That’s another problem; appeasing the lunatics. The GOP did it with the religious (and sort of with the conspiracy nuts and Stormfront crowd, as they didn’t exactly stand up to the birther movement, for example). The DNC is doing it with the identity politics and SJWs.
Yeah, I’m still waiting to hear what legislation dems have been particularly obstructionist about (I asked yesterday). If it’s the ACA repeal or tax bill, those were both simply bad legislation that dems were locked out of anyway.
1 Like
They’re appealing to groups who vote. They shift their message depending on who they address.
This isn’t unique to politics. Tailoring a message to appeal to the sensibilities of the crowd is pretty universal.
Politicians also attempt to appease people I’d hope you wouldn’t label as “lunatics” - again altering their wording and message for whom they’re addressing is a pretty standard tactic when trying to stump for votes.
Would you approach it differently?
See Ben Shapiro… The winner of the most antisemitic rants of at least 2016. A guy who is of the mildest conservative persuasion…
Mine was more of a general statement not anything specific on the partisan mood of the opposing sides post-election. Although have their been many instances of them not being completely in opposition to everything from the other side. Genuinely asking I’m not sure.
That’s partially why I asked. The only legislation of any import that passed last year was the tax bill. I’m not aware of anything else that, in “normal times”, would easily pass but didn’t because of democratic obstruction.
So I should not find it problematic if a politician panders to some hate group for the sake of votes? If he panders to people that believe everything that a piece of garbage like Alex Jones preaches as fact? If he panders to people that want to erase western culture? If he panders to people that don’t believe in civil rights or the Constitution?
If I were a politician I would. Pandering to these people validates their stupidity and the people I described are stupid, or lunatics.
I’m assuming you mean Shapiro was on the receiving end of antisemitic rants. Many of those rants came from the alt-right and disgruntled Breitbart and Milo fanboys.
You and I will disagree on the level of Obama’s cooperativeness with the GOP, but we definitely agree that the GOP (pace 2016) has been worse and blatantly hypocritical in doing so.
1 Like
So why should legislatures work with presidents on things they fundamentally disagree on?
Why should GOP legislators work on a government take over of healthcare if that is antithetical to them and their voters?
Why should Democratic senators play ball on a tax cut if it is antithetical to their values and those of their voters?
Where does it say in the constitution they should throw their values out the window when they reach the Capitol?
With both parties those things are not antithetical to their voters.
Because if you disprove of a situation that’s guaranteed to happen you might as well soften the blow by influencing it as you can?
Because people with the inability to make the best of a bad situation ruin this country. Every. Damn. Day.
Is this the only option? Should it not just be common sense that if you’re going to lose a vote at least soften the blow? Bunch of fucktards in Congress on the Dem side right now that refused to work with the bill because they’d rather save face than soften the blow on their people.
Where does it say that in the constitution? Probably the part that hopes they represent the will of their constituents and do what’s best for them.
I thought that the Republicans who wrote the tax bill didn’t allow any Democrats to play a part. They didn’t even allow some Republicans to play a part. It was done behind closed doors and they didn’t even give enough time to read it before calling a vote. Maybe I’m wrong.
I don’t buy that shit for a second. This is politics. If any Dem actually stepped forward to attempt to get in they’d be accepted in a heartbeat purely for the PR points.
“Fox News is now reporting that even Democrats (-Insert Names Here-) have joined in on this tax bill, giving Trump a historic record for bipartisanship, especially given Obama’s failures in that department.”
“No doubt, the hearings were an opportunity to explore multiple aspects of the tax code, and it appears that Democrats had an opportunity to invite their own expert witnesses,” Cohen said. “It’s also true that those hearings were months ago before many details of the current legislation had been filed, and that the current legislation was pushed through the House on an unusually expedited schedule with minimal bipartisanship.”
A few hours before Republicans secured the votes they needed to advance a tax-cut bill to the Senate floor, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) gathered more than a dozen Democratic colleagues to explain why none of them could vote yes. Manchin, who has voted with the Trump administration more than any other Democrat in Congress, described a repetitive drama that had played out for months. He’d sit for productive conversations with the Trump administration, then watch as none of his ideas appeared in the Republican product.
“No tax breaks for the rich? I said that’s great,” Manchin said. “Helping the middle class, working class? That’s great. That’s not what we’re seeing.”
From my read, Democrats were involved in committee meetings, etc., but their input was ignored. I understand when the House & Senate held a hearing to rectify the differences between the two chambers’ bills, the Rs had already reached agreement before the hearing even started.
Dems voting ‘No’ on a bill that they were unable to participate in crafting in any way, whose core goes against their principals, doesn’t make them obstructionists.
1 Like
I will preface this by saying that I am very moderate. By that, I see both sides to almost everything. There isn’t an issue I can think of off the top of my head that I wouldn’t be able to agree with both liberals and conservatives on, at least to some degree.
I agree with the first part of that statement. Brave conservatives have taken to calling liberals names that middle school boys would come up with. The second part though, I disagree. My town seems to be 50/50 in terms of right vs left, with my parents and sisters being left and my best friend being right.
My older sister gets very, very flustered at holiday dinners when my conservative uncle has a few too many and starts jabbing her with questions about Detroit and Chicago (we are from the Midwest) and abortion. He says things about how liberals have run those great cities into the ground and liberals are also baby killers. He’s baiting her for a reaction, and she gives one, without fail, three times a year. Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
My mom is also a very level-headed woman, but every time she hears DJT on the radio or TV, she says “I f*cking hate that guy, he’s such a dickhead,” or something to that effect.
My point is that the liberals, from what I’ve seen, do react emotionally, more so than the conservatives that I know. On the bright side, and what gives me hope, is that the liberals and conservatives that I converse with about politics are both always open to facts. Moreover, these people also respect my opinions. Granted, very few of my opinions would be considered extreme by most people, but still.
I am very lucky to have so many tolerant people in my life. I don’t want to face the day when I have a conversation with a man-hating liberal or a downright racist conservative. Those will not be fun conversations to have.
Because GOP legislators thought that largely because the idea was coming from a “liberal Chicago Democrat.” Had John McCain won and proposed something similar Republicans would have been for it and Democrats against it.
Democrats cut taxes with the Obama stimulus package and they would have been just fine cutting them more and even on higher earners if it was their idea first. Both sides are only for or against whatever they can get away with at the time. And they have no problems doing 360 flips if the other team says they are for it now.
“This tells you something about why Republican party leaders have had such a hard time addressing health policy issues over the last few years. Rather than make a prolonged case for health policy that does not involve endless expansion of entitlements and insurance subsidies, the GOP has instead focused primarily on reacting to Democratic proposals. The individual mandate was an attempt to beat Democrats at the universal coverage game and preempt the what would become HillaryCare. Medicare’s prescription drug benefit was passed by a Republican president and a Republican Congress under the pretense that if they didn’t do it, Democrats would, and it would be worse.”
Switch the sides and this is the ACA all over again. Turnabout is fair play.
We will see where it goes. Dems will have a lot to not do in order to make the level of obstruction seen from the GOP to Obama. It did seem like he tried to involve them early and they would have no part. McConnel said goal was a one term president at the time and blocking debate on Garland was pretty gross imo.
Turnabout thing is going to work both ways I’m afraid and it’s all bad for the country. Politicians should work together and compromise to solve issues and debate them. Not wait until the pendulum swings back to total power so now we can do the shit we want to do again.
Politicians =/= statesmen.
They run for office for the perks, kickbacks, nightlife in DC, the interns, lifetime benefits and consulting jobs afterwards.
You guys seem surprised that horrible people playing a tribalist game are acting tribal.