In today’s installment of it’s always projection.

We’re going to have to disagree.

I think it was to find voters. At the end of the election they count votes, not donations. If all these left wing voters people that I see on this platform were to actually vote, then wow that would have an effect. But instead they think protest 3rd party or protest no-voting works, when it doesn’t. All these supposed informed, logical voters people that are just waiting in the wind for that left platform and then they’ll vote. Donations don’t sway these people, they want the big left platform, which won’t appear because they don’t show up and vote.

So what can voters do? Vote for the dems. If you want things to go left, then vote and give dems consistent and overwhelming victories.

You can get into whatever physiological analysis you want (and I’ll do mine), at the end of it left voters don’t show up. She moved a little bit left with map room to fight climate change, a policy that should have been important to left voters, and left voters did not show up.

So the next candidate Biden learns he has to go to the center to find voters. This is what happens every single time. Every time. Happened with Carter & Bill Clinton, happened with Gore & Obama, happened with Hilary & Biden.

If you or any other voter want things to go left, you have to give dems consistent and overwhelming victories.

Unfortunately it’s a little more organized than general nastiness.

At the end of the day, votes is what wins elections. He had to go to the center (or as the other guy thinks, the right) to find votes.

It was two fold why Hilary lost. Trump appealed to manufacturing class. And the left wing protest no voted.

because protest voters refused to vote for her? How does this even add up?

Well since you had a fun tone I’ll take a fun tone. JFC because left voters did not show up. Instead of showing up, the left voters protest no voted. She stuck her head a tiny bit left with the map room and climate change, and the left wing did not show up to vote and instead did a no vote protest.

I didn’t say leadership was the end all be all.

Honestly the most I can get from your previous replies is that leadership does it, accomplishes it, etc And I’m explaining to you that it’s control of Congress.

The context in which you used lame duck was in the context of lack of leadership. Not a lack of party control of Congress.

FDR: the topic of the post,

You replied to my comment which was about recent history. I’m explaining why you/the post can’t just say “but FDR did it and was popular, so why can’t anyone else”.

president. Obama was not, at least not for progressives or leftist

Because he did not have congress. That’s what matters. Because the GOP became incredibly obstructionist.

Honestly I have no idea what your position is anymore. You seem to briefly admit it’s Congress, then (from what I can gather) you’re right back to leadership with the bully pulpit. I think I’ve explained well enough that leadership does not matter (in that way). It’s Congress. If you the voter want progress, then you vote in Dem congresses, because a Dem president with all the leadership in the world is not enough.

Btw I’m not responding your repeated attacks on me. I may be a bit exasperated and to the point, but that’s because there’s way bad information out there and honestly that’s pretty much what I see from you with this stuff about leadership, and why Obama had to reach across the aisle later in his presidency.

Obama had leadership (if you someone wants to say that).

Ok I’ll clarify that to someone, didn’t mean you specifically, someone in the general population.

There are some things, what you linked twice is emergency action. Another is executive action. But you can’t pass laws, pass a budget, etc without Congress.

TIHI.

Sigh. I’m explaining how things work.

Obama absolutely did not. There should be no disagreement here.

Big disagreement. You seem to think “acted as a leader” is all that matters and all that’s necessary. I’m saying that’s dead wrong. Congress is what matters. The house of resentatives is what matters. The Senate is what matters. That’s how it works. The president can’t do much without the House of Representatives and the Senate.

President can’t do jack shit with all the leadership in the world if he does not have congress, if he does not have the house of representatives, if he does not have the senate.

So you want to talk the first two years of Obama? He likely reached out for two reasons. One: he wanted to mend the divisions after Bush’s disastrous wars. Get the country unified and back on track and all that jazz. Two: any intelligent candidate knows it’s unlikely they’re going to have control of Congress for all eight years, so he wanted to come off as reasonable and could be worked with, so that he could still accomplish things later in his presidency. I barely blame him for that. Who knew that the GOP was going to explode and become obstructionist to that degree because a half black man got elected. (Btw that’s why allusions to FDR don’t cut anything today. Completely different time.) (Also btw Biden learned from that and said nuts to it, he’s doing what needs to be done.)

Now back to the main point about Obama and how leadership is not the be all of everything. If anything Obama proves this. Obama had leadership (if you want to say that). But Obama only had Congress the first two out of his eight years. The remaining six years he did not have congress. The GOP had Congress. All the leadership in the world did not matter because he did not have Congress for six of his eight years. All the leadership in the world for six of his eight years did not matter. And this was proven when not when the GOP shut down the government under Obama. Congress. has. control. Leadership does not matter (in that way). Control of Congress is what matters.

Boy if Biden gets to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the next few months, I wonder what backflips the GOP would do to condemn it.

As long as other people learn then I’m happy to do it.

I didn’t “read into it”, I explained how government works. You missed the entire reason why Obama had to reach across the aisle. Which he had to do for 6 of the 8 years of his presidency. I’m tempted to write why but it was all written out above.

If you think “Obama won” and “[be a] leader” is how it works, then you desperately need to learn how it actually works.

Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.

Guess how many years Obama had a Dem House of Representatives and Dem Senate? 2 years. Not 8. Only 2. That’s when we got the ACA though.

Contrary to how many people talk the president is not a King. The president does not pass laws, Congress does. And Dems need control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and Senate) to pass much of anything. So when the lose control, like they lost control for 6 years of Obama’s presidency, they have to reach across the aisle. Do you remember what happened? The GOP shut down the government under Obama.

Obama had 1 victory and then 3 losses. 1 victory for 2 years and then 3 losses for 6 of his years.

You want them to not reach across the aisle? Then give Dems victories in all 3 of house of reps, Senate, and presidency.

(Btw guess how much the Dems have had all 3. They have had it for 4 years out of the last 24 years. That’s right. They basically never have it. Want to include Bill Clinton? Then it’s 6 years of the last 32 years. What to go back further? Then it’s 6 years of the last 44 years. Read that again: 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. And if you want filibuster proof majority, them it’s 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. You need to readjust what you think are victories.)

Are you serious?

When Dem Congress goes his way, the common parlance is that the president, as leader of the Dems, gets the credit as “he did it”. If you want to be pedantic, no he didn’t directly do it. It’s just common parlance to give the president credit for the things he pushes for.

He can ask the Dem House of Reps and Dem senators to do things, but that is not the same. If Congress says no, there’s very little he can do. The President does not have absolute control - to pass legislation takes Congress.

Or things like banning Non-Compete clauses. That was a government agency, which gets appointments. Biden didn’t directly make that decision, it came from his (or other presidents) appointments.

Then you have Executive Action (EA) which can be used for some things. You can’t use EA for all things. But EAs are not laws, they can be undone by the next president lickity split.

JFC I don’t know how you misread things so badly. Go read from the very start

No I’m not. I think you don’t know what “in spite of” means. The correct usage of that expression would be: “The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they voted for her anyway in spite of her only moving a little bit left.”

This entire conversation has been you (intentionally or otherwise) misreading and/or misinterpreting and/or twisting words, so I’m leaving this conversation. I think I’ve explained things well enough.

You’re making no sense. Protest no vote in spite of her moving a little bit left is an oxymoron. Unless you meant protest no vote to spite her. In which case it doesn’t matter because of exactly what I’m saying, left voters don’t show up. You’d be an absolute fool to court voters that never show up, (again when you walk before you run). So candidates go to the center to find voters that do show up.

You walk before you run. You take small steps before big steps. That is how it works. Why am I bothering, I’m out.

What is going on here. She went a little bit left and lost (because the left voters didn’t show up). So the next candidate learns to go to the center to find voters (because the left voters don’t show up). Every single time.

I just went to find and link my explanation to someone else just to find that it’s what you responded to. If you don’t get it then you are really trying hard to not get it and/or discussing in bad faith. Ciao.