this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
703 points (92.0% liked)
Political Memes
9652 readers
2427 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When was the last time the Democrats held 50+ percent in both houses to pass legislation without needing to cooperate? Believe it was Obama for 2 months in 2009. So all complaining about this for the last decade has been moot.
60% for Obama, which is what was needed to overcome the filibuster, an utterly broken part of Senate procedure.
We had 50+VP for the first two Biden years, but that gave us no room to negotiate with our own party - or 'our own' party, considering that two of the most troublesome fuckwits later became independents when they decided they'd done all the damage they could inside the party. Add to Biden himself being not much more than a milquetoast moderate twat, and you have a recipe for very little getting done.
Not nothing. But not nearly what needed to be done, realistically speaking.
The filibuster is why the government shut down instead of cutting even more social safety net. Until the magat movement completely dies, it is a necessary tool for situations like right now. We need a way to stop the stupid majority as a minority
Why is that 60+ not a requirement for Republicans to pass the legislation and ratify nominations that they want? The Republicans haven't met that threshold since the 67th Congress back in 1921.
The 119th, 115th, 108th and 109th congresses which were all Republican trifectas didn't meet that criteria and the "tea party" and "establishment" flavors certainly aren't any more of a unified front than the democratic party.
The current legislation they are trying to pass in the Senate is an example. Part of the reason we are in a shutdown, from a legal standpoint, is because Republicans do not have the votes to bypass the filibuster.
As for why nominations don’t require the 60%+ threshold? Because it was something previously agreed between both parties. There are very few things that you can actually Filibuster. You may have heard of budget resolutions as an alternative to getting things passed, it’s for if they want specific economic legislation passed that can’t be filibustered.
Either party could in-theory get rid of the Filibuster, but that is a can of worms neither party wants to go for as a short-term win. The Filibuster is what prevents the worst legislation from even seeing the light of day.
The only reason I could see Dems getting rid of the Filibuster would be if they wanted to uncap the House, but that in itself would require a Dem trifecta and over 50 members in the Senate willing to approve uncapping the House.
Because Republicans don't infight anywhere near as much a Democrats.
I'm pretty convinced that trump has gotten as far as he has because the Democrats parts is like 50/50 corporate shills on Trump's payroll and ideologues.
Of course we never get anything done. Half the party is hellbent on selling out their constituents and the other on performative "moral victories."
Oh, they do. But it is significantly less theatrical.
Beautifully said, and that's what I wanted to draw attention to.
Then they are the stupidest political party in the history of democracy as a concept. We're Americans, if it's not in the media it doesn't exist.
We had exactly 60 seats for all of like two effective weeks in 2009, due to various issues. And not only that, a good portion of the dems in that coalition were blue dogs - senators from IA, ND, IN, and MO.
People acting like we've had 30+ Bernies in the caucus are weird.
It seems like that’s exactly the point, progressive democrats are very few and not even that progressive except for a few outliers.
I agree, that's why we need to replace around 70% of them, maybe 80%
Sounds better to start a whole new party instead of fight the entrenched majority.
Spoiler effect means magats would just win by default if we tried
Sure, but the us election system makes starting new parties and having them matter almost impossible.
Howso? Most people understand that third parties are counterproductive spoilers and won't risk it. You have to destroy one of the entrenched majorities first if you want a new party to accomplish anything.
Surely you destroy one of the major entrenched parties by not voting for them and instead voting for someone else who can than take their place.
That's the kicker. If you don't have a clean, single-cycle transition then you're handing control to your worst enemies.
If we're going to fracture a party, let's fracture the right. Destroy the worse one first, then siphon from the less worse one once the fracture takes.
Yeah, it's an absolutely unhinged argument to suggest that the only way to a multi-party democracy is to move to a one-party system first. They haven't thought it through at all.
You say “most people understand”, as though basically every other functioning democracy in the world doesn’t have at least five or more parties sitting in their legislature.
(edit: curious about which of the downvotes are people butthurt about their democracy sucking, which are from bots, and which are from cowardly votescolds who wrongly believe that the path to salvation is to keep whipping people into propping up a failed two-party system that has led to America now being classed as a "Flawed Democracy" for the last 9 years by the Economist Intelligence Unit)
I'm speaking specifically about the US. Do those other democracies have the same FPTP electoral system as the US, or some other system that makes third parties viable?
There’s a variety of systems, America’s is far from special beyond the amounts of money involved. The UK has FPTP and over a dozen parties in Parliament.
As far as I can tell the main blocker to a successful multi party democracy is people like you promoting a self-perpetuating circular logic.
They don't use it everywhere. And even then in the House of Commons (where it is used), out of 650 seats, only one 3rd party (and independents) is in the double digits. 80% of the seats are 2 parties, the same 2 parties that have traded power for the past century.
Some other parts of their government do have other voting methods or even proportional representation, allowing other parties to govern.
They also have recall elections(/no-confidence) and more common prime-minister resignations (and probably tons of other rules that change how political power works), meanwhile we have the Electoral College for the presidential election which further ensures a 3rd candidate can be a spoiler assuming they can even win in 1 state.
That’s an astonishing amount of pettyfogging and nitpicking, that doesn’t even come close to dismantling the underlying argument.
No, it's the system. It's basic math. Acknowledging the features of the system does not make one responsible for the existence of those features, and ignoring them doesn't make one virtuous.
It's certainly "basic math", in the sense of "unsophisticated" or "simplistic". You're persisting in treating something as a hard truth, that categorically isn't.
You are incorrect. It is basic math in that the principles that govern its behavior are fairly low-order and easy to understand. You are not utilizing more "sophisticated" math, you're just ignoring simple facts. A truth being simple does not make it less true.
You're getting downvoted because you think pretending the US isn't how it actually is will change it. Either that or you actively want to help the fascists
We're poopooing Obama having the largest majority since reconstruction? Come the fuck on. What have the Republicans been doing with way less "power"? Democrats are useless.
Even if we ever get that again, people will be sorely disappointed because legislation will be too busy fixing damages from the previous administration to make much actual progress. Which will be forgotten by the next election (same as it ever was).
In 2048 Reagan's ghost will still haunt the country, plus Trump's ghost too.
Just make one omnibus that does it all. We wouldnt need to spend time fixing if we were willing to be as roughshod with power as Republicans are. That trifecta won't survive midterms anyway might as well go crazy with it
Probably because you can't use 10+ years worth of GDP in one bill. But I'm no economist nor person with the CBO.
I assume you mean 60+ to break filibuster.
And weren't a lot of them solid conservatives too (not like Manchin, further right)? Hence why pro-choice laws were never solidified.
Negative. Not one time since 2009 was the house and the Senate majority Democrat. Yes hey would need 60 for the Senate, but they haven't met the material to even fight for 60
You are incorrect. 117th congress 2021-2023 because you didn't bother to read last time:
Most of the people complaining loudly about this were toddlers last time it happened.
Hell I was born in 89' and just made the cut off for voting in the 2008 by a year. Had no say in the Bush era
It was the 117th Congress from 2021-2023. Y'know when Roe V Wade was overturned, the DHS was "rebuilding" after COVID, Nicaragua was getting regime changed, etc.
E: for those who can't be bothered to read:
Senate majority Republican. House majority Democrat. Says so in your own link
For the first 2 weeks of 2021. The full text: