The problem we've consistently had is that when Democrats run they say they're going to do something about these megacorps and then when they get in years pass and the corporations have only swallowed even more of each other up. Then Republicans say they're going to lower taxes and streamline regulations and they get in and government revenue as a percent of GDP never really goes down and the number of pages of legislation keeps going up.
It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do.
>It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do.
It would be nice if voters voted. It would be nice if voters actually gave the Democrats enough power in Congress (and POTUS) to enact the legislation they want instead of being obstructed by Republicans at every single turn.
Mitch McConnel famously obstructed Obama and prevented him from seating a SCOTUS judge because "it's too close to an election" that was a year away.
So when you call out Democrats as doing nothing, please realize it isn't for lack of trying, it's for lack of power that the people didn't give them.
The US has had antitrust laws on the books for more than a century. Obama was President for 8 years and Biden for 4. How many megacorps were broken up? Why are Visa and Mastercard still a thing?
Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term. Republicans filibuster things that Republican constituencies have strong objections to, but they're not going to put up a strong defense of Hollywood or Facebook etc., so why didn't they go after the villains in their own house?
Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden?
Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good? There are reasonable things Republicans want that it's the Democrats who strongly oppose, like school choice, or loser-pays for civil court cases against non-megacorps. If you're not willing to give any of that stuff up and you want them to give up things that their constituents oppose, of course they fight you tooth and nail. But if you could find a way to be objective for a moment, some of the things your side wants are bad or at least not great and you only want them because their interest groups are in your tent. Instead of finding a compromise where the public gets screwed to benefit the interest groups on both sides, you could find a compromise where the interest groups on both sides get screwed to benefit the public. Yet they don't.
>Obama had control over the House and Senate during his first term.
Not for the full term, only 2 years, where he got ACA enacted. So don't act like he had completely free reign for 8 years, or that he didn't get anything done.
>Why didn't either of them pardon Snowden?
Nobody would pardon Snowden, he ran. Obama let Manning off pretty easily because she came to justice, and he said if Snowden wanted to face justice, he'd likely be free in the U.S. right now.
>Why didn't they make deals to do things that are good?
ACA was good for millions of people. Republicans are set to erase that. No, both sides are not the same.
>There are reasonable things Republicans want
Like what? Ending birthright citizenship? Ending gay marriage? Ending a lot of things vulnerable people depend on? The damage Repulbicans are doing is a very long list. No, the Democrats do not have an equally long list.
I'm going to go any further than this with you, it's pointless.
> Not for the full term, only 2 years, where he got ACA enacted.
The US still has about the highest healthcare costs in the world. If that's supposed to be what success looks like, it's not great.
> Nobody would pardon Snowden, he ran.
That's just an excuse. Demanding that he face a trial is conceding that he would be prosecuted, which only proves that he was right to run. Justice for what he did is a pardon.
> ACA was good for millions of people. Republicans are set to erase that.
ACA was incremental progress that barely made a dent, and could easily have been a bipartisan bill if bipartisanship was still a thing. Half the reason Republicans are always talking about repealing it is that it was full of their ideas and they want to "repeal and replace" it by making some minor tweaks so they can claim the credit for the modest benefits because neither party can be bothered to address the bigger problems with the US healthcare system.
> No, the Democrats do not have an equally long list.
The Democrats play coy. When they pass laws to enrich the megacorps or special interests, they tell you they're defending the little guy, as if simply claiming that conveys the right to be indignant if someone wants to subject their proposals to an analysis of qui bono.
As I said before, I'm going to go any further than this with you, it's pointless. Your opinions are not my opinions. I think you have a distorted perspective of reality, so it's not going to accomplish anything by trying to point out your errors. The Democrats voting record proves you wrong, but I doubt you've ever seen it. BOTH SIDES ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME.
There are pretty big differences between the parties but one thing they both do incredibly well is bold-faced lying the to public.
Its all a game to these clowns who have been in power for 40+ years. Chuck Schumer & Mitch McConnell are different sides of the same coin and that coin ain’t in our pockets. That coin belongs to the multinational billionaire class.
The lies are indistinguishable from facts these days, which doesn’t change your assertion of violence IMO - just that it’s unlikely to be targeted at the actual problem
No, the lies are so bad, self contradictory and illogical that they stand out quite easily. They are very easy to expose as lies. The problem is that there are so many of them that it makes focusing harder on the problem at hand. But we don’t need to be stupid and start laboriously fact checking everything, we could be much smarter than that. We could localize the sources where these lies originate.
It would be nice if either of them would actually do the thing they say they're going to do.