this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
753 points (84.1% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
797 readers
488 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much. In return the Democrats would have had far more negotiating power with there own members if there were a couple of the more purple Republicans that they could count on instead. It also would have prevented the bill from being a great campaign piece for Republicans, and it might not have resulted in one of the largest midterm swings ever.
Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn't deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall. A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.
uhhhh, literally the bill was designed and discussed with the GOP they just refused to support it after they basically got it watered down. then there was the ol' whats his face dem that refused to vote for it without removing the public option.
...and...
The GOP were looking to deny any Obama passage of positive legislation. Are you not remembering "make him a one term President" message from the GOP?
There was ZERO amount of cooperate the GOP were willing to have on any bill that would give Obama a healthcare win.
"make him a one term President"
There's always rhetoric, but completely shutting out the opposition for major legislation was just not done.
History doesn't support your statement.
Feel free to show me legislation that was later signed during the first quarter of the Obama administration that wasn't passed on nearly party lines. I took a look and couldn't find any.
There wasn't any, because of the move to block Republicans from the ACA. It's just like when the Democrats used the nuclear option for judges, it also bit them in the ass the second they were the minority party.
Wait, are you saying the the GOP only after the ACA passing on Democrat party line vote decided they would vote party line for every substantive legislative action?
Yes that was the original point. The ACA was the beginning of the extreme partisanship we've seen. It wouldn't be sunshine and rainbows if they had got some republicans on board, but it would have been less partisan.
The ACA was signed over a year after Obama had been in office. You should look at signed legislation from before the ACA. The hard GOP opposition was already there well before the ACA.
The negotiation started almost immediately though and the Republicans were told to fuck off. It was introduced in September of his first year, there wasn't anything else major in those first 8 months.
Please look up Newt Gingrich and his impact on politics and then come back and read what you wrote
I'm not saying there was never partisanship. Clinton made progress despite Gingrich, Bush managed just fine with a democratic majority. Obama forgot losing elections was possible.