Print

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

[Max™]

Oh, I meant to say this earlier but forgot: Trump should be treated as a mutual problem, a big cancerous rectal wart on the republican party, one which we would like to help republicans excise for the good of all.

[wobbly]

*scratches head* That seems to be implying that understanding and comprehension is going to entail cooperation. Or even less hostility. Which, uh. Understanding and comprehension is rarely the substantial issue, at the least when major misinformation isn't involved. Problem is more disagreeing about shit, and on a lot of stuff there's not exactly room to agree to disagree, and barely more, if not actually less, to reach some sort of compromise.

It's easy to say to de-escalate the partisanship. Finding an issue where that's possible, and where people are going to work particularly well with other folks that are actively working to harm them in other areas, not so much.

This is why I'm glad my country has compulsory voting. Which ever side wins they've got to compromise to keep the moderates & unaffiliated voters.

[Frumple]

More letting demographics do their thing and not letting too much shit go to pot in the process. Oddly enough, violence doesn't have to be an immediate answer.

[smjjames]

The concept of compromise not being taboo would be helpful as well.

There are many reasons and causes for the hyperpartianship, but de-escalating the partianship would only help everybody involved.

I suppose a good place to start is finding common ground, focusing on that, and building on top of that. Theres gotta be common ground even for stuff as polarizing as guns or abortion, but the focus seems to be the disagreements rather than where the common ground is.

The last time things were THIS polarized was around the time of the Civil War and some decades afterwards. This bunch of maps on 538 really show how polarization has happened over time. While I seriously doubt we'll end up in a Civil War (though if some state does something dumb like actually go for seccession, all bets are off), but the last time the US was in this sort of place, it definetly wasn't a happy place.

*scratches head* That seems to be implying that understanding and comprehension is going to entail cooperation. Or even less hostility. Which, uh. Understanding and comprehension is rarely the substantial issue, at the least when major misinformation isn't involved. Problem is more disagreeing about shit, and on a lot of stuff there's not exactly room to agree to disagree, and barely more, if not actually less, to reach some sort of compromise.

It's easy to say to de-escalate the partisanship. Finding an issue where that's possible, and where people are going to work particularly well with other folks that are actively working to harm them in other areas, not so much.

This is why I'm glad my country has compulsory voting. Which ever side wins they've got to compromise to keep the moderates & unaffiliated voters.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your country doesn't have First Past The Post system, which getting rid of may actually be better than compulsive voting. Also, both things would be hard pressed to actually be implemented, for very different reasons.

[Neonivek]

Compromise is a sign of weakness!

[smjjames]

More letting demographics do their thing and not letting too much shit go to pot in the process. Oddly enough, violence doesn't have to be an immediate answer.

I never said it was an answer. I said it was an inevitable conclusion.

Also, as others have pointed out, "demographic change" is not an answer to an increasingly polarized country. "Letting the old people die" does not solve the problem.

The only times I've ever heard of 'letting the old people die' as a solution is in a sarcastic way and never in a serious way. Also, demographic change takes DECADES and waiting for it does nothing to solve the short term problems.

Oh, I meant to say this earlier but forgot: Trump should be treated as a mutual problem, a big cancerous rectal wart on the republican party, one which we would like to help republicans excise for the good of all.

The Republicans in office seem to be very slowly coming to that conclusion. A few of them (Senators McCain, Graham, and Sasse, just to name a few) already do, but for the rest of them, their bristling at the Democrats actions is probably slowing things down.

*scratches head* That seems to be implying that understanding and comprehension is going to entail cooperation. Or even less hostility. Which, uh. Understanding and comprehension is rarely the substantial issue, at the least when major misinformation isn't involved. Problem is more disagreeing about shit, and on a lot of stuff there's not exactly room to agree to disagree, and barely more, if not actually less, to reach some sort of compromise.

It's easy to say to de-escalate the partisanship. Finding an issue where that's possible, and where people are going to work particularly well with other folks that are actively working to harm them in other areas, not so much.

So, civil war then. Got it.

The only way that I can see that would have a chance of a civil war would be if a state decided to actually secede. Even then, that would be a quick civil war.

[Frumple]

Nah, you're absolutely right demographic changes take decades. Short term we're all pretty fucked, and with the state of the GOP and methodology disagreements there ain't really much that can be done about it. S'why I said to do what can be done to keep what can be from going to pot.

The concept of compromise not being taboo would be helpful as well.

There are many reasons and causes for the hyperpartianship, but de-escalating the partianship would only help everybody involved.

I suppose a good place to start is finding common ground, focusing on that, and building on top of that. Theres gotta be common ground even for stuff as polarizing as guns or abortion, but the focus seems to be the disagreements rather than where the common ground is.

I mean... it's great to say that, smj. Basically no one disagrees with it. Now give a go at actually identifying what issues common ground can be reached on, where it hasn't already happened.

Ain't really that compromise is taboo, at the absolute least for many liberal politicians. Lotsa' folks would love to compromise if compromising didn't involve shit like fucking demographics into second class citizens, destroying healthcare access for millions, ruining huge chunks of our education system, so on, so forth. Things being like that, compromise can't particularly be reached. Most of the stuff without that sort of mess being involved in, compromises have already been made.

Short term, there ain't really all that much to do besides hunker down and wait for sentiment of one sort or another to change, so that there's more ground to work with on contentious issues.

[wobbly]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your country doesn't have First Past The Post system, which getting rid of may actually be better than compulsive voting. Also, both things would be hard pressed to actually be implemented, for very different reasons.

yeah preferential voting here. (Aus)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As I keep insisting, the Republicans are already repulsed by Trump. That doesn't make them turn against him, it merely lowers the threshold compared to if they saw him as a beleaguered reincarnation of the Gipper. They will turn on him if and only if it becomes politically expedient to do so, if the words "ally of Trump" being plastered on their names come election season is blatantly radioactive enough that they need to get the fuck away.

We know this because of their reactions towards Trump during the primary season, when he had nothing to offer them. They silenced themselves for the most part because he became their man anyway.

So the goal here is activism of the sort to place a choice of supporting Trump or supporting themselves before the Congressthralls. They need to at the least believe that cooperating with Trump will be dredged up and used to destroy their electability in the near future. I recall one person relating a story of how, when they were phoning their Rep to express their unwillingness to ever again vote for anybody in Congress who supported Trump's torture order (I think that's what it was, it may have been one of the many other Trumpisms), had the staff member respond "are you making a list of these representatives"? That is the desirable state for obstructing Trump's agenda.

[Neonivek]

Mind you the reason they don't turn on Donald Trump is a little something called loyalty to the party.

There is a reason why the 7 Samurai had to commit suicide for the justifiable murder of their daimyo (And not just because Feudal Japan laws are messed up garbage)

Well loyalty might not be the word for it... But if you betray Trump you betray EVERYONE! and no one will trust you, and you better kiss your job goodbye. The most you can hope for is betraying Trump will be labeled as a heroic sacrifice as you lose your job.

Why? Because you just proven you are willing to betray the party.

[smjjames]

@MSH: Being an ally of Trump is already radioactive. Though I suppose we'll have to see what happens once the healthcare stuff is done with (at least this attempt anyway) since they're more or less aligned with Trump and the Republican party. When it comes to taxes, budget, and most everything else besides anything having to do with Religion and guns, they'll be less aligned with Trump and more 'all over the map'.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

@MSH: Being an ally of Trump is already radioactive. Though I suppose we'll have to see what happens once the healthcare stuff is done with (at least this attempt anyway) since they're more or less aligned with Trump and the Republican party. When it comes to taxes, budget, and most everything else besides anything having to do with Religion and guns, they'll be less aligned with Trump and more 'all over the map'.

A. It's not radioactive, though. In some areas of the country it's a benefit to be associated with Trumpism, just as in some it is a detriment. It's not good enough as is, more activism is needed to expose the direct consequences of our God-Emperor's position. Granted, we're still early on, but no repeating the election allowed. Trump may be an incompetent idiot but he's a dangerous and vengeful incompetent idiot with the gift of gab, and that must be respected at all times.

B. Allying with Trump ideologically or verbally isn't the end of the game here. The votes are. I don't care if they all profess their undying sexual fantasies of Trump on the floor of the House (might be a good way to get in his A list, frankly) so long as they refuse to vote for any legislation containing Trumpism. Maximizing reluctance to vote for Trump's agenda is the way to minimize his impact as President.

[Max™]

[redwallzyl]

so apparently the bill would "save" money. the catch is the money it saves comes out of peoples pockets via insurance and their lives instead of taxes.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/us/politics/affordable-care-act-health-congressional-budget-office.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/13/520031463/gop-health-care-bill-could-leave-24m-without-coverage-by-2026-cbo-says

[Descan]

if something claims to "save money" the first thing to find out is if they're only talking about specific types of money. tax-payer money, private money, any money, etc. lots of "we saved money!" is just this, "[by offloading the cost onto everyone else!]"

the second thing is to ask if it'll accomplish the same things. It's great if you can save a billion dollars by eliminating something, but if that thing needs doing, the cost will just arise somewhere else, and probably less efficiently.