Print

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

[smjjames]

Except that I don't see the Democrats absolutely refusing to compromise going anywhere good. Sure, they can do what the Republicans are currently doing, but does anybody think they'd be any more united on things as the Republicans are? And we've seen how poor a job the Republicans have been at doing major legislation trying to do it all themselves.

True, one party has been making it as hard as possible to do compromise, but both parties resorting to the same sort of shit like changing rules (maybe they'll change every year) and all that is just going to make it worse for everybody.

[Lord Shonus]

The Democrats are not being obstructionist, at least not on the scale the Republicans were being during the Obama administration. They've been perfectly willing to negotiate, for the most part, except that much of the legislation being proposed goes dead against what the people who elected them want.

[sluissa]

The Democrats are not being obstructionist, at least not on the scale the Republicans were being during the Obama administration. They've been perfectly willing to negotiate, for the most part, except that much of the legislation being proposed goes dead against what the people who elected them want.

Other than the fact for a certain subset of republicans it became more about going against Obama than anything else, isn't that exactly what a more reasonable republican would have said when they were the minority?

[Lord Shonus]

The Democrats are not being obstructionist, at least not on the scale the Republicans were being during the Obama administration. They've been perfectly willing to negotiate, for the most part, except that much of the legislation being proposed goes dead against what the people who elected them want.

Other than the fact for a certain subset of republicans it became more about going against Obama than anything else, isn't that exactly what a more reasonable republican would have said when they were the minority?

To a certain extent, but not entirely. During the later era of the Obama administration, the Congressional Republican line was essentially "You will do things exactly as we say, and follow our party line to the T, or you will do nothing." During the current administration, Democrats have been perfectly willing to offer "meet in the middle" compromises and attempt at least some measure of bipartisanship, except on core fundamental issues such as the Obamacare repeal. They only look obstructionist because Trump's agenda -which overlaps with Congress's agenda to a major extent- is explicitly "everything Obama did has to go", meaning that core Democratic issues are constantly a major part of legislation.

[smjjames]

I didn't say that they are being obstructionist, just that the Dems stooping to the same level of obstruction and uncooperativeness that the Republicans have been won't be good for anybody, let alone good governance.

I fully expect them to fight for what their voters want, but they shouldn't be obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist as the Republicans have done.

The Democrats are not being obstructionist, at least not on the scale the Republicans were being during the Obama administration. They've been perfectly willing to negotiate, for the most part, except that much of the legislation being proposed goes dead against what the people who elected them want.

Other than the fact for a certain subset of republicans it became more about going against Obama than anything else, isn't that exactly what a more reasonable republican would have said when they were the minority?

Have they ever said that any other democrat president should absolutely be a one term president and aggressively sabotage everything that president tries?

Of course they would generally be against the democrat president, but they took it to a whole other level with Obama.

[RedKing]

Except that I don't see the Democrats absolutely refusing to compromise going anywhere good. Sure, they can do what the Republicans are currently doing, but does anybody think they'd be any more united on things as the Republicans are? And we've seen how poor a job the Republicans have been at doing major legislation trying to do it all themselves.

True, one party has been making it as hard as possible to do compromise, but both parties resorting to the same sort of shit like changing rules (maybe they'll change every year) and all that is just going to make it worse for everybody.

I'm not suggesting the Democrats should be a Mirror Universe Tea Party. I'm pointing out that the notion of "we need to stop fighting and just all get along" is laughably naive, and it's not as though it's a novel, untested idea.

And as Lord Shonus said, they haven't been anywhere close to obstructionist. Uncooperative, yes. But in order to be obstructionist on the level that the GOP was with Obama, they'd have to actually control Congress and refuse to pass any legislation that Trump wants (while actively trying to pass legislation to undo his executive actions and any previously passed legislation). Right now, all they can do is make it somewhat difficult. And by "somewhat", I mean "Have up to two of your own party's Senators break ranks and still be able to pass legislation". That they seem to regularly be unable to do that speaks volumes about the quality of the legislation being proposed.

Now, if they take both houses of Congress in 2018 -- should they completely block Trump's agenda and start undoing everything he's wrought? That's a fair question. I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it would appear to be tit-for-tat revenge, but given how incredibly unpopular Trump and his agenda have become, I don't see how they can NOT start doing that.

[Lord Shonus]

Now, if they take both houses of Congress in 2018 -- should they completely block Trump's agenda and start undoing everything he's wrought? That's a fair question. I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it would appear to be tit-for-tat revenge, but given how incredibly unpopular Trump and his agenda have become, I don't see how they can NOT start doing that.

The ideal strategy would be to give Trump whatever he claims to want, in a format he will refuse to accept. In the most obvious example, Trump's demands to "repeal and replace" could be met with the far more extensive health care reform plan the Democrats have been trying to move toward since Clinton.

[smjjames]

Well yeah, blocking unpopular stuff a President is doing is one thing, especially if the Presidentvis themself unpopular.

Now, if they take both houses of Congress in 2018 -- should they completely block Trump's agenda and start undoing everything he's wrought? That's a fair question. I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it would appear to be tit-for-tat revenge, but given how incredibly unpopular Trump and his agenda have become, I don't see how they can NOT start doing that.

The ideal strategy would be to give Trump whatever he claims to want, in a format he will refuse to accept. In the most obvious example, Trump's demands to "repeal and replace" could be met with the far more extensive health care reform plan the Democrats have been trying to move toward since Clinton.

He even at one point promoted universal healthcare, in a tweet even, so they can use that against him. Trump, for his part. Seems willing to work with the Democrats when the Republicans aren't delivering wins.

[RedKing]

Good point. They could just suggest ideas in meetings and let him think he came up with them.

"Sir, the people love your idea of transferring $100 billion from the Pentagon to NASA!"

"They do? I mean, of course they do! It's gonna be great, we're gonna have the best rockets. Yuuge rockets."

[scriver]

To return to the original argument, I think that it is being forgotten that tribalism (or at least the specific political tribalism of the us) is very much a two way street, and that the act in question (allegations of sexual predatory from the "other side" causing those 35% of people to just be more likely to vote for him) is the very example of tribalist action/reaction.

I've complained a lot about American liberal/democrat tribalism here in the past, but trust me, that is definitely because it is the kind most expressed here on these particular forums by people whose thoughts I care about. I don't think democrat tribalism could be said to be to blame for republican tribalism. While it's true that while you shut yourself away from others you also shut others away from you, I've only really seen the liberal tribalism bloom out in the last two or three years. Meanwhile, the conservative side has been tribalising itself for pretty much as long as I've been aware politics exist. And I think that the example of people reinforcing their support of this Alabama guy makes a very clear, very extreme example of that.

Because I mean holy shit, even Sean Hannity and his production team after their first reaction had been to support the guy, apparently went "wait a sec we can't actually be actively supportive of that" and changed their narrative of it a bit.

To sum up, I don't really think "these 35% is possible to be blamed on democrat/liberal tribalism and their condescending thoughts of and actions against republicans/conservatives" is an argument that holds water. It is roughly how tribalist thinking works and reinforces itself, that's true. But I think that seems like only looking at half the picture and forgetting that those people are people too and people do have control over and responsibility for their own reactions and behaviour and aren't just drones mindlessly responding to external stimuli. And I feel like even if because of your own tribalism your gut reaction is to defend a possible sexual offender against 14-year-olds that should also be an immediate shock signal for yourself to go "hey wait how did I just react" about yourself.

[Maximum Spin]

And I feel like even if because of your own tribalism your gut reaction is to defend a possible sexual offender against 14-year-olds that should also be an immediate shock signal for yourself to go "hey wait how did I just react" about yourself.

But everyone's gut reaction should be to defend people who are accused of things.

[scriver]

A lot of things can go into the word "defend".

[Karnewarrior]

Good point. They could just suggest ideas in meetings and let him think he came up with them.

"Sir, the people love your idea of transferring $100 billion from the Pentagon to NASA!"

"They do? I mean, of course they do! It's gonna be great, we're gonna have the best rockets. Yuuge rockets."

If they could do that, I'd become a Democrat that day.

They'll probably just beef up the bureaucracy and social programs though. Much less flashy. 

[Trekkin]

Now, if they take both houses of Congress in 2018 -- should they completely block Trump's agenda and start undoing everything he's wrought? That's a fair question. I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it would appear to be tit-for-tat revenge, but given how incredibly unpopular Trump and his agenda have become, I don't see how they can NOT start doing that.

Well, as obvious as it is, Trump the man is far more ideologically flexible than Trumpism the movement, and the movement includes things like infrastructure spending that progressives could theoretically back. Just tell him it will let him break ground with a big gold shovel while wearing a hard hat and get Fox gushing about what a builder he is, and he'll sign.

He's also obsessed with appearance, and the appearance of something like The Wall can be very cheaply achieved by building about twenty feet of his gigantic concrete monstrosity and putting "The Trump Wall" on it in big gold letters. He'd probably sign us back onto the Paris agreement in return for that and then forget to follow up, and he hates most of his advisors so they're not going to tell him.

They'll probably just beef up the bureaucracy and social programs though. Much less flashy. 

Good policy is rarely flashy; when it works properly, government is terribly boring, because everything works how people think it obviously should.

[sluissa]

They'll probably just beef up the bureaucracy and social programs though. Much less flashy. 

Good policy is rarely flashy; when it works properly, government is terribly boring, because everything works how people think it obviously should.

Except we haven't seen anything resembling good policy given a chance in a LONG time. Bureaucracy attached to good shit is tolerable. Bureaucracy with no redeeming factors is not.