Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

When/If Democrats regain power, should they resort to the same tactics as the Republicans have?

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Trotsky, Sep 7, 2018.

  1. Trotsky Steel Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    30,319
    Likes Received:
    7,059
    This is a topic that is particularly relevant to middle-of-the-roaders like @Fawlty.

    In the mid-1990s, Newt Gingrich came upon the realization that an opposition party would electorally benefit from mindless partisan obstruction, no matter how unprincipled or destructive. By fighting tooth and nail, even against policies they might otherwise support, and rendering government ineffective, they would benefit electorally.

    This became standard GOP strategy during the Obama presidency, as the GOP controlled Congress, but the strategy against good faith governance, bipartisan cooperation, and adherence to longstanding precedent on transparency and political responsibility has carried over into the Republicans' current in-power status. This can be best seen in their blatant hypocrisy and refusal to engage in good faith governance on the issues of healthcare and judicial nominations.


    During debate on the ACA, Republicans loudly decried the lack of transparency and the lack of bipartisan compromise, despite hundreds of hours of debate and GOP amendments. Then, when trying to pass their own bill (which was universally panned by consumer groups), they actually engaged in the tactics of which they accused the Dems.
    [​IMG]

    Similarly, McConnell and friends bitched and moaned about Kagan and Sotomayor being pushed through, despite the very thorough vetting and disclosure of the nominees, and are now pushing through their nominee in an unprecedented way.
    [​IMG]



    So, when and if Democrats regain power, should we once again ask that they return to the standards of good faith bipartisan governance? If history tells us anything, there is a good chance that the Republicans will continue to obstruct and then, when the GOP regains power, they will resort to the same dirty tricks - and our country will have been made worse for it.

    Or should Democrats return the favor and cede the moral high ground to aggressively reverse the insidious and destructive policies pushed by the GOP, and risk an inescapable cycle of unaccountable partisan governance?
     
  2. TheComebackKid Double Yellow Card Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    49,267
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Should conservatives resort to the same tactics as Antifa and the obstructionist Democrats?
     
  3. HomerThompson Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    41,450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Terror Lake
    Dear Republicans:

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Ripskater Johnny Mac's friend Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,042
    Likes Received:
    1
    Like
     
  5. Quequeg Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2018
    Messages:
    3,366
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is Antifa in govt,? stupid.
     
  6. Ripskater Johnny Mac's friend Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,042
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which Trump/GOP policies are insidious and destructive?
     
  7. Kaliph of Kush Hashishiyan Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    41,118
    Likes Received:
    5,919
    Location:
    Pleasure Dome
    I don't think I want more obstructionism in government so I'd say no.
     
  8. sub_thug Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you ever argued in good faith or sought the high ground? What makes anyone think you'll start now?
     
  9. Trotsky Steel Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    30,319
    Likes Received:
    7,059
    Well, that's hard to answer. Answer me two questions:

    (1) What evidence do you have for "obstructionist Democrats"? Even if they wanted to be obstructionist, they couldn't be because they lack the numbers in either houses of Congress.

    (2) Is Antifa in government? Can you point to what effect Antifa has had on lawmaking procedure?

    Full deflection. It's almost as if your kind is incapable of addressing issues or recognizing flaws within your tribe.

    See my above response to TCK for arguing in good faith and seeking to take the high road. That is, of course, also completely irrelevant to political procedure. Asking citizens to "argue in good faith" is completely different than asking elected officials to govern in good faith and respect law making procedure.

    Maybe you knew that and were purposefully trying to chidlishly deflect and obfuscate. Or maybe you're just that dumb, that anything that touches upon partisan politics equates to just shit slinging to you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2018
  10. Lord Coke Red Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    8,044
    Likes Received:
    3,167
    Location:
    \
    My understanding is those numbers are deceptive.
    My understanding is that there was a stipulation that many of Kagan's documents would not be released so 99% only refers to the documents in dispute. This is just something I saw on Fox. I haven't studied this issue.

    As to the question presented, it would be in the interest of the people voting for them to have a scorch earth policy and politicians should do what is in the best interest of the people who voted them in to office in my opinion That said there is another body of thought that says politicians should do what is best for the country in general.
     
  11. Fawlty Memesy were the borogroves Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    44,479
    Likes Received:
    5,347
    Location:
    War Room Lounge
    This thread will be nothing but sorry-assed deflecting, seen above, but it's an interesting question.

    I don't really care as long as it's about policy. Health care first. Then infrastructure.

    It wouldn't be that wrong to fuck the Republicans at every turn. It's self defense at the worst.
     
  12. sub_thug Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    My kind? What the hell is that supposed to mean? You sound super intolerant...

    Doesn't really pertain to me. Sounds like you just want to misrepresent facts so that you can try to "win." I'm shocked, as usual...
     
  13. snakedafunky Red Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    9,084
    Likes Received:
    0
    Morally or from a political view?
    From a political side, I think they would have done well if not for Hillary.
    I don't see why they should change their political strategy of at least trying to get things done.
     
  14. Falsedawn Your favorite poster's favorite poster Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    24,279
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Location:
    Za Warudo
    As much as I think those pieces of shit deserve it, no. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

    I wouldn't be opposed to being incredibly heavy handed with rectifying those giant gaping holes that we call political norms though. Don't reward bad behavior with inaction. They have to feel some pain for basically destroying our political process for the last 3 decades.

    If I could REALLY have my druthers though, impeaching Gorsuch would be on the agenda. Kavanaugh (presumably) would be legitimate, Gorsuch has no right to hold the seat he currently does.
     
  15. ChainFlow Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mostly the Midwest
    Kavanaugh has already perjured himself before Congress. He’s impeachable.
     
  16. Trotsky Steel Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    30,319
    Likes Received:
    7,059
    (1) Removing financial sector regulations that protect against 2008-like economic collapses, and protect consumers, retirees, and lendees from exploitation and trickery by financial services
    (2) Exploding the deficit without providing realistic prospects of long-term growth to offset the losses
    (3) Ceding control of public policy to corporate and industry interests, diametrical to the interests and wishes of consumer and public-interest groups
    See: Putting financial predators in charge of the Treasury, putting oil lobbyists in charge of the EPA, putting private school profiteers in charge of Education, etc. ​
    (4) Weakening consumer oversight of corporate malfeasance
    (5) Weakening citizen standing to seek redress from corporate torts
    (6) Removing worker protections and busting workers' power to collectively bargain
    (7) Taking actions that are empirically proven to disenfranchise voters, for the purpose of addressing an issue that has repeatedly been shown to lack any meaningful incidence (noncitizen voting)
    (8) Attempting to throw millions off healthcare and raise prices/lower standards of care for the rest of us, all so that insurance companies can make more money
    (9) Further degrading campaign finance transparency and protections so that legalized bribery of the government can become more widespread
    (10) Reallocating government subsidies away from viable long-term energy and onto increasingly-obsolete forms of energy
     
  17. Trotsky Steel Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    30,319
    Likes Received:
    7,059
    Your kind, as in members of the side you shamelessly defend. Also, your kind, as in those who have no interest in actual policy discussion.

    EDIT: Also, there are right-wingers who I respect because they are mature adults who respond in good faith. See alanb's post quoting me.

    This is coming from the guy who came in here with no intention (or even pretenses) of actually debating the issue. You only came in to lob ad hominems.
     
  18. Cubo de Sangre President of the War Room

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    44,712
    Likes Received:
    3,323
    Location:
    Hell
    Some of us are dreamers.
     
  19. Falsedawn Your favorite poster's favorite poster Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    24,279
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Location:
    Za Warudo
    Very fair, I meant more on a procedural basis though. Merrick Garland should have been considered by the senate for the supreme court, and the simple fact that he wasn't is probably the most egregious stain on our democracy committed by the GOP (and that's the head of a long list of disgraceful behavior). In my hypothetical "impeach Gorsuch" scenario, Garland has first right of refusal, and i'd burn down every justice put up until he said "Know what, i'm good. Pick someone else". It's the principle of the matter to me.
     
  20. zebby23 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2017
    Messages:
    13,971
    Likes Received:
    399
    Merrick Garland, jamming through Supreme Court picks, gerrymandering, not upholding the law, turning a blind eye to incompetence, shutting down the house investigation into Russian interference to name a few.

    I’m torn on this issue though. Dems should not lower themselves to the standard of Republicans but playing nice isn’t winning elections and republicans don’t give a shit how low they go so I say fight fire with fire
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.