_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
239
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
239 points (96.5% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
7362 readers
406 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, I'm not saying they hold the monopoly on obstruction. Every Republican bitched for 4 years during Trump's first term that Democrats blocked everything. (He didn't have the Senate and Congress Majority from 2017-2021)
Democrats shouldn't have approved trump nominees, but even if they voted against they would have been approved by the majority of Republican votes. The one notable flop that Democrats won was Matt Gaetz not getting in.
Also this thread was about Tarrifs, but like I said there are many really shitty Democrats politicians out there, it doesn't mean they can block anything without getting Republicans to turn their votes against the party
Would you like to get into how many times the Republicans have been able to rely on token Dems to cross the aisle to help pass their agenda? We can then break down whether those turncoats were primaries or protected by the party.
If the republicans can pass it without the Dems, that makes their betrayal a worse example. Not better. Wild you think that’s a defense.
Can you give an example of one where enough Republicans voted against that it would have failed? If that didn't happen yes it is a betrayal to their party, but it doesn't mean they could have blocked it. (which is what people are asking them to do in this thread)
(edit to throw in) also It feels like a betrayal to us because we are further left than the Democrats, but the Democrats have a lot of overlapping views with Republicans, which if your voter base has 60% support and 40% against (things like Israel, it sucks but that politician is supposed to vote for Israel)
Israel sucked so bad because the truth is that the majority of the Democrats supported Israel when the war started, and by thr time 50%+ didn't, it was far to late
Wanna go back over the last 30+ years of Democrats helping Republicans pass their evil shit? I’m down. I’d also love to throw in how many of these turncoats the party protected from primaries, while the party actively primaried their progressives.
There’s no “us” here. You’re a liberal. I’m a leftist. Don’t go convincing yourself you’re not on the right.
https://rollcall.com/2025/01/20/democrats-senate-laken-riley-act/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-cross-aisle-back-gop-035900823.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/18/crypto-stablecoins-senate
https://www.them.us/story/81-democrats-joined-republicans-passing-defense-bill-ndaa-anti-trans
You have no idea what I believe in, you just don't like that I pointed out that the Democrats can't block any of this without Republican support.
How many more links would you like to prove you wrong? What’s the number? Set the goalpost, and I’ll reach it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/18235309
Also for your breakdown:
Lake Riley act Democrats couldn't have blocked
The North Carolina budget (not federal) has a Republican Senate and Congress as well, can't verify what the party line votes even were
crypto bill: Democrats helped pass bill to put "guardrails" on crypto currencys.
Gender affirming care, Democrats couldnt have blocked
So what we see from your examples is that Democrats are worried about Crypto as much as Republicans are.
There was already a significant enough faction of republicans opposing that it required democrats to pass each of these, which was what you asked for and what you got. And now, as expected, you’ve got plenty of excuses.
Everyone mark this astroturf bot in your apps. We got another liberal here pretending to be a pragmatic leftist with a DNC dick in their mouth.
Nope, I looked up the vote numbers by party. Both federal bills outside of the crypto required no Democrats support. It's just reported that way in those articles because they want to point out that their are shit Democrats.
The North Carolina budget I know nothing about, what they spend money on in their state really has nothing to do with the federal governments agenda.
For example 52 Republican senators voted for the Laken Riley Act. - that means it is impossible to block
Anti-trans NDAA: house republicans were 20 votes short of a majority.
Laken Riley act: house republicans were 44 votes short of a majority senate republicans 11 votes short.
March ‘25 spending bill: senate republicans 8 votes short.
And why do you think Democrats stopping a budget in North Carolina has anything to do with stopping Trump.
Do you see at the top where it says “senate”? Do you understand the difference between the house and senate? Do you not understand that bills need to pass BOTH?
Also there were 217 votes by Senate Republicans for it, and there are only 212 democrats in the house, so once again, impossible
HOUSE Republicans needed 218 to pass it.
Vacancies made it less as I discussed in the other comment, but I think you can win this discussion for the gender affirming care one.
The majority of Republicans voted for it, but they wouldn't have toppled 217
And it’s not about winning. It’s about encouraging people to pull their heads out of their ass, and recognize that we are fighting two fascist parties. Not just the GOP.
And again, those vacancies are the fault of the Dems.
Yes, remember when you gave me the information to look up the Senate? How would I know to fact check a link you didn't send
Wrong link, but I specifically called out the house.
https://lemmy.world/comment/18235714
Which I just put elsewhere: 217 Republican votes. (Impossible block, even if the Democrats all hated it which clearly they didn't)
It needed 218 to pass with a majority.
There are currently 4 vacancies in Congress, half a point a piece per vacancy means 216 to pass, granted it may have been 217 at the time, may have only been 3 out. Hence why they had 217 votes.
Edit: It may have been 3 at the time, either way 216.5 votes
And those vacancies are also the fault of the DNC and their gerontocracy. Party leadership knew Gerry Connolly was dying, and still pushed his appointment to the house oversight committee.
https://www.businessinsider.com/8-members-congress-died-office-democrats-2025-5