Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

I'm pretty certain both sides do that. They certainly do it in England.

I don't think political parties are any different anymore. It feels like we're in a high class shell game and we keep trying to find the political party that will actually help and do what they claim but all their words are empty. Everything's a distraction from the fact that all the parties serve the same people with the exact same purpose. It's just the words they say are different.

In Scotland, those of my own political stripe call it the "Bain Principle":

Spoiler: Oppose Party X's Motions Simply Because They're The Opposition/"Enemy" (click to show/hide)

Regardless of the motion in question's merit or potential common ground or, indeed, common sense.

It tends to be though that parties that don't follow the Bain Principle are minor ones e.g. our Liberals or the Greens who need to work with various parties (Conservatives or Labour or the SNP) to get motions through. In the USA, you have a two party system with virtually no minor parties worth the name, so considering both Republicans and Democrats subscribe to the Bain Principle you're going to be locked into an endless, needlessly spiteful conflict that often looks quite silly e.g. the Holocaust stuff in the post above.

That's not to say we're not locked into a conflict like that ourselves - we certainly are, it's just that there are some longstanding examples of minor parties in our system that don't really get involved in that sort of thing because they're willing to compromise, such as the UK-level Liberal Party back in the 70s and 80s.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Frumple]

Um. Isp,  do remember that the ACA was originally based on a conservative proposition, and the nascent implementation was actually presided over by freaking Romney. Not really sure it would do any good to try. The GOP has this thing where, when they have egg on their face, they grab several more eggs and a blowdryer and make a hideous sort of caked on tribal egg-mask out of it.

[Rex Invictus]

So all the substantive differences between the parties are unimportant? Obamacare cut the amount of people without health insurance in my state by a third - tens of thousands of people can now interact with this country's healthcare system without being ruined financially. Is their health and quality of life just a distraction from the "real" issues?

Republicans have tried to repeal this bill dozens of times. Both parties are corrupt and politics is idiotic, but there are differences and they matter.

Um. Isp,  do remember that the ACA was originally based on a conservative proposition, and the nascent implementation was actually presided over by freaking Romney. Not really sure it would do any good to try. The GOP has this thing where, when they have egg on their face, they grab several more eggs and a blowdryer and make a hideous sort of caked on tribal egg-mask out of it.

I think Frumple answered it for me. If the situation was reversed, it would've been the same.

The sooner you realise that your political parties are not much more than sports teams, the better.

[Frumple]

Uh, actually the likelihood would be considerably smaller. The dems are notably more fractious than the gop, and significantly more willing to step out of lock-step with whatever the party line is to get something they want done. You can kinda' look at voting records to see this actually happening. Yeah, there's still significant consensus, but where with the gop you're pretty likely to be looking at 90+% consensus, with the dems it'll be bare (super)majorities and whatnot.

For all that the parties are alike a number of issues, they're also very bloody different on a number of others, and will very much react differently in similar scenarios.

[NullForceOmega]

The fractiousness of the Dems also means that they will make at least a token attempt to reach an accommodation with the Republicans, though it may be almost non-existent.

[Rex Invictus]

Uh, actually the likelihood would be considerably smaller. The dems are notably more fractious than the gop, and significantly more willing to step out of lock-step with whatever the party line is to get something they want done. You can kinda' look at voting records to see this actually happening. Yeah, there's still significant consensus, but where with the gop you're pretty likely to be looking at 90+% consensus, with the dems it'll be bare (super)majorities and whatnot.

For all that the parties are alike a number of issues, they're also very bloody different on a number of others, and will very much react differently in similar scenarios.

I just think you're doing confirmation bias. I can't say, as I'm English and we have the Whip System which leads to parties being ALWAYS in lockstep (and if someone votes against a motion then you know that party leader is out within the week).

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Frumple]

N... neither? The ACA is actually kinda' terrible in a lot of ways, it's just better than what was there before. Not so much a good idea as a less-worse one -- that it's been as much of an improvement as it has says significantly more about the situation beforehand than the merits of the program itself. It's good in a relative sense, but less so in something approaching an objective one.

Though your latter bit does, in general, seem to be more true for the dems than the republicans, at the moment. Not the devaluation of the system bit, just the bit where dems are generally more willing to cross party lines/vote contrary to their overall platform.

Wasn't saying the system is meaningless or anything, just noting that trying to humiliate the republicans for going against their best wishes is likely something that's just not going to work. They do that comparatively often and seem largely unperturbed when called on it, at least insofar as I've noticed. Democrats at least tend to flail around a bit when it happens.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[smjjames]

You know, as much as the republicans are bashing Obama over what he said at the summit the other day (being an apologist, not loving america, etc), I can't help but wonder what THEY would have said at the summit if they were in Obamas place as president? That we ARE at war with Islam? I don't see that going down in fluffy bunnies and rainbows.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Butting in here only reading the last post.

What did he say?
Republicans would have probably worded it more towards a war on terrorists or a war on radical Islamists, or Islam extremist group(s).
Not war on Islam itself

Also I have no idea what happened at the summit and this post is probably absolutely stupid

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Considering Obama literally asked Congress to let him go to war with ISIS...

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Like I said I don't know what happened of what you guys are talking about
Just saw it and buzzed in without thinking

I stopped laying attention to politics and news when
Almost all the politicians (lol I say that like there is more than two political parties with a chance of a successful run) don't seem to be that great
I won't be able to vote because I turn the legal voting age after voting ends.
I am a third party anyways so I don't care too much.
 
And I don't pay attention to the news because I hear enough of it in ROTC and I like being happy and not depressed

[Reelya]

Uh, actually the likelihood would be considerably smaller. The dems are notably more fractious than the gop, and significantly more willing to step out of lock-step with whatever the party line is to get something they want done. You can kinda' look at voting records to see this actually happening. Yeah, there's still significant consensus, but where with the gop you're pretty likely to be looking at 90+% consensus, with the dems it'll be bare (super)majorities and whatnot.

For all that the parties are alike a number of issues, they're also very bloody different on a number of others, and will very much react differently in similar scenarios.

I just think you're doing confirmation bias. I can't say, as I'm English and we have the Whip System which leads to parties being ALWAYS in lockstep (and if someone votes against a motion then you know that party leader is out within the week).

It doesn't work like that in the USA. If you look at their voting records, big chunks of the same parties voting for or against motions is normal. Seeing 30-40 of your own party voting against a motion you put up is normal and is indicative of business as usual.

It's not confirmation bias. If you follow American politics for enough time you see the clear differences. Republican candidates are 100% more likely to threaten to shoot the rival candidate if they lose the election, and yet these insane freaks still don't get dropped by their party. This actually happens, and is only an example of the crazy that slips out of Republican congressional candidates mouths each election. Yes, not even local politics, the Republicans put people up for National election who say that their supporters will shoot people if they lose. And then they also field candidates for congress who want to ban masturbation, and believe the government is secretly creating genetically hybrid mouse-people.

Democrats never pull shit like that. A democrat could lose his candicacy by letting a slight racial slur slip out of their mouth, whereas a Republican would probably still get voted in if he yelled "I'm running against a nigga? If I lose I'm gunna shoot me dat dere nigga!"