Print

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

[EnigmaticHat]

I don't understand why people want bipartisanship.

The only meaningful input in the political process most Americans have is voting democrat or republican.  If the democrats and republicans cooperate its not a democracy anymore.

[Helgoland]

As a third option you could shoot someone, but this is not encouraged.

[Neonivek]

I don't understand why people want bipartisanship.

The only meaningful input in the political process most Americans have is voting democrat or republican.  If the democrats and republicans cooperate its not a democracy anymore.

Or... that is the ultimate form of democracy... not being a dictatorship xD

Most Americans if you eliminate the party they say they are part of... are quite moderate. Co-operation between the parties better reflects the people.

Not that they should work together all the time, but I don't see co-operation as an imposition on democracy but in fact one of the shining benefits.

[Frumple]

i think it's mostly because they want a functioning government that's actually doing something for them

Also the cooperation is usually hinged with an implied negotiation and compromise, ideally hammered out to be as beneficial as possible to both sides of the political divide (and, by extension, the entire people). Which is, y'know. Kind of the major point of a democracy. Rather than not being one if it's achieved, it's a non-functioning one if some degree isn't.

And somewhat ninja'd, but eh.

[Baffler]

Similarly if what I think does not and never will matter to the people ruling over me, what use do I have for them? What stake do I have in a society where my rulers are hostile to my personal interest, in the few cases where they aren't just too indifferent to consider them?

[ChairmanPoo]

Similarly if what I think does not and never will matter to the people ruling over me, what use do I have for them? What stake do I have in a society where my rulers are hostile to my personal interest, in the few cases where they aren't just too indifferent to consider them?

Well... not being murdered by barbarians and having your house riddled by burning arrows is one potential reason

[Shazbot]

The core function of the Constitutional government is to not function by design without broad agreement. The filibuster rule existed for when the senate existed as a representation of state governments. Now that its democratized, a simple majority is the same threshold found in the other democratic house. The Democrats eroded filibusters for nominations with their move to pack federal courts, and now the Republicans are giving them their own medicine over kicking and howling. But its going to be done. The status-quo-ante-Scalia-mortem will be restored. Republicans teetered on supporting a nominee before the election on the presumption Hillary's nominee would be ultra-leftist and they'd lack any power to stop it. Democrats made no effort to put forward a compromise nominee that would draw in those teetering Republicans. The election was upset and now what's done is done.

[Neonivek]

Similarly if what I think does not and never will matter to the people ruling over me, what use do I have for them? What stake do I have in a society where my rulers are hostile to my personal interest, in the few cases where they aren't just too indifferent to consider them?

Isn't that just American politics in a nutshell?

[martinuzz]

Trump has responded to the question if Assad has crossed a red line in Syria, that he has crossed many lines, more than one red line. He continues that 'if the United Nations keep forsaking their duty to take collective action, a time will come when we will take action ourselves.

He rubs salt in the wounds by adding that the horrible gas attack in Idlib is the responsibility of the Obama administration, that failed to take their own ultimatum seriously.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/ook-trump-gaat-in-syrie-zijn-rode-lijn-trekken~a4483459/


Well I guess this could mean that we can see some Russia vs US action in Syria soon if Trump decides he wants to take down Assad. I'd start by taking out the S400 and that Russian anti air destroyer in the Mediterranean.

[smjjames]

Trump has responded to the question if Assad has crossed a red line in Syria, that he has crossed many lines, more than one red line. He continues that 'if the United Nations keep forsaking their duty to take collective action, a time will come when we will take action ourselves.

He rubs salt in the wounds by adding that the horrible gas attack in Idlib is the responsibility of the Obama administration, that failed to take their own ultimatum seriously.


Well I guess this could mean that we can see some Russia vs US action in Syria soon if Trump decides he wants to take down Assad. I'd start by taking out the S400 and that Russian anti air destroyer in the Mediterranean.

We'll see if Trump actually DOES act on this new 'red line' of his. Until he does, it's all talk.

The only major bipartisan decision I can personally remember being made was in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. It's been dead a lot longer than just the few months since Trump was elected.

Bipartisanship in general is long dead, but it was only with the refusal to hold a hearing for Garland that the SCOTUS appointment system was broken down. In my opinion it's actually one of the worst things the GOP has ever done, openly putting partisan victories over the functionality of the government. They can't even say it was unfair of Obama to make them vote on some "activist judge" because Garland is judicially centrist and highly competent.

No, it was purely and openly to exploit an opening in the legal process (no time limit on SCOTUS seats going empty) to protect the conservatism of the Supreme Court, and advanced under a figleaf of "democracy" for a non-democratic body. If Clinton had pulled through they'd probably still be fucking whining and refusing to give Garland a hearing.

That I cannot abide. If the Dems won back the government in 2020 and immediately appointed 10 extra liberal justices, I'd call that fair play under what the Republicans chose to establish. The actual price the GOP pays will of course be less extreme, but they must be made to pay it all the same.

You mean stuff the court with 10 liberal justices? That's typically a thing dictators do.

Though yeah, hard to see where the end of this whole hyperpartianship goes, just seems like it'll swing wildly from one end to the other......

[Helgoland]

The core function of the Constitutional government is to not function by design without broad agreement. The filibuster rule existed for when the senate existed as a representation of state governments. Now that its democratized, a simple majority is the same threshold found in the other democratic house. The Democrats eroded filibusters for nominations with their move to pack federal courts, and now the Republicans are giving them their own medicine over kicking and howling. But its going to be done. The status-quo-ante-Scalia-mortem will be restored. Republicans teetered on supporting a nominee before the election on the presumption Hillary's nominee would be ultra-leftist and they'd lack any power to stop it. Democrats made no effort to put forward a compromise nominee that would draw in those teetering Republicans. The election was upset and now what's done is done.

I'd say I hate to nitpick, but I'd hate to lie: It should be status quo ante mortem Scaliae.

[Antioch]

Trump has responded to the question if Assad has crossed a red line in Syria, that he has crossed many lines, more than one red line. He continues that 'if the United Nations keep forsaking their duty to take collective action, a time will come when we will take action ourselves.

He rubs salt in the wounds by adding that the horrible gas attack in Idlib is the responsibility of the Obama administration, that failed to take their own ultimatum seriously.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/ook-trump-gaat-in-syrie-zijn-rode-lijn-trekken~a4483459/


Well I guess this could mean that we can see some Russia vs US action in Syria soon if Trump decides he wants to take down Assad. I'd start by taking out the S400 and that Russian anti air destroyer in the Mediterranean.

In the past we could at least make estimates of what the USA would do based on their interests, capabilities etc.

But with Trump its simply a complete crapshot because he is a completely irrational and impulsive factor.

[Frumple]

Though yeah, hard to see where the end of this whole hyperpartianship goes, just seems like it'll swing wildly from one end to the other...

Eh, only for so much longer, most likely. Or at least what it's swinging between is likely to change. The voting patterns of the younger generations are not something that's exactly in favor of the GOP, and they're both starting to come in more and growing older (i.e. becoming more likely to vote). You can expect the reps to either change fairly drastically over the next twenty or thirty years, or become marginalized. Not so sure I'd say the same thing about the dems, but eh.

[Azzuro]

'The GOP is demographically dying/dead!' is something that has been claimed since Gore lost Florida to Bush by judicial fiat. I won't count them out so fast, voter suppression works wonders.

[Frumple]

You can look at younger voter approval of trump yourself, mate. You can also look at party affiliation in under 30 or so, its trend, and then remember the fact that most people vote for their lifetime the same they do for their first three major elections. Minority population doesn't even have to come into it, the trend's there but slower for whites, too. That the white population's proportion of the population is shrinking is just another nail. It's still going to take another couple decades, but there's not really any question what's in the pipe.