Query: Why should Democrats care about Partisanship now?

[Worgen]

The problem though, is that when your system has a feature that is the legal equivalent of crossing your arms, stomping your feet, and holding your breath until the other side can't do whatever it is they want to do, that's not a Unity or Bipartisanship method. It's already basically just one side versus the other, with no real benefit to them to compromise. I mean if either side can just block actions, and get the thing they don't want to not go through, what benefit is it to them, to actually negotiate and try and compromise? They can just refuse to participate, and if they are stubborn long enough, they get what they want. There's no real down side to them. So then the other side comes into power and you get the same thing again.

The republicans don't give a shit about any of us, and the democrats are only marginally better in some categories. So no, I don't think bipartisanship is something the dems should aim for, as it's clearly never really worked on important shit in the past.

The idea is a good one, it allows the minority party to still have a voice and try to get something closer to the middle then something that would be further to the side of the majority party. The big problem with it comes when the minority decides to just use it as a cudgel and abuse it, like we have today. But, even with that, its still hard to let go because everyone knows that one party doesn't retain power forever and letting go of the main method to try and get the majority party to play ball a bit is hard.

The Democrats had just come off a string of months where they filibustered all of Bush's judicial appointments, and then they got rid of the filibuster for judicial appointments. And Lieberman switched to Independent, not Republican, but I guess that's splitting hairs.

Regardless, yes, they definitely didn't have Democratic unity over the ACA the way they did over the stimulus, that doesn't mean they needed Republicans for anything. They factually passed the bill without Republican support. And nowadays, the common claim is that Republicans somehow gutted the bill essentially because they helped proofread it.

Can you find numbers of how many judicial nominees were filibustered? Cause it doesn't sound like they did block them all, they did block some but the most I can come up with as a hard number is like 10, compared to like 105 that were left open for trump cause of the turtle.

I've only see the claim that republicans gutted it after they took power and started removing provisions, not having to do with the way the bill was really written.

 

[ObsidianJones]

The problem with partisan politics is simply that rarely (if ever) are the interests of the betterment of the general people in consideration. It’s the perpetual cycle of pandering to the demographics that will keep people elected and in power to make the decisions that will keep you elected and in power, and yes, it’s that stupid. If the people you choose to represent think eating babies is the path of the future, well, by God, you’d better get up there and advocate eating babies lest they find someone else to do the job. Problem is “the people” don’t know shit. They THINK a metric fuck-ton, but they don’t KNOW shit. Republican people think “smaller government” (ironically,) so the soap box of a Republican representatives is built upon “the guh’ment will stay out of your business!!!” A Democratic idea might involve an increase in taxes; if that’s even a penny a year, “THEY’RE RAISING YOUR TAXES, AND I’M NOT STANDING FOR IT!!!”

So yeah, partisan politics is the rich, powerful people playing the game of pretending to stand for the ideals of the common man who couldn’t spell “ideals” if you gave him all 6 letters, in order, and told them that’s how you spell “ideals.”

I agree with a lot of what you say.

However, the problem with Bipartisanship is that you need both sides actually trying to a positive outcome to have it work.

Both sides are in for themselves or their base. We sadly have to say "At least this side cares about the Environment, Little Kids, Reproductive Rights, the rights of LGBTQ, the rights of Minorities, the impact on Healthcare, and trying to get a living wage".

With a few examples, I don't think career politicians care about anything more than their career. I think we all accept that. But one side is actually at least talking about the problems we're facing as a species. Fish are disappearing, each year smashes the previous year's record for hottest year ever, Alt-right take over is happening everywhere in this nation, and so on. It's a mess out there.

And the other side denies it. Calls it Fake News. Says it's not as important as these tax breaks. Says regulating environmental concerns are killing small businesses and that data doesn't bare out what real impacts there are... while lobbying against trying to have those actual studies.

You're right. Partisan politics rarely ever fully encapsulates the betterment of the people. And point of fact, there will be no way any body ever will be able to pass laws to make every individual in this world happen with the decision. However, allowing damage to this planet for petty reasons or to just make some businesses some money goes beyond politics. It goes to the survival of the species. And if one side isn't taking that seriously and the other is? Partisan Politics becomes much more of a Game of Chicken. Do we stay in the path of the car to prove how much we value "muh freedums", or do we get out of the way, suffer a bit of ridicule, but be able to race again in the future?

 

[Xprimentyl]

I agree with a lot of what you say.

However, the problem with Bipartisanship is that you need both sides actually trying to a positive outcome to have it work.

Both sides are in for themselves or their base. We sadly have to say "At least this side cares about the Environment, Little Kids, Reproductive Rights, the rights of LGBTQ, the rights of Minorities, the impact on Healthcare, and trying to get a living wage".

With a few examples, I don't think career politicians care about anything more than their career. I think we all accept that. But one side is actually at least talking about the problems we're facing as a species. Fish are disappearing, each year smashes the previous year's record for hottest year ever, Alt-right take over is happening everywhere in this nation, and so on. It's a mess out there.

And the other side denies it. Calls it Fake News. Says it's not as important as these tax breaks. Says regulating environmental concerns are killing small businesses and that data doesn't bare out what real impacts there are... while lobbying against trying to have those actual studies.

You're right. Partisan politics rarely ever fully encapsulates the betterment of the people. And point of fact, there will be no way any body ever will be able to pass laws to make every individual in this world happen with the decision. However, allowing damage to this planet for petty reasons or to just make some businesses some money goes beyond politics. It goes to the survival of the species. And if one side isn't taking that seriously and the other is? Partisan Politics becomes much more of a Game of Chicken. Do we stay in the path of the car to prove how much we value "muh freedums", or do we get out of the way, suffer a bit of ridicule, but be able to race again in the future?

100% agree. The larger problem is that one side is backing an ideal that it’s “every man for himself, and (even illusions of) hard work and persistence net you what you deserve” while the other is advocating that “we’re all in this boat together, and your success can be shared without detriment to yourself.”

People hate to be wrong. Even worse, people hate to be told they’re wrong then condescended to when told how to be better. Politics is a business of telling the right people they’re right while everyone else is wrong. That pretty much sums up Trump’s “success” and militant following; he just kept telling his followers “it’s us versus them; you’re right; they’re wrong,” next thing you have is dozens of people storming the Capitol because they didn’t get what they wanted, nay, DESERVED.

Democratic ideals, in a vacuum, are about shared responsibility and accountability; Republican ideals, in the same vacuum, are about self-reliance and accountability. You’d like to think political machinations fall squarely in the middle with shared responsibility and shared accountability, but “people” are too dense for such a complex concept; it’s either yours or mine; your fault or my, well, of course it’s not MY fault.

War is a great analogy; the big decisions are made by those furthest from the fray. As long as my neighbors have someone with a significant platform to echo their sentiments, they’ll feel some baseless validation that keeps the war raging on.

 

[MrCalavera]

They shouldn't. Next question.

Are you saying that those who are neutral are causing the problems?

Those "completely neutral" obstructionist grifters, who cynically spent most of their time on half assed "criticism", without offering any substantial solution do cause problems, or at the very least, make problems worse.

 

[Gordon_4]

While the Democrats are far from perfect, Republicans are most definitely, literally like comic book villains at this point.

Hold up; that is a supremely unfair characterisation.......

Because I’m telling you now, Lex Luthor would run fuckin’ rings around people from either party.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

On Sunday Shows, the Only Biden ‘Promise’ That Matters Is Compromise

To hear corporate media tell it, the most important promise—and the only one they will hold him accountable for—is one Biden never even made: to compromise with the GOP for the sake of compromising.

fair.org

And the money is concerned bipartisanship agreements are made. That's the first and biggest sign that it's a bad idea.

 

[tstorm823]

Can you find numbers of how many judicial nominees were filibustered? Cause it doesn't sound like they did block them all, they did block some but the most I can come up with as a hard number is like 10, compared to like 105 that were left open for trump cause of the turtle.

That's not actually a like-to-like comparison. 10 is the number of filibusters, not the number of open seats. There are dozens of open seats at any given time, just because filling them isn't fast. Obama had 53 open seats when he took office by the comparative measure. Yes, 105 is still more.

I've only see the claim that republicans gutted it after they took power and started removing provisions, not having to do with the way the bill was really written.

I recommend rereading the OP of this thread, particularly "188 amendments by the Republicans on ACA. Which they got more than the Democrats ever did, neutered the bill (yet still gave coverage to Americans), and spent years using it as a platform to gain more political power by railing against how horrible what they essentially created was."

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Remember when this happened?

Boehner: I got ’98 percent’ of what I wanted in debt deal

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he got “98 percent” of what he wanted in the final deal to raise the debt ceiling. “When you look at this final agreement that we came to …

thehill.com

And remember what happened immediately after? The Republican party crucified Boehner for letting Obama have 2%.

That's not demanding compromise; that's demanding utter surrender. The Republican party defines "compromise" as "you give us everything we want, and we think of more things to want".

 

[Trunkage]

In short - the Filibuster being abused, Ayn Rand... all of her, John Birch society, Neera Tander and similar operatives, conservatives who pretend any break in tradition is the destruction of society, progressives who dont think ahead, both sides not want consequences and everyone not understanding what Capitalism means

They shouldn't. Next question.


Those "completely neutral" obstructionist grifters, who cynically spent most of their time on half assed "criticism", without offering any substantial solution do cause problems, or at the very least, make problems worse.

Whenever I hear someone call themselves neutral, I know they definitely aren’t neutral

Edit: weird cutting off of a sentence when posted rectified

 

[Gergar12]

Good jobs democrats, I going to do something I don't do often. and that is praise Schumer, and the democrats, and Biden, and Harris. They beat the republicans 50-49. Looks like the DNC got the GOP back for the tax cuts, and SCOTUS picks.

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suspect Schumer is under pressure from a primary challenge from AOC, but while I suspect AOC would lose even if Schumer passed a stripped-down bill, primary challenges can induce primaries that succeed later on.

 

[Trunkage]

Good jobs democrats, I going to do something I don't do often. and that is praise Schumer, and the democrats, and Biden, and Harris. They beat the republicans 50-49. Looks like the DNC got the GOP back for the tax cuts, and SCOTUS picks.

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suspect Schumer is under pressure from a primary challenge from AOC, but while I suspect AOC would lose even if Schumer passed a stripped-down bill, primary challenges can induce primaries that succeed later on.

I think you might be overestimating AOCs pull

 

[Burnhardt]

Hold up; that is a supremely unfair characterisation.......

Because I’m telling you now, Lex Luthor would run fuckin’ rings around people from either party.

We already know that. The US has just gad a rich xenophobic businessman for President.

 

[Gordon_4]

We already know that. The US has just gad a rich xenophobic businessman for President.

A failed businessman. Lex Luthor is many things; failed business man is not one of them.

 

[tippy2k2]

Good jobs democrats, I going to do something I don't do often. and that is praise Schumer, and the democrats, and Biden, and Harris. They beat the republicans 50-49. Looks like the DNC got the GOP back for the tax cuts, and SCOTUS picks.

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why would you praise them?

The Democrats did what Democrats do, they negotiated against themselves and brought their own bill before this even came to a vote.

It's the ACA all over again. They talk a big talk when they don't have the power but as soon as they get power, all of a sudden all of those "Here's what should be happening" talks from them get awfully fucking quiet as they slowly chip out more and more and more and more.

Kamala Harris: Second Stimulus Checks Should Be $2,000 A Month

Kamala Harris makes a “final pitch” for $2,000 a month second stimulus checks.

www.forbes.com

The stimulus should be $2,000 a month of reoccurring payments!


Turned into "We're gonna get you $2,000 check immediately if you vote us in!"

Biden unveils a $1.9 trillion stimulus plan with $1,400 direct payments and federal unemployment benefits

The plan underscores Biden's intent to aggressively shore up a deteriorating economy and address the devastation caused by the pandemic.

www.businessinsider.com

Turned into "We're gonna boost the $600 Republicans gave you to $2,000" (AKA we're giving you $1,400 checks. And hell, this isn't even finalized as amendment voting happens next week with this bill. While at this point I wouldn't expect The Democrats to negotiate themselves down even further since they've got it on record that they can pass this exactly as it is with no problem, it would also be 100% The Democrat Way to still manage to negotiate themselves down again in order to "bring the Republicans in" even though they do not need to have them in any way, shape, or form agree to anything).

It's all Political Theater. Sure, is this better than nothing? Yeah. But it's absolutely amazing how much the Democrats SAY they will do and how high the bar Democrats SAY everything should be until they get into power. It's almost like they're more concerned with making Republicans look bad than they are with helping people...(unless it's for Corporations or bombing foreigners, then everyone is on board with throwing as much money into the problem as they can).

 

[Silvanus]

We already know that. The US has just gad a rich xenophobic businessman for President.

Is "gad" a combination of "got" and "had"? Because if so, that's quite appropriate.

 

[tstorm823]

The stimulus should be $2,000 a month of reoccurring payments!

Please stop. You're not making any effort to understand things.

Do you want to give that money to everyone? Why would you give people who are fine financially free money? What good does that do? If anything, it encourages people to go out and waste money on things they're not supposed to be doing in a pandemic anyway.

Do you want to give that money to people who are out of work? Well, the bill you're complaining about has $400 a week in federal unemployment, which is like $1700 a month, which is very close to exactly what you're asking for.

Or do you just want money for yourself and screw reason?

 

[tippy2k2]

Please stop. You're not making any effort to understand things.

Do you want to give that money to everyone? Why would you give people who are fine financially free money? What good does that do? If anything, it encourages people to go out and waste money on things they're not supposed to be doing in a pandemic anyway.

Do you want to give that money to people who are out of work? Well, the bill you're complaining about has $400 a week in federal unemployment, which is like $1700 a month, which is very close to exactly what you're asking for.

Or do you just want money for yourself and screw reason?

I'm not the one who called for that. The current Vice President of The United States Kamala Harris is the one who was calling for that.

Kamala Harris: Second Stimulus Checks Should Be $2,000 A Month

Kamala Harris makes a “final pitch” for $2,000 a month second stimulus checks.

www.forbes.com

It's funny how ambitious and helping and wonderful Democrats are until they actually have the power to do something. Then all of a sudden it becomes not something they can do. Usually they blame Republicans for that but that's hard to swallow this time around since they literally do not need Republicans to pass what they're passing here...

That was my entire point. The Democrats went from being out of power calling for $2,000 of recurring payments. Once they were trying to get power, they promised everyone $2,000 checks. Now that they have power, that number dropped to $1,400.

This is just the most recent example but you see that with these fucking clowns on everything. They promise the world when they're not in power (funny how $400 a week in Fed Unemployment wasn't enough when Republicans were the ones trying to lower it from $600 to $400 last go around but now all of a sudden it's perfectly fine) and then when they are in power, they do everything they can to make sure "nothing fundamentally changes".

 

[tstorm823]

I'm not the one who called for that. The current Vice President of The United States Kamala Harris is the one who was calling for that.

Kamala Harris: Second Stimulus Checks Should Be $2,000 A Month

Kamala Harris makes a “final pitch” for $2,000 a month second stimulus checks.

www.forbes.com

“Through the course of this pandemic and crisis, we need to give people $2,000 a month as recurrent payments—people below a certain income level—to help them and sustain them through these months of crisis so at the end of it, they can get back up on their feet instead of falling deep deep deep into the crevices of this crisis. And, it does not make any sense, to your point, when we have Republicans in Congress who are standing in the way of supporting working people who have recently lost their jobs—[and] have every intention of working—when we can get through this crisis and [they] just need help from their government.”

It's funny how ambitious and helping and wonderful Democrats are until they actually have the power to do something. Then all of a sudden it becomes not something they can do. Usually they blame Republicans for that but that's hard to swallow this time around since they literally do not need Republicans to pass what they're passing here...

You have to know, if I'm defending Democratic politicians, you're probably off base. She wanted to do $2000 a month for people below an unspecified low income level, for the purpose of supporting people who lost their jobs and intend to work. That's unemployment. They did ~$1700 a month in federal unemployment. That's 85% of what she suggested.

That was my entire point. The Democrats went from being out of power calling for $2,000 of recurring payments. Once they were trying to get power, they promised everyone $2,000 checks. Now that they have power, that number dropped to $1,400.

Your entire point is misguided and/or misleading. You're comparing the recurring support they suggested to the one-time payment coming through and you're completely ignoring the recurring payment portion of the bill as though it doesn't exist. Why?

This is just the most recent example but you see that with these fucking clowns on everything. They promise the world when they're not in power (funny how $400 a week in Fed Unemployment wasn't enough when Republicans were the ones trying to lower it from $600 to $400 last go around but now all of a sudden it's perfectly fine) and then when they are in power, they do everything they can to make sure "nothing fundamentally changes".

I understand. Believe me, I understand. Democrats offer the moon just so they can spit on Republicans for being the adults in the room saying "no, we can't give them the moon". Democrats never have any intention of giving said moon, it's all slimy politics and deceitful campaigning. And I'm the first one to point this out, but that's no excuse to misrepresent what's actually happening.

 

[tippy2k2]

You have to know, if I'm defending Democratic politicians, you're probably off base. She wanted to do $2000 a month for people below an unspecified low income level, for the purpose of supporting people who lost their jobs and intend to work. That's unemployment. They did ~$1700 a month in federal unemployment. That's 85% of what she suggested.

Your entire point is misguided and/or misleading. You're comparing the recurring support they suggested to the one-time payment coming through and you're completely ignoring the recurring payment portion of the bill as though it doesn't exist. Why?

I understand. Believe me, I understand. Democrats offer the moon just so they can spit on Republicans for being the adults in the room saying "no, we can't give them the moon". Democrats never have any intention of giving said moon, it's all slimy politics and deceitful campaigning. And I'm the first one to point this out, but that's no excuse to misrepresent what's actually happening.

So the " Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act", which is what she was supporting and wanting done in June, didn't specify giving $2,000 to anyone making under $120,000 until three months after the pandemic ended? What part of that am I misinterpreting or misunderstanding? I fully admit that I had only read kind of the "highlights" to it so if I am misunderstanding what that bill she signed on for offers, feel free to correct me. I know this is The Internet so we're not "supposed" to change our opinions when new information is presented but I promise that I'll look at it (I'll still tell The Democrats to go sit and spin until they fully get behind Health Care Reform of course but at least on this issue, I'd let it go).

It's certainly not a bad thing that they are covering other things like unemployment the way that they are (hell, I actually agree with you and don't think that just blanket 2 Grand to everyone is necessarily a good idea and I would be one of those people who would qualify for recurring 2 grand each month under that plan). But if me calling out Democrats for promising the moon when they're out of power and then conveniently forgetting/ignoring that promise once they actually have power makes me the bad guy, then sure, so be it. I'll need to work on my Mad Scientist Cackling Laugh though if I'm going to be the bad guy...

If this wasn't something they were ever even going to consider once they are in power, they should stop pushing for everyone to go to the moon and then acting shocked and offended when they bring us to a Moon Bounce House down the road and wonder why we call them liars. I agree that going to the moon probably isn't the best use of resources here but THEY'RE the ones saying we need to go to the moon, not me. Had all they said was that we're going to the Moon Bounce House, I wouldn't have a problem with the stimulus package as it is currently setup.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It should also be noted that just increasing unemployment isn't really the solution you think it is. As someone who hasn't been able to take advantage of the expanded unemployment since I can't call the UI office with it swamped and still don't even know if I qualify, skipping the office and issuing stimulus directly is far more efficient and a much better solution. Because right now I don't know if you can get the expanded benefits if you've already exhausted your yearly benefit amount and with a full year now of scarce employment, there's basically no benefits to draw on.