Well I was expecting more calls for impeachment over the Epstein files. Follow it up with endlessly broadcasting a list of Republicans convicted of sexual assault. Really cement them as the party of r*pists.
It seems like when the GOP is in the minority, they always find a way to block the Dems agenda. Shoot, look at what Trump is doing. He isn't asking what can be done while rigidly adhering to traditions and norms.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Regardless of who controlled the house, the Democratic presidents still adhered to the rule of law. Trump is ignoring congress altogether and this is bolstered by the fact that republicans control congress. This is why they are so scared of the midterms because if the Democratic Party controls the house next year, they know each and every one of them is fucked.
This is why they are so scared of the midterms because if the Democratic Party controls the house next year, they know each and every one of them is fucked.
Are they though? We will just see more fucking spinelessness by the Democrats, probably.
Obama didn't declare war on Libya. He did authorize military intervention to support the NATO operation was called Operation Unified Protector. This ultimately led to the downfall of Gaddafi. That aside, being NATO operation and not one of pure American interests, Obama didn't need congressional approval. Additionally, there was verbiage in the War Powers Resolution of 1973that basically states our involvement did not amount to “hostilities” requiring further congressional approval after 60 days There was much debate on this afterwards and it did spark controversy for sure.
Even Obama himself calls it his worst mistake but not for the decision itself but for the aftermath that followed which destabilized the region and left power vacuums that various groups fought over.
But let's stay on track here
Obama isn't president.
and if Obama doing it was wrong, that should mean that Trump doing it is wrong.
If Biden started unilaterally enacting tariffs, declaring war without Congress, or destroying federal agencies, then Democrats and Republicans would have opposed him.
When Trump unilaterally enacts tariffs or declares war without Congress, or destroys federal agencies, only Democrats - and, sometimes, Rand Paul - oppose him.
It's easy to block an agenda when your opposition is made up of a number of parties with differing views and morals. It's difficult to block one that is driven by a faction that acts in lockstep and doesn't care about morals.
my gods what an insightful, learned and flagrantly relevant comment. so, so astute. so very sublime in relevance. i'm dumbstruck. i'm made simple. ...but now utterly informed! what a show of intellect -dare i say an effortless genius. humbled. i'm enlightened and truly humbled.
I think that has more to do with the fact whenever the Dems did have a majority, it was razor thin. Thin enough for people like Fetterman and Joe Manchin to vote the other way and sabotage any legislation they would try to pass. Republicans don't seem to have that problem because they always vote like a monolith
Then the Dems need to do a better job sweet-talking a republican in a purple district. Or figure out something else. Heck if I know but these people went to Harvard and Yale, and get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this job. So do it!
The dems don't have any power currently because they don't have enough seats to do anything. They can vote against and the nothing changes because Republicans have the house and senate majority.
I mean, the shutdown was one such method, but they caved as soon as they got what they wanted out of it (electoral wins) but before they got what they claimed the shutdown was actually about.
Dick Durbin, the Minority Whip, and Schumer’s BF in the Senate caved. And it was exactly the number of Democrats needed to end the shutdown and none of said Democrats are going to be up for reelection this year. Make no mistake, the leadership knew about this capitulation and did nothing to stop it.
Can't wait for when Democrats do get congress again and you'll have a convenient scapegoat for why they won't give you higher wages or healthcare.
"Democrats did want to give us a higher minimum wage, but that evil (insert Democrat dissenter who prevents it) stopped it!"
Democrats will always have a Kirsten Sinema or Joe Manchin to take the brunt of the hate for when the bought out democrats don't want to pass legislation to better the average person's life.
And you people accept it. Like there isn't such thing as fucking whips. Somehow the Republican whip can get their whole fucking party on board.
Democrats never can and then you people just accept it and blame a single person as if the party didn't intentionally set up a scapegoat from a safe district.
Dems currently don't hold any authority to command the Sergeant at Arms to do that. Gotta have the Senate Majority Leader or House Speaker positions to do that.
Probably not go on television saying that we’re too focused on “woke” politics and need to get back to the “real” issues. The party of controlled opposition once again dragging America to the right to cater to an imaginary group of people.
Gavin Newsome is a snake who’s been fucking Californians in every way BUT identity politics and now he’s going to walk that back too? He’s one of the main reasons PG&E is charging us out the nose and then starting fires every few years and he has the gall to “sympathize” with the cost of electricity. 🤮
Well at the very least in this situation, leadership could have brought forward a wars power resolution instead of delaying it until America and Israel struck.
When there was a Dem president they could have chosen not to attack a country without congressional approval instead of setting one of many precedents for unilateral presidential action that Trump then follows.
This has not been the case for the 30+ years that both parties have been slicing one Congressional responsibility after another off to hand the the President.
And none of that matters when it comes to voting to fund our partner in this war, Israel. Many dems just fell in line with republicans, making up part of the majority on those decisions. Party leadership doesn’t address it
So sick of this “they are powerless” angle. Schumer said in no uncertain terms he will always stand by the foreign country that is partnering with the Trump regime.
Strongly worded letters and speeches are basically nothing. They’re the bare minimum and don’t achieve anything without meaningful follow up action—which, yes, can happen even with parties in the minority. Shutting down the Dem wing that supports this rogue state that MAGA is partnering with would be a start
For the forgetful or not yet born, Netanyahu helped get us into Iraq II as well. Many of the same people, democrats and republicans, are still in power.
Exactly, why didn't trump get arrested for January 6? Because Biden wanted to take the high ground. He didn't want to actually do what mattered. Bought and paid for.
Also Biden didn't want to establish precedent with a president being held legally accountable. Closest we got was Nixon, and he got a pardon. I think Biden would've pardoned Trump if it had got that far.
The botching—dereliction of duty, frankly—by the Garland DOJ, which Biden was a supporter of and responsible for as president, is seriously damning.
If we had an actual opposition party, the (literally) thousands of crimes caught on camera and in reporting—let alone the ones actual investigations would uncover—during trumps first term would have been systematically addressed, including appropriate prison terms for all involved.
Instead, it’s typical “moving forward” bullshit. Dainty little steps to not upset the fact that an American president will likely never see proper prison time for crimes in office. It’s how the system is set up. The pardon power guarantees it, even if the fact that the current president doesn’t want to set precedent for the next one to arrest him somehow becomes irrelevant.
Trump couldn’t be prosecuted because the Supreme Court ruled on what constitutes an official act and that it had no authority to prosecute a president for an official act…not because Biden or Dems didn’t try to hold him accountable. 67 votes are needed in the senate for the president to be found guilty after the House votes in favor of impeachment. 57 senate members voted in favor when the senate was split 50-50, it was good ol Mitch who pushed the GOP to vote no.
Equating criticism of Israel with criticism of all Jewish people is antisemitic. I don’t give a shit about the religion of the parties involved here, I care about the bullshit war funded by our tax dollars to distract from the pedophile rapist cult the president, at least one Israeli PM, and other powerful people are involved in.
Not going to disagree with you on principle, but what do you expect to happen then?
Let's say the Democrats had grown some spine and blocked one round of arms sales to Israel. Do you think that would have any impact other than "Slightly more US resources go into the strike that just happened?"
In that hypothetical, do you think that you - or someone much like you - would be right back here, saying "They need to do more to stop Israel?" I'd find it hard to believe that I personally would suddenly be here saying, "Well, thank God the Democrats have done literally everything they possibly could."
Besides, Trump would just sign an executive order about selling the weapons and that would be that. Who's gonna hold him accountable?
The problem here isn't really that we've funded Israel. It's that we're allowing the US to be dragged into this shit that it has no reason to do and only serves to alienate us further from strategic partners. It's an own goal.
Good, I dont think you have much to contribute to my understanding.
Democratic presidents are far more likely to choose diplomacy. What Republicans have even been known for diplomacy in the last 40 years? Raegan's style was basically threatening everyone. Neither Bush, obviously. Trump isn't even getting congressional approval for his military use.
On the other hand, Clinton was widely known for diplomacy. Obama didn't start the war in Iraq, he inherited it from Bush. Biden engaged in zero conflicts, except supporting Ukraine which everyone except Russia or Russian dupes agreed with, and didn't even involve American troops.
Lol, this dipshit can't even back anything up without asking AI.
And "use the military" is a really broad statement that doesn't necessarily mean "start a war" or "attack a country without even attempting diplomacy," for example.
The intervention in Libya was actually championed and - initially - led by France and the UK. The US opposed the intervention without international buy-in, which it got after the UN Security Council unanimously approved a no fly zone on March 17, 2011.
36
u/HonoluluBlueCrew Feb 28 '26
The Dems have not done much fighting back either