US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4270

On July 15 2024 11:32 KwarK wrote:
I'm still lost about where the concession would be.

If one side is "force no women" and the other side is "force all women" then would it be "force half women"?

On July 15 2024 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:





Dems (especially Biden) have not done a good job communicating their accomplishments or their plans for the future, which could make Trump-skeptics more at ease. That is different than needing to change stances on key political issues.

These "compromises" and "concessions" intrinsically cannot exist for pro-lifers, or else they become pro-choicers. I'm not sure how many different ways we can explain this. Let me try it this way:

Person A is pro-choice up to 10 weeks.
Person B is pro-choice up to 20 weeks.
Person A and Person B can compromise at 15 weeks. It's a little longer than A would prefer, and a little shorter than B would prefer, but at the end of the day the agreement is still pro-choice, which both of them identify as.

On the other hand...

Person A is pro-choice up to 10 weeks.
Person C is pro-life, which means 0 weeks and only 0 weeks. (We're referring to standard pregnancies unrelated to exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.)
Even if Person A would be willing to compromise to 5 weeks, Person C would not be willing to compromise to 5 weeks. This is because the agreement would be pro-choice, and Person C has planted an unmoving flag at their pro-life position of 0 weeks, no matter what.

Pro-choice advocates are willing to entertain wiggle room and flexibility, but pro-life advocates are not. So when you critique Democrats for not letting pro-life advocates in, what you're really saying is * Dems welcome pro-choice people at 5 weeks and 10 weeks and 15 weeks and 20 weeks and a whole bunch of other positive-numbers-of-weeks, but gosh darnit why can't Dems fuck over all of those people and let the Zero-Weeks-With-No-Other-Options just take over? *

If a pro-life person wants to compromise with a pro-choice person, any sort of "meeting in the middle" will necessarily not be zero weeks. The result is going to be a positive number of weeks for abortion to be legal. I'm fine with that, but pro-life people would not be fine with that. (And I'm not even saying that the pro-life people would be wrong or inconsistent for their lack of budging, since they'd view it as killing an unborn baby even after one week of pregnancy. It's just that being pro-life is inherently incompatible with compromise, so don't yell at Democrats when it's actually the fault of the Republicans for not being capable of compromising on the topic of abortion.)

On July 15 2024 12:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


We followed your lead on abortion as you scolded Democrats on imaginary gate-keeping and a lack of logically-impossible compromise, up until you realized that your position made no sense. Not every pro-choice advocate agrees on the ideal number of weeks for abortion to be legal, and I even used that fact in my previous example of Person A and Person B for you. And then I even gave you an example of an issue that you could have discussed (gun control), if you had sincerely wanted to have the conversation on compromise that you initially asserted. But sure, change the subject to messaging instead of the actual issues. Messaging is absolutely important! Just realize that when you pivot, people who originally were talking to you about something else don't have to pivot with you, especially if your pivot comes off as dishonest.

On July 15 2024 11:50 Introvert wrote:


I hate to be this way, but not you, and not a single person here seemingly, can name a single thing dems have to done to assuage the concerns of Trump skeptical voters. Instead, you'd like to dive back into the weeds on abortion, a topic on which the party used to be less of a monolith (a fact that is proof that all these long posts about how impossible it is are wrong). I think that's telling by itself.

On July 15 2024 12:23 Gahlo wrote:
R: Be reasonable and meet me in the middle.

D tries to work together

R steps back

R: Be reasonable and meet me in the middle

Repeat as needed.

Tale as old as time.

On July 15 2024 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote:

There was the bipartisan immigration bill.

Democrats are closer to Nixon/Reagan era centrist Republicans on several issues than modern Republicans are. Healthcare, Immigration and Gun Control are just a few examples.



This is basically how Democrats got there.

On July 15 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


How could the perspective of a pro-life person forcing their beliefs onto a pregnant woman possibly co-exist with the woman wanting to make her own decisions? They're inherently opposed.

The Democrats are fine with the following 3 abortion perspectives: privately pro-choice, privately pro-life, and universally-enforcing pro-choice. They can't also add the 4th option, universally-enforcing pro-life, because that eliminates both privately pro-choice and universally-enforcing pro-choice.

Forcing everyone to do X vs. Allowing everyone to make their own decisions about X are inherently mutually exclusive, right? I don't understand how you could "make room" for both, unless we appeal to the other non-abortion similarities (i.e., maybe a universally-enforcing pro-life Democrat doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Democratic party when it comes to abortion, but agrees enough on other issues that they still identify more as a Democrat than as a Republican).

On July 15 2024 08:46 Introvert wrote:


Maybe I'm not explaining this well but you didn't get my point. About half this country calls themselves some version of pro-life, yet it is nigh-impossible to find a Democrat who can even articulate what limits, if any, they would like to see on abortion. The best they can do is rant about "codifying Roe" while opposing the limits Roe allowed. They merely take advantage of the average voter's ignorance of Roe v. Wade and hope it sticks. There used to be Democrats in Congress who could, even tenuously, call themselves pro-life. How many are there now? DPB's "well you can *believe* whatever you want and still be a member" is, as I'm sure you can see, not really an answer. I don't blame you, esp not being an American, but there was a time when you could support more restrictions on abortion and still be a Democrat in good standing. (White) Evangelical Christian political polarization wasn't always so one-sided as it is now. Republicans tried to appeal to them over the decades, and the Dems responded by moving in the opposite direction.

So I ask again, on what issue has the Dem party not moved left on or what concession have they made in an effort to unite people of various political beliefs against Trump? Can you think of a single one?

On July 15 2024 06:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Obviously January 6 was very close to being far worse than it was. I don't know for sure that if any of the people who got into the building had also gotten into the House of Representatives chamber while Representatives and Senators were, there would have been violence and possibly murder of those Representatives and Senators, but some of those people, if they had, yes, there would have been.

That it was an organized attempt to overthrow the government by Donald Trump, I can't sign onto that. The man did not try to take advantage of the situation to seize various levers of power, he didn't declare an emergency and send men with guns to take over television and radio broadcasting and internet infrastructure or to cow citizens into hiding in their homes, he didn't do anything of the things that are seen in any coup attempt.

It was partially an unruly mob that wanted to stop the certification, some of whom wanted a "real" investigation of the election they felt had been denied, some of whom wanted to force the Congress to deny certification to Biden and hand it to Trump. The large majority of the crowd outside the Capitol never entered it, and a majority of the crowd that did enter walked around and did nothing. It was not a black and white event that can be 100% classified simplistically. The only part that can be classified simplistically is that, yes indeed, a portion of the crowd wanted to stop the certification vote and were ready and willing to use violence to do it, and they did use violence. Those people were mostly dangerous moron sheep, and some of them were dangerous half-idiots, and they deserve(d) punishment.

If you want to look at why Trump is now the favorite to win the presidency instead of forever ostracized and barred from polite society forevermore by 90+% of the populace because of January 6, you have to look at how for three months in the preceding summer, protests that regularly (not always, and not a majority of the protests, but a too-large proportion) devolved into violent riots were justified, rationalized, minimalized, and generally pooh-poohed. If black bloc antifa whatever types can attack the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, every night for weeks and society did not unite to condemn them, if Republican politicians can be attacked on the streets of Washington DC leaving the Republican National Convention, without society uniting to condemn those attacks, if society could not unite to condemn all the very real mass violence that did happen from the end of May to the end of August, why would you expect society to unite and condemn January 6 rioters, or true January 6 insurrectionists?

Trump refused to accept the election results. A violent riot followed afterwards on January 6. This happens pretty often in many countries around the world after democratic elections, but the losing parties aren't called authoritarian dictators or threats to democracy who will turn their countries into police states if they win next time. If he wins, is Donald Trump going to repeal, either formally or just in effect, the Bill of Rights and other amendments or portions of the constitution dealing with liberties and the representative form of government? Is he going to have his political opponents shot, or disappeared, or hounded into ruin by the agents of the State? I see no reason to believe so. I see no reason to believe he had any kind of plan to remain in office through force. He's always been a shit-stirrer. He stirred the shit, like a lot of American politicos did in 2020, and he wasn't the only one who did so with the result being violent shit squirts all over the place. I'm not going to just shit (somebody please stop me lol) on tens of millions of people on either side and demand they submit on these issues, because that doesn't work. It just doesn't. It doesn't work even when tens of millions agree with me against the other tens of millions. Like the Red Army on the Eastern Front, quantity has a quality all its own that can't simply be disregarded.

He appointed Justices who junked Roe v. Wade. Okay. In reality, what this did was hand power over the issue to the representatives of the people in state legislatures and governor's offices, or to the people directly through referendums. The results have been mixed, but with a definite bend towards preserving the ability to have an abortion overall. Trump has said over and over again that's the result he wanted, handing power over the issue to the people, and has given no indication he would change that by diktat. My own personal opinion is that I reject the idea that at any point in my existence I did not have the inalienable right to live, and that no-rights-having-me was replaced by rights-having-me at the instant of my birth, like the stork came in and did a switcheroo when no one was looking. I believe that all people possess that right to life during the entirety of their existence. Unless they relinquish that right themselves through their own conscious actions, like the more heinous types of killing others. Which babies are not capable of doing. So that's that for abortion and me generally. Rape, incest, health of the mother, are tough questions because again the baby is innocent, but I can't ignore that the mother did not consent to being raped, or to incest, or to risk her life (or ensure the end of her life) via pregnancy. It's not black and white at all. It's not a bunch of easy questions. And in those cases, despite my reservations, I have to side with the mother. I wish there were a way to have things end up with the baby not being aborted, both the baby and mother be fine, happy ending. Sometimes that is the way the real world works. But not all the time or even most of the time in any context, and especially the context of rape/incest/threat to the mother from the pregnancy, and I can't ignore that.

But back to Trump as a dictator or threat to democracy. I just don't see it. I see a man who is a narcissist and a boor, among other negative qualities. But I also see good qualities in him, the best among those that he truly loves his country and wants it to succeed. In that mix he is not so unique among politicians as many think he is. I don't see where he has the intention, or the ability, to dismantle the constitution and Republic. If January 6 is what he came up with for doing so last time, then he is plain incompetent at it.

You want to talk about near things, an eighth of an inch to one side and we wouldn't be arguing about whether Trump is a threat to democracy. We'd, far more likely than not, be arguing about whether soldiers need to be called in to stop the fiery and mostly not peaceful protests sweeping the country, and arguing about whether the soldiers would try to stop them, or would stand aside, or would even join in. Thank God we aren't doing that.

Alas, all mine knightly friends are getting their destriers re-shoed today.

On July 15 2024 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:


I honestly had the impression democrats have shown willingness to compromise on both immigration/border security and gun control. Like, Obama was actually derided as 'deporter in chief' by the left. A few months ago I recall Trump telling republicans to go back on a border security/immigration bill (also included aid to Ukraine) because if it was implemented republicans wouldn't be able to attack democrats as efficiently for not doing anything about immigration. (although I'm sure some republicans like Rand Paul voted against more because of the support for Ukraine than to please Trump) This bill was even written by McConnell.

Biden is even the compromise candidate. Part of his whole package (which again, troubles the left part of your political spectrum) is his desire to be bipartisan. Working across the aisle was one of his selling points during his campaign, and I have the impression he's been trying to do that but that his efforts are largely thwarted by Republicans because their election chances improve the more disgruntled they are with Biden's inability to deal with the cases they care most about.

I'll totally grant you that there's a wing of the democratic party with no interest in compromise and I can even picture that wing dominating politics in california. But Biden isn't that, and nationally, the republicans (during the Trump era especially but also McConnell during Obama years) have been more guilty of opposing compromise because they thrive under a dysfunctional government. I'll also agree that democrats have been unwilling to compromise with Trump, but Trump is not and has never been a compromise candidate - his 'art of the deal' is not 'come to an agreement both sides are kinda meh but reasonably content with'.