# Is it really necessary to portray the election of the opposing candidate as the end of humanity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 10, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121 "2012-08-10T20:18:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/41 "2012-08-13T15:22:04Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > Like it or not, the Republicans are part of the political landscape. Demonizing and insulting them isn’t likely to produce constructive dialogue. “Constructive dialogue” does not work with them. Treating them like a “loyal opposition” that cares about the country and who can be reasoned or compromised with has only led Obama and the Democrats to defeat after defeat. They are flat out enemies, not just rivals of the Democrats. And demonizing and insulting the Democrats has worked _quite well_ for the Republicans. It’s pretending that the Republicans are decent human beings that has failed miserably. What you are really doing is trying to convince the Democrats and the Left to continue with a pattern of behavior that has consistently failed for them. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/42 "2012-08-13T17:06:04Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > How about this: each candidate acknowledges that the other is a highly competent, successful individual, and is well-grounded morally and ethically. That while the candidates’ political philosophies may differ, each has the best interests of his country, and the world, at heart and truly desires to make America, and the world, better places and to solve the problems that beset them. I don’t believe either candidate should make statements about the other candidate that aren’t grounded in reality. If Candidate A is making statements about the Candidate B that fly in the face of the facts, then it would equally be flying in the face of the facts for Candidate B to make your suggested statement about Candidate A, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/43 "2012-08-13T17:26:28Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > Then we could move on to discussions of the specific policies each candidate would implement if elected, without having to resort to character assassination. First of all, a candidate’s past record is also worthy of discussion. If Romney says, “you should vote for me because I’m the sort of businessman who can put this country back to work again,” then he’d better be prepared to defend his record as a businessman. If an examination of that record is unflattering, please don’t go confusing that with character assassination. Second, specifying the damage to people’s lives that would likely be caused by the other candidate’s stated policies is also not character assassination. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/44 "2012-08-13T17:39:41Z")
> [@Peanut\_Gallery](#): > > However … the thing that worries me these days is if the Rs get both houses, _and_ Mitt. Then boring Mitt will become rubber stamp to the Tea Party, and all bets are off. “End of humanity” is in play. So now … so long as the Ds at least keep the Senate, America will still be here in 4-8 years. Even if Obama wins, who controls the Senate next year is probably pretty close to a 50-50 proposition, given that most of the seats in play are held by Democrats at present. If Romney wins, the odds are pretty overwhelming that the GOP will control both houses of Congress to boot. Reminds me that in 1988, I thought Bob Dole would be a pretty decent President, but in 1996, I thought a Dole Presidency would be a disaster. The reason? Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/45 "2012-08-13T20:09:57Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Constructive dialogue” does not work with them. Treating them like a “loyal opposition” that cares about the country and who can be reasoned or compromised with has only led Obama and the Democrats to defeat after defeat. They are flat out enemies, not just rivals of the Democrats. > > And demonizing and insulting the Democrats has worked _quite well_ for the Republicans. It’s pretending that the Republicans are decent human beings that has failed miserably. What you are really doing is trying to convince the Democrats and the Left to continue with a pattern of behavior that has consistently failed for them. This. As much as I hate to admit it, “constructive dialogue” is exactly what the republicans want from the dems, because it’s so ridiculously easy to ridicule and shut down. It holds no power with the populace. And the fact of the matter is, it has become more and more impossible to give them the benefit of the doubt, and more and more difficult to claim that their goal is anything less than complete control of washington _at all costs_. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/46 "2012-08-13T20:10:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Despite that being the opposite of the result everywhere else it’s been put in place. 😃 You are underestimating the power of American conservatives to screw things up: “Hey, let’s take a surplus and create a deficit by cutting taxes”. ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/47 "2012-08-13T23:18:18Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > There might as well not be. Spoiler effect, 2-party-system, first-past-the-post, et cetera. > > But here’s the thing: calling the republican party **“intentionally obstructive”** isn’t hyperbole. _It’s what they do_. It’d be like saying, “Hey, don’t call Charles Manson insane, that kind of rhetoric doesn’t help anyone” – no, it’s not rhetoric, it’s an accurate descriptor. And you know what? I will _gladly_ demonize those who stand against science, progress, equal rights, and economic stability, as those who do are either incompetent beyond belief or evil, and neither of those two qualities have any place in running our country. So what, do we have to lie to ourselves to get constructive dialogue? _Why?_ (bolding mine) Ah, but here you succumb to endorsing yet another rhetoric device that stifles reasoned dialogue. For a given piece of legislation and/or program–one side is in favor of it, the other is “obstructionist.” In other words, make the pretension that your side is in favor of truth, justice and beauty, while the other side’s sole purpose is to get in the way of human advancement. Obviously, you consider the Republicans/the American right to be profoundly, consummately, irredeemably malevolent, but how on earth could you or anyone else who feels like you ever engage in any kind of constructive dialogue with them? And like it or not, though their fortunes may wax and wane, they’re not going away. I vehemently disagree with many of the Republicans’ positions, but I’m not going to extrapolate that to saying they are evil _simply because I disagree with what they want to do_. If our elected representatives consistently take the position that “The opposing party is a gang of evil slimeballs who want to (insert horrible overarching goal),” then they might as well all take guns to work and settle things on the House and Senate floors once and for all.\* \*In a bipartisan deficit-reduction move, selling pay-per-view subscriptions to the action ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/48 "2012-08-14T01:11:14Z")
I’m sorry but turning “intentionally obstructive” into “they are evil” does not fly for me. From the time they declared that their efforts should be geared to make sure Obama would be only a one term president one should not have problems on saying that indeed their overall idea was to be intentionally obstructive, it does not also mean that they would do so in all occasions, but when serious issues like Health care reform, and global warming gas emission controls come to a vote, obstructionism does fit. And still, it does not mean that many are saying that they are therefore evil, ignorant and mislead by powerful interests is what I see what they are. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/49 "2012-08-14T02:23:40Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > For a given piece of legislation and/or program–one side is in favor of it, the other is “obstructionist.” In other words, make the pretension that your side is in favor of truth, justice and beauty, while the other side’s sole purpose is to get in the way of human advancement. No. One side is just a bunch of politicians, while the other - the Republicans - are a bunch of corrupt, thuggish fanatics who have outright stated that they are determined to be obstructionist. > [@greenslime1951](#): > > Obviously, you consider the Republicans/the American right to be profoundly, consummately, irredeemably malevolent, but how on earth could you or anyone else who feels like you ever engage in any kind of constructive dialogue with them? Again; _no one_ can. They aren’t _interested_ in “constructive dialogue”. The Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren’t interested in compromise, and attempting to do so with them just results in them taking advantage of you. > [@greenslime1951](#): > > I vehemently disagree with many of the Republicans’ positions, but I’m not going to extrapolate that to saying they are evil _simply because I disagree with what they want to do_. Nor do I. I call them “evil” because of the consistent malignance, selfishness, and amorality that is characteristic of them. And I don’t feel obligated to pretend that they are good people just because of some American-exceptionalist determination that it’s unthinkable that an _American_ political party can be composed of genuinely ill intentioned people. Despite such things not being at all rare in human history. > [@greenslime1951](#): > > If our elected representatives consistently take the position that “The opposing party is a gang of evil slimeballs who want to (insert horrible overarching goal),” then they might as well all take guns to work and settle things on the House and Senate floors once and for all. Except that’s what the Republicans are, and denying that reality is self destructive. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/50 "2012-08-14T03:47:20Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > (bolding mine) > > Ah, but here you succumb to endorsing yet another rhetoric device that stifles reasoned dialogue. For a given piece of legislation and/or program–one side is in favor of it, the other is “obstructionist.” In other words, make the pretension that your side is in favor of truth, justice and beauty, while the other side’s sole purpose is to get in the way of human advancement. No. I am referring specifically to the republican platform, evidenced by statements made by Mitch McConnell, Ronald Reagan, and Grover Norquist. I am not generalizing, nor would I state this about simply any party. The modern republican party’s entire goal is to paint the government as inept and failing, and its method of choice is obstructionism. > [@](#): > > Obviously, you consider the Republicans/the American right to be profoundly, consummately, irredeemably malevolent, but how on earth could you or anyone else who feels like you ever engage in any kind of constructive dialogue with them? And like it or not, though their fortunes may wax and wane, they’re not going away. We _tried_. Believe me. The left has tried again and again to have constructive dialogue with the right. And every time we’ve taken a step towards them in compromises, they’ve taken a step back. They’ve forced the political spectrum of this country further and further to the right, further and further onto their own wanted territory… At what point do we say, “all right, no more dialogue”? At what point is enough enough? > [@](#): > > I vehemently disagree with many of the Republicans’ positions, but I’m not going to extrapolate that to saying they are evil _simply because I disagree with what they want to do_. If our elected representatives consistently take the position that “The opposing party is a gang of evil slimeballs who want to (insert horrible overarching goal),” then they might as well all take guns to work and settle things on the House and Senate floors once and for all.\* > > \*In a bipartisan deficit-reduction move, selling pay-per-view subscriptions to the action But _I didn’t call them evil_. I called them intentionally obstructionist. And the moniker fits. It fits shockingly well. I also called them anti-equality, anti-progress, and anti-environment; again, all fitting monikers. None of those equal to evil, but you do sort of have to wonder… And as Der Trihs said, it’s not about us disagreeing with them. Disagreement with _us_ is fine. It’s disagreeing with reality that hurts. It’s disagreeing that you should do the right thing that hurts. It’s standing up for party politics above the good of the country they were elected to serve that hurts. And yes, I have examples of each of these. ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/51 "2012-08-14T05:31:31Z")
So if I read you and Der Trihs correctly, you consider it proper and fitting for the Democrats/ left to refuse to engage in dialogue with the Republicans because they (the Republicans) continually commit the unpardonable sin of refusing to engage in dialogue with the political opposition. Actually, both sides have tried to compromise and been angrily rebuffed by the other side–and the person or persons making such attempts have been excoriated by their _own_ sides. The Republicans tried to present alternate health care plans, deficit reduction plans, stimulus plans, and budgets. These were all given complete short shrift by the Democrats, because they were the party in power and they didn’t have to listen to the minority. This, in turn, led to more Republican intransigence on issues down the road. Who started it? Who cares? I’m sorry; I refuse to see either side in the black and white terms that you guys do. To say that the Republicans are as malevolent as you make them out to be is not only hyperbole, but **stupid** and **destructive** hyperbole. How, exactly, would you propose our country continue along these lines? Call the other side the new Nazis and refuse to work with them at all? Yes, the Republicans are intransigent. News flash: so are the Democrats! But one side (in your case, the Democrats) says that _their_ intransigence is due to the evil machinations of the other side–and the _other side’s_ intransigence. This ludicrous and tragic stalemate is why I think everyone should step back, take a deep breath, and acknowledge that the guys on the other side of the aisle are, in fact, well-intentioned, decent human beings. We don’t all have to be Der Trihses. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/52 "2012-08-14T07:36:57Z")
Well, as I pointed out, even your points are hyperbole of a different kind, the solution is also very old, look at the ones pushing intransigence and vote those rascals out. Then we will see progress, in the meantime seeing a party go against what the whole developed world has done in health care and against science regarding global warming gas emissions an we are not not pressing on them for their intransigency is really silly, we all have to demand our representatives to do the right thing. It is not just a matter of them fighting out in congress and obstructing each other, they still have to listen to their constituents, and in some issues we do need the help of the ones that do have a lot of influence on them. And yes, not all are like Der Tris, but specially in the cases mentioned the ignorance and influence of nefarious groups is carrying the day. As pointed out before, one should not blame malice when incompetence will do. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/53 "2012-08-14T09:42:28Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > Actually, both sides have tried to compromise and been angrily rebuffed by the other side–and the person or persons making such attempts have been excoriated by their _own_ sides. The Republicans tried to present alternate health care plans, deficit reduction plans, stimulus plans, and budgets. These were all given complete short shrift by the Democrats, because they were the party in power and they didn’t have to listen to the minority. Nonsense. The Democrats consistently have sucked up to the Republicans, have given the Republicans what they’ve wanted again and again, and it’s never enough. The Republicans take but never give. > [@greenslime1951](#): > > To say that the Republicans are as malevolent as you make them out to be is not only hyperbole, but **stupid** and **destructive** hyperbole. How, exactly, would you propose our country continue along these lines? Call the other side the new Nazis and refuse to work with them at all? Don’t bother calling them Nazis, but yes; there’s no point in even trying to work with the Republicans. And calling them stupid and destructive isn’t at all hyperbole; if anything it’s going easy on them. > [@greenslime1951](#): > > Yes, the Republicans are intransigent. News flash: so are the Democrats! But one side (in your case, the Democrats) says that _their_ intransigence is due to the evil machinations of the other side–and the _other side’s_ intransigence. Again, no. The Democrats are not intransigent, they are spineless suckups. The Republicans just have to yell at them, and the Democrats collectively hide under their desks in a fetal position shaking in terror. > [@greenslime1951](#): > > This ludicrous and tragic stalemate is why I think everyone should step back, take a deep breath, and acknowledge that the guys on the other side of the aisle are, in fact, well-intentioned, decent human beings. But they aren’t. The Republicans are a collection of scum and lunatics. They are neither decent nor well intentioned. They aren’t even rational. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/54 "2012-08-14T11:39:38Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > So if I read you and Der Trihs correctly, you consider it proper and fitting for the Democrats/ left to refuse to engage in dialogue with the Republicans because they (the Republicans) continually commit the unpardonable sin of refusing to engage in dialogue with the political opposition. It’s not about proper and fitting, it’s about what’s the best thing to do for the country. Furthermore, it’s not just refusing to engage in dialogue. It’s refusing to engage in politics with good will. It has been evidenced numerous times that the republican party’s first priority is not “further the prosperity of the republic” or “restore america’s stance in the world” or even “deal with that massive debt problem we have”. It’s "remove Obama from office, the costs be damned. _There is no constructive dialogue to be had with a party that puts that as their #1 priority_. Full stop. End of story. > [@](#): > > Actually, both sides have tried to compromise and been angrily rebuffed by the other side–and the person or persons making such attempts have been excoriated by their _own_ sides. “This is SMBC Theater, presenting… _BothSides_!” I’ve seen the democrats compromise on taxes, on health care, on deficit reduction, on basically everything except for the existence of social security and medicare. Where have the republicans compromised? What have they brought to the table? As I said earlier, every time the dems take a step towards compromise, the republicans take a step back and use the _new_ central point between them and the dems as the center of the argument. > [@](#): > > The Republicans tried to present alternate health care plans, You mean the voucher system that would cost many seniors thousands of dollars a year? Yes, it’s an alternative… It’s just a really, _really_ shitty one. > [@](#): > > deficit reduction plans, Like the Ryan plan, which raises the deficit considerably over the next 10 years while slashing medicare and social security along with taxes on the rich and capital gains? > [@](#): > > stimulus plans What are you even talking about? > [@](#): > > and budgets. These were all given complete short shrift by the Democrats, because they were the party in power and they didn’t have to listen to the minority. Yes. Here’s another reason why they were given complete short shrift: _they were all shit_. The republican deficit reduction plan doesn’t, I haven’t even heard of a republican stimulus plan (or are we talking about the one that consisted pretty much entirely of tax cuts, primarily to the upper brackets?), their “alternatives” to medicare are essentially a dismantling of the system, and you’re trying to paint the democrats as unreasonable because they won’t reach across the aisle more? > [@](#): > > I’m sorry; I refuse to see either side in the black and white terms that you guys do. To say that the Republicans are as malevolent as you make them out to be is not only hyperbole, but **stupid** and **destructive** hyperbole. How, exactly, would you propose our country continue along these lines? Call the other side the new Nazis and refuse to work with them at all? Yes, the Republicans are intransigent. News flash: so are the Democrats! But one side (in your case, the Democrats) says that _their_ intransigence is due to the evil machinations of the other side–and the _other side’s_ intransigence. I don’t think you get this, so let me spell it out to you: _The republicans have made it very, very clear that they refuse to work with the democrats to resolve issues until Obama is out of office_. Between McConnell, DeMarco, and the whole debt ceiling debacle, there is no denying that the republican party’s MO right now is obstruct at any cost and blame Obama. And you know what? I _don’t_ propose our country continue along these lines. It can’t. It’s going to come to a head sooner or later, and when that happens, the republicans will win again, because _their party stands for the idea that government is bad and can’t do anything right_. Is it any surprise that they are intransigent? > [@](#): > > This ludicrous and tragic stalemate is why I think everyone should step back, take a deep breath, and acknowledge that the guys on the other side of the aisle are, in fact, well-intentioned, decent human beings. We don’t all have to be Der Trihses. We tried that. [It just didn’t work](http://dirksayers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Why-arent-you-reaching-across-the-table1.jpg). I _cannot_ acknowledge that, because I don’t think it’s true. All the evidence points to the contrary. I was willing to go with this for a while, but it stopped in July 2011. I’ll let you figure out why. I hate to sound partisan, but dammit, you have to be fucking _blind_ to not see what’s going on in this country, and I am sick to death of people like you saying “let’s try to reason with them”. THERE IS NO GODDAMN REASONING WITH THEM! ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/55 "2012-08-14T12:20:49Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > THERE IS NO GODDAMN REASONING WITH THEM! This kind of assertion would certainly prevent reasonable dialogue whether it was true or not. So would equating compromise with “sucking up.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/56 "2012-08-14T13:33:54Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > So would equating compromise with “sucking up.” Constantly giving in to someone’s demands while they give you nothing in return isn’t compromise. It is sucking up. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/57 "2012-08-14T13:40:27Z")
More like “negotiating with terrorists”. Seriously, the teahadists who run the House are willing to shut down the government, and renege on its debt (causing the first credit rating cut in the government’s history) rather than give a single inch on any of their demands. That’s what’s actually happened, it’s not a matter of opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/58 "2012-08-14T14:03:20Z")
**greenslime** , as a Rockafeller Republican, I used to see things the way you do. But the reality, I hate to say, is much more like the folks here are saying. The current Republican party has been hijacked by ideological pinheads who refuse to compromise, and who are willing to crash the ship of state on the rocks, rather than let anyone try to plot a new course. The last year should be more than evident of that fact. And it’s getting worse. I have genuine fear for what is going to happen if Obama wins and the Republicans hold the house and senate. Our government will be essentially dead in the water for 4 years. The only thing scarier for me is if Romney wins, and ends up with an unassailable majority in the House, and a majority in the senate. The government right now should not be giving a second of thought towards gay marriage, abortion, planned parenthood, school vouchers, or anything of that sort. The economy needs to be fixed. The budget needs to be balanced in a sensible way that includes both cuts (including cuts to military, revamping social security, etc) and tax hikes/closing loopholes. THAT is what they need to be focusing on. Instead, the Republicans will stall any effort to actually work on those issues, but will lobby long and hard to cut funding for NPR, PBS or Planned Parenthood. Don’t get me wrong. I think the Democrats have their failings too, but right now, as things sit, it is the Republicans that are trying to drive us off a cliff, screaming all the while that this is the best way to get where we need to go, and damn the consequences… ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/59 "2012-08-14T15:55:20Z")
As pointed before, one should be aware of the current ignorance that the Republican leaders are exuding. > **[Who Needs Scientists When You’ve Got James Inhofe?](https://www.desmog.com/2011/02/09/who-needs-scientists-when-youve-got-james-inhofe/)** > > The big news so far from the current hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power—concerning the so-called “Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011”—is that Senator James Inhofe, the leading climate change... > [@](#): > > Inhofe had crossed chambers to testify in favor of the new legislation, which he co-authored with Energy and Commerce chair Fred Upton and subcommittee chair Ed Whitfield, and which would block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. And in response to a question from Upton, Inhofe took the opportunity to mention his book, telling the committee that he just finished it and that it will be entitled “The Hoax.” > > The title, presumably, refers to Inhofe’s most (in)famous statement: His 2003 claim that climate change is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” I suppose it’s kind of like Carl Sagan entitling one of his last books Billions and Billions. Sagan didn’t like being remembered by that phrase, which he’d never actually uttered—but it’s much better than the one Inhofe is going to be remembered by, and did use to dismiss climate change. > > But book or not, what’s most striking about the hearing underway right now is the central role Inhofe was given—not just to lead it off, but to pronounce definitively on the technical issues at stake, both economic and scientific. > > The purpose of the legislation in question is to block the EPA from moving to regulate greenhouse gases, which it is on the path to doing based on the agency’s scientific determination that they endanger public health and welfare. In order to question EPA’s expert science, then, you’d think you would at least need dissenting scientists. And there are plenty of those around, including those “skeptics” who just signed a letter to Congress making their standard arguments. > > But in a departure from standard Republican strategy, the hearing today doesn’t even have skeptical scientists on the docket. Instead, it offered Inhofe as a kind de facto expert on environmental science, policy, and economics. > > As Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois put it, in a question to Inhofe himself: “Don’t you find it strange that this hearing is being conducted with no scientists at all?” I know that the OP title was supposed to be hyperbole but this is the first time I have seen that one political party is willing to risk finding out if it can be done. (Yeah, the end of humanity is not in the cards, but the best estimates I have seen show that the longer we do not do much about that issue, then the more expensive and disruptive to a good chunk of humanity the adaptations will have to be) ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/60 "2012-08-14T19:29:40Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > This kind of assertion would certainly prevent reasonable dialogue whether it was true or not. > > So would equating compromise with “sucking up.” So what? _So fucking what?_ Yeah, I get that it would. But failing to recognize that and acting as though reasonable dialogue were possible, and thus offering failed compromise after failed compromise is potentially even more disastrous. And even if it weren’t, guess what: whether it’s true or not is hardly even still up for debate! We’ve established with astounding regularity that the republican party aims to hold true to its promise to keep Obama a one-term president, regardless of the cost. We’ve seen their obstructionist policies, we’ve seen how they act in congress. Yes, _if I’m wrong_… Oh well, big fucking deal, because, newsflash, **I’m not** , and it doesn’t take a fucking genius to figure that out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121.md?page=4)