Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-22-2019, 01:50 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are compromise-able issues and uncompromisable ones.

Fixing the budget deficit/debt is perfectly compromisable. Just get Democrats to agree to enough spending cuts, and Republicans to agree to enough tax hikes, and you get there.

Abortion, on the other hand, is not compromisable. You have one side who considers abortion to be murder (how can you agree to 50% murders instead of 100%?) and another side who sees it as a blatant violation of a woman's autonomy and right to her body (how can you agree to a woman being controlled/overriden only 50% instead of 100%?) There is no happy middle ground.
You don't compromise in that way. You compromise in whatever the general consensus is about the bright red line. Like now.
Hint: There aren't really all that many (and I'd bet the number is falling as well) that believe that abortion is truly murder
  #52  
Old 10-22-2019, 05:15 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'm curious. Does #37 have an effect on this assessment?
Let's not get into making personal observations about other posters.

[ /Moderating ]
  #53  
Old 10-22-2019, 05:29 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Compromise with the GOP party leadership is effectively impossible at this point. But with their voters? Maybe. Leave the GOP party out in the cold for a few election cycles, and see if that convinces them to reign in the crazy wing.
I think that any voters who currently support Trump have been fully trained to a hateful, oppositional mindset. I do not think they are interested in compromise.

I've proposed that the democrats should take control and unilaterally implement policies to help the rural poor. I fully believe that a disturbingly large portion of the rural poor would hate and oppose their efforts on this front, sheerly because they're Democrats and thus their plans must be evil.

I'm less sure whether they'd come to such conclusions if they weren't being continuously fed bile by the republicans, their media, and the russians. Maybe they would start to recover without regular infusions. Or maybe they're permanently corrupted. I don't know.
  #54  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,016
I apologize for the inappropriate comments. There's a related discussion active in BBQ Pit and I get the two threads conflated.
  #55  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:05 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,120
Back before Obama's presidency I might have said that partisan politics were the issue and we need to get out of our entrenched positions and come towards the middle.

But Obama tried to do that and they thoroughly shafted him for it. They still talk about him as the worst president ever even as he acceded to many of their demands.
And now, under Trump, the republican party has gone full wackadoodle and is busy shredding the constitution and any sense of decency or rationality.

Now, it might be the case that some democrat policies might overlap with republican policies in some areas. And that's fine.
But actually constructively working with the GOP and compromising is sadly not possible and won't be for a long time.

ETA: The media constantly "both sides"-ing everything, and talking about "polarization" is not helping at this point. It just enables the GOP to get more shameless.

Last edited by Mijin; 10-23-2019 at 01:08 AM.
  #56  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:09 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Back before Obama's presidency I might have said that partisan politics were the issue and we need to get out of our entrenched positions and come towards the middle.

But Obama tried to do that and they thoroughly shafted him for it. They still talk about him as the worst president ever even as he acceded to many of their demands.
(snip)
I know this is a frequent narrative, but I don't really remember him acceding to a lot of right-wing demands. My sense is more of things that couldn't be accomplished because of the opposition in Congress, including the Republican threat to filibuster during the first two years of his time in office.

Also, Obama was somewhat notorious for not consulting Congress about much of anything -- he just thought he should propose stuff and let the legislative process happen, without trying to grease the wheels at all. He didn't seem to believe in, or perhaps he was uncomfortable with, making deals.

So can you recall and mention here any specific cases where Obama either tried cross-party compromise, or acceded to Republican demands?
  #57  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
I recall hearing that Obamacare went back and forth for a while and was riddled with attempts to cede just enough ground to get the republicans on board. But sure, if you're going to tell me that Obama dropped the stack of paper on the table and it was promptly passed with no discussion or modifications then sure, I'll believe that, because I'm the credulous sort.
  #58  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:53 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Something I heard on NPR this morning, I don't remember what, triggered a thought about a possible presidential candidate (for example) whose platform had the over-arching theme of bipartisanship first, and specific programs second. Someone who was wholly dedicated to reducing partisanship and accepting that "the other side" does, sometimes, have a point, and then acting (or at least proposing actions) accordingly. This candidate would have as their first principle the cooling off of the body politic.

Could you support such a candidate?
Right, that's the ideal candidate to me... if they existed.
"It wouldn't be that way with me. I swear, it wouldn't. I'd take only what I set out to get."
~Frank C. Dobbs
~Max
  #59  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:18 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are compromise-able issues and uncompromisable ones.

Fixing the budget deficit/debt is perfectly compromisable. Just get Democrats to agree to enough spending cuts, and Republicans to agree to enough tax hikes, and you get there.

Abortion, on the other hand, is not compromisable. You have one side who considers abortion to be murder (how can you agree to 50% murders instead of 100%?) and another side who sees it as a blatant violation of a woman's autonomy and right to her body (how can you agree to a woman being controlled/overriden only 50% instead of 100%?) There is no happy middle ground.
As far as fixing the budget, I disagree. Obama tried to pass a long term budget policy and the GOP opposed it because it had some tax hikes and because they were scared of being seen as friendly to Obama. I'm glad the bill failed since it may have increased the medicare age, but he did offer a bill of tax hikes and spending cuts.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama...y-age_n_894833

Quote:
And with Republicans having turned down a “grand” deal on the debt ceiling — which would have included $3 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlement reforms, in exchange for up to $1 trillion in revenues — it is unclear whether the proposal remains alive
The republican party today is not the GOP under Reagan, when bipartisan compromise to make the country a better place was an option. THe GOP has seen almost all white people who score high in authoritarianism move away from democrats and become republicans, while their southern strategy and racial resentment strategy means the base of the GOP party is now full of racists, authoritarians and religious fundamentalists. You can't govern when your politicians are a reflection of people who fall into these categories.

I don't think compromise is very possible, because GOP politicians know their voters will punish them for it.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #60  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:42 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I recall hearing that Obamacare went back and forth for a while and was riddled with attempts to cede just enough ground to get the republicans on board. But sure, if you're going to tell me that Obama dropped the stack of paper on the table and it was promptly passed with no discussion or modifications then sure, I'll believe that, because I'm the credulous sort.
Pretty much the exception, though, if I am remembering correctly. My opinion was that he did it because he wanted a success on a big piece of legislation in an important area, and this was it.

Now, since I asked for "any specific cases" and you provided one, I don't want to be accused of moving the goalposts. I acknowledge that this was a notable instance. But I do contend that one instance, even a notable one, doesn't really warrant a conclusion.

When I spoke of Obama not consulting Congress, I was mostly referring to his unwillingness or inability to establish relationships with important people in the House and Senate, that he held himself aloof for the most part. Maybe he wasn't willing to horse-trade like others have done. As a personal trait it's possibly admirable, but the record shows it is not effective within the halls of power in Washington.
  #61  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:47 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,648
It's pretty hard to compromise when you've decided that the other party is almost completely filled with evil, incompetent morons.
  #62  
Old 10-23-2019, 06:01 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
It's pretty hard to compromise when you've decided that the other party is almost completely filled with evil, incompetent morons.
The incompetent part isn't really a problem, and while it's not fun negotiating with morons it's still entirely possible and can result in curbstomp victories.

And, sadly, america has been negotiating with evil people worldwide for decades. This tends not to work out well in the long run, but dealing with devils still happens.

Where things really fall apart, though, is when the other party refuses to compromise with you.
  #63  
Old 10-23-2019, 08:36 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 255
Politics is overlapping with the troll/meme era.

Everything is being made with one eye on how many retweets and likes you can get.

It's only going to get worse because the old faces are going to retire/die off and be replaced by a bunch of people who have grown up politically (or generally) with the idea that you have to "own" "destroy" "humiliate" the other side.
  #64  
Old 10-24-2019, 09:42 AM
Fenris's Avatar
Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 13,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
I'm curious how the Board's "conservatives" (or "moderates" ) would label me. I believe the scientists over the liars on climate change — does that make me a leftist? I join Nobel prize-winning economists on BOTH the left and the right to want a move toward some form of UBI — does that make me a Stalinist? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've certainly never thought of you as a centrist. Beyond that I'm leery to test how far the moderators would tolerate me sharing labels for you in this forum.
I agree
  #65  
Old 10-24-2019, 09:57 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Politics is overlapping with the troll/meme era.

Everything is being made with one eye on how many retweets and likes you can get.

It's only going to get worse because the old faces are going to retire/die off and be replaced by a bunch of people who have grown up politically (or generally) with the idea that you have to "own" "destroy" "humiliate" the other side.
Pretty much. We're in an era that only rewards zingers and burns.
  #66  
Old 10-24-2019, 12:48 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post


Now, since I asked for "any specific cases" and you provided one, I don't want to be accused of moving the goalposts. I acknowledge that this was a notable instance. But I do contend that one instance, even a notable one, doesn't really warrant a conclusion.
Actually it's two examples of compromise so far, because there was also the budget proposal. And these are comprises on significant, core issues.

Versus zero that support your recollection.


Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
  #67  
Old 10-24-2019, 01:05 PM
truthseeker3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Could you support such a candidate? Is nuance possible any more, where people try to actually understand what motivates and drives the opposition (without making stuff up), and are willing to sit down to consider actual constructive compromise?
Maybe.
I think one thing that democrats overlook is how much republicans are compromising within the party. I've heard fiscal conservatives on this board complain about being shackled to the agenda of religious consevatives. Guess what? The feeling is mutual!
I think a lot of conservatives feel like they're already given away most of the store to the other wing of their own party before they even start talking to democrats.
  #68  
Old 10-24-2019, 04:23 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by truthseeker3 View Post
Maybe.
I think one thing that democrats overlook is how much republicans are compromising within the party. I've heard fiscal conservatives on this board complain about being shackled to the agenda of religious consevatives. Guess what? The feeling is mutual!
I think a lot of conservatives feel like they're already given away most of the store to the other wing of their own party before they even start talking to democrats.
In my admittedly limited view, there are the laypeople and the politicians. And when it comes to the republican party I think that the two groups have widely divergent goals - I think that relatively few republican politicians really give a crap about guns or abortion, for example. (If they did they'd have done more about it while they were in power.)

The point I'm leading to is, while I'm sure that there are a lot of begrudging laymen republicans who are uncomfortable with some of the people they're rubbing shoulders with, I'm less convinced that the high level politicians have a problem - votes is votes is votes, after all.

Last edited by begbert2; 10-24-2019 at 04:24 PM. Reason: typo
  #69  
Old 10-24-2019, 06:37 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Now this. I think I will need to give this up as quixotic at best.

But I have to say I am not sanguine about the future of our country. It's not that I think we can't come back for a while from the poison of 45. But I fear the improvements will be on the surface mostly, and the underlying ugly divide will just get worse.
  #70  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:29 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Now this. I think I will need to give this up as quixotic at best.

But I have to say I am not sanguine about the future of our country. It's not that I think we can't come back for a while from the poison of 45. But I fear the improvements will be on the surface mostly, and the underlying ugly divide will just get worse.
Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Complaining about the searing pain in your side instead of the appendix about to explode. Sure, the pain makes things much more noticeable, but you could, say, Sedate the country with pretty much any nice guy politician, and that appendix is still gonna explode.

This is becoming pretty much a global phonemenon btw.
  #71  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:47 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Complaining about the searing pain in your side instead of the appendix about to explode. Sure, the pain makes things much more noticeable, but you could, say, Sedate the country with pretty much any nice guy politician, and that appendix is still gonna explode.

This is becoming pretty much a global phonemenon btw.
Why, thank you for your enlightening and so original post. I can't imagine what I meant by "the underlying ugly divide" when of course I thought that 45 was the whole and entire problem in himself. I can't imagine why I had any need to worry about the future when all we need to do is vote him out of office (and hopefully into a penitentiary). Because I haven't a brain cell in my pretty little head.
  #72  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:14 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Why, thank you for your enlightening and so original post. I can't imagine what I meant by "the underlying ugly divide" when of course I thought that 45 was the whole and entire problem in himself. I can't imagine why I had any need to worry about the future when all we need to do is vote him out of office (and hopefully into a penitentiary). Because I haven't a brain cell in my pretty little head.
Wow, Is there some underlying reason you're attacking me? I can't imagine that having an unoriginal thought would warrant that. My post was not in the least bit a critique of you or your line of thinking. Simply my observation, as unoriginal as it may seem. My apologies.
  #73  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:53 AM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It seems strange to label a strategy that is focused on winning votes "anti-democracy".



Why would the dems have to wait until after this fantasy blue wave to deal with rural poverty, job loss, and drug use? Couldn't they do that, like, now? Or at least "make a serious effort to"? ISTM that if they were to do so, it might even help in bringing about the electoral victories you so crave.
Because the methods to address those issues would not be accepted by the Right because they are not based on "Old Testament - punishment methodology" or the ever so lovely "I got mine, screw you ideology". The war on drugs, how'd that work out? Other nations have addressed these issues through treatment of the users and punishment of the suppliers. News flash: no one wants to be an addict. Oh but there's that pesky mantra of those who just cum in their pants over the concept of "punishing those who made poor decisions". Using my best drawl.."that'll learn 'em".

Job loss? Well there's training. Ah, again here's the rub. Businesses want a well trained efficient work force but don't want to spend a penny seeing that it exists. They'd rather let foreigners in who had their higher educations paid for by governments who actually support education than pay to see education actually made a priority here.
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ
  #74  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:50 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
Oh but there's that pesky mantra of those who just cum in their pants over the concept of "punishing those who made poor decisions". Using my best drawl.."that'll learn 'em".
Do not say or imply that your fellow posters achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves in glee/distress due to recent news reports, political iconography, contemplation of ideological positions, etc. I see the slight variation in referring to "the right" but never the less, refrain from this type of base sexual commentary.

[/moderating]
  #75  
Old 10-28-2019, 05:01 PM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,250
nm
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ

Last edited by BwanaBob; 10-28-2019 at 05:05 PM. Reason: moved
  #76  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:14 AM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Go back to 2008 and ask that question. I think Obama sacrificed his whole presidency on this point. The Republicans said publicly that their only goal was to prevent Obama from winning reelection. Obama was a slightly rewarmed Republican health care proposal. But not one single Republican supported it and now they are trying their damnedest to destroy it in the courts. Had Obama known what was coming he could have put in a real medicare for all plan with his 60 votes in the senate. Now anything like that is dead for a generation. If anything, the Republicans are even less interested in compromise now than they were 10 years ago.
You said it for me but better.

When one side refuses to ratify a supreme court judge for no reason except that they can? The system is broken but it isn't the Dems who broke it.
  #77  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:07 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
You said it for me but better.

When one side refuses to ratify a supreme court judge for no reason except that they can? The system is broken but it isn't the Dems who broke it.
I'm going to ask again -- where do you go from there? I am so not interested in blame for where we are (although you are right about that, but it's in the past and we can't change the past), I am interested in what people think are viable ways to get somewhere better, and to keep it better longer term. Dems may smash the R's in 2020, but look out for 2022, and here we are again. Dems may do well for the next 8 years, but look out for 2028, someone who'll make 45 look like the good old days. And so it goes...down.

So if Dems can't compromise with Republicans because Republicans don't play fair, what are the specific and concrete ways they can work to steer the ship of state in a better direction?

For my money, if the Dems get the Presidency and both houses next year, they should spend all their energy for two years on election reform. They should force the Republicans to filibuster every time and not just give in to the threat. Make the R's sing out loud about how they like the corruption that we have now, and shame them before the voters. This is me being naive and idealistic, but if there is one thing that would make me think there's hope, it's this.
  #78  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:52 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
So if Dems can't compromise with Republicans because Republicans don't play fair [...]
I don't think this is an accurate narrative though.
I think it's more accurate to say we have a party that doesn't compromise, and a party that weakly kow tows over and over again, because they are too concerned with appearing fair. And then the media "both sides" it anyway.

(I'm not saying the dems should break the rules, just insist that the rules get followed and hammer the republicans for not doing so, instead of constantly ceding ground)

Quote:
For my money, if the Dems get the Presidency and both houses next year, they should spend all their energy for two years on election reform. They should force the Republicans to filibuster every time and not just give in to the threat.
Agree, but I guess I am more pessimistic than you right now.
We long ago (in fact, I would say, before the election) jumped the shark of terrible misconduct that should have been punished by the electorate. And we regularly see shameful events somehow spun as positives on fox news.

The world we live in now is just one where politicians only need to tell a compelling story within a particular bubble. Not care about reality and what might be good for the country.
  #79  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:35 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I don't think this is an accurate narrative though.
I think it's more accurate to say we have a party that doesn't compromise, and a party that weakly kow tows over and over again, because they are too concerned with appearing fair. And then the media "both sides" it anyway.

(I'm not saying the dems should break the rules, just insist that the rules get followed and hammer the republicans for not doing so, instead of constantly ceding ground)



Agree, but I guess I am more pessimistic than you right now.
We long ago (in fact, I would say, before the election) jumped the shark of terrible misconduct that should have been punished by the electorate. And we regularly see shameful events somehow spun as positives on fox news.

The world we live in now is just one where politicians only need to tell a compelling story within a particular bubble. Not care about reality and what might be good for the country.
I confess my wording was deliberate. And I like the way you put the solution (hammering the Republicans instead of rolling over).
  #80  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:51 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,016
Among other distinctions, Tom Nichols was the Chairman of National Security Affairs and the Forrest Sherman Chair of Public Diplomacy at the U.S. Naval War College.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Nichols

... this is the end of the Republican Party as the representative of any kind of coherent political movement. The end of the GOP as anything but a cult of personality has been in the cards for some time now, as Trump has crashed through one constitutional barrier after another while some Republicans defended him and others dithered, hoping to avoid the wrath of their most vocal primary voters.

Trump has destroyed so many norms of American life we once took for granted that there is no space to list them all, from the denigration of veterans to the adoration of dictators, from abandoning the basic dignity we expect from a chief executive to inuring us to lies so numerous that fact-checkers have been nearly defeated in their efforts to keep up.

Trashing the foundations of our political life, however, is not an impeachable offense. Republicans, of course, are arguing that this is nothing more than an attempt by Trump’s opponents to overturn the 2016 election, and if the only basis for impeachment were that Trump is a sociopathic ignoramus, the GOP would be right to insist that this is a matter for the voters and the Electoral College.

Instead, Republicans have now chosen to double down against impeachment in violation of every principle the GOP once claimed to cherish.

Limited government? Trump has argued that impeachment does not apply to him, and that he is beyond even being investigated for any wrongdoing. Republicans agree. The party of national security? Trump cheers on the Republicans trying to subvert closed hearings — the kind they themselves defended when investigating the Benghazi disaster — as they barge into classified facilities with unsecured electronic devices. The guardians of patriotism? Trump enablers derided a decorated combat veteran for even daring to speak the truth about Trump’s misconduct.

The House Republicans have clearly decided to throw themselves on the pyre of Donald Trump’s burning presidency. The last act of this tragedy — and impeachment, no matter how it turns out, is a national tragedy — will be when Senate Republicans meekly submit to the will of Donald Trump and acquit him, like terrified jurors under the glaring eye of a Mafia boss who knows their names.
"Compromise"? Is it to laugh.
  #81  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:49 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Among other distinctions, Tom Nichols was the Chairman of National Security Affairs and the Forrest Sherman Chair of Public Diplomacy at the U.S. Naval War College.

"Compromise"? Is it to laugh.
I don't dispute anything he says. So then what?

It's not enough to say how bad Republicans and the Republican Party have become. It's not enough to say they have abandoned any and all principles that they once (said they) believed in, it's not enough to dump them out of office by the cartload next year.

Someone has to figure out what's next. Because this cult is not going to die, no matter what happens to 45 himself; when he dies or goes to prison or retires to the country, there will be a vacuum left which will quickly be filled, and so it goes.

I know I started out this thread talking about compromise as a way of survival for the nation. If everyone concludes that compromise is not possible now and forever, then you'll end up trying to govern a country at least 30% of which hates your guts. I can't see that leading to anything very good.
  #82  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:21 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Someone has to figure out what's next. Because this cult is not going to die, no matter what happens to 45 himself; when he dies or goes to prison or retires to the country, there will be a vacuum left which will quickly be filled, and so it goes.
...you see: this just confuses me.

Just an hour ago the official Twitter account for White House posted this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Official White House Twitter Account
Witch hunts, fake news, and Schiffty ghouls.
Accompanied by an animation with the tag "Drain the Swamp" and "Happy Halloween from the White House."

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/statu...42086743166976

Can you really not figure out what is going to have to happen next? Can you not see that the government of the United States of America has descended into a state of bat-shit partisan insanity? You want us to debate "both sides" when one side is making jokes about "Schiffty ghouls?"

Over the last two years Republicans have tried to implement total abortion bans. They managed to implement a toned-down-version of the so-called Muslim ban. They separated thousands of families at the borders with no plans to reunite them. They've built and they house immigration detainees in fucking concentration camps. They betrayed the Kurds. They are stacking the courts, accelerating the process to the nth degree and are bypassing well established norms. The administration routinely ignores legal request from the House, instructs its people to not co-operate, and uses outside agents to negotiate instead of people within the State Department. The US government is essentially being run by temp workers. Entire departments are understaffed. There is evidence of wide-spread corruption, of lax security protocols, of interference from foreign governments. They are doing nothing to protect the integrity of the next elections. They are attacking the rights of the LGBT community, going after the "T" first and foremost.

All with the absolute approval of the Republican Party. There is barely any dissent. This is exactly what they want.

And to be quite frank: this is only scratching the surface.

This is blitzkrieg. Designed to overwhelm and bypass the very fabric of what America claims to be all about. Its a direct attack on the constitution, on the norms of what have been built up since your nation was founded.

So are you really asking us to figure out what happens next?

What happens next is if the Republicans win the Presidency again all of this continues: except it gets worse. It all accelerates. They take control of the Supreme Court. They continue to stack the rest of the courts. Voter suppression increases. Refugee numbers slow to a trickle. America continues down the road to authoritarianism.

We are talking about the party that said "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy." This is the party that won't vote on bills sent to them from the House. They have made almost zero effort to reach out to the other side, to compromise. So why are you insisting, that in the future, the Democrats should have some sort of a plan to reach out and "make nice?"

If you oppose this: then the only rational and reasonable way forward is to vote the fuckers out of office. And that doesn't just mean the Presidency. That means everywhere. The senate, the house, the school board, the local council. Because you are right: "the cult is never going to die". They will always be fighting to take away the rights of the marginalised and put power and wealth in the hands of the powerful. The only way forward is to shut them out of the debate. Vote them out. Then change the system. There is no other way forward.

You talk about compromise at a time when the very fabric of your democracy is at stake. What happens next? You need to decide what kind of country you want to live in, then vote accordingly.

Quote:
I know I started out this thread talking about compromise as a way of survival for the nation. If everyone concludes that compromise is not possible now and forever, then you'll end up trying to govern a country at least 30% of which hates your guts. I can't see that leading to anything very good.
I would suggest to you that there has always been 20-30% of the country that "hates your guts." Its the group that will vote to ban abortion, it is the group that empowers white supremacy, its the group that doesn't think trans people have the right to exist, its the group that is perfectly happy with concentration camps. And that group has control over the executive branch and the senate, and are working to take over the judiciary. We can see what they want. We know what they do when they have power. You can negotiate with them. Or you can marginalize them. They have shown over-and-over again an inability to negotiate in good faith. If you think that negotiation is the best path forward, then its really over to you to show us all how it could be done rather than complaining that "someone has to figure out what happens next".
  #83  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:47 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you see: this just confuses me. (snip)

You want us to debate "both sides" when one side is making jokes about "Schiffty ghouls?"
You really didn't read the whole post you quoted from, did you? Or perhaps you can find where I said I wanted anyone to debate both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I would suggest to you that there has always been 20-30% of the country that "hates your guts." Its the group that will vote to ban abortion, it is the group that empowers white supremacy, its the group that doesn't think trans people have the right to exist, its the group that is perfectly happy with concentration camps. And that group has control over the executive branch and the senate, and are working to take over the judiciary. We can see what they want. We know what they do when they have power. You can negotiate with them. Or you can marginalize them. They have shown over-and-over again an inability to negotiate in good faith. If you think that negotiation is the best path forward, then its really over to you to show us all how it could be done rather than complaining that "someone has to figure out what happens next".
You have the beginnings of a response in there, if that's what you intended. "Or you can marginalize them." Since nearly everyone in this thread is convinced that there is no meaningful negotiating or compromise possible, you seem to be suggesting that marginalizing that portion of the population is the only course left. Assume that's possible: can you flesh out that approach? What does that mean and how would it work? What's that going to look like in 5 or 10 or 20 years?

I already said upthread that I give up on the idea of negotiated compromise. So that leaves me with the question that I've been asking since then -- assuming that it is possible to regain control of the government, what comes next? I'm not the first one to ask the question. Answers, though, or even suggestions, are pretty thin on the ground. Lots of gnashing and frothing, but not much "let's sit down and think about this."

Last edited by Roderick Femm; 10-31-2019 at 11:50 PM.
  #84  
Old 11-01-2019, 12:38 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,016
I and others have argued that "social justice" in America may have moved too far and too fast, instilling irrational bitterness in left-behind whites. This opinion is met with scorn here at SDMB; and that ship may have already sailed. By now, demagogues and kleptocrats have seized on the irrational bitterness and are exploiting it for their selfish purposes. Much of the American media and opinion makers are now fully, but cynically, embracing racial hatreds, lies and even criminality. I don't think I need concoct a lurid parable of marital strife to suggest that the course forward must involve compassionate intervention, not compromise. Germany and South Africa are countries which recovered successfully from even more severe problems. The time is ripe to study their solutions.

I've started threads identifying a key problem with American discourse, but Dopers have been more interested in deprecating my common-sense than in devising solutions. Here's another look at the problem — "What Europe can teach America about free speech". The author presents no easy answers ... but doesn't speak of "compromise."

Last edited by septimus; 11-01-2019 at 12:38 AM.
  #85  
Old 11-01-2019, 01:07 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
You really didn't read the whole post you quoted from, did you?
...of course I read the whole post.

Quote:
Or perhaps you can find where I said I wanted anyone to debate both sides.
I used "" for "both sides" for a reason.

Quote:
You have the beginnings of a response in there, if that's what you intended.
Incorrect. You have the total of my response there, not just "the beginnings."

Quote:
"Or you can marginalize them." Since nearly everyone in this thread is convinced that there is no meaningful negotiating or compromise possible, you seem to be suggesting that marginalizing that portion of the population is the only course left.
"Seems to be suggesting."

LOL.

What part of "vote the fuckers out of office" are you failing to understand? I would have thought that "Vote them out. Then change the system" would have been a pretty straightforward message. I'm not "seeming to suggest" anything. I'm outright suggesting something. White supremacists? Marginalise. Anti-vaxers? Marginalise. Anti-muslim and anti-immigration? Marginalise. Kick trans people out of the military? Marginalise. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Quote:
Assume that's possible: can you flesh out that approach? What does that mean and how would it work? What's that going to look like in 5 or 10 or 20 years?
Lets put it back to your OP. What are your plans for protecting the right to an abortion? How do you plan to shut down the concentration camps? What is your plan to negotiate? What do you suggest be compromised? Can you even attempt to flesh out how you think things should work? How would you negotiate with the Republicans? And why isn't this thread about why the Republicans won't negotiate with the Democrats?

Quote:
I already said upthread that I give up on the idea of negotiated compromise. So that leaves me with the question that I've been asking since then -- assuming that it is possible to regain control of the government, what comes next?
What part of my post are you struggling to understand? I'm being serious here. I've literally answered your question as clearly as I could have. At the risk of being accused of Godwinning the thread, these are the questions that were being asked in Germany during the 1930's. This administration is sliding towards authoritarianism and the Republicans in power are cheering them on. There comes a point that yes, you actually do have to choose a side. And I believe that we are at that point now.

So what comes next? You decide what you want America to be. Then you vote accordingly. You pick a side. That is what comes next. I don't have a comfortable, clean answer for you. This is going to get messy, it is going to get nasty.
  #86  
Old 11-01-2019, 01:37 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,094
I think the clearest example of Republican obstructionism is opposition they expressed against delaying the ACA employer mandate.

Based on their rhetoric, it would seem that back in 2013 the Republicans thought the ACA and the employer mandate provisions in the ACA were bad for America. Therefore, one would think that the notion that implementing that provision right away would hurt employers would be one that the Republicans would be more likely to believe than the Democrats. Yet when the Democrats tried to alleviate the damage by delaying implementation the Republicans raised holy hell. They knew that employers weren't ready, they knew that immediate implementation would hurt Americans, but they were hoping that Democrats would get blamed for it. So they did whatever they could to maximize the pain.

Its very hard to work together with a party for the greater good of the nation, if that party would gladly sacrifice the well fare of the nation if it means that you get hurt.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 11-01-2019 at 01:41 PM.
  #87  
Old 11-01-2019, 02:37 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
You have the beginnings of a response in there, if that's what you intended. "Or you can marginalize them." Since nearly everyone in this thread is convinced that there is no meaningful negotiating or compromise possible, you seem to be suggesting that marginalizing that portion of the population is the only course left. Assume that's possible: can you flesh out that approach? What does that mean and how would it work? What's that going to look like in 5 or 10 or 20 years?

I already said upthread that I give up on the idea of negotiated compromise. So that leaves me with the question that I've been asking since then -- assuming that it is possible to regain control of the government, what comes next? I'm not the first one to ask the question. Answers, though, or even suggestions, are pretty thin on the ground. Lots of gnashing and frothing, but not much "let's sit down and think about this."
Let's presume a miracle happens and we actually are successful in completely retaking the government. Democrats take the white house and Republican insertion into both houses of congress is reduced to 30% or less. (Note: I have no idea if that's mathematically possible based on who's up for election. I did say was talking miracles here.)

Faced with the sudden cessation of literally anti-american obstructionism and deliberate destruction, the reconstruction process begins. First the government is restored, with demagogues removed from all departments and staff increased to full levels. From there move on to things that can be corrected by straightforward department action, like the handling of refugees.

Meanwhile, use the overwhelming congressional control to pass explicit laws making it illegal for members of government to commit crimes and engage in treason. (Yes, I know this shouldn't be necessary. Shut up.) Follow this up with opening investigations into everybody who's been doing that for the past several years. This will probably get rid of most of the rest of the republican congressmen, and as an incidental side effect take out most of Trump's family.

Steps are taken to make localized gerrymandering and voter suppression illegal at the federal level. States that resist should be met with the standard response to state rebellion: threat of removal of funding. Federal policies aimed at suppressing voters should be revoked, and policies that aid in opening up the vote should be implemented and encouraged, like absentee ballots and election day holidays. Russian and Republican interference with our physical election processes should be investigated and prevented (obviously).

The procedural filibuster should be eliminated by law.

The congress should consider the merits of impeaching judges, specifically to correct the recent screwing around and interference with the normal confirmation process. Ideally this wouldn't be abused beyond that.

News networks and other public figures (yes, including politicians) should be made legally accountable for deliberately lying, either as slander, fraud, or sabotage of the societal good, with third parties able to initiate the suit in the latter case. The first step of such cases would have to be proving with high certainty that the statements were false, followed by a medium certainty burden of proof regarding whether the lies were deliberate. Yes, Musk would need to watch his ass, but so would prominent anti-vaxers, anti-climaters, and most of Fox News. (This would also have interesting effects on the advertising industry.)

I'm currently debating with myself what should, or can, be done about Russian trolls. Anything I can think of sort of boils down to "regulate the internet", which would be problematic at best. I'll just leave this alone and hope that if foreign shit-stirrers are robbed of their local lying allies they'll lose influence.


Around now is where you ask me, what are we going to do about the insane bigoted scumbags that make up Trump's base? Well, some of them are going to have gone out and committed murder/suicide when Trump didn't win. These people will either be dead or incarcerated. To the remainder we do...nothing. Or at least nothing to get rid of them. There have always been shitty people, and while that hasn't been great, that's not the real problem. The real problem is when they get into government - and I'm enough of an optimist to believe that if we fix the voter interference that has been going on, the assholes will end up marginalized naturally because, seriously, 30% is not a majority.
  #88  
Old 11-01-2019, 04:51 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,889
I doubt it because in the US one problem is the party out of power is really rooting for the one in power to mess up or the countries economy to be in bad shape.
  #89  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:41 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...of course I read the whole post.



I used "" for "both sides" for a reason.
Don't be shy, give us the reason.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Incorrect. You have the total of my response there, not just "the beginnings."



"Seems to be suggesting."

LOL.

What part of "vote the fuckers out of office" are you failing to understand? I would have thought that "Vote them out. Then change the system" would have been a pretty straightforward message. I'm not "seeming to suggest" anything. I'm outright suggesting something. White supremacists? Marginalise. Anti-vaxers? Marginalise. Anti-muslim and anti-immigration? Marginalise. Kick trans people out of the military? Marginalise. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.



Lets put it back to your OP. What are your plans for protecting the right to an abortion? How do you plan to shut down the concentration camps? What is your plan to negotiate? What do you suggest be compromised? Can you even attempt to flesh out how you think things should work? How would you negotiate with the Republicans? And why isn't this thread about why the Republicans won't negotiate with the Democrats?



What part of my post are you struggling to understand? I'm being serious here. I've literally answered your question as clearly as I could have. At the risk of being accused of Godwinning the thread, these are the questions that were being asked in Germany during the 1930's. This administration is sliding towards authoritarianism and the Republicans in power are cheering them on. There comes a point that yes, you actually do have to choose a side. And I believe that we are at that point now.

So what comes next? You decide what you want America to be. Then you vote accordingly. You pick a side. That is what comes next. I don't have a comfortable, clean answer for you. This is going to get messy, it is going to get nasty.
You must admit this post has a lot more meat in it than your previous one. For which, thank you.
  #90  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:48 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
You must admit this post has a lot more meat in it than your previous one. For which, thank you.
...no I'm not going to admit that. I would argue that there is less meat in that post than the previous one. I literally repeat posts from the previous posts because it appears "you really didn't read the whole post you quoted from" the first time around.
  #91  
Old 11-01-2019, 11:06 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...no I'm not going to admit that. I would argue that there is less meat in that post than the previous one. I literally repeat posts from the previous posts because it appears "you really didn't read the whole post you quoted from" the first time around.
Guilty. I missed an important paragraph. For which I apologize.
  #92  
Old 11-02-2019, 01:22 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,016
In #86, Mr. Godot gives a clear example of why "compromise" with the present Republican Party is laughable:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
I think the clearest example of Republican obstructionism is opposition they expressed against delaying the ACA employer mandate.

Based on their rhetoric, it would seem that back in 2013 the Republicans thought the ACA and the employer mandate provisions in the ACA were bad for America. Therefore, one would think that the notion that implementing that provision right away would hurt employers would be one that the Republicans would be more likely to believe than the Democrats. Yet when the Democrats tried to alleviate the damage by delaying implementation the Republicans raised holy hell. They knew that employers weren't ready, they knew that immediate implementation would hurt Americans, but they were hoping that Democrats would get blamed for it. So they did whatever they could to maximize the pain.

Its very hard to work together with a party for the greater good of the nation, if that party would gladly sacrifice the well fare of the nation if it means that you get hurt. [my emphasis]
Recall that Mitch McConnell stated, shortly after the inauguration of one of America's greatest Presidents, "Our top priority should be to deny Obama a second term."

Here comes Urbanredneck with a "No; You too!":
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I doubt it because in the US one problem is the party out of power is really rooting for the one in power to mess up or the countries economy to be in bad shape.
Mr. Godot cited a clearcut example by the Republicans of the problem that Mr. Redneck mentions. @ Urban — Can you back up your assertion with an example from the Democrats?
  #93  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:49 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delaware legislator David A. LaRock (R-Loudoun)
“Democrats would take away what God has given to us.... we are on the right side of this war between good and evil, and with His help, we will prevail.”
It doesn't sound like Mr. LaRock is eager to compromise.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017