All spending bills have to originate in the republican controlled house. Anything the administration tries to do on it’s own has to survive a heavily politicized Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that would be radically different without the Trump presidency. We’ll be dealing with those Trump appointees for a generation and they’ll do far more harm than he ever did. Not enough people voting blue in 2016 is going to have very long lasting consequences.
Not enough people voting blue in 2016 is going to have very long lasting consequences.
Hillary’s people trying to shove her down America’s throats and propping up trump in the primary because he was the only one she had a chance to beat is going to have very long lasting consequences.
And letting those same people run Kamala’s campaign and still the DNC is still fucking shit up.
When the only metric for DNC leadership positions is how much bribe money from billionairestotal legit donations we shouldn’t be surprised the party and chosen candidate keep favoring money over votes
Rather than yell at voters to accept it, maybe we should restructure the DNC so the people in charge know how to win an election against a candidate as terrible as trump?
Edit:
And for a fair comparison, trump also had 2 years with both houses than one split.
And? What does 21-23 have to do with who is “currently in power”? And how many SC justices has Biden appointed?
Maybe you should read the entire conversation, it’s not long, instead of knee-jerking to one comment.
Edit: You know how you “restructure” the DNC? You show the fuck up. The average local office would only need 5-6 people regularly showing up, every meeting, not just the last few months before a presidential election, to shift resources and voting recommendations to more progressive primary candidates.
Because most of the ones still in office right now (obviously including Biden) were also in office during the 117th Congress when Dems held both majorities?
But this doesn’t feel like it’ll be productive for some reason.
Still don’t know how that makes 21-23 “current.” Just going to double-down on refusing to read the comment chain and make it about what you want, are you?
Holding one of three branches is not “in power.”
All spending bills have to originate in the republican controlled house. Anything the administration tries to do on it’s own has to survive a heavily politicized Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that would be radically different without the Trump presidency. We’ll be dealing with those Trump appointees for a generation and they’ll do far more harm than he ever did. Not enough people voting blue in 2016 is going to have very long lasting consequences.
Are you aware of who controlled the House, Presidency, and Senate from 2021-2023?
Hint:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress
Hillary’s people trying to shove her down America’s throats and propping up trump in the primary because he was the only one she had a chance to beat is going to have very long lasting consequences.
And letting those same people run Kamala’s campaign and still the DNC is still fucking shit up.
When the only metric for DNC leadership positions is how much
bribe money from billionairestotal legit donations we shouldn’t be surprised the party and chosen candidate keep favoring money over votesRather than yell at voters to accept it, maybe we should restructure the DNC so the people in charge know how to win an election against a candidate as terrible as trump?
Edit:
And for a fair comparison, trump also had 2 years with both houses than one split.
Same as Biden.
And? What does 21-23 have to do with who is “currently in power”? And how many SC justices has Biden appointed?
Maybe you should read the entire conversation, it’s not long, instead of knee-jerking to one comment.
Edit: You know how you “restructure” the DNC? You show the fuck up. The average local office would only need 5-6 people regularly showing up, every meeting, not just the last few months before a presidential election, to shift resources and voting recommendations to more progressive primary candidates.
Because most of the ones still in office right now (obviously including Biden) were also in office during the 117th Congress when Dems held both majorities?
But this doesn’t feel like it’ll be productive for some reason.
Still don’t know how that makes 21-23 “current.” Just going to double-down on refusing to read the comment chain and make it about what you want, are you?