This is one of those platitudes that is too vague to be of any real value.
It's like telling someone to be confident. "Just figure out what you need to do and do that thing!"
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
politics
25596 readers
3942 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah - the centrists and neoliberals will take this to mean “do more centrist and neoliberal things”; progressives will take this to mean “do more progressive things”; the DNC will take this to mean “give more money to centrist and neoliberal consultants and ignore what people are actually saying”. Not helpful in any sense.
So, in an unironic, but still very sarcastic and disappointed sense: thanks Obama 😒
Seriously, maybe tell the Democratic leadership to pull their head out of their ass and listen to people - as you did back in 07-08, which carried you to victory. And then gasp follow through on what they say, up to and including taking a page out of the GOP playbook - just do things that are helpful to normal people and say “fuck you, make me” when centrists and republicans try to stop you. We now have an imperial presidency, after all, so why not try to use it to do some good when (or if 😓) non-fascists get into power again.
Cuz the man who gave up Universal Healthcare to give us fucking Romneycare while having total control of the govt really knows how to play hardball.
I don't like Obama much - his drone strikes and war-hawkish policy nor bailing out the banks when he had them over a barrel, but i'm tired of this bullshit narrative.
House control: yes, no question.
Senate control: barely.
Obama would not have even been able to pass his bank ~~robbery~~ 'stimulus' without three Republicans crossing the aisle to vote for it in early 2009. Yes, very much a man with 'total control' of the government..
Obama had just 4 months with senate control, and that whole time it was on a knife edge. 60 (of 100) votes are needed to bring legislation to the floor to even be voted on without filibuster. So for 'total control' a party needs 60 seats/votes in the senate. The dems had 57 in Jan 2009 at the start of Obama's congress, with 2 independents (Bernie and Joe Liebermann) who caucused with them, taking them to 59. Republicans had 41.
That 59 included Ted Kennedy whom had a seizure during an Inauguration lunch of Obama's (he was privately dying of brain cancer) and he never returned to vote in the senate - dropping the number to 58. Also, Al Franken was not seated until july due to a very close election in his seat and multiple recounts - until then the number was 57.
Long story short by September 24th they finally had 60 seats.. But democrats are not a monolith. Just as there are Manchins and Sinemas and other 'Democrats' in recent memory that are barely left of Ted Cruz, there were several of similar ilk back then like Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson - and their independent caucus member Joe Lieberman, mentioned earlier - who all fought against much of Obama's legislation, for example with respect to Obamacare they quashed any chance of a public option and single payer.
So did he have control: technically, briefly. Could Obama just run through any legislation he wanted during that time? Absolutely fucking not.
Obama the "war hawk" who just watched as Russia strolled into Crimea