|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 04 2023 11:36 Introvert wrote:Except Reagan was just about the only person who followed that rule, and even then not always. Since at least 2010, and certainly the 2012 in presidential primary fight, this rule hasn't been honored. And of course Trump abandoned it entirely.
I completely disagree. Any time the Republican Party has an internal conflict, the establishment block shifts further right to placate the new disruptive far-right faction and return to party unity. We saw this with both the Tea Party faction and the MAGA faction. You don't see this in the Democrats because the Democrats aren't a party of blind loyalists. It's funny that you bring up Trump because Trump was a party outsider. He wasn't even a politician before running for President. He's not exactly proof of the opposite of what I said because he wasn't/isn't really a Republican in the first place. Ironically, Trump is a RINO. Despite this, the Republican Party and the rightwing media spent his entire Presidency running defense for Trump and his new MAGA faction, even going so far as to become literal coup-attempt apologists, because he had an R next to his name.
|
United States10025 Posts
After reading a bit more, I will change my stance on the GOP leadership being united. I do think Republicans are still really damn good at riling up their voter base to win elections, but I will amend my previous comment that the GOP politicians are a united front. I agree with what someone mentioned previously: the minority party will always appear to be more unified because it's much easier to simply oppose the majority's agenda than it is when you're the majority and needing to push votes to get legislation passed.
I'm sure that when Dems eventually retake the House, it'll be the same thing all over again where the Progressive Caucus is causing trouble for the establishment/moderate Dem base.
Ultimately, I'm really curious to see how this will all pan out. Will Republicans realize how much damage they did to themselves in this drama and end it tomorrow, or will they continue to drag it out while Dems sit in a corner... or will Dems think their time to make a coalition is slipping and they ultimately throw their support behind a more moderate R as Speaker.
|
The price for a deal would go down the further time goes on. Showing the chaos and division in the GOP benifits the dems but the dems would demand something like committee assignments. If the 20 holdouts dig in and the GOP leaders deny them anything to do it would mean that dems would automatically be the majority in a few of them.
|
On January 04 2023 11:41 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 08:39 Introvert wrote:On January 04 2023 07:41 FlaShFTW wrote:
Well today has been the biggest popcorn maker ever. This is too funny for how shit the Republican unity is right now, which is ironic considering for the last 2 decades, Republican unity was the reason they've had so much success.
Here are my perceived strategy lines for Dems:
Dems can either choose to let the shitshow continue forever and park their votes on Jeffries, but that risks Republicans finally throwing their hands up and getting a majority for McCarthy. The problem with this strategy is that game theory is gonna push the protest Republicans to eventually pick a Republican Speaker without Dems negotiating a deal for someone.
Their alternative is if they can find a deal to make overnight, to have some of the protesting Republicans (just need 6) to come to their side and they back a moderate R to be Speaker. This way, at least they have a few fingers on the steering wheel and can control at least some amount of legislation. At least find someone who's going to help fix the debt ceiling.
Dems are still in some bind: how long do they think they can push R's to find a Speaker. Days? Weeks? At some point, the dam will break and they won't get a pick they're happy with. But maybe they're content with that to put on a show for the voters to see how dysfunctional a Republican House is going to be. I still find this trope of Republican unity odd, sure generally speaking Republican voters will vote for Republicans on election day, but in what world have elected Republicans been particularly unified? In opposing Obamacare? The easiest choice of a Republican politician in the last generation? 2010 brought Republican back into the majority on the backs of defeating milquetoast GOP incumbents. The Freedom Caucus was birthed from that election. At least in Congress, it's Democrats who are far more unified in their votes. Sure, part of that was because Pelosi is ruthless and twists as many arms and makes as many threats as needed to get her way, but it's not all her. In the Senate you can whine about Manchin and Sinema, but the GOP has the likes of Murkowski, Collins, and had McCain. To me this seems linked to the classic trope where the other side is always more competent and more conniving, and thus requires absolutist measures to defeat. Think of all the legislation the GOP failed to pass in 2017-2018 and tell me they are so united. They were unified against the repeal part of Obamacare, but they never bothered to do any of the replace part of the "Repeal and Replace" strategy. Unification of either party is vastly overstated for sure, but the reason people say this is good for Republicans is that they're the party of small government allegedly at least so having the government be ineffective is their plan. If you said that is a misreading by democrats I'd be inclined to agree with you, but you can understand the sentiment at least I hope.
I know this is another common meme, but as you say it's a "misreading" (we'll be charitable). At best I would say that since Republicans have a different vision for what they want government to do, they are ok with gridlock or stasis while fighting about it. The idea that the GOP wants government to fail so they can point to its failure isn't true. Though it can be fun to joke about. It's just part and parcel of "our opponents are always so bad we must do everything we can (that I want) to take them down!"
On January 04 2023 13:10 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 11:36 Introvert wrote:Except Reagan was just about the only person who followed that rule, and even then not always. Since at least 2010, and certainly the 2012 in presidential primary fight, this rule hasn't been honored. And of course Trump abandoned it entirely. I completely disagree. Any time the Republican Party has an internal conflict, the establishment block shifts further right to placate the new disruptive far-right faction and return to party unity. We saw this with both the Tea Party faction and the MAGA faction. You don't see this in the Democrats because the Democrats aren't a party of blind loyalists. It's funny that you bring up Trump because Trump was a party outsider. He wasn't even a politician before running for President. He's not exactly proof of the opposite of what I said because he wasn't/isn't really a Republican in the first place. Ironically, Trump is a RINO. Despite this, the Republican Party and the rightwing media spent his entire Presidency running defense for Trump and his new MAGA faction, even going so far as to become literal coup-attempt apologists, because he had an R next to his name.
Again, I would like to see an example of this infamous Republican unity. Surely with all these concessions the center makes they must have been so productive legislatively, right? Meanwhile you want use as an example partisan media being partisan media, but I hate to tell you that doesn't help anyone because the rest of the press has embarrassed themselves covering the current and previous Democratic presidents. But I'm not even focusing on media, I'm focusing on politicians. I'm not seeing it.
|
On January 04 2023 14:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 11:41 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 04 2023 08:39 Introvert wrote:On January 04 2023 07:41 FlaShFTW wrote:
Well today has been the biggest popcorn maker ever. This is too funny for how shit the Republican unity is right now, which is ironic considering for the last 2 decades, Republican unity was the reason they've had so much success.
Here are my perceived strategy lines for Dems:
Dems can either choose to let the shitshow continue forever and park their votes on Jeffries, but that risks Republicans finally throwing their hands up and getting a majority for McCarthy. The problem with this strategy is that game theory is gonna push the protest Republicans to eventually pick a Republican Speaker without Dems negotiating a deal for someone.
Their alternative is if they can find a deal to make overnight, to have some of the protesting Republicans (just need 6) to come to their side and they back a moderate R to be Speaker. This way, at least they have a few fingers on the steering wheel and can control at least some amount of legislation. At least find someone who's going to help fix the debt ceiling.
Dems are still in some bind: how long do they think they can push R's to find a Speaker. Days? Weeks? At some point, the dam will break and they won't get a pick they're happy with. But maybe they're content with that to put on a show for the voters to see how dysfunctional a Republican House is going to be. I still find this trope of Republican unity odd, sure generally speaking Republican voters will vote for Republicans on election day, but in what world have elected Republicans been particularly unified? In opposing Obamacare? The easiest choice of a Republican politician in the last generation? 2010 brought Republican back into the majority on the backs of defeating milquetoast GOP incumbents. The Freedom Caucus was birthed from that election. At least in Congress, it's Democrats who are far more unified in their votes. Sure, part of that was because Pelosi is ruthless and twists as many arms and makes as many threats as needed to get her way, but it's not all her. In the Senate you can whine about Manchin and Sinema, but the GOP has the likes of Murkowski, Collins, and had McCain. To me this seems linked to the classic trope where the other side is always more competent and more conniving, and thus requires absolutist measures to defeat. Think of all the legislation the GOP failed to pass in 2017-2018 and tell me they are so united. They were unified against the repeal part of Obamacare, but they never bothered to do any of the replace part of the "Repeal and Replace" strategy. Unification of either party is vastly overstated for sure, but the reason people say this is good for Republicans is that they're the party of small government allegedly at least so having the government be ineffective is their plan. If you said that is a misreading by democrats I'd be inclined to agree with you, but you can understand the sentiment at least I hope. I know this is another common meme, but as you say it's a "misreading" (we'll be charitable). At best I would say that since Republicans have a different vision for what they want government to do, they are ok with gridlock or stasis while fighting about it. The idea that the GOP wants government to fail so they can point to its failure isn't true. Though it can be fun to joke about. It's just part and parcel of "our opponents are always so bad we must do everything we can (that I want) to take them down!" Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 13:10 StasisField wrote:On January 04 2023 11:36 Introvert wrote:Except Reagan was just about the only person who followed that rule, and even then not always. Since at least 2010, and certainly the 2012 in presidential primary fight, this rule hasn't been honored. And of course Trump abandoned it entirely. I completely disagree. Any time the Republican Party has an internal conflict, the establishment block shifts further right to placate the new disruptive far-right faction and return to party unity. We saw this with both the Tea Party faction and the MAGA faction. You don't see this in the Democrats because the Democrats aren't a party of blind loyalists. It's funny that you bring up Trump because Trump was a party outsider. He wasn't even a politician before running for President. He's not exactly proof of the opposite of what I said because he wasn't/isn't really a Republican in the first place. Ironically, Trump is a RINO. Despite this, the Republican Party and the rightwing media spent his entire Presidency running defense for Trump and his new MAGA faction, even going so far as to become literal coup-attempt apologists, because he had an R next to his name. Again, I would like to see an example of this infamous Republican unity. Surely with all these concessions the center makes they must have been so productive legislatively, right? Meanwhile you want use as an example partisan media being partisan media, but I hate to tell you that doesn't help anyone because the rest of the press has embarrassed themselves covering the current and previous Democratic presidents. But I'm not even focusing on media, I'm focusing on politicians. I'm not seeing it.
Bolded is back to my first point. The Republicans' stances are usually "prevent the Democratic agenda" which is a lot easier to achieve and really easy to do with a unified party. Also, my other point was about Republicans defending each other in the media, hence Reagan's 11th Commandment and me referencing the rightwing media and the Republicans in Congress like McConnell defending Trump by doing things like trying to sweep January 6th under the rug. That isn't just Fox News, NewsMax, and OANN. That's the media AND the Republican Party. If you refuse to see how the party spent Trump's entire Presidency running smoke screens and defending the indefensible in public, then I think we're just living in 2 different realities and no amount of discussion will change anything.
|
God this is so funny. I have no idea how it actually ends but the idea of Kevin McCarthy getting blocked from being Speaker a *second time* is just so absurd. In a way it’s surprising, but it’s also kinda what we should have expected? This kind of stonewalling, hostage-taking, parliamentary terrorism has been the Freedom Caucus MO since their inception. Their whole theory of power is that if you can get a large enough minority to block important things from happening, and convince people you’re crazy enough to do it, they’ll have to give you everything you want.
Thing is, McCarthy had already given them everything he can give them. His whole reign has been a series of capitulations to the most extreme Republicans, most recently the “ejector seat” rule letting them vote to remove him as Speaker literally at any time if he ever displeased them. He gave them that, and they *still* won’t let him have it, even though they have no plausible alternatives.
It’s natural to look at the Dem votes as a possible stalemate breaker, but there’s just no reason for them to do it. McCarthy’s already fully committed to giving the most radical Republicans everything they want; after that what can he offer Dems? At a minimum they would need some kind of binding assurances that there will be no attempt to block the debt ceiling from being raised, and giving those assurances would be career suicide for any Republican. That’s the whole platform at this point, it’s the brand, if you don’t support that you’re not a Republican.
All in all it’s got a real “leopards-eating-people’s-faces party” vibe you can’t help but laugh at.
|
United States41959 Posts
On January 04 2023 11:36 Introvert wrote:Except Reagan was just about the only person who followed that rule, and even then not always. Since at least 2010, and certainly the 2012 in presidential primary fight, this rule hasn't been honored. And of course Trump abandoned it entirely. Additionally, every party out of power makes it their primary goal to stop the other party. This is especially true in the House, where being in the minority most of the times means you get nothing at all. The GOP's biggest achievements of the last two decades when they've had control are a few tax bills. Nothing else they run on can they get a consensus. The real reason so many people think this is because it's in the political interest of Democrats to say it, and they have the media megaphone. As for what's happening now, despite their claims otherwise I can't see any Republican allowing a Democrat speaker, THAT would be an instant primary loss. Even if McCarthy were to dangle some goodies to dems, it would be risky. It might weaken his position with his caucus even further, but it could snap some GOP objectors back into line. Anyways, if this gets resolved in not too long it will be nothing but a footnote to the start of what was going to be a turbulent term regardless.
Why would you make such as easily disprovable claim as the Democratic Party controlling the media? Did you expect it to go unnoticed or did you just not care about truth?
|
I really hope Democrats are not delusional enough to help a Republican get the majority votes to become speaker. How many times do they need to stab you in the front to see that you can't make deals with the current state of the Republican party?
|
What are the demands of the Republicans who still oppose McCarthy? What are they hoping to achieve?
|
On January 04 2023 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:
I really hope Democrats are not delusional enough to help a Republican get the majority votes to become speaker. How many times do they need to stab you in the front to see that you can't make deals with the current state of the Republican party?
Absolutely. Force them to face their chaos. Do not help them hide their shame.
Does the house have a procedure for what happens when a majority leader cannot be elected with an absolute majority? In Germany stuff like that usually works in a way that if you cannot find someone with an absolute majority for two election attempts, for the third election attempt whoever gets a plurality of the votes wins.
Or is stuff just stuck until they figure it out? What would be the consequences of that?
|
On January 04 2023 19:53 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:
I really hope Democrats are not delusional enough to help a Republican get the majority votes to become speaker. How many times do they need to stab you in the front to see that you can't make deals with the current state of the Republican party? Absolutely. Force them to face their chaos. Do not help them hide their shame. Does the house have a procedure for what happens when a majority leader cannot be elected with an absolute majority? In Germany stuff like that usually works in a way that if you cannot find someone with an absolute majority for two election attempts, for the third election attempt whoever gets a plurality of the votes wins. Or is stuff just stuck until they figure it out? What would be the consequences of that?
More elections, Pope style. The record from 1855 is two months and 133 ballots, so there is still a long way to go!
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-longest-and-most-contentious-Speaker-election-in-its-history/
|
United States24568 Posts
I imagine back then each vote took longer to tally.
|
On January 04 2023 17:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 11:36 Introvert wrote:Except Reagan was just about the only person who followed that rule, and even then not always. Since at least 2010, and certainly the 2012 in presidential primary fight, this rule hasn't been honored. And of course Trump abandoned it entirely. Additionally, every party out of power makes it their primary goal to stop the other party. This is especially true in the House, where being in the minority most of the times means you get nothing at all. The GOP's biggest achievements of the last two decades when they've had control are a few tax bills. Nothing else they run on can they get a consensus. The real reason so many people think this is because it's in the political interest of Democrats to say it, and they have the media megaphone. As for what's happening now, despite their claims otherwise I can't see any Republican allowing a Democrat speaker, THAT would be an instant primary loss. Even if McCarthy were to dangle some goodies to dems, it would be risky. It might weaken his position with his caucus even further, but it could snap some GOP objectors back into line. Anyways, if this gets resolved in not too long it will be nothing but a footnote to the start of what was going to be a turbulent term regardless. Why would you make such as easily disprovable claim as the Democratic Party controlling the media? Did you expect it to go unnoticed or did you just not care about truth?
Or perhaps most people here know I don't mean they literally control it, they are just on the same side. The leeway afforded one side is way out of proportion. Maybe you disagree with that too but of course I've said for years the Trump term in office proved that beyond doubt and if it hasn't there's no convincing someone otherwise.
|
|
|
On January 04 2023 23:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 17:55 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2023 11:36 Introvert wrote:Except Reagan was just about the only person who followed that rule, and even then not always. Since at least 2010, and certainly the 2012 in presidential primary fight, this rule hasn't been honored. And of course Trump abandoned it entirely. Additionally, every party out of power makes it their primary goal to stop the other party. This is especially true in the House, where being in the minority most of the times means you get nothing at all. The GOP's biggest achievements of the last two decades when they've had control are a few tax bills. Nothing else they run on can they get a consensus. The real reason so many people think this is because it's in the political interest of Democrats to say it, and they have the media megaphone. As for what's happening now, despite their claims otherwise I can't see any Republican allowing a Democrat speaker, THAT would be an instant primary loss. Even if McCarthy were to dangle some goodies to dems, it would be risky. It might weaken his position with his caucus even further, but it could snap some GOP objectors back into line. Anyways, if this gets resolved in not too long it will be nothing but a footnote to the start of what was going to be a turbulent term regardless. Why would you make such as easily disprovable claim as the Democratic Party controlling the media? Did you expect it to go unnoticed or did you just not care about truth? Or perhaps most people here know I don't mean they literally control it, they are just on the same side. The leeway afforded one side is way out of proportion. Maybe you disagree with that too but of course I've said for years the Trump term in office proved that beyond doubt and if it hasn't there's no convincing someone otherwise.
I don't think it's fair to say that the media and the Democratic party are necessarily on the same side. While it's true that there are news outlets and social media outlets that are more left-leaning, Fox News is the most popular media franchise and is conservative, and Elon Musk has been pushing Twitter hard into the conservative direction as well, going so far as to tell his followers to vote for the Republican party (though most Twitter users are probably more likely to be liberal, as Twitter probably has a disproportionately younger audience than the average age in America, but that actually means that some Republican talking points have pretty easy access to those liberal users, which could influence them away from the left).
|
On January 04 2023 23:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 17:55 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2023 11:36 Introvert wrote:Except Reagan was just about the only person who followed that rule, and even then not always. Since at least 2010, and certainly the 2012 in presidential primary fight, this rule hasn't been honored. And of course Trump abandoned it entirely. Additionally, every party out of power makes it their primary goal to stop the other party. This is especially true in the House, where being in the minority most of the times means you get nothing at all. The GOP's biggest achievements of the last two decades when they've had control are a few tax bills. Nothing else they run on can they get a consensus. The real reason so many people think this is because it's in the political interest of Democrats to say it, and they have the media megaphone. As for what's happening now, despite their claims otherwise I can't see any Republican allowing a Democrat speaker, THAT would be an instant primary loss. Even if McCarthy were to dangle some goodies to dems, it would be risky. It might weaken his position with his caucus even further, but it could snap some GOP objectors back into line. Anyways, if this gets resolved in not too long it will be nothing but a footnote to the start of what was going to be a turbulent term regardless. Why would you make such as easily disprovable claim as the Democratic Party controlling the media? Did you expect it to go unnoticed or did you just not care about truth? Or perhaps most people here know I don't mean they literally control it, they are just on the same side. The leeway afforded one side is way out of proportion. Maybe you disagree with that too but of course I've said for years the Trump term in office proved that beyond doubt and if it hasn't there's no convincing someone otherwise. No I don't think you will find that many that agree that the Democrats get much more leeway, and no I don't think Trumps term in office proved any of what your saying.
If your seeking to imply that most media was much harsher on Trump I can assure you that it was entirely deserved. No other Presidential term has been, objectively, such a shitshow ever before.
|
Fox News legally has to classify itself as entertainment, but as long as we're talking about media in the political sphere they're the biggest player by a mile, they get by far the biggest ratings. Right wingers complaining that the left dominates the media are like when you're playing a board game and the person who's winning complains that someone else had a good turn. You forget that you're actually enjoying the best position on the board right now.
Also yeah, the fact that we're post-Trump and we still can't get people to agree post-hoc that it was a fucking disaster is bizarre to me. Maybe when he loses again?
|
But Obama ordered Moustard... DIJON Moustard... And whore a creme colored suite once... NEVER FORGET.
|
United States41959 Posts
On January 04 2023 23:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2023 17:55 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2023 11:36 Introvert wrote:Except Reagan was just about the only person who followed that rule, and even then not always. Since at least 2010, and certainly the 2012 in presidential primary fight, this rule hasn't been honored. And of course Trump abandoned it entirely. Additionally, every party out of power makes it their primary goal to stop the other party. This is especially true in the House, where being in the minority most of the times means you get nothing at all. The GOP's biggest achievements of the last two decades when they've had control are a few tax bills. Nothing else they run on can they get a consensus. The real reason so many people think this is because it's in the political interest of Democrats to say it, and they have the media megaphone. As for what's happening now, despite their claims otherwise I can't see any Republican allowing a Democrat speaker, THAT would be an instant primary loss. Even if McCarthy were to dangle some goodies to dems, it would be risky. It might weaken his position with his caucus even further, but it could snap some GOP objectors back into line. Anyways, if this gets resolved in not too long it will be nothing but a footnote to the start of what was going to be a turbulent term regardless. Why would you make such as easily disprovable claim as the Democratic Party controlling the media? Did you expect it to go unnoticed or did you just not care about truth? Or perhaps most people here know I don't mean they literally control it, they are just on the same side. The leeway afforded one side is way out of proportion. Maybe you disagree with that too but of course I've said for years the Trump term in office proved that beyond doubt and if it hasn't there's no convincing someone otherwise.
Y’all have the biggest newspapers, the most watched cable news, all the local news affiliates, and the most listened to radio shows.
The idea that the media is against conservatives is pure persecution fetishism. It’s privately owned by a bunch of multibillionaires who profit hugely from conservatives tax policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
