• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Who said it’s a fucking Olive branch? You?

    They have the ability now to nuke any legislation that comes across. Dems already have the power.

    Protecting him means concessions, it means moving the Overton window back to where it should be.

    It means going on the offensive.

    Instead you want memes and headlines. Take the pittance and go home. Is that it? Obstructionism is their play book. We start using it and it leads to the same dumb place.

    It makes it easier for them to pass their fascist bullshit. Not harder.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Who said it’s a fucking Olive branch? You?

      You bruh. That’s your argument. Its what you’ve been arguing for this entire thread. Your argument, not mine.

      That’s what working with Republicans is. Its an olive branch. Its redemption for the Republicans being so clearly in the wrong in terms of strategy for the past 8 years. Like they’ve been governing for a long time and have actually nothing to show for it. Now you’ve found an ally in Mike Johnson and you are saying house Democrats should work with Mike Johnson to do “stuff” , i.e., pass laws in the House. You are silly if you think you’ll get anything other than conservative legislation passed with Mike Johnson. And your argument is that House Democrats should? Bruh.

      And if that isn’t the case, I’ve asked you what laws Democrats should go for, like whats the material position here, whats the specific policy or legislation, and you’ve offered none. Your ‘going on the offensive’ is just handing R’s the opportunity to turn a loss into a win. Its naive, poorly thought out, and you don’t even have a single bill or law to offer that Democrats could use this strategy with. You simply aren’t cynical enough to appreciate the cost of the strategy you’ve outlined, and its not clear you’ve even really though of it enough to have an answer considering you cant tell me what legislation they should go after.

      Its incredibly naive and its generally kinda silly, the kind of piss-ant level “appeal to the moderates” analysis that Hillary used to beat Trump oh wait lose to Trump.