this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
821 points (97.0% liked)

Progressive Politics

3251 readers
379 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 58 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

The Democratic Party is a honey pot trap used to attract and neutralize progressive and leftist politicians and policies and ensure that the “Overton Window” of American politics never moves left. They will let you “talk” about universal healthcare, for example, but they will never, EVER allow it to move forward as a serious legislative agenda.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 31 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Never forget that Obama had two whole years of a significant Democratic majority in both Congress AND Senate, and still somehow couldn't muster the cojones to pass anything even close to the socialised healthcare he'd campaigned on and had a huge popular mandate for.

Someone please explain why it is that when Republicans are the minority they have the ability to block absolutely everything the ruling party attempts, and yet when the Democrats are in opposition suddenly somehow it's impossible for them to do anything?

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

They simply don't want to.
Once it can happen, when it's a pattern happening their entire history it should be obvious.
The game is R: 5 steps right, D: 1 step left. But apparently americans can't see it.
Totally their own fault.
it's a running joke, especially now.
The game format inevitably results in a far-right stage eventually.
And yet they cry crocodile tears and are confused how they ended up there.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Socialized healthcare was filibustered by every single republican, and in the 72 days they had supermajority WITH INDEPENDENTS one of which opposed public option, they passed the medicaid expansion which gave healthcare and in some cases dental to tens of millions of people. The time period you're talking about was also the most productive congress on record since the mid 20th century.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can always count on finitebanjo to bring the excuses.

[–] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So damn impress how they're always so confident in being wrong

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago

Actively impressive how they are so smug and cocksure but constantly wrong on everythig they believe, the neoliberal way.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

still somehow couldn’t muster the cojones to pass anything even close to the socialised healthcare

You guys are really trash at recalling or just looking up recent history. Many of us were there when it happened. We remember how it went down.

Too many conservative, pro-life Democrats were against anything better, and they had barely enough Democrats to squeeze through procedural obstacles (filibusters) in the Senate. A number of them voted against the bill that passed.

quotations

They chose this approach after concluding that filibuster-proof support in the Senate was not present for more progressive plans such as single-payer.

The holdouts came down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. Lieberman's demand that the bill not include a public option was met, although supporters won various concessions, including allowing state-based public options such as Vermont's failed Green Mountain Care. Many voted against the bill that passed: it barely got through.

The White House and Reid addressed Nelson's concerns during a 13-hour negotiation with two concessions: a compromise on abortion, modifying the language of the bill "to give states the right to prohibit coverage of abortion within their own insurance exchanges"

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it

Then at reconciliation of House & Senate bills for passage

The remaining obstacle was a pivotal group of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak who were initially reluctant to support the bill.

The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.

Someone please explain why

Because Democrats & leftists are better at infighting than setting aside differences to win.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

All the left wanted in the last election is for Harris to say the zionists were conducting a genocide. Thats it. Its a trivial ask. And then she would have won. But "centrist" dems couldnt even give the left that tiny speck of a fig leaf. But sure blame both the left and the centrists equally if that makes you feel righteous.

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

See I think that kind of defeatist logic is the trap - they flood the internet with pessimism and "there's no point in trying" and "there's no point in voting" to make sure YOU don't try. To make sure all you do is sit on your ass at home and complain on the internet.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I never said any of that shit. The point is that, tactically speaking, we should be dealing with them as they are, and not giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are on our side and operating in good faith, like the tired meme of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.

The threat is existential, and there should be qualifying and disqualifying criteria, and that criteria should be set by US, not some party dignitaries, not some fucking “consultants” who are getting money from billionaire funded PAC’s and think tanks.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago

That's not defeatist.

Defeatism is deciding now, over 3 years before the next election and 15 months before midterms, that there's no way you get someone elected who actually represents you, so you should just suck it up and vote for Kodos.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Clearly it's not working because despite progressive stances being a wide majority we haven't elected more than 48 DNC since 2013.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago

Citizens United essentially put the electoral system up for corporate sale. By 2013 it was fully in effect.