678
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Exactly. The next president should be very progressive - free health care for all, expand public services, get the 800 billionaires, millionaires and corporations to start paying taxes, increase teachers salary and minimum wage, make associate degrees free, no more bailing out industries/companies, get rid of monopolies, make paid pto mandatory of minimal 3 weeks. Call it project 2029 and create the manual for it now so that it’s actualized on day 1. I can dream can’t I? Maybe in 40 years this will be possible….

[-] Smeagol666@crazypeople.online 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I voted for Obama in 2008 for exactly this reason, that was his platform. Then I watched from my hospital bed in 2010 (partial colonectomy due to diverticulitis) while they (the House and Senate) voted it down. I don't know if he/they was/were corrupted by pharma money after the fact, or if he/they ever intended to follow through to begin with.

In the book Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber, he quotes Obama where he makes the excuse that having Medicare for All would leave 3 million insurance workers out of a job. That would be like stifling the proliferation of electric lighting because of the impact it would have on the whaling industry.

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

The d’s have been actively disallowing progressive agenda to come into fruition. Someone(s) in the party was not allowing Obama to move forward with the plan.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 11 months ago

The public option was killed, specifically, by Joe Lieberman. Not the Democratic party as a whole, or Obama.

[-] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The dems could have taken him off all committee assignments and had the AG go after he and his family's financial misdeeds unless he played ball. They could have included it in budget reconciliation. They could have simply changed the rules to allow them to break filibuster with 50+vp. They chose to let Lieberman stop them.

[-] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

The public option was there to be bargained away. They never intended to enact it. Joe Lieberman had to play the part of the opposition since the republicans are too racist to ever bargain with a black president.

[-] ultranaut@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Lieberman was reviled by the party after that. Trying to act like he was some kind of avatar of the Democrats is revisionist history. The party literally primaried him out and he had to run as an independent. He spent the rest of his life whining about how mean Democrats were to him.

[-] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

He was primaried before that happened. That's why he played that part.

this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
678 points (97.1% liked)

politics

30968 readers
1582 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS