“A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh… I’m sure there’s one more.
It’s easier to stop things than to pass things. You’ll notice Republicans aren’t getting a lot done right now, exactly. At least not through Congress.
They’re doing so many blatantly illegal things, largely with the blessing of the DoJ and the Supreme Court. But they can’t get the SAVE Act through to stop us from voting.
The neolibs are not responsible for the majority of our problems.
Their biggest crimes are Israel and not being aggressive enough on changes. They’re not the ones preventing most of the legislation we’ve tried to pass, such as the public option with the ACA.
can you read
I’m not American and have no dog in this fight apart from not wanting the USA to fuck the world worse than currently, but they literally mentioned genocide/Israel being their biggest crime
“A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh…
If you can’t name more than two Senators… Jesus, dude. Maybe start with Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez. Ritchie Torres. Elissa Slotkin. Eric Swalwell. Josh Gottheimer. Do I really need to make you the full list?
Whenever there is a democratic majority, just enough Democrats will turn to make any actual change impossible, like a public option with Obama. Or when the blue dog Democrats fucked healthcare reform under Clinton. It’s happened every time and will continue to happen because the ratchet effect is a feature that always ends in facism and oligarchy, which is where you make your real money.
The ratchet effect is real, but it’s because when the Dems have a majority they’re relying on West Virginia. Republicans kiss the ring or they’re kicked from politics, just look at Ted Cruz.
when the Dems have a majority they’re relying on West Virginia
They’re relying on a billionaire scion of a coal dynasty. Plenty of working class labor friendly people in WV. But the Dem Senate committee won’t touch any of them.
I like it when people focus on one thing and ignore all the actual accomplishments. Or maybe you aren’t ignoring them. Maybe you’re entirely ignorant of them.
Because they also have the office of the president.
Currently anyway.
If one party controls both houses of congress and the president and has a sympathetic Supreme Court majority they can do a lot more than if they only have one or 2 of those things.
So here’s some basics on how the American government works.
The house can pass a bill with a simple majority.
So can the senate. In the event of a tie, the vice president casts the tie breaking vote.
However, the senate rules are such that in order to get to a vote you need vote to close debate, which takes 60 votes.
There are exceptions to the 60 vote rule using what’s called budget reconciliation. Matters pertaining just to budgetary items can bypass the 60 vote threshold and be voted on by a simple majority. These items must be cleared with the senate parliamentarian.
Once a bill has passed both the senate and the house, the president can either sign it or just wait 10 days and do nothing, at which point that bill becomes a law. He can also veto the bills at which point it gets sent back to both the house and senate which can override his veto with a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate.
If you want to pass a bill over the objections of the president you need two thirds of both the senate and house to agree to do it. If you want to get a bill through the senate that goes beyond budget reconciliation you need 60 senate votes.
When people talk about a supermajority they may be referring to the 60 votes needed to pass unrestricted bills in the senate, which the democrats had in 2008-2010 when they got Obamacare passed. Or if they are talking about overriding a veto they may be talking about the 2/3 of the votes you’d need in the house AND senate.
I’m not interested in debating who said what about what when, it just seemed like some people were unaware of the actual rules of how the US federal government functions and hoped to clear that up. If you have any questions about how that stuff works I’m happy to address it with the best of my knowledge. But I have no interest in actually debating politics online.
All of this applies. It’s why republicans were able to pass tax cuts via reconciliation but not the SAVE act. They would have needed to change the filibuster rule and they couldn’t get the 50 votes needed to do it.
If you want to make long term changes to this country you need to control both houses of congress and the presidency. 2026 elections can change the former but not the latter. Which means dems will be able to stop the insanity but they’re not going to be able to make major changes until they can overcome the veto power. They need to have a democratic president.
Look, I’m sure you’re passionate about change and want to make a difference, but if you’re not going to get your facts straight and just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you with pithy comments then you’re never going to get enough people on your side to do that. Not enough people will take you seriously and you’ll just end up being spoiler votes that keep people like Trump in power.
Republicans historically do not fucking govern. They give tax cuts to the oligarchs and otherwise have a concept of a plan in two weeks. They lie and lie and lie. They are the ones pushing the “gummit is borken” lie - and making sure it appears to be true.
Republicans are willing to use blatantly illegal tactics and control enough courts to make a mess, you know the whole “it’s easier to break things” part.
Democrats need a supermajority, then they need the courage to invoke 14A3 disqualification backdated to at least J6 and declare everything the admin did legally null and void. Make every Republican politician personally legally liable for everything, all the theft and destruction, as the immunity of the political positions gets fully erased.
That’s the only fast way to fix things. Anything less will mean it’s going to drag out for decades.
The evidence shows multiple plausible answers depending on how one defines “dominate.” Recent sources most commonly point to the Democrats’ control of both chambers during the 117th Congress (January 3, 2021–January 3, 2023) as the last time they held unified congressional control, while earlier notable periods include the 111th Congress (2009–2011) and historically larger majorities like the 89th Congress after 1964. The statement therefore requires clarification of terms—“dominate” can mean simple majority, large supermajority, or sustained multi-decade control—to be answered precisely
Contemporary records and syntheses within the provided analyses indicate the 117th Congress (Jan 3, 2021–Jan 3, 2023) as the latest period when Democrats held both chambers, with a House majority and a Senate majority realized through a 50–50 split and the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote. This configuration coincided with the Biden administration and enabled the Democratic leadership to pass key legislation during early 2021, illustrating functional control despite narrow margins. Reliable repositories of congressional composition and institutional histories corroborate this timing as the most recent instance of unified party control in Congress cited across multiple analyses, making the 117th the default answer when “dominate” is used to mean holding both chambers
—————————————————-
That was after the republicans facilitated a global pandemic. The time before that was after the republicans destroyed the global economy. The time before that was before most of you were born:
—————————————————————
3. Earlier high-water marks: 111th Congress and the 1964 landslide
If “dominate” implies a more comfortable majority or a legislative supermajority enabling broad agenda-setting, earlier periods fit better. The 111th Congress (2009–2011) provided Democrats with substantial House and Senate margins that facilitated major policy initiatives during the Obama administration, and analyses explicitly call this a recent example of decisive Democratic control [4]. Going further back, the 89th Congress following the 1964 electiondelivered the largest Democratic majorities since the New Deal era, enabling the passage of transformative legislation associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s agenda. Historical accounts position the 1964–1965 period as a classic instance of one-party dominance in Congress, distinct from the narrow 2021–2023 control
Why can Republicans govern with a slim majority while Democrats consistently need a supermajority?
The democratic party accomplished all of its goals during the biden administration: they sold weapons for genocide.
People hate when you say it, but the Democratic Party is Controlled Opposition.
A bunch of them are just paid to lose.
“A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh… I’m sure there’s one more.
It’s easier to stop things than to pass things. You’ll notice Republicans aren’t getting a lot done right now, exactly. At least not through Congress.
They’re doing so many blatantly illegal things, largely with the blessing of the DoJ and the Supreme Court. But they can’t get the SAVE Act through to stop us from voting.
It turns out every bit matters.
Jeffries, Schumer, Pelosi, Kaine, Booker… pretty much anyone not in the squad or otherwise on the AIPAC tiddy
The neolibs are not responsible for the majority of our problems.
Their biggest crimes are Israel and not being aggressive enough on changes. They’re not the ones preventing most of the legislation we’ve tried to pass, such as the public option with the ACA.
As far as you’re concerned, their biggest crime is not supporting genocide even harder.
can you read I’m not American and have no dog in this fight apart from not wanting the USA to fuck the world worse than currently, but they literally mentioned genocide/Israel being their biggest crime
no u
If you can’t name more than two Senators… Jesus, dude. Maybe start with Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez. Ritchie Torres. Elissa Slotkin. Eric Swalwell. Josh Gottheimer. Do I really need to make you the full list?
Cory big pharma bitchboy Nooker
Whenever there is a democratic majority, just enough Democrats will turn to make any actual change impossible, like a public option with Obama. Or when the blue dog Democrats fucked healthcare reform under Clinton. It’s happened every time and will continue to happen because the ratchet effect is a feature that always ends in facism and oligarchy, which is where you make your real money.
The ratchet effect is real, but it’s because when the Dems have a majority they’re relying on West Virginia. Republicans kiss the ring or they’re kicked from politics, just look at Ted Cruz.
They’re relying on a billionaire scion of a coal dynasty. Plenty of working class labor friendly people in WV. But the Dem Senate committee won’t touch any of them.
Yeah it’s always something, and it’s always gonna be something. And that thing is oligarchy.
Is that why Biden got more progressive change through than any prior president despite record breaking political resistance?
You need break the dependency on the idiots who talk about fake “bipartisanship”, like Manchin
When get only get small majorities, these damn idiots gets a say, you need to make those dumbasses irrelevant
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/21/politics/joe-manchin-nominees-bipartisan-support
He did not. He got more “bipartisan” changes, and we’ve lowered the bar for what that means
Where’s your bar?
https://www.trentonian.com/2023/01/30/a-progressive-perspective-joe-bidens-the-most-progressive-president-since-f-d-r-irwin-stoolmacher-column//
This is adorable!
Biden is only progressive to those who consider genocide to be progress.
You support absolutely nothing but genocide and that will never change.
Like every last centrist.
Now bring the gaslighting and abuse.
I like it when people focus on one thing and ignore all the actual accomplishments. Or maybe you aren’t ignoring them. Maybe you’re entirely ignorant of them.
“Hitler made the trains run on time though!”
Petty concessions do not obscure the overt imperialist oppression.
“I don’t care about the fact we support genocide so long as I get better quality of life.”
What a fucked mentality. Go find your solidarity with the oppressed.
He doesn’t care about quality of life as long as he gets his genocide.
Why are you helping Republicans guarantee the genocide continues?
Why are you still beating your wife?
You don’t care who wins as long as anti-genocide candidates aren’t on the ballot.
You’re either knowingly lying or not taking your meds
Abuse: for when centrists can’t defend their only policy.
You need to update your script. Criticizing biden isn’t helping trump win. The election is over and genocide won like you want in all cases.
You like it when Palestinians die.
Because they also have the office of the president.
Currently anyway.
If one party controls both houses of congress and the president and has a sympathetic Supreme Court majority they can do a lot more than if they only have one or 2 of those things.
“We need a supermajority” was a response Democrats gave in 2009 and 2021.
Did Republicans pass legislation they supported between 2011 and 201
75? Did they pass legislation they supported between 2023 and 2025?So here’s some basics on how the American government works.
The house can pass a bill with a simple majority.
So can the senate. In the event of a tie, the vice president casts the tie breaking vote.
However, the senate rules are such that in order to get to a vote you need vote to close debate, which takes 60 votes.
There are exceptions to the 60 vote rule using what’s called budget reconciliation. Matters pertaining just to budgetary items can bypass the 60 vote threshold and be voted on by a simple majority. These items must be cleared with the senate parliamentarian.
Once a bill has passed both the senate and the house, the president can either sign it or just wait 10 days and do nothing, at which point that bill becomes a law. He can also veto the bills at which point it gets sent back to both the house and senate which can override his veto with a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate.
If you want to pass a bill over the objections of the president you need two thirds of both the senate and house to agree to do it. If you want to get a bill through the senate that goes beyond budget reconciliation you need 60 senate votes.
When people talk about a supermajority they may be referring to the 60 votes needed to pass unrestricted bills in the senate, which the democrats had in 2008-2010 when they got Obamacare passed. Or if they are talking about overriding a veto they may be talking about the 2/3 of the votes you’d need in the house AND senate.
I’m not interested in debating who said what about what when, it just seemed like some people were unaware of the actual rules of how the US federal government functions and hoped to clear that up. If you have any questions about how that stuff works I’m happy to address it with the best of my knowledge. But I have no interest in actually debating politics online.
None of this seems to apply when a Republican is in office
Or when netanyahu wants weapons.
I know right, this is what lost me
I mean, it does function. Just not for the benefit of the working class.
All of this applies. It’s why republicans were able to pass tax cuts via reconciliation but not the SAVE act. They would have needed to change the filibuster rule and they couldn’t get the 50 votes needed to do it.
If you want to make long term changes to this country you need to control both houses of congress and the presidency. 2026 elections can change the former but not the latter. Which means dems will be able to stop the insanity but they’re not going to be able to make major changes until they can overcome the veto power. They need to have a democratic president.
Look, I’m sure you’re passionate about change and want to make a difference, but if you’re not going to get your facts straight and just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you with pithy comments then you’re never going to get enough people on your side to do that. Not enough people will take you seriously and you’ll just end up being spoiler votes that keep people like Trump in power.
This will be my last post in this thread.
Because the Republicans break laws and get sympathetic judges to cover it up
The Leahy law is a law.
Centrist democrats break laws whenever they want. It just so happens that they only want to break one.
And the controlled opposition can’t break laws ofc, they might win otherwise.
Republicans historically do not fucking govern. They give tax cuts to the oligarchs and otherwise have a concept of a plan in two weeks. They lie and lie and lie. They are the ones pushing the “gummit is borken” lie - and making sure it appears to be true.
Probably because the Rs are more loyal overall.
Republicans are willing to use blatantly illegal tactics and control enough courts to make a mess, you know the whole “it’s easier to break things” part.
Democrats need a supermajority, then they need the courage to invoke 14A3 disqualification backdated to at least J6 and declare everything the admin did legally null and void. Make every Republican politician personally legally liable for everything, all the theft and destruction, as the immunity of the political positions gets fully erased.
That’s the only fast way to fix things. Anything less will mean it’s going to drag out for decades.
Executive Summary
The evidence shows multiple plausible answers depending on how one defines “dominate.” Recent sources most commonly point to the Democrats’ control of both chambers during the 117th Congress (January 3, 2021–January 3, 2023) as the last time they held unified congressional control, while earlier notable periods include the 111th Congress (2009–2011) and historically larger majorities like the 89th Congress after 1964. The statement therefore requires clarification of terms—“dominate” can mean simple majority, large supermajority, or sustained multi-decade control—to be answered precisely
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/when-did-democrats-last-dominate-congress-1833b0
Contemporary records and syntheses within the provided analyses indicate the 117th Congress (Jan 3, 2021–Jan 3, 2023) as the latest period when Democrats held both chambers, with a House majority and a Senate majority realized through a 50–50 split and the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote. This configuration coincided with the Biden administration and enabled the Democratic leadership to pass key legislation during early 2021, illustrating functional control despite narrow margins. Reliable repositories of congressional composition and institutional histories corroborate this timing as the most recent instance of unified party control in Congress cited across multiple analyses, making the 117th the default answer when “dominate” is used to mean holding both chambers —————————————————-
That was after the republicans facilitated a global pandemic. The time before that was after the republicans destroyed the global economy. The time before that was before most of you were born: —————————————————————
3. Earlier high-water marks: 111th Congress and the 1964 landslide
If “dominate” implies a more comfortable majority or a legislative supermajority enabling broad agenda-setting, earlier periods fit better. The 111th Congress (2009–2011) provided Democrats with substantial House and Senate margins that facilitated major policy initiatives during the Obama administration, and analyses explicitly call this a recent example of decisive Democratic control [4]. Going further back, the 89th Congress following the 1964 electiondelivered the largest Democratic majorities since the New Deal era, enabling the passage of transformative legislation associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s agenda. Historical accounts position the 1964–1965 period as a classic instance of one-party dominance in Congress, distinct from the narrow 2021–2023 control