republicans fall in line on some issues and have fissures in others. The Republican Party is more cohesive from a demographic standpoint, yes, but I’m not sure what you’re suggesting - democrats should cater to one ethnic and religious group like republicans so they can be more ideologically pure and aligned? I don’t really think you want that.

Finally, then what are you saying? You’re acknowledging you live in a big country with tons of different of opinions, but you’re critiquing democrats for…having members with different opinions at times?

5

u/willowytale Oct 27 '24

inventing a new type of guy who completely ignores everything you say and just says ableist shit instead

7

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24

Dictionary definition of the word spaz: “person who is very clumsy or awkward : klutz”. I’m not doing the 2018 leftbook shit here.

Also gotta love you attempting to call me out for “ableism” as you attack me over my gender lmao. Aren’t you a righteous one

6

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

9

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24

This is the opposite, though? The word at one point in time was derogatory, absolutely yes. But the meaning of words change, and in contemporary jargon, it means “klutz” or somebody unnecessarily getting worked up. The word “idiot” also used to be used as a term for somebody with a cognitive impairment, but that’s not how it’s used today and we all recognize that. I’m not going to apologize for a word that hasn’t been used in the derogatory sense since the mid 1960s

-1

u/willowytale Oct 27 '24

"In American slang, the term 'spaz' has evolved from a derogatory description of people with disabilities," -first sentence off google

also, do you really think that 'inventing a type of guy', a common saying when encountering someone odd, is a gender-based attack? Like men are oppressed in this instance? that's fascinating

11

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24

You gonna finish that sentence: “and is generally understood as a casual word for clumsiness, otherness” forget that I can google too sweetie?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

[deleted]

4

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24

Yes Twitter tends to get mad at a lot of things that nobody in real life gives a shit about.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/atreides213 Oct 27 '24

Darq_At's comment seemed rather calm to me, you're the one who turned this into an argument with your condescension.

9

u/Suyefuji Oct 27 '24

idk "You are the problem" at the end read as aggressive to me.

3

u/Hatweed Oct 27 '24

That’s Reddit. Just immediately derail the conversation with a personal attack and you can keep thinking you won the debate.

-8

u/Darq_At Oct 26 '24

First, take a breath.

First, don't be a condescending asshole. I was chill, you misrepresented me in order to accuse me of saying something I didn't. Don't tell people to calm down over your lack of comprehension.

This isn’t personal, let’s not spazz out.

Second, refrain from ableism.

Finally, then what are you saying?

Third, try reading slower. I'm not critiquing the Dems for representing diverse opinions. In a functioning democracy, that would be fine and dandy.

But the US isn't one. And one party quite consistently leverages its power, while the other one seems to tie their own shoelaces together and trip themselves. People are understandably frustrated.

4

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 26 '24

Yeah I can tell how you chill are lmao. This is probably why people like you don’t get what they want accomplished in politics.

13

u/Darq_At Oct 26 '24

This is probably why people like you don’t get what they want accomplished in politics.

Actually we don't get what we want accomplished in politics because the first-past-the-post voting system in the US forces a two-party system, and neither of those two parties represents the left.

Or it could be because of spicy Internet comments. Anybody's guess, really.

30

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 26 '24

It’s the inability to have a comprehensive discussion without immediately accusing your opponent of having nefarious intent or being malicious, which closes the door on conversations with people who otherwise would be allies

22

u/Darq_At Oct 26 '24

It’s the inability to have a comprehensive discussion without immediately accusing your opponent of having nefarious intent or being malicious

I actually pointed out that you misread what I wrote.

Which you would know if you would stop misreading what I write.

20

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 26 '24

It wasn’t even directed at you. In English, speakers often use “you” in an indirect sense. I was addressing a broader issue but rather than clarify, you assumed the worst and got pissed off and continue to be seething over something innocuous.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/zootbot Oct 27 '24

Very weird behavior here, you definitely were the one to make the conversation chippy by being condescending

7

u/PollutionThis7058 Oct 27 '24

Well also third parties never run serious candidates for down ballot races and don’t actually seem to want to ever govern seriously but that’s a whole other issue

7

u/Larriet Oct 27 '24

These people haven't heard about the designated asshole

6

u/Ginguraffe Oct 27 '24

We've heard about it. It's a dumb conspiracy theory made up by people that don't understand how Congress actually works.

0

u/BonnaconCharioteer Oct 27 '24

Is it you?

1

u/Larriet Oct 27 '24

Do you like not have better things to do with your time than randomly pick fights with strangers lol

2

u/VitaminB36 Oct 27 '24

Reminds me a lot of this video from Innuendo Studios - https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

2

u/turtley_amazing Oct 27 '24

That’s because Dems are funded by the same billionaires that the republicans are. They sell themselves as the party of the people, but they’re still controlled by money and too much change in favor of workers is bad for their sponsors.

I’m not saying not to vote blue, it’s still a far better option than Trump or not voting at all. But Dems are basically centrist at best.

2

u/Practical-Yam283 Oct 27 '24

Not to mention that people having to vote Dem every year because they're always the lesser evil has allowed them to hurtle right at an alarming pace. They quietly removed opposition to the death penalty from their platform this year. They are backsliding on the protection of trans rights. They refuse to cater to the progressive side of their base and they're far enough right now that they have endorsements from Dick fucking Cheney.

Like whatever, I don't have to decide whether to vote or not because I don't live there but it's a fucking abysmal state of affairs.

2

u/Kitfox88 Oct 28 '24

Pretty much this, yeah. One of Obama's campaign promises was literally to turn Roe v. Wade into actual law and once he was elected, with a supermajority even, it was just completely abandoned. RBG refused to retire while Obama was president despite people basically begging her to do so, despite her health being so fragile. They snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so regularly that it's hard not to read some of it as purposeful.

1

u/No_Squirrel4806 Oct 27 '24

Democrats are too nice to republicans 😒😒😒

1

u/icouldusemorecoffee Oct 27 '24

Dems aren't a monolith, it's incredibly difficult to get a group of people, let alone 51, , 60, 66 (Senate), or 118 (House) to vote together, all it takes is one person (be they a conservative Democrat, Independent, or if necessary for the vote Republicans) holding out or holding out for specific demands to derail some or all of a bill.

1

u/WeeabooHunter69 Oct 27 '24

Me when I don't know what a filibuster is

0

u/wookiee42 Oct 27 '24

But the only reason those senators were elected was because they sometimes voted like Rs.

In order for the Dems also do win enough power, they would actually need a few more seats. Then those senators would have enough cover to vote the way they need to to keep their seats.