Georgia senate elections

[Worgen]

If both seat flip cause republican are boycotting the election I think would

He wanted to avoid polarizing his legislature so that they might survive once the dem lost control of the government. With hindsight that was a catastrophicly bad move and he should have use his full power, but the hyper partisan politic and no compromise attitude of the republican was still pretty new back then. It might be strange to think about now but not too long ago it wasn't unusual for congressman and senate to cross party line.

He also had to use a lot of political capital just to pass the ACA in its current form. And that was with a big democrate majority for his first 2 years, after that republicans were able to philibuster much more effectively. One of the other problems democrates have is they want to govern, which means coming to a compromise that will withstand the test of time, but since republicans under the turtle stopped really doing anything that wasn't a direct benefit to them, trying to govern in the normal way doesn't work.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm sure some will read that and think "the Democrats are always compromising to pass centrist things when they say they want really progressive policy". They don't want really progressive policy. It's all lipservice. They pass what they want to whenever they have the power to do so. And they've discovered that if they just constantly refuse to compromise, people will blame Republicans for being the obstructionist party, so it's a win-win situation politically for them. Of course, it's a terrible situation for the country, because now it's either single party rule or nothing gets done.

It doesn't help when McConnell says stuff like, 'The president won't sign that so we wont bother looking at it.' Maybe he won't sign it. IDK. Bringing it to the senate would at least help pretend they aren't being obstructionist. Doesn't seem like they are working towards a compromise either.

It also doesn't help when Pelosi says no to a 'bad' stimulus bill but doesn't say why she thinks it was bad til after. There is just no justify done on her part. It just makes her seem like she's making excuses for not compromising

 

[Worgen]

It doesn't help when McConnell says stuff like, 'The president won't sign that so we wont bother looking at it.' Maybe he won't sign it. IDK. Bringing it to the senate would at least help pretend they aren't being obstructionist. Doesn't seem like they are working towards a compromise either.

It also doesn't help when Pelosi says no to a 'bad' stimulus bill but doesn't say why she thinks it was bad til after. There is just no justify done on her part. It just makes her seem like she's making excuses for not compromising

It really doesn't help that a sizable portion of republicans think government should just kinda not be a thing, so they are fine with being obstructionist since the "less government does the better".

 

[tstorm823]

It doesn't help when McConnell says stuff like, 'The president won't sign that so we wont bother looking at it.' Maybe he won't sign it. IDK. Bringing it to the senate would at least help pretend they aren't being obstructionist. Doesn't seem like they are working towards a compromise either.

Well, Mitch McConnell is a unapologetic troll. I'd be happier without him doing that, but not because he's necessarily saying or doing things that aren't factual, he's just not even pretending to try and help. I don't know that there are many votes that he didn't hold that would have stood a chance of passing if he had. But you're right, being a jerk about it doesn't help.

 

[Trunkage]

Well, Mitch McConnell is a unapologetic troll. I'd be happier without him doing that, but not because he's necessarily saying or doing things that aren't factual, he's just not even pretending to try and help. I don't know that there are many votes that he didn't hold that would have stood a chance of passing if he had. But you're right, being a jerk about it doesn't help.

IMO, it gives the GOP a bad name.

It really doesn't help that a sizable portion of republicans think government should just kinda not be a thing, so they are fine with being obstructionist since the "less government does the better".

IMO its not the size of the government, its how you use it

Yes, 'the less government does better' is a bad assumption. So is 'more government.' I'd prefer to focus on how the government helps the people

 

[Worgen]

IMO, it gives the GOP a bad name.


IMO its not the size of the government, its how you use it

Yes, 'the less government does better' is a bad assumption. So is 'more government.' I'd prefer to focus on how the government helps the people

Less government and more government mean nothing by themselves. Generally the people who say less government mean they want less government assistance for people and government intervention in the market. Its never actually about the size since they are hugely in-favor of a really big military and never push against expanding military spending.

 

[tstorm823]

Less government and more government mean nothing by themselves. Generally the people who say less government mean they want less government assistance for people and government intervention in the market. Its never actually about the size since they are hugely in-favor of a really big military and never push against expanding military spending.

The real stance gets lost in overly simplified conceptions of more or less government. The real American conservative position is to house power as close to the individual as feasible. If people can feasibly do things for themselves, they should. But like, people can't build roads as individuals, so communities do that. Communities can't build highways between cities, so states do that. States can't build interstate highways, so the federal government gets involved. Small government types are generally ok with big military because national defense is something that need be done as a national effort. Republicans both founded the EPA to manage national environmental regulations that extend beyond any individual and piss and moan when the EPA is used to regulate a moderately sized puddle on someone's property, and that isn't a contradiction.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The real American conservative position is to house power as close to the individual as feasible

Oh, so you favor a socialist economy, then.

 

[Shadyside]

It really doesn't help that a sizable portion of republicans think government should just kinda not be a thing, so they are fine with being obstructionist since the "less government does the better".

I've never understood that mentality from some republicans. They are borderline anarchistic if they see everything that way. Which is why people shoudn't be completely honest with what they earn.

 

[Worgen]

I've never understood that mentality from some republicans. They are borderline anarchistic if they see everything that way. Which is why people shoudn't be completely honest with what they earn.

I think it has to do with the difference between rural and city. Like in rural communities they tend to have less contact with government, most things can be handled by their church, union or local services so they so they find the idea of someone from some other place telling them what to do as somewhat abhorrent. But in cities we have a lot of direct contact with government operators and kinda need it so city dwellers have a more positive view of the necessity of it. I have a feeling I screwed up that explanation, did it make sense?

 

[Trunkage]

I think it has to do with the difference between rural and city. Like in rural communities they tend to have less contact with government, most things can be handled by their church, union or local services so they so they find the idea of someone from some other place telling them what to do as somewhat abhorrent. But in cities we have a lot of direct contact with government operators and kinda need it so city dwellers have a more positive view of the necessity of it. I have a feeling I screwed up that explanation, did it make sense?

You’re fine

Rural people also don’t feel like they get the same kind of help. Mainly because it’s way more expensive to help them. You can spend a million dollars on roads and fix problems that effect about 10 people in the countryside, You can spend the same money in a city and fix problems for thousands. It doesn’t make you feel like the government is on your side when you do that math

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The real stance gets lost in overly simplified conceptions of more or less government. The real American conservative position is to house power as close to the individual as feasible. If people can feasibly do things for themselves, they should. But like, people can't build roads as individuals, so communities do that. Communities can't build highways between cities, so states do that. States can't build interstate highways, so the federal government gets involved. Small government types are generally ok with big military because national defense is something that need be done as a national effort. Republicans both founded the EPA to manage national environmental regulations that extend beyond any individual and piss and moan when the EPA is used to regulate a moderately sized puddle on someone's property, and that isn't a contradiction.

Back in the day, you could convince conservatives to do an accidentally good thing if you framed it as a national defense/readiness issue, aka, Interstates and the EPA (the former because you'd neeed to quickly evacuate cities and move troops in the event of total nuclear war, the latter because they used to at least pretend to give a shit about the future)

These days post Southern Strategy, rapture theology, and neo-liberalism, short term profits are king and the world's gonna get raptured any day now so high score wins.

 

[tstorm823]

Oh, so you favor a socialist economy, then.

You believe in a system where individuals are banned from having power, I don't know why you're even trying to turn that one over on me.

No, I don't favor a socialist economy, then.

These days post Southern Strategy, rapture theology, and neo-liberalism, short term profits are king and the world's gonna get raptured any day now so high score wins.

The Southern Strategy is a myth, rapture theology was a fad, and neo-liberalism is very literally not conservatism.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You believe in a system where individuals are banned from having power,

No. You evidently believe in making things up.

I don't know why you're even trying to turn that one over on me.

No, I don't favor a socialist economy, then.

Ah, so you don't believe that power should be "housed as close to the individual as possible", you believe that power should be housed as close to individuals as possible subject to various overriding constraints. If you believed that power should be housed as close to individuals as possible, you would have absolutely no tolerance for the bureaucratic hierarchy of the modern giant corporation. Your obeisance to the current legal understanding of private property junks whatever sentimental twaddle you have to say about individual liberty.

 

[Agema]

Well, Mitch McConnell is a unapologetic troll. I'd be happier without him doing that, but not because he's necessarily saying or doing things that aren't factual, he's just not even pretending to try and help. I don't know that there are many votes that he didn't hold that would have stood a chance of passing if he had. But you're right, being a jerk about it doesn't help.

One of the least palatable things about politics - not specific to the USA or any particular political party - is the way many people exercise their power and what for. People like McConnell and Pelosi are toxic to public respect for politicians. I'm also alarmed by some of the pork barrel politics. I read about some guy in Kentucky who has sequestered huge sums of public funding to set up government agencies in his constituency for no other reason that he's on some major spending committee, and if people want his support, he demands his cut. Because he pads his area with jobs on the federal taxpayers' dime, he'll never be voted out.

It is as it has always been. If his people want to vote him in (and he delivers for them), so be it. But I wish that at least there were some oversight or central party motivation to push such people off the positions they squat on and abuse.

 

[Worgen]

One of the least palatable things about politics - not specific to the USA or any particular political party - is the way many people exercise their power and what for. People like McConnell and Pelosi are toxic to public respect for politicians. I'm also alarmed by some of the pork barrel politics. I read about some guy in Kentucky who has sequestered huge sums of public funding to set up government agencies in his constituency for no other reason that he's on some major spending committee, and if people want his support, he demands his cut. Because he pads his area with jobs on the federal taxpayers' dime, he'll never be voted out.

Pelosi gets so much hate for how effective she is. She's extremely good at making things happen and passing legislation, but the left hates her for not being further left and the right hates/fears her for how effective she is/being too far left.

 

[tstorm823]

If you believed that power should be housed as close to individuals as possible, you would have absolutely no tolerance for the bureaucratic hierarchy of the modern giant corporation.

a) Your conception of corporations is not accurate.
b) Outright socialism is not the only nor even the most effect solution to bloated corporations. It's not coincidence when trustbusting became a thing and from which party it came from.

 

[Buyetyen]

Pelosi gets so much hate for how effective she is. She's extremely good at making things happen and passing legislation, but the left hates her for not being further left and the right hates/fears her for how effective she is/being too far left.

While she's a competent administrator, the last election has shown just how out of touch she is with Democratic voters. She gives in and plays nice with the Republicans far too easily.

 

[Cheetodust]

You believe in a system where individuals are banned from having power.

Weapons grade bad take on what socialism is.

 

[Worgen]

While she's a competent administrator, the last election has shown just how out of touch she is with Democratic voters. She gives in and plays nice with the Republicans far too easily.

Because like it or not we have a system where republicans can sabotage things so they have to be played nice with. If you can get them to agree to something its less likely they will try and rip it away when they get power, it still happens but its less likely.