The senate doesn’t actually need a supermajority to end a filibuster; they approve the rules that set how many votes are needed to break a filibuster with a simple majority.

Similarly they can replace the parliamentarian at will, as republicans have done in the past, but chose to keep a parliamentarian that prevented them from using budget reconciliation to fulfill their promises to the voters.

The comic is mocking the democrats for spending the last 4 years pretending they were completely powerless, just like they did in the 4 years leading to Trump pt I. The US president is one of the most powerful executives.

No oppressed person ever got their rights by appealing to the morality of their oppressor.

Both these movements would have failed if there wasn’t a violent component demonstrating the alternative if they didn’t choose the more peaceful route.

If you want more context on how the two method supported each other in the civil rights movement, here’s a good book.

It’s important to note that King didn’t unilaterally condemn violence, he acknowledged that they were a response to a greater, ongoing injustice, and that the white moderates who pretended to agree with their aims, but opposed them because of their methods were as much if not a greater barrier to civil rights than the klanman.

Facilitating genocide and calling all the politically-activated college students who would have been making up the dem’s ground game if not at least phonebanking, antisemites for whom free speech doesn’t apply were just a few of dozens of decisions the dems chose, knowing they would decrease turnout.

The dems lost because they thought they didn’t have to listen to their constituents to win.

You’re not going to find a good person who puts following rules written to benefit the capitalist class above freeing people from crippling debt.

They were only able to because of the way he went about it. He could have simply ordered the Department of Education to immediately forgive the loans and erase any record of the debt, and dared the SCOTUS to order him to create new debts (which he could simply ignore).

Nobody was screeching “don’t vote for Kamala”, we were telling Kamala what she needed to do to win. Instead she listened to the same campaign that killed Biden’s shot and we all lost because of it.

Nothing I could have done would have made genocide popular. Nothing I could have done would have made Kamala pledging to build the wall and get tough on crime look like anything but an admission that Trump was right the whole time.

That “tactical decision” enabled the democrats to sleepwalk into oblivion.

The only way the democrats could have won the last election is if they stopped trying to be “reasonable republicans” and instead used every tool available to accomplish what their constituents want. Like what the republicans are doing, but for good things like women’s healthcare and not drowning migrant children in the Rio.

Liberals who like the status quo adhere themselves to unwritten rules and current precedences

You’re getting lost in the sauce. These unwritten rules and precedence (and the written rules) aren’t an end in and of themselves, they’re tools you can use to accomplish specific tasks. When a SCOTUS judge decides to use a specific interpretation of the constitution, it’s not because the constitution is a sacred text and god came down to him and showed him the correct way to interpret it, it’s because he understands the effects of promoting that particular interpretation in the way power will be wielded.

When democrats decide to let the rules or the parliamentarian or w/e stop them from doing what their constituents want, it’s not because they just hate the idea of someone breaking a rule, it’s because it gives them an excuse not to do something their donors don’t want.

Americans voted for Biden because the primary system heavily favored Biden and Americans were told Biden was “more electable” than Bernie, even though every one of Bernie’s policies and his messaging polled better.

If the DNC didn’t put their thumbs on the scale, Bernie would have won in 2016 (or 2020), and guaranteed a democratic victory in the next election because nobody receiving free healthcare is going to vote to go back to the current system.

Bernie isn’t radical, he’s a social democrat, he just looks radical because the democrats are right of George W Bush right now.

They in this case being libs in liberal democracies, not democrats specifically.

One way to resolve the contradiction between the capitalist class, which the state represents, and the masses, whom the state requires to maintain power is for the masses to believe their representatives want what’s best for them, but are powerless to implement it due to foreigners or nature or some other group, or are trying and it will happen some indeterminate time in the future.

This was from 2020