US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2103

On July 15 2015 05:30 Plansix wrote:

To be fair the democrats are just as guilty.

On July 15 2015 05:41 kwizach wrote:

No, they're not. I suggest reading Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein's excellent It's even worse than it looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism - the two political scientists document how the Republican party is clearly more to blame in the new normal of obstructionism. See also their article "Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem". The idea that the two parties are equally to blame is simply factually not true.

On July 15 2015 05:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:


No, the solution is to be an adult.

You see, in the adult world, people have to work together to get a task done. When two or more people work together to get a task done, everyone has their own vision of how it is done. When this occurs, none of these visions will be the same. Because of this, the final product will be a compromise between all of the visions working on the project; it will meet somewhere in the middle of everyone's ideas, and no one will be 100% happy, but shit will actually get done and the situation will improve because they actually did something.

This is called life. It is called being a mature adult. While your average high school student learns this lesson by age 15 (and subsequently loathes all group projects at school), it is something that a lot of Republicans just don't understand at this point.

The timing of last week’s unexpected fight in Congress over the Confederate flag could not have been much worse for congressional Republicans. If GOP leaders don’t get a handle on the issue soon, the debate could undermine their position on their major agenda issues, particularly in the high stakes budget battle expected this fall.

Their plan was to strengthen their position in the budget standoff by passing a series of conservative spending bills to show that they could govern and to put negotiating pressure on Obama and Democrats in the budget process. But with the standoff over the Confederate flag, none of the spending bills are going anywhere immediately. That has created a roadblock with no clear way around it for Republicans, all due to the party's reluctance to abandon the flag entirely.

The way the Confederate flag has been injected into and stalled the budget process says as much about the increasingly bitter budget process as it does about the larger issues of race and "heritage." It's not that race and competing versions of history aren't at stake. They still are. But the budget process itself was ripe for something like this to derail it.

According to Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, this is a problem of the Republicans' making, as the GOP has sacrificed what was once a bipartisan process in passing spending bills, by pushing spending proposals filled with provisions deliberately toxic to Democrats and President Obama.

“That leaves Boehner in a very tough position in getting the bills through the House,” Ornstein explained in an interview with TPM, as the speaker must keep on board hardcore Tea Party Republicans who would oppose almost any spending bill that doesn't entirely demolish domestic programs.

“What it means is he has to accommodate people he would really rather not accommodate. And what happened in this case of course he didn’t have the votes and several southern Republicans basically said, ‘You want our votes? You’re going to have to do something on the Confederate flag.’”

In this case, the votes Boehner needed was on the Interior Department spending bill. Just a week ago, it looked on track to pass the House. It included Democratic amendments banning the flag on certain federal lands, seemingly aligned with the national shift on the symbol since a white supremacist allegedly took the lives of nine African Americans in a historic black church in Charleston, S.C. Those restrictions were added with no controversy and passed by a voice vote last Tuesday. Members of both parties were shocked, however, when the House GOP leadership made an effort late the next night to reverse those Democratic measures. The backlash was so immediate and intense that Republicans were forced to withdraw the Interior spending bill from the floor.

On July 15 2015 06:02 cLutZ wrote:
Plansix, I'm trying to understand what kind of deal you would like. Lets just say that Democrats want a more European-style state, and Republicans want a more 1920s style state. Just, in degrees. But lets take an ancillary issue: immigration, and map out what each party's goals are in this "side issue" given the above, long-term, desires.

Democrats are pretty straightforward: Hispanic immigrants appear to be overwhelmingly pro-Democrat, and don't assimilate the way previous immigrants mostly have. Even 3rd generation Hispanics are far more liberal than 3rd generation immigrants from other groups that came in at the same time. Thus, its quite clear that by bringing in more, and getting them voting as quickly as possible, America's populace trends towards their goals ideologically.

Republicans recognize the above, so clearly a goal of theirs is to stop the flow of voters who do not agree with them (fundamental conflict). They also realize that they were slow to recognize this, and the past 30-50 years of trying to convince Hispanic voters that a socialized state is exactly what they left in their home countries and is bad, is not effective. And also, there are a lot of Hispanic voters who they do not want to offend because that would mean more voting for Democrats, and more socialist policies enacted at a faster rate. Plus they recognize that mass deportation is unfeasible and dangerous because its a bad precedent to have military dragging people out of homes, and it would hurt the economy.

So where is the compromise? Republicans could probably compromise amongst themselves, Democrats really don't need to compromise (because the status quo favors them anyways).

On July 15 2015 06:25 cLutZ wrote:
Just to be clear, your compromise position there, is just the Democratic position. So you don't advocate compromise, just acceptance of the POV you prefer.

Lets go with Medicaid. Republicans think its an expensive, ineffective, boondoggle that takes too much state power and puts it under Federal control. They would block grant and reduce overall spending.

Democrats want to expand the program with more Federal oversight and mandates. Find the compromise!

On July 15 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:

Does the concept of an independent confuse you? Or compromise? Both sides get part of what they want.

Of course I advocated for the point of view I prefer, that's how politics work. I don't agree with mass deportation and would prefer the problem be resolved through a combination of deportation and a path to at least a work visa. In would like to see better deportation laws and a faster system for doing so.

I don't dislike Medicaid and I think health care should be regulated because medical insurance is a complex market that can be abused. So I would like the Republicans to stop worshiping the free market just long enough to realize that maybe it can't be used to solve every issue that relates to money.

When critics focus incessantly on the gap between the present deal and a perfect one, what they’re really doing is blaming Obama for the fact that the United States is not omnipotent. [...]

Obama has certainly made mistakes in the Middle East. But behind his drive for an Iranian nuclear deal is the effort to make American foreign policy “solvent” again by bringing America’s ends into alignment with its means. That means recognizing that the United States cannot bludgeon Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. The U.S. tried that in Iraq.

It is precisely this recognition that makes the Iran deal so infuriating to Obama’s critics. It codifies the limits of American power. And recognizing the limits of American power also means recognizing the limits of American exceptionalism. It means recognizing that no matter how deeply Americans believe in their country’s unique virtue, the United States is subject to the same restraints that have governed great powers in the past. For the Republican right, that’s a deeply unwelcome realization. For many other Americans, it’s a relief. It’s a sign that, finally, the Bush era in American foreign policy is over.

On July 15 2015 07:28 kwizach wrote:
A good analysis of the main problem that characterizes Republicans' opposition to the deal: their opposition rests on a disconnect with the reality of international relations and U.S. power.


Source

On July 15 2015 06:59 cLutZ wrote:


Here, you described a compromise that Republicans could come to amongst themselves, but Democrats would not accept.

Here, you didn't describe anything, or perhaps just stated a compromise between Democrats and the status quo which gives Republicans nothing that would make America a better place from their POV.

On July 15 2015 08:01 Plansix wrote:

But I don't care. Their party platform currently does not appeal me. I don't understand why you are confused by this. What is your goal in this weird line of questioning where you throw political issues at me like some sort of dog preforming tricks? If you are looking for something a little Republican in leaning, I don't really care for public sector unions.

On July 15 2015 09:14 Introvert wrote:
So I take it that farv is not in the compromise camp. Though to be fair, he's always been open and proud of his love for big government, as well as the slow and steady march it's been making over the decades.

Though I do find many thread participants amusing. For all the talk of narrow-mindedness, I only ever see one set of predictable, almost DNC propaganda-like lines from them.

Which is why this thread is a terrible barometer for "the American people."

On July 15 2015 05:07 cLutZ wrote:


They can't agree on what is best for the country. That is the whole point. Its not like Mitch McConnel goes to Harry Reid and says,
"I have this great immigration plan where we recall a bunch of troops from abroad and station them on the border, then erect a wall with the savings. With a benchmark for a pathway to legalization of illegals here after 5 years." Then Reid says, "What an ingenious plan good sir, it is 10x better than our current situation, however, I am torpedoing it because I have in my heart, a distaste for walls." No, he says, "No wall, pathway to citizenship, decommission all those troops. We need more Mexican-Americans ASAP."

Or, if you like the House:
Pelosi- "Hey John, we need to raise the top income bracket to 50% on income over $1,000,000/year,"
Boehner- "Hmm, I don't like it, what can you give me?"
Pelosi- "Pizza Party, and retirement age to 68."
Boehner- "69 and you got a deal."
Pelosi- "Sounds great. Now, if only if I wasn't so principled I could accept this deal."
Boehner- "You're right, go back to your hippie vineyards you succubus."

On July 15 2015 04:49 Plansix wrote:

Then they are worthless to me because they have to deal with the rest of the country and that is done through compromise. I have no use in ideologs who use their "principles" as an excuse to not make hard decisions or compromise. The people who get elected claiming they will stop the tide of liberalism/conservatism are beyond worthless to me. I would vote for someone who told me straight to my face they would vote with what they felt was best, even if they lost my vote.



I said politicians should do what they feel is best for the country, even if it means losing an election by angering the people who voted for them. Some of our greatest leaders did just that.

On July 15 2015 09:30 farvacola wrote:
There is no barometer for "the American people," so stop looking for one. People can learn things from perpetually disagreeing.