• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Very good points.

    Obama’s SC seat

    I don’t know what that is.

    If they pass laws limiting the damage a republican president can cause, they’re hurting their own chances

    I’m not quite sure I follow, and I disagree that making laws that protect democracy better would hurt them in an election.

    And sure, there are primary elections. But both parties have went on the legal record saying those are nonbinding and they can nominate anyone they want for the general.

    Yes, it was absolutely outrageous how they claimed they could choose Hillary, even if Bernie won.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      republicans blocked a supreme court pick of obamas for over a year in congress so that trump could pick it. Previously even some liberals like to have shared power were one party controlled some and the other controlled the other but with the current republican party platform of batshit crazy and no honor Im not sure if anyone still sees that as a viable idea.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I started to type a reply explaining that, then I realized I already did that in the comment you’re replying to in the simplest way I could think of…

      Like, I’d legitimately just be typing the parts you didn’t quote.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it doesn’t make sense how democrats hurt their own chances because people vote for shitty candidates. I’d say it’s even somewhat self contradictory.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dems only need to be slightly better than the Republican to get votes.

          If you raise the bar for Republicans, it raises the bar for Dems.

          It might even have to come to the point where they’d need to disagree on how much taxes the wealthy and billion dollar corporations have to pay.

          So the worse the Republicans are, the happier the dem party can keep their donors. Which means more donations to Democrats.

          I can’t think of a simpler way to explain that, maybe someone else can help if it still doesn’t make sense

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not. Which is why Republicans still manage to become president…

              But you’re thinking about what would be best for the country. Unfortunately a lot of democratic politicians are more concerned about the amount of political donations they will receive.

              And the wealthy have a lot of money to give, but don’t give it to people willing to substantially raise their taxes

              That’s the rub. The people running the political parties care more about getting elected than helping America once elected.

              So they’re going to keep picking their donors over the American public, and the worse Republicans are about it, the worse Dems can be while still (legitimately) being the lesser evil.

              That’s why they hate progressives so much. They’re raising the bar and presenting an option that’s better than:

              Well, it’s us or a Republican, so you have to vote for us.