I’m not from USA, but from the outside in, it’s pretty obvious what Biden can, and can’t do. You have to take his achievements (which there are many of, unfortunately the dems don’t seem to be very good at trumpeting their actual good works) with the pinch of salt that they haven’t had the control in the senate they need to enact the policies they like. Enough people vote for 3rd party or feel fatigued / despondant like you, that they didn’t get the actual control of senate, and lost the house in midterms.
Whether it’s slow walking (or blocking) appointments, fake dems like Sinema, dems that have to be stupid-capitalist to maintain power (Manchin), they’ve just not had the numbers.
You have a point that Clinton was pretty good, and was probably the first showing of the Republicans becoming obstructionist and never relenting since.
The Democratic Party has control of the Senate in name alone. Sinema and Manchin do not toe the line and have effectively threatened to even switch parties if they aren’t taken seriously. The “control” the Democrats have had in the past four years of any branch has been teetering on the edge of a pin. They basically had enough to just stop harmful Republican policies that would have been passed instead. The one thing Republicans do better than Democrats is to simply back each other up no matter how corrupt one of them might be. Trump probably could have shot a person in broad daylight in the middle of fifth avenue and Republicans would ensure that nothing happened.
I think you’re missing the point of how a political party operates. The members of the party should support their own platform and the leader of their party. You’ll never not have parties. That’s just basic game theory. You need cooperation on main points. Even your own responses about Democrats indicates whether you pretend to not think that way, you actually do. Otherwise you’re not internally consistent with your logic. Though that wouldn’t surprise me based on your unabashedly childish responses so far.
This is such a childish and naive statement. No matter what system is put in place, the president alone can’t make a radical difference in a positive direction, only shitty ones.
it’s not 40 years later and we still have no vaccine or cure for HIV/AIDS.
What? We have multiple examples of massive growth in treating and stopping the spread of AIDS/HIV?
The Reagan administration literally acted like it was a joke that no one should care about because it only affected gay people. This was during a period of time where people preached that the disease was God punishing sinners. You can rewrite history all you want, but Reagan killed people by minimizing the seriousness of the disease and minimizing the gay community at the same time, essentially saying “It’s okay if we let the queers die.”
Fauci was not the one on the news cracking jokes about it and making fun of the gay men it was affecting. The entire administration didn’t take it seriously.
I moved to California, so, almost another country.
But I was speaking more of the state and local governments, which have more of an impact in my direct life.
However I think anyone who was able to get health insurance with a pre-existing condition would probably say a Democrat president has directly helped their quality of life, possibly in that they would have no life at all without that Democrat president. Just for one example at the federal level.
deleted by creator
I’m not from USA, but from the outside in, it’s pretty obvious what Biden can, and can’t do. You have to take his achievements (which there are many of, unfortunately the dems don’t seem to be very good at trumpeting their actual good works) with the pinch of salt that they haven’t had the control in the senate they need to enact the policies they like. Enough people vote for 3rd party or feel fatigued / despondant like you, that they didn’t get the actual control of senate, and lost the house in midterms.
Whether it’s slow walking (or blocking) appointments, fake dems like Sinema, dems that have to be stupid-capitalist to maintain power (Manchin), they’ve just not had the numbers.
deleted by creator
You have a point that Clinton was pretty good, and was probably the first showing of the Republicans becoming obstructionist and never relenting since.
The Democratic Party has control of the Senate in name alone. Sinema and Manchin do not toe the line and have effectively threatened to even switch parties if they aren’t taken seriously. The “control” the Democrats have had in the past four years of any branch has been teetering on the edge of a pin. They basically had enough to just stop harmful Republican policies that would have been passed instead. The one thing Republicans do better than Democrats is to simply back each other up no matter how corrupt one of them might be. Trump probably could have shot a person in broad daylight in the middle of fifth avenue and Republicans would ensure that nothing happened.
deleted by creator
I think you’re missing the point of how a political party operates. The members of the party should support their own platform and the leader of their party. You’ll never not have parties. That’s just basic game theory. You need cooperation on main points. Even your own responses about Democrats indicates whether you pretend to not think that way, you actually do. Otherwise you’re not internally consistent with your logic. Though that wouldn’t surprise me based on your unabashedly childish responses so far.
deleted by creator
This is such a childish and naive statement. No matter what system is put in place, the president alone can’t make a radical difference in a positive direction, only shitty ones.
deleted by creator
Yeah, Reagan really did a great job letting AIDS kill all those people because he hated the gays.
Oh, and kickstarting the modern homeless crisis by closing all the countries mental health facilities without another solution in the wings.
deleted by creator
What? We have multiple examples of massive growth in treating and stopping the spread of AIDS/HIV?
The Reagan administration literally acted like it was a joke that no one should care about because it only affected gay people. This was during a period of time where people preached that the disease was God punishing sinners. You can rewrite history all you want, but Reagan killed people by minimizing the seriousness of the disease and minimizing the gay community at the same time, essentially saying “It’s okay if we let the queers die.”
deleted by creator
Fauci was not the one on the news cracking jokes about it and making fun of the gay men it was affecting. The entire administration didn’t take it seriously.
deleted by creator
My quality of life improved dramatically when I moved away from Republican led areas and into Democrat-led areas.
Ergo, you are wrong.
deleted by creator
I moved to California, so, almost another country.
But I was speaking more of the state and local governments, which have more of an impact in my direct life.
However I think anyone who was able to get health insurance with a pre-existing condition would probably say a Democrat president has directly helped their quality of life, possibly in that they would have no life at all without that Democrat president. Just for one example at the federal level.