How you feel about it does matter, if you vote. If you've ever managed a group of people, you likely looked for results, not just agendas. You probably didn't give everyone a stellar review because they had an agenda, if their results were less than stellar. You cannot blame all the shortcomings on the other party, when people in your own party are in-fighting and thwarting the "agenda". As much as I despise party line politics, it's effective to meet agendas.
But they don't fail to become law because of the other party, when you have a majority in both the house and senate. Someone on your team is pissing in the water. "We tried" keeps being the sounding call of the democrats. "There were just too many of them".. when people within the democratic party are thwarting progress.
That's a bit of a strawman. You don't need everybody on board. Failing to pass legislation introduced by your party because your own people vote "present" doesn't equate to losing because not every single person was on board. It means there was enough people not onboard, and often that's known well in advance. It seems much of the process is a dog and pony show for voters. Both sides do it, but the dems seem particularly adept at it, much to the chagrin of many voters (even here when posters criticize the left for being inept).
Same with all of these things. It seems like just another turn at fleecing the public to funnel wealth to the few. This has been happening for decades, maybe longer. There are things that need funded like roads and bridges, airports and such, but so much of it will instead go to shady, hard to follow mazes of money distributions.
Assault weapons were never banned. Only the manufacture for sale to the public of firearms after the date of the bill was banned. This is why many dem voters are so easily duped.
From Wiki
The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the US Senate, and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on the same day. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several cons utional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.
Studies have shown the ban had little effect on overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, and the lethality of gun crimes. There is tentative evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect.[1]
Placebo legislation isn't really addressing the agenda, which was to ban assault style weapons, since they were never banned. No one who owned one, no store who sold them, no gunshow.. ever had to stop selling them. They just couldn't buy new ones for a period of time.
Sometimes you need an excessive asshole to deal with a group of assholes.
Sans COVID Trump wins easily, there's less voter turnout and you're looking at Trump season 2. He had everything going for him (other than his mouth) that spells re-election.