I’ve wanted to develop a conversation on this subject for a long time, because it’s a fallacy “both sides” have fallen for: The fact that illegal actions are often right, and legal actions are often immoral.

People will often harp on the fact that an act was “technically not legal”; yet throughout history, we have needed illegal acts to frame what’s right in the world. When we discuss these things online, it’s more honest to talk about “What the harm is” - a subject that often leans in favor of left-leaning opinions both for what’s illegal (living in the USA illegally, generally causing negative harm) and improperly using presidential powers to shut down government agencies (not just illegal, but also extremely harmful).

If you disagree and specifically want to harp on legality, then I invite you to see what happens if you start shooting jaywalkers in the street for their flagrant violation of the law. Prosecutorial discretion exists for a very important reason.

The sudden rush of tankies in the comments indicates to me that this is a strong enough move to make some oligarchs worried.

When Bernie Sanders brought forward another fervent request for free healthcare for all Americans, and the only retort the R he was addressing could come up with was a completely fabricated lie about Bernie taking money from pharmaceutical companies, I stopped believing anyone sensible could oppose it.

“Ew, Obamacare? I’d rather have the Affordable Care Act!!”

The short answer is: Yes.

The long answer is: YEEEEESSSS.

Politicians come in varying types, and most want to hold what power they have. It’s all they have - they’re literally at risk of being fired every few years. Many of them know what the right thing is to do, but worry that more domestic issues are their voter’s real concern. So, if they confirm a whack job in Congress while taking a back room deal to boost employment numbers in their state, they’ll do it - perhaps reluctantly.

But that CHANGES if their office is flooded with calls, or even just signed emails. It is a BIG oh shit moment: “Wait, people actually care about what’s happening in Washington as opposed to here??” The biggest problem reps have had, as repeatedly echoed in interviews, is they don’t know which issues are most significant to their voters. The result may be a matter of trading favors to be given table scraps, etc.

It is OUR problem too - we thought it was a common sense, braindead position not to vote for a diaper grandpa that spends 90% of its time drooling over Fox News, but the active voting population disagreed! So don’t think it is a hard mistake to make!

Every time people with experience judge these issues, they have recommended the same thing. Even if you live in a red state that won by 30 points, even if you live in a blue state that won by 20.

I encourage you to watch the movie Darkest Hour. London Parliament did NOT think it would be an obvious decision to oppose Hitler, AT ALL. They insisted Britain would chew them up for pushing them into a “pointless” war against a legitimate machine of progress and industry. It finally took Churchill going nutso and taking a subway ride in public to get a chance to actually see how people felt.

AOC talked about exactly this in her video (it’s over an hour long, but when you have time, I’d say it’s worth a watch). There was a specific effort to start this madness after Congress adjourned for the week, and there’s been a scramble to get back for continued pushback.

And, even for democrats we presume to fight for these issues, there is complacency where people only whine on social media without making themselves known directly to their representatives. That’s important both for people in Democrat, and Republican districts, to make it known their constituents are not blind to these problems.

There’s also mounting evidence that many of them didn’t actually stay home.

https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/

This is often my point. There’s a major problem with the statement “Democrats need to do something in the house”. And that problem is not with the second half of the sentence, but the first. “VOTERS needed to do something in the election.” America is not just the DNC no matter how much we love finding scapegoats.

Very very very tired of the circular logic used to blame them for losing an election to an imbecile, against promises two brain cells could have realized would never ever be delivered.

When I read talking points like this, I think about: Who would they convince? I don’t think many people honestly believe Democrats had a capable plan to fix these grocery prices in the first month of a Kamala presidency. Yes, Trump over-promised, and unfortunately, that was probably the right tactic.

I’m still not absolving voters for falling for such snake oil though. Sometimes when grandma clicks the “You have a virus” prompt for the 400th time you have to start blaming her.

Actually, the last important bit to me is who exactly is saying this. Recalling from memory, Elizabeth Warren once put forward a suggestion to require that 40% of a company’s board be voted in by employees. It’s very possible that with a less corrupt, profit-seeking corporate landscape we wouldn’t be in this situation. So even more than Kamala she may have credit to blame others for such things.