I was at an event with DNC Chair Ken Martin last week, and honestly, he sounded as pissed off and frustrated with D MoC as we are. He wants to fight as much as we do, but literally has lawmakers telling him to stop being aggressive "because we need to be able to work with these guys (ie, GOP MoC)."
What on earth will it take to convince them there is no way to work with authoritarians? I don't want Dems to work with Republicans on ANYTHING. I want them to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.
He was saying all the right things: the DNC has a war room set up to try and both anticipate and respond to Trump's moves, we need to be gathering evidence now so we can prosecute the regime when the wheel turns, but he's getting cut off at the knees by lawmakers.
Thank you for that. I was wondering where he stood on all of this.
Those same lawmakers that he protected from Hogg? Fitting, if so. Hopefully he has seen the light but I'll never trust a Democrat to fight. Wish I could but that would require a lobotomy.
When was the last time the GOP was willing to work with the Dems? I don't mean "go to supper with them and toast the death of democracy" but i mean work with on solving any major issue in any meaningful sense.
Senate appropriations committee bipartisanly recommending no cuts to NSF, NASA, and NIH in opposition to WH, all within the last month.
Good one but committee stuff in omnibus bills is way above my pay grade.
There's a TREMENDOUS gulf between "recommending no cuts to programs we like" and like... whatever, anything, EVERYTHING that has happened in the last 20 years. This is not a major program being pushed by the Dems. It's trying to argue the margins of which things to spare the hatchet-job.
The entire future of US primacy in science and technology is not "on the margins," in my opinion.
Either way, it's a little early to congratulate Republican's NSF funding when the other half of Congress cut it by almost 25%. Guess we'll find out next month.
The question was about bipartisanship. That is a clear example. Without it, the GOP in the house just does Vought’s bidding.
Some GOP worked with Dems in a committee in one house of Congress. How about we wait for the final bill before we give credit to the entire party?
The question wasn't about bipartisanship. The question was when the last time the REPUBLICANS engaged in bipartisanship with the DEMOCRATS. This is not an example of that. This is not the Rs joining the Ds in solving a major issue.
"in any meaningful sense" A committee vote doesn't qualify.
Depends on the broader outcome.
So get back to us in a month, I guess.
It really doesn't. What matters is success. Though even if this does happen, as previously noted, that isn't the kind of thing i'm talking about.
Sorry! Got my wires crossed. Thought I was responding to the other person.
The other person understood :)
That ain't the entire future of US science and tech. Without education we have no future tech. Without freedom we have no future tech. Without all the voices currently being silenced by both corporate and federal power we have no future in tech. That's myopic, short-sighted, how we got here.
The government is currently running around with a flamethrower lighting everything on fire and you're proud you convinced them to not spray flame (directly) on one or two things. Congratulations. Hold onto that.
Like, do you really think we're going to be a leader in science if the US government is going around control-F-ing scientific papers for the word 'trans' and then dispatching the gestapo to go throw the author in the concentration camps if they find "transmigration"?
Nor, since you want to argue about it, does that meet the criteria i set out. That's not the Republicans working with the Dems. That's the other way around again. The Republicans want to destroy science and the Dems bought a temporary reprieve to one angle of attack for some of it.
This is SUCH a narrow thing to be claiming victory over. We get nothing out of this we didn't have before, we're just drowning more slowly. Compare that to @speciatedtwit.bsky.social's suggestions of Title IX or the ADA, both of which were major steps forward for the country.
How major are we talking? And for a policy primarily favored by Democrats? That'd rule out the easy stuff like crime, war, food, water, etc. This might require my other type of edible. I can't think of anything off the top of my head.
Girlfriend hilariously said Title IX which has to be wrong. I'm working my way forward in time and I'm going with the Americans with Disabilities Act for now but that's still a long time ago.
Yeah that's... that might be right. I wasn't expecting a real answer but that's still worse than I was thinking. We've been getting scammed for decades.
Yeah, in the Bubba years now and I didn't think I could get more depressed. Like literally the only candidate I've found is Don't Ask, Don't Tell 🤮
Dark humour answer: Joe Lieberman's DHS?
Yeah, those types of bills are too popular with both parties so I'm skipping them. Like war stuff. Everyone talks about how divisive the Iraq war was but our version of the Enabling Act, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, passed Congress 518-1(Barbara Jordan). Very popular.
This was Barbara Lee, not Jordan. I know.
Yah... It was a major reorganization/expansion of government, but definitely falls in that category of "authoritarian expansion always has bipartisan support". Circling back to the thread's OP: can kinda see the same thing in the Dems 'no big deal' response to the military takeover of the capitol.
Yeah, I kind of understand establishment Dems. They didn't get to where they are by taking risks. The safe thing has always been to chase last election's voters and most of those are right of the party. Going left after younger, disaffected non-voters is a huge risk. But if not now, when?
I think "never". They seem content to just stand around while the republic burns. Trump lost an election and then there was an attempted insurrection to overturn the result. They kinda just shrugged their shoulders and tried to stop anyone who tried to do anything about it. Now he's Pres again.
Yeah, when the history books are written(if) at this point I'd rather be McGovern than Biden.
They're all old enough they're rotting from the inside out, just like Trump. They're just going to sit around and keep their cushy job and infinite health care until they die. It won't be that long, why do they care about what happens after?
I'm being cynical here but like... they haven't done anything that's inconsistent with that reading since the ACA, if not before. They just say "vote for us or the Republicans will win and everything will burn" but don't actually do anything to prevent, halt, or extinguish the fire.
And didn't the ACA crib parts from the Republican counterproposals back when Hillary was trying to do her thing? Two decades turned Democrats into Republicans 😅
Yah, definitely feel like one of the big problems with Schumer is.. He signed up for a really comfortable job where he is respected and lauded and can wield power without consequence. And he's been called on to take serious personal risk. That wasn't ever an expectation for him....
Yeah if this were any other country that would be getting reported as a military coup, lol.