558
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
558 points (95.6% liked)
Work Reform
17499 readers
1834 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll be the first one to say that the current Democratic party needs replacing, but they're not wrong.
Or did everyone forget that you need a supermajority in the Senate to get past the Presidential veto?
Is anyone truly naive enough to think that Donald Trump would sign anything the Democrats put forward? The man who told Republicans to tank legislation with things they wanted in it to avoid giving Democrats a win?
Unless you're advocating for a revolution, you have to work within the system. And it's not the Democrats fault that is easier to break a thing than to fix it.
It's always easy to point out a problem. Solutions are what we need, and all this kind of post does is discourage left-leaning people from voting, which is what the Republicans want.
So unless you have something resembling an actual solution, this just seems like virtue signaling to me.
I will say that there's immense value in symbolism, performative values, and simply being caught trying by voters. Yes the President will veto anything good, but fucking make him do it. Go on social media and the talk shows to rip him a new one for all of the good things that he's actively preventing. Move the Overton Window. Change the terms of the public discourse.
Governing long ago moved beyond mere parliamentary procedure; it also needs to be a show that the people in the cheap seats (a.k.a. low-information voters) can watch.
Careful, that almost sounds like something a competent opposition party would do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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~~7~~ 5? 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
I know right, this is what lost me
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.
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
The thing is that many people are looking too short-sightedly for the internal (non-revolution-like) reform path. The goal for change is 2028, but change in 2028 can't get off the ground running, if a 2026 sweep doesn't. (I wish you had a Westminster system with no-confidence votes, but alas).
What Congress can do is to compel Trump administration officials to get their asses into the chamber. They can put articles and lawsuits with appropriate standing to:
Congress under leadership of feckless Republicans and sometimes Democrats haven't asserted the power of the purse. For budgetary matters, votes can be held without permanently removing the cloture rule. And if Trump refuses to sign a bill voted on D-party lines to fund the government while implementing changes, the government will shut down once again and the bill will await him on the desk until he signs it. He will try to shift blame as he always does, but the government has shutdown led by Republicans or Democrats, the common thread is his incompetent ass in charge for most of the time since 2016.
I don't think that OP is expecting Democrats or Progressives to get things through the Trump administration without a supermajority that can override his veto. What we are hoping for/expecting is that Democrats and Progressives to say "Fuck you, we're passing this bill and sending it on."
Medicare for All? "Fuck you we're passing this bill, veto it motherfucker!". Taxing rich people? "Fuck you we're passing this bill, veto this PDF". Repealing the Medicare cuts? "Hey, asshole, we passed it, oh and go fuck yourselves". Repeal the procedural filibuster? "Fuck it, we'll do it live!". Impeachment? "Hey, it's Tuesday, this asshole just did something unbecoming of the office, guess it's time to have another impeachment hearing, oh and fuck you, that's why."
Just try instead of rolling over on day one, what we're asking for even if you know it's destined to fail and show that you're willing to do the work. Back your shit up with actions instead of just words of "Well it'll never pass so we'll never try". Say what you will about Republicans, when they get in power, they do not give a fuck and will introduce every bad idea in their head and dare the President to veto it and that's why their base votes for them consistently.
That's what OP I think is asking people to remember.
They never, ever need a super majority. EVER.
That rule can be changed at any time by simple majority vote. That cloture rule is a parliamentary rule and is not law.
Don't be duped. Please look at what they call "the nuclear option."
There are over 180 exceptions to the super majority so far (last time I checked a few years ago).
(fun fact: the "nuclear option" was first called that by Trent Lott, a Republican, in the 2000s. Both parties immediately adopted the term because it scares the shit out of voters. What was it called before that? "the constitutional option").
Don't be a sucker. If they want to pass something, viola! It's an exception (like our budgets). If they don't want to pass something, but they want the voters to think that they do, "oh no, we need a super majority, super sorry we tried so hard!"
The solution is very simple. No other nation requires super majority votes for a reason.
No laws need to be changed.
You are thinking of filibuster, which I agree is just like you're saying.
However, they were talking about overriding the presidential veto, which is specifically defined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution as needing a 2/3 majority in both houses. Not a simple majority. You also cannot adopt a rule that supersedes the Constitution.
Here's the specific paragraph that I copied from Wikipedia
I remember how the current congress led us to a government shutdown only to fold like lawn chairs in return for a pinky promise that was later broken. There are options that don't require overriding the president because congress has the power of the purse and the power to investigate.
And the threat of filibuster, it's a double-whammy
They can make the filibuster be an actual Mr-Smith-Goes-To-Washington event again and fucking FORCE those fucking assholes to stand up there and talk for 24 hours straight. The change in filibuster behavior, which Republicans enacted, to just table anything that the other side said would be filibustered, should end. And spineless Democrats should do it and take credit for doing it, and look like they give a damn again.
I'm Alexander Daychilde, and I support this ↑ message.
If you think the only role of a political party is to pass laws, you are lost.
I don't recall where I said that was the only role for a political party.
It's really easy to point out a problem, like "the Democratic party has issues and hasn't delivered in the past"
But unless you're bringing solutions, too, then you're just playing into the opposition's plan: Get opposing voters to be apathetic so they don't vote.
Giving people hope is not a legislative project, it is a political one, one which the corporate-led Democratic Party has remarkably and consistently and repeatedly failed at.
Leftist policy and, just as important, rhetoric is the solution. The Left can't do world building without institutional support.
That's either a strawman argument, or you have no idea how the US Constitution works.
The House and Senate make the laws, and the President enforces them.
If you think the only role of a political party is to pass laws, you are lost.
Whatever, dude.
A little reading comprehension would indicate that the current discussion is clearly talking about cases where Democrats also control the presidency. Your whole comment is a non sequitur.
You're expecting a lot from people who'd rather stay home and claim some moral high ground while the world burns around them.
You're just judging people based on your imagined stereotypes.
No, I'm judging people from their own actions I've observed myself. It's the same ones who wouldn't vote for Harris because of Gaza because getting Trump elected again has worked out so well for them. It's the people who, when starving to death and presented with a bowl of dried dog shit or some overboiled broccoli, will choose to starve because the broccoli is too soft.