It presents a slight problem when the ones they’re bringing in to deal with the shitty politicians are the people who paid them to be shitty in the first place.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Right right, that’s all fine, but we need to elect minimum 60 Democrats. Full stop. We need to support electing 60 Democrats. We can all gather around and discuss how to sort out our Democrats after we remove the Republican Menace.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        We had 60 for less than one month almost two decades ago. Since then we’ve elected less every year and blamed them more every year.

        • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          Curious that, if all they need is 60 Democrats, why they didn’t seize that opportunity to try and deliver everything they’ve promised. Working 24/7 to pass bill after bill. And instead just squandered it…

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            Oh yeah they should have asked the house nicely to vote to reform every system in the entire government in less than one month: you clearly do not want anything fixed, why are you being so disingenuous?