The problem with not voting - eviltoast
  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    He didn’t jettison his healthcare plans, he was railroaded by an uncooperative Congress. The fact that he was able to get the ACA passed, even as neutered as it is, is nothing short of miraculous compared to the relative lack of delivery of even a single campaign promise by any president in recent history.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      He had a huge margin in the House, a super-majority in the Senate, and he chose to pass the Heritage Foundation’s Healthcare proposal. Clinton didn’t even have that majorities like that his first term. If Obama couldn’t get that congress to cooperate he wasn’t fit to lead.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yeah, again, he had 60 in the senate, a big majority in the house, and a huge mandate from the voters. If he couldn’t pass his legislation under those circumstances he wasn’t fit to lead.

      • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        He lost the super majority very quickly, and it was rarely an effective supermajority. Having 60 geriatric men in a room at one time is hard. Byrd was in the hospital, and frankin had been denied his seat for months. By the time the aca passed they’d lost the “super” part of the majority anyway.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m pretty sure that the ACA passed before Scott Brown took office, which as I remeber it was the end of his Super Majority. But even if I’m wrong, then why don’t they end the filibuster? If the Republicans are determined to be the obstructionist party, why aren’t the willing to limit their ability to obstruct? They’ve been willing to do it to get nominations through, so why won’t they do it to pass legislation?