Print

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

[Random_Dragon]

I think that roughly half the country give a shit? That's the whole reason we're in this mess?
Or even if they don't particularly buy into the rhetoric, half of the country are at least willing to hear it and use it as an excuse to continue supporting their party simply because they lack better options.

Rather, no one in this thread gives a shit about EJ's what-about-isms on behalf of the fascist wannabe, specifically.

[hector13]

I think that roughly half the country give a shit? That's the whole reason we're in this mess?
Or even if they don't particularly buy into the rhetoric, half of the country are at least willing to hear it and use it as an excuse to continue supporting their party simply because they lack better options.

Rather, no one in this thread gives a shit about EJ's what-about-isms on behalf of the fascist wannabe, specifically.

It’s not even what-aboutism, it’s willful ignorance because he can’t bear to say a bad thing about Republicans.

It’s obviously the paedophile Satan-worshipping minority party’s fault.

[Folly]

I think that roughly half the country give a shit? That's the whole reason we're in this mess?
Or even if they don't particularly buy into the rhetoric, half of the country are at least willing to hear it and use it as an excuse to continue supporting their party simply because they lack better options.

Rather, no one in this thread gives a shit about EJ's what-about-isms on behalf of the fascist wannabe, specifically.

I care about hearing both sides, even if I don't always agree with them. And I think that constructive dialogue will be more productive than abject dismissal.

[hector13]

The dismissal is because EJ is uninterested in hearing anything that doesn’t absolutely blame Democrats. His side is “it’s the Democrats fault *fingers in ears* LALALALALALA”

[Frumple]

I care about hearing both sides, even if I don't always agree with them. And I think that constructive dialogue will be more productive than abject dismissal.

I mean, what's even to hear, here? Last I noticed the other side of the dialogue outside this thread was, among other things, busy accusing Gaetz of being an agent of world jewry, blaming the dems from not cleaning up the GOP's mess, and screeching about how this all happened because mccarthy wasn't pissing on the woke hard enough. There's not exactly a serious conversation to be had with that. They're just throwing shit around like an angry monkey trying to distract people from what actually caused the mess (i.e. their entire party being a pack of untrustworthy rat bastards even by politician standards).

You can talk about the CR, but one of the things suspected in regards to that, at the moment, is that mccarthy didn't actually expect it to pass, and was trying to set up the democratic caucus to be blamed for the shutdown (you can see a dem staffer commenting on this here). It's pretty likely that wasn't an attempt at bipartisanship, but an attempt to sling shit and cover up the clusterfuck the GOP's turned into.

Somewhat amusingly, it's behavior we've seen from the GOP before, like back when they proposed congress would have to sign up for the ACA and got blindsided when the dems went "okay".

[Lord Shonus]

I have a strong feeling that Americans got a de facto multi-party system with all the fun stuff like the coalition-forming process. But both the American public and American politicians are in denial of that.

That isn't wrong, though it must be emphasized that there was no deliberate effort to create or prevent any party system. What we have grew organically and has nothing but the weight of inertia behind it.

I think it's a bit more than inertia. With our first-past-the-post system, every party outside the two main contenders simply drains votes away from one of the parties. Running 3rd party is the best way to make sure the people most aligned with you in politics lose. Which is probably why you saw Jill Stein from the Green Party meet with Putin and Flynn and then they suicide bombed their campaign into Hillary Clintons by campaigning in swing states, rather than the blue states which would have given them more votes so they could get that 5% for federal funding and help plant roots for their party in the future.

That's the very definition of inertia - we maintain two parties because the existing two parties are already present.

[Nirur Torir]

It's worth a few minutes of thought.

I'm not blaming the democrats, because McCarthy was owned by the extreme MAGA camp, and was pretty clear about wanting the government shut down if MAGA demands weren't met.
We all narrowly scraped a small delay on a government shut down, which is generally bad for business. Combined with Trump's legal woes, now is the best time House Democrats will have to try to sway a few Republican's back away from MAGA and to their traditional pro-business focus.
Even a partial D win, such as a House leader who will get the govt funded in exchange for a new car factory in their state and then go back to being obstinate, is better than the old McCarthy status quo of speeding towards a government shut down.

What's not worth a few minutes of thought is why Ds would vote for something in-line with their agenda, when it was brought to the floor by someone of an opposed agenda. Dems and Reps are allowed to have some shared goals. The idea that they have to oppose each other on every point is as new as it is ew.

[EuchreJack]

It's worth a few minutes of thought.

I'm not blaming the democrats, because McCarthy was owned by the extreme MAGA camp, and was pretty clear about wanting the government shut down if their demands weren't met.
They narrowly scraped a small delay on a government shut down, which is generally bad for business. Combined with Trump's legal woes, now is the best time House Democrats will have to try to sway a few Republican's back away from MAGA and to their traditional pro-business focus.
Even a partial win, of a House leader who will get the govt funded in exchange for a new car factory in their state and then go back to being obstinate, is better than the old McCarthy status quo of speeding towards a government shut down.

What's not worth a few minutes of thought is why they would vote for something in-line with their agenda, when it was brought to the floor by someone of an opposed agenda. Dems and Reps are allowed to have shared goals. The idea that they have to oppose each other on every point is as new as it is ew.

Would you mind clarifying your first few paragraphs?
It's unclear to whom you are attributing what.

[Nirur Torir]

I'll edit to specify 'they's. It was in response to this post. I thought that was what the last few pages were about.

Let's see if I can get away with pointing out that the Democrats criticize McCarthy over the extreme right, while joining with the same extreme right to vote out McCarthy.

And to make sure I get shouted down, let me add that the Democrats claim to put people over politics, yet their united vote to remove McCarthy guarantees that nobody is going to be in charge 44 days from now to authorize further spending to keep the government running. Or am I missing something that would allow the Government to continue without a Speaker?

[hector13]

It’s a description of what happened, brah. You (PPE:EJ) are the only one who is trying to Alastair Campbell it to blame the Democrats.

[EuchreJack]

I'll edit to specify 'they's. It was in response to this post. I thought that was what the last few pages were about.

Let's see if I can get away with pointing out that the Democrats criticize McCarthy over the extreme right, while joining with the same extreme right to vote out McCarthy.

And to make sure I get shouted down, let me add that the Democrats claim to put people over politics, yet their united vote to remove McCarthy guarantees that nobody is going to be in charge 44 days from now to authorize further spending to keep the government running. Or am I missing something that would allow the Government to continue without a Speaker?

Thanks

[Frumple]

What's not worth a few minutes of thought is why they would vote for something in-line with their agenda, when it was brought to the floor by someone of an opposed agenda. Dems and Reps are allowed to have shared goals. The idea that they have to oppose each other on every point is as new as it is ew.

For what it's worth, that sentiment is also pretty damn localized to the GOP. Dems have shown, repeatedly, over the years they're perfectly willing to vote for bills that actually do something they want done, even if it's proposed by the GOP. There is pretty deep distrust of GOP propositions due to their constant attempts to poison pill shit, extreme lack of trustworthiness, and general incompetence, but if they're not playing fuckfuck games or accidentally screwing stuff up the dems are fine with supporting GOP bills.

GOP, on the other hand, is known for nuking their own proposals if a dem brings it to the table. As with most crap these days, the balance on that issue isn't even a little equitable, heh.

Lot of it's just what happens when you stop having any actual goals besides seeing the majority of the country suffer, I guess. We saw a slice of that in the commentary prior to the ouster, where a great deal of energy was spent extolling McCarthy's history at either frustrating democratic goals, or not doing so enough. Hard to find common ground when you've pinned your entire platform on "whatever those people don't like".

[Schmaven]

...that nobody is going to be in charge 44 days from now to authorize further spending to keep the government running. Or am I missing something that would allow the Government to continue without a Speaker?

I heard that he who shall not be named could technically hold the position and conduct the business of the House.  Now that would be some irony for all those who voted out McCarthy.

[Frumple]

Technically more or less anyone can be speaker... I'm not actually sure if you even have to be a citizen. You definitely don't have to be a sitting member of the house.

The chances the orange shitgibbon would willingly put himself in a position subordinate to biden are vanishingly small, though, nevermind it'd take a rules change to go through (one of existent restrictions on speakership is not being under federal investigation for a felony that could end up with jail time, and, well...). It's definitely being proposed (it was proposed when mccarthy was being repeatedly voted on, too), but it'd be a bit of a surprise if it actually happened. Our timeline is pretty bloody dumb at this point, though, so who knows.

[Folly]

That's the very definition of inertia - we maintain two parties because the existing two parties are already present.

Just to drill down on this a bit more, the two parties are maintained because of Big Money.

There is overwhelming desire amongst the population for a third option, but elections are not determined by what the majority want, they are determined by advertisement and the funding behind those advertisements. And there is not enough profit to be made in promoting and then corrupting a third party, so we just stick with the two already corrupt parties that we have.