_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
233
Im hearing: The other political party needs to stop our party, its being crazy ... this is why we did not vote for the other political party, so they can save us ... or something.
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
233 points (96.4% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
7287 readers
1010 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm hearing "holy shit, how are those dipshits so ineffectual? Why dont they use any of their power when they're the minority like mine does?".
The answer is SCOTUS is compromised. They will favour GOP every time.
The republicans dont throw their hands up and go "well the SCOTUS/Parliamentarian/Manchin>might say no, so we cant do ", they do it anyway. When Greg Abott wanted to drown children in the Rio, did the fear the SCOTUS might request he stop after the 50th child prevent him from drowning dozens of children?
When the parliamentarian told W's cronies "no you cant just do infinite reconciliation bills to stop the dems from filibustering", they just fired him, like they are talking about with the current one.
The republicans dont throw their hands up
Why would they? They've got Supreme court in their pocket since last 4 years.
Honestly, what do you want Democrats to do? They have no power. Not even popular vote which Hillary had.
The instances I am talking about, the republicans SCOTUS and parliamentarian and individuals breaking from the party were overcome, by doing the damage before the SCOTUS can stop you, or just ignoring the SCOTUS, firing the parliamentarian and department heads who play ball, etc. We know the minority party isnt powerless because we just saw the republicans get their way fir 4 years. We know that the executive doesnt need congress and can just ignore the SCOTUS because thats what we saw under Trump pt I and what we're seeing now.
Letting Trump run the country into the ground is the best way to get rid of the MAGAzis.
Accelerationism has never proven to be an effective means of combatting conservatism.
No, because they'll immediately vote conservative the next chance they get anyway.
No amount of suffering will cure the vast majority of these people. They will be licking the boot even as it crushes their skull in their final moments.
The billionaire disease remains, though.
Ooh! There was an episode of the Past, Present, Future podcast a couple of months ago that touched on this very subject. Tariff policy was set by congress up until the Smoot-Hawley act, which was considered such garbage that they decided that it should be left to the executive.
Back when it was a congressional power, it was also the source of some of the worst horse-trading, as representatives from rural areas would seek protection on agricultural imports (with low tariffs on imported machinery), while representatives from manufacturing areas would seek to lower food prices and increase the cost of imported manufactured goods.
Edit: Not saying that handing it to the executive is the best plan, as we can see by what's going on now, but letting congress do it was also problematic. It's funny how a lot of us grew up with the idea that no/low tariffs are the natural order, when it's actually been a fairly short-lived anomaly in historical terms.
I’m not sure that tariffs being a constant back and forth in congress is a bad thing
Both conservatives and liberals don’t want people discussing how easily the Dems could put a stop to this, and that they’ve been covertly participating in all of it.
I'm neither but I'd love to hear how you believe Dems can put a stop to these tarrifs? It's either A. Presidential power (which I don't believe it is) or B. Congressional power (which is Republican majority)
By being obstructionist. Same playbook the GOP uses with ease, when the Dems are in power.
Simply not approving nominees and not voting ‘yes’ on Trump agenda items would go a long way, but the majority of elected Dems can’t even do that.
Given that the Dems just issued a thank you letter to ICE agents, in the middle of their domestic violence, tells you all you need to know.
Every Dem just voted no on that stupid Bill, did nothing because they are the minority in both houses.
It worked when the Republicans did so, because they were the majority in one of the houses and have been since 2009.
So for 15 years they have been able to block anything they wanted. And it was only for 2 months really in 2009. Before that was 1993.
A lot is/can happen right now because there will be at least 2 full years of the Republicans holding both parts of the legislature.
load more comments
(32 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›