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

Whether or not they should, they won't. See 2006
 
@Ripskater won't acknowledge or refute any of these points and will just ask the same question in the next thread it's brought up. Considering he has been proven wrong in every thread particpates in, you would think he show some of that good Christian humility that his church touts so much.

Would you bring up a posters religious beliefs to insult them if that poster was a known Muslim. What do u think the Mods would do if you did?
 
Would you bring up a posters religious beliefs to insult them if that poster was a known Muslim. What do u think the Mods would do if you did?
yes, if they quoted the Quran to defend shitty policies absolutely.
 
The part I struggle with on this (and it plays into the topic), is when is it acceptable to break precedent in response to broken precedent? My whole issue with the "Reid rule" is that it was in response to unprecedented obstruction. It's not a matter of protecting minority interests, it's a matter of getting your way by any means necessary that I can't just let go without being noted. It's akin to gaslighting, someone pokes you until you slap their hand away, and then they escalate to punching on the grounds that YOU escalated with the slap. When you put it in terms of human interaction it's abusive, but people let it go in the political arena under the guise of gamesmanship. That's the stuff I hope we get away from, and that I believe the GOP has been engaging in for the last 3 decades. I'm not just talking about Obama, i'm talking about Willie Horton, NCPAC, the endless investigations of people named Clinton, so on and so forth.

With people who see that kind of conduct as acceptable, there's no negotiating with them. The ends justify the means. If you undercut the moral fabric of the country, but you win an election, you're justified in their eyes. And unfortunately, if you're trying to box while they're in a Muay Thai fight, you're gonna get your ass whipped.

We've legitimately reached a point where the bad actors either walk away with their smug fucking grins, or we basically break the spirit of the constitution to put a stop to it. As someone who loves the country, it's a tough spot to be in. And it's decidedly one sided, as you see in election results. I can't put this on anyone else but the GOP when I see how effective it's been in getting their (objectively unpopular) agenda passed.
No worries. We're not going to agree on everything, and that's totally fine. I always appreciate that you and I can disagree respectfully though, and your replies are always thoughtful.

The thing is that there is a long history of this kind of stuff, and it didn't start yesterday. I mean, we could go back to FDR trying to pack the SCOTUS with judges to get his programs passed. I'm not trying to turn this into a "Well, they did it first/worse, so that's my justification!" It's just that the rules exist in a way that protect all of us over time, and changing the rules to achieve short-term victories is a slippery slope into the kind of "win at all costs" that we have today. I remember during the Clinton impeachment, after he was impeached, Al Gore and Tom Daschle were trying to walk faster than one another to be out front so that they could be seen as "leading to way" to acquit President Clinton of charges because they knew they didn't have the votes. I'm not saying that President Clinton should have been removed from office, but he was caught in a lie, and the rules were the rules. So that point, your statement of, "If you undercut the moral fabric of the country, but you win an election, you're justified in their eyes," is a sentiment that I totally agree with.

Our current situation is one that actually reinforces my actual political beliefs, haha. People hate President Trump? Fine, no love lost there. Let's get rid of the executive branch's ability to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, limiting executive power. Let's get rid of the executive branch's ability to commit troops into foreign engagements, working out something unique for time-sensitive special operations. Let's actually reduce the power of the Congress, engendering state and local governments to handle these issues instead of having unelected bureaucrats make regulations that they are then responsible for enforcing. Make this stuff more local so that the people who feel the effects of these decisions can actually get a good feedback loop with their elected officials instead of a handful of people calling their Congressman and a few more voting every few years.
 
Yes. The Republicans have proved you can do it without suffering any consequences. The high road is worth nothing in US politics. Just do whatever you can with whatever power you can acquire and stop pretending political norms and decorum exist in the post Trump world.
 
If Democrats want to be civil once they are in power, they should do it with the full understanding that they will never get the same sort of respect in return.
The GOP is determined to drive the country into the ground. They don't deserve a seat at the table until they shape up.
 
They should resort to the same tactics as Republicans and more, make them wish that they had never crawled out from under their dirty rocks.
 
yes, if they quoted the Quran to defend shitty policies absolutely.

People differ on policy tough guy.

Seems you can not communicate without insults.
 
Middle of the roaders like @Fawlty

<Dylan><{clintugh}><bball1><{walkerwhut}>

{<jordan}

Ya, I stopped reading there. You leftwing commie progresso-new-age-fascists are fucking hilariously disingenuous and fake.

They should resort to the same tactics as Republicans and more, make them wish the they had never crawled out from under their dirty rocks.
Is that Mike Tyson in his prime in your AV?
 
Last edited:
Porter dominates early, Garcia slowly comes on and wins a close decision that everyone whines about.

I think Porter has better stamina than Garcia. I don't see Garcia getting a second wind and winning the fight late.
 
this spirit of capitulation is why Democrats get walked over by Republicans whenever they sieze power.
The republicans learned long ago that they can disregard any political norm which isn't a law (and when you have congress, senate, and presidency, then some laws don't apply).

The world was a different place when the Founding Fathers decided they didn't have to be enshrined into law, that them being a norm was good enough. Back in their time honor was everything, and it was better to lose than be dishonorable. They weren't afraid to punch, cane, or duel someone who stepped out of line. That's a completely different tenor than modern politics.

The democrats have no choice but to ignore every norm that isn't a law, because they can be assured that it won't be followed by the GOP if it's inconvenient for their cause.
 
People differ on policy tough guy.

Seems you can not communicate without insults.
I'm not insulting the person or the religion- but rather their dogmatic obedience to their scripture.
 
i find the idea of rooting for politicians to behave in such a way abhorrent.


so that's a no for me.
 
I think Porter has better stamina than Garcia. I don't see Garcia getting a second wind and winning the fight late.

Garcia usually gets a second wind because he takes rounds off. Not sure he can do that here
 
No. The democrats should play hard ball and pass policy that is popular with the public.

Do not bend over and reach across the aisle trying to make policy non partisan which in turn makes in no longer popular with the mass public. We all know gop policies are not popular so why add in their proposals.
 
And yet you still can't put forth a substantive response. Just keep insulting and pretending that you're laughing and not cowering in shame: that'll convince people.
The funny part is that you're not actually interested in discussing policy. Since you're so invested in supposing my intent, let me try for you: You actually never cared about discussing policy. You purposefully threw out something that you thought would be provocative, and when someone called you on it, you saw that as an opportunity to get into a flame war. If you thought that I had bad intentions, you would have ignored me and stuck to the issues that you cared about. Instead, you've been going on with me, throwing out a bunch of name-calling and implying all sorts of negative intent. You never cared about making your point, only relishing in the opportunity to call someone a "dolt" or "reactionary" from your hysterically left-wing stance. Sound about right? You truly can't play the victim here.

"I think the GOP and DNC both made mistakes."

Even someone as daft as you can see that you're equating the two. But it's okay. Acronyms are hard.
I guess the challenge is nuance and reading comprehension. Did I say that they made the same mistakes? The same number of mistakes? Equal mistakes in any way? You really should be better at this.
 
I'm not insulting the person or the religion- but rather their dogmatic obedience to their scripture.

Im an atheist and could care less. You not confident in your own beliefs?
 
Middle of the roaders like @Fawlty

<Dylan><{clintugh}><bball1><{walkerwhut}>

{<jordan}

Ya, I stopped reading there. You leftwing coomie progresso-new-age-fascists are fucking hilariously disingenuous and fake.


Is that Mike Tyson in his prime in your AV?
Queen Serena is in my AV not Tyson.
 
I'd argue no, for one main reason

people don't elect the GOP for them do anything progressive or make huge changes, the main reason why so many can support them even if it's against most of their own economic interests...

People DO elect the Left to enact some of these things, and if they choose to just be Opposition rather than actually pass anything substantive, it just shows how the Corporate Neoliberals have taken over and don't actually care whatsoever about the constituency.

IOW people expect the GOP to do that type of stuff, generally the exact opposite is expected of the DEMs, whether that is actually backed by reality or not

The problem w/ taking the Moral High Ground is you have to actually defend that high ground, not virtue signal that you merely want to
 
Back
Top