| ▲ | giantg2 3 days ago |
| What makes you think they don't? |
|
| ▲ | burnte 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The complete and total lack of any plan (or even the appearance of the desire) to combat the damage is a good indicator they haven't done anything. Half our leaders are tearing down the government and the other half are wringing their hands about it. |
| |
| ▲ | shostack 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This. The fact that democracy is up against an extremely organized, centralized, and well resourced effort decades in the making with seemingly nothing comparable to combat it has those opposing this on completely reactive footing. It is hard to see how a reactive group can come out on top in such a case. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The problem is we got rid of "democracy" a long time ago. The original premise was you have a lot of elected officials and then they act as checks and balances on one another. So, for example, to pass a law against something it has to be voted on by the House (elected officials), and the Senate (originally elected by state legislatures, giving the states, an independent elected body, a voice in the federal government; not anymore) and then signed by the President (another elected official), and then as a final check it had to be upheld by the courts (elected by the President and Senate for lifetime terms). Then we effectively replaced most of that with administrative bureaucrats that act only within the executive branch. They're not only not directly elected, they're not even indirectly elected by the Senate; the President appoints them -- or they're hired by other unelected bureaucrats -- and then they tend to stick around between administrations because there are so many of them that you can't plausibly replace millions of people every time the constituents want to change who is in office. Meanwhile they make the rules and enforce them and bypass the courts through coercive plea bargaining. But we call an attack on this system an attack on democracy? | | |
| ▲ | _0ffh 3 days ago | parent [-] | | An attack on the result might be interpreted as an attack on the cause. Maybe a system's purpose is what is does, after all. |
|
| |
| ▲ | steve_adams_86 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Strongly worded letter" will be imprinted in my mind for a long time. Schumer couldn't have tried to be much more disappointing in that moment. It was a clear sign of the inaction and impotency to come. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I laughed so hard at that when it happened, and I just did it again reading this. |
| |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What was the party that continually lost all the important elections supposed to do? The law is very clear that they are not in power in any way. There's no such thing as a power that the losing team has. The people with authority in the US come from the majority party. You want the DNC to do stuff, to solve problems, to execute plans that grow this country, you have to put them into power first Republican voters understand just fine that if republicans don't win the election, their will does not become law. Why is that so hard for Democrat supporters and voters to understand? | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There are lots of Democrats legitimately elected to Congress who are not using their lawful power effectively. But the other answer is that Dems could have created a party worth voting for ten or even five years ago. | |
| ▲ | RangerScience 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because notionally, the “game” isn’t supposed to be winners-take-all. And democrats believe in the game even when they’re not winning. | | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What was the party that continually lost all the important elections supposed to do? They're supposed to write a coherent plan with specifics on what they are going to do once they are in power. The (R) side did this with Project 2025. It was detailed and specific and they are executing on it like a checklist. Where is the (D) checklist? > You want the DNC to do stuff, to solve problems, to execute plans that grow this country, you have to put them into power first I'm not going to help vote them into power unless I see what their plan is. Even a one-liner that says "We have a list of what Trump did and we're going to revert each commit!" is better than nothing. Their party platform from 2024 is vague and talks more about principles and what they're not going to do rather than specific things they are going to do. |
| |
| ▲ | nonethewiser 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Elections have consequences | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dems under biden had a plan. Manchin nixed it, they didnt have the votes in the senate without him | | |
| ▲ | burnte 2 days ago | parent [-] | | And the fact Biden didn't use the bully pulpit is a real indictment on the administration. LBJ knew how to whip up support from recalcitrant congresspeople. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | patmorgan23 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Send me the link to the Democrats equivalent to Project 2025. Here the link to Project 2025 for reference https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade... |
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The Heritage Foundation is a think tank, not the RNC. Project 2025 no doubt has plenty of supporters in the RNC thanks to how influential the think tank is, but it's not an official party position. Any left of center think tank could cook up a Project 2028 document and claim it's the DNC's equivalent – it'd have just as much (official) standing as Project 2025. | | |
| ▲ | trealira 3 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | To be clear, I'm not defending Project 2025, Trump or the RNC. I don't need any convincing that Trump and republicans are following the plan, it's plain to anyway who's passingly familiar with it. What I'm trying to point out is that there's a strange trend for people to place all of the blame for our current state of affairs squarely on democrats and the DNC, ostensibly because of their failure to precisely match the steps of the RNC – steps the RNC didn't even take, in this case. | | |
| ▲ | trealira 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > steps the RNC didn't even take, in this case. What steps are you referencing? I don't get your comment. Also, the DNC and RNC just choose people and fundraise. It's strange to me how people refer to the parties like this. |
| |
| ▲ | krapp 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
| |
| ▲ | giantg2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Project 2025 is not a response plan. It's also not the same as the Republican platform. They publish separate documents. What you are seeing is the overlap between Project 2025 and Agenda 47. There are multiple think tanks for both sides that are not officially party affiliated - Heritage Foundation, Third Way, Center for American Progress, etc. Most of the actual strategic mechanisms for either side will not be published. Why would you publish your playbook for the other side to anticipate your moves? What happens is a candidate posts their platform, such as Ageneda 47. Then you can view the published documents from the think tanks on how that might be achieved, such as Project 2025. And yes, oftentimes the people creating or pushing those programs get put in charge of them or advising on them (see Biden pulling someone from the Center for American Progress to be an advisor, etc). | |
| ▲ | stronglikedan 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's the same link as Republican's equivalent. I.e., it doesn't exist. P25 was some extreme right wing crazies that no one really cares about. It would have been a nothingburger if the Dems didn't try (and fail) so hard to associate it with Reps. | | |
| ▲ | os2warpman 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >P25 was some extreme right wing crazies that no one really cares about. Project 2025 is almost halfway implemented and several of its authors hold positions in government, charged with its implementation. Everyone who thinks it is some side project or wish list that isn't "real" and actually, literally, happening right now is a fool. https://www.project2025.observer/en | | |
| ▲ | baumy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I skimmed the Project 2025 doc during the leadup to the election when there was a big hullabaloo about it. Did not read the whole thing as it was incredibly long, but did read some summaries. Maybe 75% of it was utterly boring conservative stuff that some people surely disagree with, but is hardly worth losing sleep over. 25% or so was somewhere in the territory of extreme right wing / borderline insane. Skimming that website, whoever is maintaining that is being...very generous with themselves about what they mark as "completed", to put it mildly. For example, "Roll back goal of haze reduction (visible air pollution)" is marked as complete, with the source being an EPA article [1] saying "[the EPA] is reconsidering its implementation of the Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Program", but no indication of what is being reconsidered, or if anything is actually done. Putting all of that together with the claimed 46% number, I guess you can count me as a fool. But I'm not buying the hysteria here, sorry. [1] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-zeldin-begins... | | |
| ▲ | os2warpman 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You are a fool because you didn't expend any effort before dismissing. Yes, on March 12, 2025 the EPA published that press release. But a non-fool would search the CFR to see if any proposed rules had been published. Almost exactly one month after that press release the EPA started releasing draft rules revoking the previous administration's rejections of regional haze reduction programs and approving them instead. Here's a draft rule revoking the disapproval West Virginia's plan and approving it: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-06608.pdf Then you have to actually READ what West Virginia's haze reduction plan does: it removes the previous requirements to install additional post-combustion controls on various coal-fired power plants in the state in order to reduce emissions. The rule was approved last month. And the same thing is happening in other states. "We're reconsidering an implementation" is bureaucratese for "that shit's done, yo". Jesus fucking Christ this country is doomed because it's full of idiots who won't expend any energy whatsoever to figure out what's going on. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | softwaredoug 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Running Biden in 2024 was a pretty clear sign they didn’t take the threat seriously. |
|
| ▲ | bobmcnamara 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Seems like the plan is to keep throwing unpopular candidates into the bike wheel of elections until there's only good candidates left. It's all part of the show folks. |
