Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Hyperpartisanship means you're not even going to try to find a compromise. At all. On anything.
And yes the ACA (I am not calling it Obamacare) has its issues...but while that compromising had its price, at least it passed. At least it meant more people could afford health insurance. That's a good thing.
Edited by M84 on Jul 25th 2018 at 12:05:28 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe ACA was a compromise. It was not rammed through Congress without debate or amendment. It went through committee votes and procedural votes and amendment votes and debate votes. The GOP were given a chance to address their concerns about it, to make changes to it, to be part of the process. Then when all of that was over, when it came down to an up or down, yes or no vote, they all opposed it. It was a compromise, but the GOP ultimately betrayed the spirit of that compromise by making all the changes they could and then refusing to support it anyway.
This is an important difference between the ACA and, say, the Trump tax cuts or immigration bill. In those cases, the Democrats were locked out of the process. The GOP stonewalled them at every turn. They were not allowed to debate or amend or contribute to the bill in any way. So when they refused to support it, it wasn't because they were being hyperpartisan, it was because there was no compromise whatsoever.
That's hyperpartisanship in a nutshell. The GOP demands everything, is willing to give up nothing, and accuses the Democrats of being obstructionist when they object. The Democrats try to reach across the aisle to get some of what they want in exchange for giving the GOP some of what the want, and the GOP spits in their face and then accuses them of being partisan hacks for passing their compromise position anyway.
Compromise requires cooperation from both sides. The Democrats have offered it. The GOP has rejected it. The fault does not lie with the Democrats for refusing to capitulate to 100% of GOP demands.
Edited by NativeJovian on Jul 24th 2018 at 12:28:48 PM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
![]()
That example would hold more water if that were a successful example of "inter-party" compromise as opposed to being a purely intra-party affair that almost didn't succeed anyway.
The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in expanding health coverage for everyone save perhaps in a way that benefits the rich and is detrimental to the poor. This also true of most other issues, so no, unless the Republican Party radically reshapes their ideology there is no point in trying to compromise with them.
I'd be a bit more annoyed if there was a chance of Kavanaugh not being confirmed.
As it is it really only helps him keep his very conservative seat.
Edited by Mio on Jul 24th 2018 at 12:36:41 PM
The children being vanished due to incompetence us fucking disgusting.
Also I’m not some closet conservative (if people are going there).
The way I see it
Democrats: Flawed but ultimately good. I’d prefer it if they were more proactive and if they didn’t just mindlessly embrace centrism but I’ll go for them.
Republicans: Barring a few individuals fucking satan.
If Bernie did handle the whole Russian bots that way my respect has dipped lower (I’m not as enamoured as I was right after the election.)
The fight for the court, I'm sorry to say, was in 2016. Hillary Clinton talked about it. The response was "But your emails!"
Meanwhile
it seems Ecuador is ready to turn Julian Assange over to the UK.
And Barbara Lee
throws her hat in the running for Democratic Caucus Chair. Great choice.
And in Wisconsin District 1: Paul Ryan's old seat? Our Revolution's local chapter
apparently rejects Bernie Sanders' own endorsement for Randy "Ironstache" Bryce to endorse Cathy Myers...indicating a very strong momentum for Myers, who's been frozen out of the national conversation.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jul 24th 2018 at 10:04:37 AM
I have long made my distaste for the DNC clear but the Republicans are outright evil with a campaign of Kill the Poor as actually a real thing they are doing. No hyperbole.
They all need to be kicked out of office.
Not a single one is redeemable at this point.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I’ll give an example. In California’s attorney general election we have Xavier Beccera (who rather shamelessly ignored that Orange County has been running an illegal snitch scandal that got so bad the entire da’s office was booted off a death penalty case, and has done things like shoot campaign adds on government property, which is unethical). I’m still gonna vote for him but I’d have preferred Dave Jones (who was at least willing to revisit the Kevin cooper case and consider that maybe the previous dna tests were rigged as all get out).
That’s kinda my relationship with the Democratic Party. I’ll vote for it because they’re better than the alternative but wasting a shit sandwhich is still eating a shit sandwhich
Edited by LordYAM on Jul 24th 2018 at 10:13:59 AM
I mean, he might be right, stopped-clock style.
There's a not unjustified fear that the Russians will visibly interfere in favor of the Democrats in order to make a potential Blue Wave be perceived as illegitimate, with the added bonus of making the Dems look like hypocrites for investigating Russian ties to Trump's 2016 win.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.![]()
I'm still skeptical of that idea.
Clinton was pretty much the only person they didn't support, because the Russians understood that she would harm their interests. The same logic applies to supporting Democrats in-general (unless they're Sanders style isolationists).
Furthermore even if they do... what then? Sure it may be a bad look but that doesn't mean the Democrats can't just oppose the Russians anyway thus showing that we're not hypocrites. Furthermore by definition a Blue Wave involves mass support, it's way easier to make a close election like 2016 look illegitimate then a hypothetical wave.
It just seems like something that would hurt Russian interests with a small chance of harming the Democratic Party.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 24th 2018 at 1:24:13 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIn some cases that analogy is repeated elsewhere. Not everywhere (Diane Feinstein was overall an admirable candidate even if Allison Hartson has a lot of positions I agreed with. It’s a bummer Hartson didn’t win but Feinstein is someone I can vote for without feeling bad.) but enough that it can be rather frustrating.
It seems that in that one particular race that they care about they are genuinely being offered the lesser of two evils and are extrapolating that out to the entire party.
Fun fact, the way to get shitty candidates off the ballot is to primary them with better candidates, hell in California if you do well enough you can lock the seat in during the primary and vote for your preferred candidate in the general.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAs a comparison, Illinois currently has an actual, literal Nazi running on the Republican ticket in one of the midterms there. That, alone, is bad but not damning. More damning, to me, is the fact that the Republican party either did not or could not prevent this from happening on about three or four separate occasions.
Alternatively, Roy Moore. Bad, but the general Republican opinion was he was a bad choice... Until he looked like he would win, at which point the tune abruptly changed.
Do either of these circumstances apply to your guy, ~Lord YAM? Or anything similar?
For what it's worth, in response to an earlier post, I don't think you're a closet conservative, based on my skim of the back and forths with you, my impression is more along the lines of "MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATS BAD!!!!!" and/or "BERNIE GOOD!!!!!"
I'm certainly oversimplifying, but that's the general gist I've gotten.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 24th 2018 at 11:53:26 AM
![]()
Glad to have some confirmation, that's what I thought they were doing but I didn't want to make any unfounded assumptions.
Quite. Bad candidates absolutely can matter if they're part of a larger pattern within a party but considering our weak party discipline a bad candidate is not in of themselves a damning indictment of a party.
Thus it makes little sense to look at some election in California and decide to use it as a brush to tar the entire party.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangOutside of the weak party discipline anyway
"Ivanka Trump shutting namesake brand" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-ivanka/ivanka-trump-shutting-namesake-brand-idUSKBN1KE2JN
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 24th 2018 at 12:05:47 PM

Regarding "hyperpartisanship": While it's nice to be able to work with and make compromises with your political opponents, you cannot expect to always find a middle ground. If anything, that stands as one of the clearest lessons of Obama's presidency: That there is no point in offering a compromise to a person who's blatantly not interested in compromising with you. Even Obamacare was essentially a compromise, a proposal largely based on earlier Republican legislation. Yet it got promptly demonised by the Republicans because they had no interest in finding any kind of common solution to anything. Under such circumstances, you cannot keep offering compromises. All you're compromising is your own values.