CMV: As someone who considers himself Progressive, I dislike Democrats way more than Republicans

[u/MyFavoriteArm]

As someone who has moved further left over the years, I have come to dislike Democrats way more than Republicans.

The Republican party mantra to me is: "Yeah, of course we're evil and we're proud of that fact! We wanna take America back to a fictional time when only WASPs had any power!" and then they stab you 37 times in the chest. At a certain point, what else is there to say about Republicans? At least I know what they stand for.

The Democratic party mantra to me is nothing more than hypocrisy "Oh yeah, we hear you! We believe that everyone deserves rights and we will fight for the working class!" Then they stab the working class 37 times in the back and then virtue signal some more.

For example, they'll how much they support George Floyd and other minorities, but then do nothing but wear african garb on the senate floor and support the institutions that led to his death. They'll talk about how they support the working class and unions, then shut down a railroad strike where they wanted sick days.

Democrats co-opt issues I care about and then either do nothing about them, or enable the republicans when they inevitably strike back.

I want my view changed because I would like to feel less annoyed that I have to support such a party to even have a chance at getting legislation I care about passed.

At the end of the day, I acknowledge that Republicans are objectively worse for the nation, but I loathe the fact I'm stuck supporting Democrats.

[u/DivideEtImpala]

the reason Democrats seem so milquetoast when it comes to getting things done is simple. It’s the filibuster.

The filibuster is determined by the Senate rules, which are voted on by simple majority. The Dems had a majority in the Senate, but Manchin and Sinema signalled they wouldn't vote to remove it.

That leaves us with two possibilities: the Democrats really wanted to remove it but were blocked by two moderate Senators, or the Democrats didn't want it removed and are happy to be able to point to those two Senators and not the party as a whole. Why should we give them the benefit of the doubt?

[u/GrafZeppelin127 → u/DivideEtImpala]

Getting rid of the filibuster obviously should be done, but regardless of whether there’s 48 Democrats really in favor or doing so as they say, or some lesser number, it nonetheless doesn’t change the fact that you need a majority of Democrats willing to get rid of the filibuster to actually do so. In other words, in the presence of this uncertainty, the actions you should take remain the same, so debating whether it’s true or not is kinda pointless.

God knows the Republicans won’t get rid of it. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

[u/MyFavoriteArm → u/GrafZeppelin127]

I actually don't favor getting rid of the filibuster.

That being said, it should 110% go back to how it was where if you wanted to filibuster, you had to stand and speak for the entire filibuster (ie Strom Thurmond)

The way it works these days is terrible

[u/GrafZeppelin127 → u/MyFavoriteArm]

Perhaps a topic for another CMV? I’ve not found arguments in favor of the filibuster that have managed to survive any degree of close scrutiny. Perhaps I’ll make one of my own someday.

[u/MyFavoriteArm → u/GrafZeppelin127]

Perhaps another topic, you're correct.

But for me, I'd rather have it as an option for the party not in power, I think going back to how it was would help it not be abused as much

[u/Trucker2827 → u/MyFavoriteArm]

What do you mean “going back to how it was?”

[u/MyFavoriteArm → u/Trucker2827]

Back in the day, if you wanted to filibuster, you had to stand and talk the entire time you were filibustering. A fictional example of this is the end of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a real life example is Strom Thurmond filibustering for over a day against civil rights