All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Nick Soapdish]

Again moderate views are better than the extreme views currently expressed on both sides by our current gov't.

I think that you have the two confused. The extreme views expressed by our current government on the liberal side were the conservative views of the 1990s Republicans in both health care and gun control. Even the mid-2000s or later. Mitt Romney still supported it in his 2008 bid and had ample support for Republicans specifically because of it. And one of the biggest things that Obama gets blasted for is something that was approved by a 2/3 majority of Republicans in the Senate and nearly 50/50 across both houses and signed in by Dubya. But that way back in the distant past of 2008.

The Democrats have been trying to meet in the middle for about that long which is a part of what makes it seem that the new middle is actually to the right of original Republican positions. I think that it was one of Obama's biggest flaws in his first term and why I'm less interested in it on a national scale. I don't think that the nation has actually moved that far right or that we have that much more individual freedoms. In fact, I think that we have less and that's one of the few things that Republicans and Democrats have been willing to compromise on - selling us out to corporations.

[Nick Soapdish]

Well it's a lot more complicated than any of you are making it out to be. And yes both parties are at fault. And calling one "full of open racism, sexism, and religious bigotry" isn't really productive.

It's not. But I'm tired of being asked to compromise when one side's position is "deport all illegal immigrants" or "repeal Obamacare" and then they'll talk.

[lancerman]

It's not. But I'm tired of being asked to compromise when one side's position is "deport all illegal immigrants" or "repeal Obamacare" and then they'll talk.

Okay well my counter to that is that one side got the majority of the country to not want Obamacare and what has historically been one of the most liberal states in the nation to vote in a Republican Senator on a campaign specifically ran on a platform of creating the necessary number to create a filibuster to stop the bill, and the whole nation knew that was the point of the election. And then it forced through anyways.

So in light of that what the hell is "compromise".

No side has compromised in years. They haven't since the last half of the Bush administration. Not anything meaningful. Both sides know where each other stands on the important issues. You can't just throw a bill the other side is never going to go for and offer a dozen little concessions when the core of thing is the fundamental disagreement between the parties.

And yeah it's more complicated than one side saying do all these things and the we'll talk. For one, the side you are talking about is going through an internal war. And as much as you may not like their positions now, they still have to play ball, because I guarantee you won't like it if the Tea Party finds a way to win out. Another is that the public generally doesn't approve of anyone. Another part of it is that economically, a lot of it really is just out of everyone's hands and it has to play out a bit. It can be guided but there is no quick policy change that will immediately fix everything in a couple years. Another part is that the Supreme Court has been very unpredictable as of late and have been making rulings that have stunned both sides. And yes both sides have made huge policy mistakes as well, and that's not limited to one party.

[worstblogever]

Well it's a lot more complicated than any of you are making it out to be. And yes both parties are at fault. And calling one "full of open racism, sexism, and religious bigotry" isn't really productive.

Then one party should stop racking up a series of sexist, racist, and bigoted comments if they don't like that label. It's like if they wore a red shirt two out of every three days, and got offended of being associated with their red shirts.

[Paradox]

lancerman wants sympathy for the devil:

Well it's a lot more complicated than any of you are making it out to be. And yes both parties are at fault. And calling one "full of open racism, sexism, and religious bigotry" isn't really productive.

I'm not being productive, I'm being factual. Haven't you seen any of the stuff they've been blathering about ever since we got a black president?

[the4thpip]

1. I guess you only see one side. Oh well.

How can you get that from what he posted? It seems like you are completely incapable of adjusting your own viewpoints no matter how wrong they are and then just post random non-sequiturs.

[the4thpip]

Disagree. Neither side is willing to compromise anymore.

And do you have facts to prove that?
Look at Obamacare. Why isn't there a public option again?
Oh, that's right. The Democrats compromised in committee. And then the GOP still voted against the compromise.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I'm not being productive, I'm being factual. Haven't you seen any of the stuff they've been blathering about ever since we got a black president?

You know, I've said it before, but I still think it's true. A big portion of white America, most of which doesn't really follow politics that closely, woke up Nov. 5, 2008, found out the black guy had actually been elected president, and shit its pants. That fear has been a powerful engine that many different groups have used to further their own ends, and since it's all powered by fear there's no need for any them to make rational or factual appeals. Just use the fear, get as close to saying it as they can without actually saying what the real fear is, and they can get what they want.

[Paradox]

"The Other". You have to have an "Other" to get people all whipped up. The current Republicans have chosen three to really push to the front. Gays, "illegal immigrants" (but codified as "anyone brown you should be suspicious of") and Muslims. They know they can't openly talk about their hatred of blacks (well, most of them...some just don't care) and that's where all the "secret Muslim" nonsense came from. It's really been astonishing to watch how well that works.

[Nick Soapdish]

Okay well my counter to that is that one side got the majority of the country to not want Obamacare and what has historically been one of the most liberal states in the nation to vote in a Republican Senator on a campaign specifically ran on a platform of creating the necessary number to create a filibuster to stop the bill, and the whole nation knew that was the point of the election. And then it forced through anyways.

So in light of that what the hell is "compromise".

The only polls that I've seen that have asked why people oppose Obamacare (and those have been few) have shown that if you add the people that oppose it because it's too conservative to those that support it and then subtract out those that support it because they fear something more liberal, it does have a majority of support (barely). And it does have a clear majority of support for nearly every one of its provisions except for ones that don't exist or for the mandate (which yes, does exist).

And that Republican senator ran on the campaign that Obamacare would take away Masscare (which it hasn't) while the Democratic candidate ran on the "I'm a Democrat" campaign which would work for most relatively liberal areas, but Massachusetts actually does have a lot of independent voters and she also included a "the Red Sox suck" plank in her campaign.

No side has compromised in years. They haven't since the last half of the Bush administration. Not anything meaningful. Both sides know where each other stands on the important issues. You can't just throw a bill the other side is never going to go for and offer a dozen little concessions when the core of thing is the fundamental disagreement between the parties.

Obamacare hasn't been anything but compromise from the beginning. It began as a Republican proposal that had been implemented by a Republican governor and then spent six months in the US senate whittling away even more at it in order to try and get some Republican support (in the gang of six) - and because it needed every last Democratic vote which a few Democrats used to short-term advantage. A simple majority would've resulted in a bill much more similar to the House's.

Back in 2006-8, Congress and the President passed a heckuva lot of bills for two sides that weren't compromising at all. Sure, he did get out the veto pen, but it was essentially the same rate as Clinton when facing the Republican House. And the number of bills that were passed was essentially the same as during the first six years of Dubya's office - 383 (2001-2), 504 (2003-4), 483 (2005-6), 460 (2007-8) - a drop from the previous year, but above the average. The drop is steeper during the first session of Congress under Obama - which I would guess is due to his strong focus on Obamacare, inexperience and the threat of filibuster which had previously been a nuclear option - and then gets worse. (Bush also had a slow first session and I'm chalking that up mostly due to facing a hostile Congress - especially after the election - and his own inexperience.)

[Paradox]

If anything, the President compromised way too much early on. He seemed genuinely interested in bipartisan cooperation, but every time he "reached across the aisle" the Republicans spit in his hand. They openly stated they weren't interested in compromise, and that their only goal was to make him a one-term president (yeah, that worked). I wouldn't have been interested in compromising with a group with such stated objectives, but he kept trying...for far too long, IMHO.

The Republicans seem to have the same idea about compromise that my ex-wife had. "I get what I want and you get nothing!"

[the4thpip]

Well, they just arrested Nicolas Sarkozy for abusing his influence to illegally procure information regarding ongoing legal proceedings.


Hubris.

[the4thpip]

The Republicans seem to have the same idea about compromise that my ex-wife had. "I get what I want and you get nothing!"

Wow, that sounds as if you and your ex are equally horrible people to some!

[Paradox]

likebutton.jpg

[worstblogever]

If anything, the President compromised way too much early on. He seemed genuinely interested in bipartisan cooperation, but every time he "reached across the aisle" the Republicans spit in his hand. They openly stated they weren't interested in compromise, and that their only goal was to make him a one-term president (yeah, that worked). I wouldn't have been interested in compromising with a group with such stated objectives, but he kept trying...for far too long, IMHO.

The Republicans seem to have the same idea about compromise that my ex-wife had. "I get what I want and you get nothing!"

At this point, given the result from last week's Mississippi Senate GOP Primary, that's part of the disaster on the Republican side of the aisle. The Tea Party and Mainstream GOP both refuse to compromise with each other, and rail against each other. When Thad Cochran is "just as good as a Democrat" because he compromises too much (with a 88% conservative record)... well, hell. I think we all can see which side has compromise issues.

Lo and behold, it's the party who uses the word "compromise" like it's a curse word.