▲ 1153 ▼ Presidential Goals (lemm.ee) submitted 1 year ago by PortoPeople@lemm.ee to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 151 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ModestMeme@lemm.ee 65 points 1 year ago (2 children) Congress wouldn’t let him. The President doesn’t write the laws and can only ask Congress to do so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 child) Progressives would need to down ballot vote for that to happen. Would also need to support and fund progressive candidates. Progressives currently can't even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago Progressives currently can't even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter. Of course not! They're doing something far more critical and effective! They're withholding votes based on purity testing and otherwise being manipulated into nullifying themselves by online manipulation by the right. permalink fedilink source parent [–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Technically you need 51 or 50 + VP tiebreaker unless a Republican filibusters then you need 60. You can change senate rules if you have a comfortable majority but I'm pretty sure they can filibuster that, too, and it might backfire like removing the filibuster for SCOTUS and cabinet picks has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wiz@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago Yes and, they also needed to break a filibuster by the Republicans, which took 60 votes in the Senate, despite severe illness and Republican shenanigans. It was a huge lift to get what we got. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago Executive order deporting anyone in senate not voting for his agenda? /s (but only for a few months, then headlines will explain how it's apparently a real option) permalink fedilink source parent [+] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago There's still a significant amount of people who are uninsured. So, no, Americans do not have universal healthcare. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago Universal Healthcare (behind a paywall) permalink fedilink source parent [–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) He never seriously fought for universal healthcare. He stopped advocating for it before he even started fighting. As soon as he got a "reality check", not a word of support for universal healthcare was ever uttered by him to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago This is exactly it. Obama waged no fight a pre negotiated good healthcare plan to get us the heritage plan. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 child) Progressives would need to down ballot vote for that to happen. Would also need to support and fund progressive candidates. Progressives currently can't even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago Progressives currently can't even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter. Of course not! They're doing something far more critical and effective! They're withholding votes based on purity testing and otherwise being manipulated into nullifying themselves by online manipulation by the right. permalink fedilink source parent [–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Technically you need 51 or 50 + VP tiebreaker unless a Republican filibusters then you need 60. You can change senate rules if you have a comfortable majority but I'm pretty sure they can filibuster that, too, and it might backfire like removing the filibuster for SCOTUS and cabinet picks has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wiz@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago Yes and, they also needed to break a filibuster by the Republicans, which took 60 votes in the Senate, despite severe illness and Republican shenanigans. It was a huge lift to get what we got. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago Executive order deporting anyone in senate not voting for his agenda? /s (but only for a few months, then headlines will explain how it's apparently a real option) permalink fedilink source parent [+] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago There's still a significant amount of people who are uninsured. So, no, Americans do not have universal healthcare. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago Universal Healthcare (behind a paywall) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 child) Progressives would need to down ballot vote for that to happen. Would also need to support and fund progressive candidates. Progressives currently can't even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago Progressives currently can't even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter. Of course not! They're doing something far more critical and effective! They're withholding votes based on purity testing and otherwise being manipulated into nullifying themselves by online manipulation by the right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago Progressives currently can't even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter. Of course not! They're doing something far more critical and effective! They're withholding votes based on purity testing and otherwise being manipulated into nullifying themselves by online manipulation by the right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Technically you need 51 or 50 + VP tiebreaker unless a Republican filibusters then you need 60. You can change senate rules if you have a comfortable majority but I'm pretty sure they can filibuster that, too, and it might backfire like removing the filibuster for SCOTUS and cabinet picks has. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wiz@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago Yes and, they also needed to break a filibuster by the Republicans, which took 60 votes in the Senate, despite severe illness and Republican shenanigans. It was a huge lift to get what we got. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago Executive order deporting anyone in senate not voting for his agenda? /s (but only for a few months, then headlines will explain how it's apparently a real option) permalink fedilink source parent
[+] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago There's still a significant amount of people who are uninsured. So, no, Americans do not have universal healthcare. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago Universal Healthcare (behind a paywall) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago There's still a significant amount of people who are uninsured. So, no, Americans do not have universal healthcare. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago Universal Healthcare (behind a paywall) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) He never seriously fought for universal healthcare. He stopped advocating for it before he even started fighting. As soon as he got a "reality check", not a word of support for universal healthcare was ever uttered by him to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago This is exactly it. Obama waged no fight a pre negotiated good healthcare plan to get us the heritage plan. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago This is exactly it. Obama waged no fight a pre negotiated good healthcare plan to get us the heritage plan. permalink fedilink source parent