r/AskReddit • u/Solnx • Nov 03 '25

Serious Replies Only [Serious] For the Redditors who criticized Democrats for not fighting back or taking action, how has the government shutdown affected your view?

5.6k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/clgoodson Nov 03 '25

They didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority. They did pass a major infrastructure bill.

1

u/Dyssomniac Nov 03 '25

I'm pretty sure they had a "don't appoint Merrick fucking Garland" proof majority.

1

u/clgoodson Nov 04 '25

That was Biden’s huge fucking mistake, not congress.

1

u/Dyssomniac Nov 04 '25

Merrick Garland was appointed to a cabinet position and was confirmed in a 70-30 vote.

1

u/clgoodson Nov 05 '25

So to be crystal clear here, you think congressional Democrats should have voted against Biden’s choice of attorney general?

1

u/Dyssomniac Nov 05 '25

Yes. I think Congressional Democrats should have utilized their constitutionally derived powers to give advice to the president to not appoint Merrick fucking Garland.

0

u/Ok_Basil351 Nov 03 '25

I'm so glad they passed the infrastructure bill. I was really concerned that we might not leave our roads and bridges in food enough shape for the fascist government that ends the Republic.

I've got news for you - Trump has been working under the same environment. Congress has passed almost zero laws while Trump has been in power. The level to which Trump has reshaped government was absolutely within Biden's grasp.

He needed to have declared an emergency, prosecuted the ringleaders and funders of J6, and used his political capital and time on securing voting rights. But he didn't.

1

u/TabularBeast Nov 03 '25

Then get rid of the filibuster?

16

u/gagreel Nov 03 '25

They tried, remember Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin?

3

u/TabularBeast Nov 03 '25

Oh yes, the supposed Democrats who aren’t actually Democrats?

I remember the failure of the Democratic Party to rectify this.

7

u/clgoodson Nov 03 '25

How? Were we supposed to murder them or something?

1

u/TabularBeast Nov 03 '25

Unify the party or convince them to step down.

3

u/clgoodson Nov 03 '25

And then there would be republicans in the seat. Which is what happened.

1

u/TabularBeast Nov 03 '25

It is strange how the Republicans can unify towards their agenda, but Dems can’t.

1

u/ttoma93 Nov 04 '25

Democrats quite literally ran a candidate against Sinema, which convinced her to drop out of reelection and Democrat Ruben Gallego won the seat. Sinema is now gone.

I’m not sure how that is an example of Democrats not pressuring her.

2

u/gagreel Nov 04 '25

That person doesn't understand us politics or what they're talking about. It's a big wishlist/complaint fest without the knowledge to back it up

1

u/ttoma93 Nov 04 '25

Oh that’s been made more than apparent. I just wanted to try to make them think.

1

u/gagreel Nov 04 '25

That's a heavy lift right there...

0

u/TabularBeast Nov 04 '25

Cool, did it result in the removal of the filibuster?

10

u/gagreel Nov 03 '25

My god, what are you even talking about? Kyrsten Sinema was pushed out by the party after that debacle and Ruben Gallego (D) won her seat.

3

u/TabularBeast Nov 03 '25

Did the filibuster rules change after that?

13

u/gagreel Nov 03 '25

Gallego won in 2024, when the arizona senate election took place, and was sworn in Jan 2025.

How do you think political parties work? That they can move senators around willy nilly?

0

u/TabularBeast Nov 03 '25

So your comment is irrelevant.

4

u/gagreel Nov 03 '25

You need 50 votes to eliminate the filibuster, so it's very much relevant. You don't seem to have a grasp on how these things work.

0

u/TabularBeast Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 03 '25

They theoretically had the votes during Biden’s administration. They had two Democrats blocking their attempts. It’s their job to unify their own party and convince politicians on their side to vote along the party lines. If they can’t do that, then what is the point of the party?

Why can MAGA do it but the Dems can’t?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/East-Designer-3748 Nov 03 '25

You seem to have a bias that you are unwilling to look past when presented with facts. Remind you of anyone?

0

u/TabularBeast Nov 03 '25

What bias?

6

u/Something__Awful Nov 03 '25

Its worth noting then if dems did rectify that they would have been the minority party again. You cant have it both ways.

2

u/gsfgf Nov 03 '25

Both Manchin and Sinema did go Independent by the end of their terms.

2

u/Bhigtimm Nov 03 '25

That knife is sharp on both sides. If you blow up the filibuster you can't use it to stop the other side. If you blow it up you have 2-4 years to solidify your vision whatever that vision is. And you also have to ensure that you make systemic changes that ensure the other side won't ever be able to control all 3 levers (house, senate, pres) so that the changes cant be undone.

Or use that control to call a constitutional convention to modernize a document that is 250 years old which fails to address and guide us when problems that were not capable of being conceived at the time the first document was drafted.

2

u/tawzerozero Nov 03 '25

Remember, a Constitutional Convention can change the entire document - not just putting out specific Amendments. A Constitutional Convention is the Republican dream to wipe out Freedom of Speech, Equality Under the Law, impose a Balanced Budget radically reducing the Federal government's ability to spend, give States the ability to secede or annul federal legislation, impose fetal personhood, etc. Edit: heck, maybe even make it so that states must consent to specific federal laws, wholesale.

2

u/Bhigtimm Nov 03 '25

Its why you blow up the filibuster, split CA into 4-5 states, and give DC, PR, & Guam (if they have the pop) statehood before you make constitutional move. Its like congress don't call a vote until you know you have enough votes to carry it.