comment: >
  
  Despite infighting? Or despite a literal clown show making up nearly half of legislators with sole purpose of putting on a clown show?
context: “Infighting”…discussion of ideas, representation of varied interests, providing the best outcomes for citizens, regions and industries.
  Vs blindly worshiping one guy whose bigoted rantings can only be opposed at risk of excommunication.
  I’ll take the infighting.
  Fucking media. >
  
  Fox News says something stupid: fuck Fox News. 
  NPR says something stupid: fuck the media. 
  NPR is subject to bias just like any news outlet. It’s disappointing when they fall prey to right wing tropes like this. >
  
  NPR is a neoliberal mouthpiece and any veneer it has of being “left” is purely marketing. >
  
  I keep seeing people misuse this word, neoliberal doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
  It’s an economic/ international development term coined ~70 years ago. From the wiki:
  
  Neoliberalism is a term used to signify the late 20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism after it fell into decline following the Second World War.[2]: 7 [3] A prominent factor in the rise of conservative and libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and predominantly advocated by them,[4][5] it is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.
  
  (or you’re muddying the waters on purpose, I’m assuming you just didn’t know) >
  
  Neo-conservative is my go to for those using the guise of progressive policy to enforce conservative structures. I'm not sure if that's still the appropriate term here. >
  
  Right, and socio/politically we don’t need made up gradations of “good” liberals and “bad” liberals, the Democratic Party is inherently a coalition. We agree on ~99%, that’s what matters
  TL;DR - ‘neoliberal’ is economics, not politics. Beware anyone confidently calling democrat ‘X’ a neoliberal, they’re either a narc or a fool >
  
  I think one of the real issues we have is just this kind of thing. Most conservatives probably think of the denotative definition being reserved, not understanding that it's political meaning is more along the lines of "autocratic" or "fiefdom". >
  
  This post is not making sense to me. 
  
  Most conservatives probably think of the denotative definition being reserved
  
  Come again? >
  
  The word conservative is usually self referencial and used to denote "responsible" or "slow". As is the English meaning. But politically, the word conservative comes from the French aristocracy trying to use the new free markets to create a new kind of feudalism. The current conservative parties of UK/US/AUS are all direct philosophical descendants of the French aristocracy. This creates a common kind of difficulty when speaking where someone who is a self proclaimed conservative might not know the actual intentions of their political representation. 
  This obviously also impacts anyone discussing it. 
  TLDR words are hard. >
  
  I mean okay gotcha, just confused bc it’s not terribly germaine to bring up such an allegory
  anyway for the people in the back, yah neoliberalism refers to reforms in economic markets that are typically associated with Reagan era consevatives who believed in laissez faire capitalism and ‘free markets’ aka unregulated capitalism . 
  The ‘liberalism’ in question is Keynesian liberalism. 
  So ‘Liberalized’ states/economies like in the US enmesh and manage both the public sector (the state) and the private sector (I.e. the Fed setting interest rates for private lending). It’s both socialism and capitalism, enmeshed, to varying degrees. In Europe they hew more toward the public sector, in America the private sector. This all happens because we live in a society/culture of pluralism
  
  Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles.[1] While not all political pluralists advocate for a pluralist democracy, this is most common as democracy is often viewed as the most fair and effective way to moderate between the discrete values.[2] As put by arch-pluralist Isaiah Berlin, "let us have the courage of our admitted ignorance, of our doubts and uncertainties. At least we can try to discover what others ... require, by ... making it possible for ourselves to know men as they truly are, by listening to them carefully and sympathetically, and understanding them and their lives and their needs... ."[3] Pluralism thus tries to encourage members of society to accommodate their differences by avoiding extremism (adhering solely to one value, or at the very least refusing to recognize others as legitimate) and engaging in good faith dialogue. Pluralists also seek the construction or reform of social institutions in order to reflect and balance competing principles.
  
  In short, our world is largely a ”Liberal Pluralist“ society 
  Words are indeed hard. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk >
  
  Shit headline and narrative by NPR...more like..."Despite Republicans blocking every piece of legislation designed to help out most Americans, Democrats made some progress" >
  
  NPR is still trying to maintain a veneer of non-partisanship, and it’s less divisive and more interesting to talk about how Democrats struggled but succeeded in getting out of their own way than to talk about what everyone knows already: Republicans want to sabotage government to prove it can’t work. >
  
  Nprs donation list from charities includes a bunch of corporate sponsorship (AmazonSmile) pretending to be charities. It's gross. Npr is a corpo shill now. This is coming from a listener of years and years, hours and hours. I wouldn't be surprised if corporate underwriting was involved in every single one of their pieces. >
  
  I stopped listening to my local NPR back during the mass teacher strikes a few years ago. 
  I tuned in to hear their coverage while on a long drive and it consisted entirely of a few local Republican reps spewing every cliche anti union talking point available then the segment just..... ended. No teacher or union rep there to rebut, no critical questions, nothing. 
  NPR's famed neutrality on display. >
  
  There's no such thing as local NPR, it's a national service - that would be your local public radio station and their coverage (actually hell in Massachusetts you have two!)... >
  
  Even when Democrats are doing well, they will get the "Dems in disarray" trope from even good media sources. >
  
  The GOP is tearing themselves apart between MAGAs and the old guard to the point that the vote for Speaker is shaping up to be a fight - something that hasn’t happened in a hot minute. 
  But no, it’s the Dems that are “in fighting.” >
  
  I mean there definitely has been in fighting with the Dems the past two years with Manchin and especially Sinema (cause no one knows what the fuck she wants). I feel like they’re going to pale in comparison to the GOP controlled house though. >
  
  It’s not nearly as bad, though, as under Obama’s first term or anything like the constant relitigating 2016 >
  
  lmao they really killed it on obamacare, total Democrat success there, it helped dozens of people probably and was funded by a $700 fee to our countries poorest >
  
  Being a vibrant party that has a variety of ideas, and engages in discussion on how to implement them isn’t “infighting”. It’s normal democracy.
  It’s much healthier than a blind adherence to an incoherent set of talking points forged through alliances of those who have strong, but unpopular opinions (the wealthy, Christian nationalists, the NRA). >
  
  How about what you call "infighting" we call "negotiating" and leave it at that?  Perhaps... just maybe... Democrats got so much accomplished because they worked hard at it, compromised...and moved on to the next big thing?  And Republicans?  Sat with their arms crossed and refused to participate.  Let's talk about that... shall we?  Just imagine what we could have actually accomplished with an opposition party that actually wanted to work at the hard stuff? >
  
  The Manchin thing really was a surprise turnaround. I guess a check bounced somewhere. >
  
  He got guaranteed future oil leases in Alaska/offshore in an otherwise anti fossil fuel bill, is what happened. >
  
  Democrats default to governing
  Republicans default to identify politics, class warfare, and harming the working class. >
  
  You mean like how biden forced railway workers to keep working and not go on strike? >
  
  Yup, democrats wanted to meet be their demand and included sick leave. Guess who forced that out of the final result.  Gop 
  I know you're trying to both sides it... but it's not both sides.  Just the gop causing problems. >
  
  Biden produced an unforced error by making a strike illegal.  Unless you think workers should be forced to work. >
  
  I'm not a huge fan of that move, but I also get why he did it.  It would have been bad for everyone if the rails shut down over Christmas because of a strike... >
  
  "Democrats got a shitload of really good stuff done. Here's why we still hate their guts for daring to try to help people and will continue spreading propaganda that they're failures, even in success." >
  
  40%+ of the population doesn't want to do better, they want to do better than those they hate >
  
  
  40%+ of the population doesn't want to do better, they want ~~to do better than~~ those they hate to do worse than them.
  
  There's a difference >
  
  He’s hurting the wrong people! >
  
  *"He's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting" >
  
  Surprisingly productive?  You mean Democrats actually passed helpful legislation, like functional governments are supposed to do, after 4 years of GOP tax cuts, science denial, deregulation, culture wars, and money laundering? >
  
  And get ready for Sinema and Manchin try to take credit for all of it during their next re-election campaigns without an ounce of shame. >
  
  Sinema is done.  Machin needs all the help he can get in bright red w virgina. >
  
  
  Sinema is done
  
  I don’t think there’s any other way to see it.  Self-important narcissist that she is, I’m guessing she’ll be Faux News’s next celebrity ‘Left Wing’ pundit.  She’ll try to pretend she has nothing to be ashamed of. >
  
  Wouldn’t surprise me if she tries to run for President in 2024 as an Independent, positioning herself as  a “moderate”. In reality, acting as a spoiler to tilt the race to Republicans.
  She definitely has the ego and taste for cash to do it. >
  
  But no one likes her at all.  She will be as irrelevant as Tulsi gabbard once out of the senate. >
  
  Hopefully so >
  
  Manchin and Sinema being dicks doesn’t equal “infighting” lmao. >
  
  God the media pisses me off more and more. Infighting? Barely. The story is that the gop tried to block every tiny bit of progress. >
  
  Still working for their voters while hashing out differences?? Wow!! What a concept! >
  
  Republicants still can’t even pick a leader of their own party or head on majority in congress. In comparison the Democrats are doing an amazing job >
  
  Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. >
  
  
  
  Inflation Reduction Act- largest climate bill in history of $385 B over 10 years, projected to reduce emissions by 42% by 2030 thanks to tax credits on electric vehicles, clean manufacturing, and clean energy. 15% corporate minimum tax, drug price negotiation, and $300B in deficit spending 
  
  
  Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill- $66B towards improving our roads and bridges, clean water, develop broadband internet, build EV chargers, and fund public transit projects
  
  
  Protect Our Kids Gun Reform Act- toughest gun law in 30years; closed boyfriend loophole in gun ownership, more thorough reviews of 18-21 year olds to buy guns, statutes against gun trafficking 
  
  
  CHIPS and Science Act- biggest funding increase for National Science foundation ever and subsidies to US CHIP makers
  
  
  Post Office Reform Act- lifts budget requirements on Post Office
  
  
  Respect For Marriage Act- mandates federal approval of same sex and interracial marriages
  
  
  Electoral Reform Act- will (hopefully) protect against another Jan 6 by clarifying that the VP’s role in the electoral vote count is strictly ceremonial and makes it illegal for states to override the popular vote count of their citizens >
  
  I’ll admit, I am a Democrat/Progressive-Left and even I have been surprised with how much they’ve gotten passed (in spite of whether or not it’s been enacted yet, ie: 10k student debt relief). It’s sad though. I really didn’t expect much, but I also didn’t expect this much. So they’re doing better than nothing, which is a win since I expected nothing….my brain hurts. >
  
  The Debt Cancellation being in limbo, while unfortunate, has the Silver Lining of showing the limits of what the Executive Branch can do without the Judiciary throwing wrenches in anything-and that to have nice things, more pieces need to be in place to do nice things. >
  
  It will forever be used as a carrot on a stick in future elections >
  
  Let’s say it’s Cancelled via a Bill/Law, but in the next Election cycle the other guy platforms on ”Making those Lazy College Kids Pay What They Owe” with the implications that people whose debts were forgiven would be saddled with it again via a Law that would overrule the one prior.
  Would you consider that their opponent campaigning on “Keeping the Debt Cancelled” platform just a Carrot as well? >
  
  I really fucking hate how a lot of media just give a blanket pass to the GOP like this and carry water for them. >
  
  I hope more people catch onto this. Even NPR for christsakes always tries to cast the Democratic party in a negative light and they're probably the most fair. Most major news media companies are Fox 'News' light. Remember this when you wonder why Democrats struggle to hold majorities while being on the right side of every issue. And then wonder why democrats are so shy of doing left of center things. Look at how the corporate media covered the railroad strike and student debt relief. The MSM was literally drooling at the idea of calling students welfare queens and screaming about democrats destroying the economy to help fat, lazy, union slugs. >
  
  Good news doesn't draw a crowd. >
  
  I love how the press doesn’t even consider the gop obstruction to be worth mentioning
  1 dem senator and 50 gop senators vote against a something
  Headline: Dems in disarray! >
  
  Joe Biden has been the greatest President of my lifetime. >
  
  Yeah, I’m shocked.  I’ve never, ever liked Biden.  I held my nose when I voted for him.  When you measure him side by side with Obama, Biden is actually doing, not just a better job, he’s actually doing pretty well given the political climate.  I’m fucking stunned. >
  
  Biden makes Obama look like a wimp in a lot of ways, especially Ukraine >
  
  
  Biden makes Obama look like a wimp in a lot of ways, especially Ukraine
  
  Absolutely true.  Putin’s unprovoked invasion and taking of Crimea should NEVER have gone unanswered. >
  
  They didn't have the support of Ukraine then, which was the problem.  The Ukraine President was a Russian puppet, he basically invited Russia in.  You cant fight a proxy war with an unwilling participant.  The only answer to that problem then was for the US to physically invade themselves which wasn't an option. >
  
  
  You cant fight a proxy war with an unwilling participant.
  
  No question, you’re right about that, but hard sanctions with the US leading and Europe following would have slowed Putin’s roll.  Imposing sanctions was an option, but instead we threw a couple of little nothing sanctions at them so of course he felt emboldened. >
  
  Your right, except Ukraine chose Europe to lead the Minsk agreement, not the US.  Imposing sanctions was an option Ukraine and Europe chose not to take.  The US taking an action independently against the will of a country resulting in the continuation of war and death in that country is just a plain old dick move. >
  
  
  Imposing sanctions was an option Ukraine and Europe chose not to take.
  
  I didn’t know that.  So, what was the plan for Ukraine to recover Crimea?
  Edit: 
  
  The US taking an action independently against the will of a country resulting in the continuation of war and death in that country is just a plain old dick move.
  
  Pffft, when has that ever stopped us?  I do agree though that that would be an imprudent move. >
  
  There was no plan to recover Crimea.  Ukraine was in a borderline civil war.  They were struggling to perform basic functions.  Stopping Russia from continuing an invasion was a big win in itself.  Russia is barely losing against a strongly unified Ukraine, they could have walked through back when they took Crimea.  You punish them too much, they have nothing to lose and continue, hence the balance struck at Minsk. >
  
  Wow, thank you for the thorough and informed response! >
  
  Keep pushing. It’s not time to relax now. >
  
  Just before he signed the bill in June, Biden said that although the measure didn't achieve everything he had hoped for, the bipartisan piece of legislation would ultimately save lives. >
  
  Honestly, regardless of how you feel about the policies themselves, the first two years of the Biden presidency has been historically successful. >
  
  By "infighting" they must mean GOP roadblocks thrown up in the way of any legislation that might benefit the country (unless of course you're a billionaire.) >
  
  Its not complicated.  Its compartmentalization. You can get Manchin to to approve a TON of stuff as long as he has something to rail against at home. He gets a lot of hate but there is still a reason he is a Democrat and not a Republican. >
  
  What infighting? >
  
  But infighting makes for sexier headlines so that’s all the media wants to talk about. >
  
  I am surprised with these Dems, regardless if you disagree with their policies, they can govern, they pass legislation, above all, they haven't done what the Obama administration did. Listen to the GOP, those people live in another realm. >
  
  Look at these old farts. FFS. >
  
  The main problem with the Dems' "infighting" is that it was done in public. But, in all honesty, that sort of negotiated compromise is exactly what is supposed to happen in a healthy democracy. Dems actually have genuinely held priorities and beliefs.
  By contrast, the Republican Party exists simply to accumulate power. And 90% of them will simply await instructions from Trump or McConnell or Tucker to tell them how to vote. >
  
  There you go again NPR, smearing feces all over solid progressive wins. >
  
  biden got the nomination, there are no “solid progressive wins” to be had unless the party ditches him in 2024 >
  
  There was so little infighting in this term it’s amazing - awful title. >
  
  So crazy that so much gets done somehow when Democrats are in control. >
  
  “Infighting” STFU
  All these caviar douche bags went to the same ivy league schools, their racists dads went to all the same country clubs, and they all belly laugh when their bank accounts grow on the backs of dead orphans and slave labor.
  All the same fucking gang so it’s no surprise that they are working well together. >
  
  Doing well. Not living up to expectations, their own even. Not fighting as hard as they should. I am thoroughly disappointed and hope we get a better candidate to primary Biden. >
  
  He didn’t do anything? 
  I work in Special Education, the Administration bumped up pay over the last few years via Grants etc and now “suddenly” all the Leftists I know are putting their kids in Private or Religious schools because “Public Schools are run by ‘Shit-Libs’”. 
  So what made you guys do a ‘180 on public services in the space of a year? >
  
  
  He didn’t do anything? 
  
  Are you asking me? Because I didn't say that. Did you read my comment or did you just blindly reply? And who the fuck are "you guys"? >
  
  Yep, you implied that-when I pointed out that he did do something-or did you just reply blindly? >
  
  
  Yep, you implied that
  
  No I did not. >
  
  I like when they showed their dedication to improving the lives of working people by fucking over the rail workers.  Like, sure, they respect the civil rights of all workers to be wage slaves, and that is all. >
  
  They're still working on getting the PTO rule done, FYI.  Repubs voted down the second bill that included seven days. >
  
  Infighting is a weird way to say that two people in the Senate held things up and that Republicans shot down everything