this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2025
66 points (95.8% liked)
news
807 readers
724 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's why I said it's slowing him down, and I did not say it's stopping him. Slowing him down is still a very good thing.
I don't think they were trying to fundamentally fix our problems, neither was interested in fundamental reform to the difficulties that are ultimately stemming from uncontrolled capitalism. If that sort of fundamental change is what we want, we'll need more support for that sort of more radical change. If you're equating "powerless" and "unable to offer fundamental solutions" though, I think you're making an error. They do have power, and if enough people ask for fundamental change, then we can start getting it.
I see. So, you think had Obama managed to deliver universal health care instead of the patchwork he did deliver, he wouldn't have had his system torn apart by the other party the way Obamacare was?
It's not about denying anyone's rights. It's about the simple fact that the percentage we've achieved is not high enough yet. You yourself mentioned the gerrymandering, so you know that a higher percentage is needed if we want enough elected officials on our side.
Well, let's take the most obvious example from recent history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is from wikipedia:
H.R. 1752 was brought to a floor vote in the chambers of the House of Representatives on February 10, 1964. The Republican Party voted 138 in favor, 34 against. The Democratic Party voted 152 in favor, 96 against. 5 members voted present, and 6 members did not vote. [37]
Note the overwhelming support from both of the parties at the time. Or we could go back further in history if you wanted, there's a lot of legislative history from across the world we can look at for examples.
I know you're angry, but try to think fairly. I'm getting the impression you're just throwing the kitchen sink at me because you're upset.
edit: Just saw this pop up in my feed, by the way. This is the trend we need to continue to get real reforms passed:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/poll-views-capitalism-slip-socialism-still-unpopular-zohran-mamdani-rcna241175
This is a fairly new condition, though. 10-15 years ago we didn't have this sort of momentum yet.