Democratic Obstructionism in Senate is going to end BADLY for them

[Macaquerie]

The Republicans didn't obstruct everything, you've got a very short memory if you believe that.

But sure. Wait until the Republicans put an infrastructure bill that gives a lot of people jobs. Obstruct THAT and see the Democratic party collapse.

Republicans tend to be opposed to infrastructure spending as a rule, since they see it as inefficient and wasteful. Indeed, if you really are in favor of free market capitalism you would be strongly opposed to creating jobs just for the sake of giving people something to do without generating any real value, which to be fair often is the case with a lot of big infrastructure projects.

[Kathandira]

In some respects it already has.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...er-dem-boycott



It seems McConnell has had enough of Schumer's crap at dragging out things for the sake of appealing the crazies on the left, and before anyone thinks that Schumer bending over for the far left is a good thing I'd like to point out what the outcome of doing precisely this in Britain has been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...n#Poll_results

As in the Torries are bound to decimate Labor, and yet Jeremy Corbyn, a so called moderate like Schumer bending over to left wing crazies is going to get his party destroyed.

Regardless of what you think of Trump there's a real damned risk this whole game is going to explode in the face of the Democrats. If you don't pass things you don't have any accomplishments and people will string you up for that.

I was really hoping that the Republicans wouldn't end up doing this. It's contrary to every damned thing a democracy should be: Actual debate and discussion not crazy obstructionism.

Man. I could swear I heard this same thing about Republicans for the passed 8 years.

To quote the very first reply to this thread, "It's important to understand that two political groups are currently using the divide between them to push things they wouldn't - and shouldn't - normally do."

[NYC17]

Not stopping them from trying to push through unpopular legislation. Looking at it purely from a who has the power view it's effective, as I said. Long long long run sure it'll all eventually come to a head and be really bad which is why I say I don't think Democrats should be the same as the GOP during the Obama administration but for a quick and easy power grab it can work.

There's consequences to such a fundamental misreading. It won't take a long, long, long run correction either. Pushing through unpopular legislation is a requirement for the correction to happen.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Also, I'd like to point out the irony of complaining about opposition in the first few weeks of a Presidency, when the Republicans have essentially been refusing to play ball for the last 8 years, for the most part. Remember when they refused to even consider Garland for the SCOTUS position, even though Garland was a moderate who'd been lauded by both political sides during his career?

Frankly, if the Democrats didn't return in kind, that would be a losing strategy. This isn't about winning in the short term, it's about doing everything you can to oppose the rubber-stamp behaviour and bring the Republicans towards the middle, where something can actually get done. "Compromise" doesn't mean you get your way. It means NEITHER of you get your way. You get a solution you're both equally unhappy with.

Complaining when you try to push a highly partisan agenda and don't get support from the opposition is ridiculous. You want their support? Compromise.*

I certainly agree that both sides are utterly, thoroughly childish. I remember when the white house had to shut down because the republicans refused common sense.

I'm not saying their reaction is unjustified though. I simply wish we didn't have to come to that. Then again, I've often been told that my dreams of unity are perhaps closer to utopia than the world of possibilities.

[Draco-Onis]

The Republicans didn't obstruct everything, you've got a very short memory if you believe that.

But sure. Wait until the Republicans put an infrastructure bill that gives a lot of people jobs. Obstruct THAT and see the Democratic party collapse.

Republicans obstructed infrastructure, job bills even several of their own ideas as soon as Obama backed them....

[belleflop]

Additudes like this on both sides just make me think that none of these people give a fuck about the people and country they are supposed to represent.

A divided federal government is a limited federal government, and that's good for everyone. The constitution never intended for the federal government to have power over the states, but unequally in the last 40 years power has shifted drastically to the federal government. They were setup to be a checks and balance of each other.

[Macaquerie]

I certainly agree that both sides are utterly, thoroughly childish. I remember when the white house had to shut down because the republicans refused common sense.

I'm not saying their reaction is unjustified though. I simply wish we didn't have to come to that. Then again, I've often been told that my dreams of unity are perhaps closer to utopia than the world of possibilities.

No, ONE side is utterly, thoroughly childish. The other side is currently considering copying their tactics but is apparently not fully comfortable or committed to that particularly strategy, because if you have a brain it's pretty hard to pretend not to.

[CostinR]

Republicans obstructed infrastructure, job bills even several of their own ideas as soon as Obama backed them....

That is not everything. They allowed Obama to pass a lot of judges, nominees, fill 2 supreme court slots, passed budgets and entire cabinets.

[Draco-Onis]

That is not everything. They allowed Obama to pass a lot of judges, nominees, fill 2 supreme court slots, passed budgets and entire cabinets.

The judges were passed because the rules change which is why democrats cannot block Trump's judicial appointees only the supreme court one, they allowed him one nominees and the budgets wasn't passed extensions were given. Congress has not passed a budget in years thanks to obstructionism each time republicans inserted a poison pill (defund planned parenthood etc) and killed it.

Any republican that allowed Obama any victory were primaried, it got to the point when even taking a photo with Obama got you criticism.

[Endus]

I certainly agree that both sides are utterly, thoroughly childish. I remember when the white house had to shut down because the republicans refused common sense.

I'm not saying their reaction is unjustified though. I simply wish we didn't have to come to that. Then again, I've often been told that my dreams of unity are perhaps closer to utopia than the world of possibilities.

The difference, I would argue, is that the Obama administration tried to find compromise, and the Republicans still stonewalled things. Either refusing to vote for plans they contributed to the writing of, like the ACA, or refusing to even consider a moderate SCOTUS appointment, that sort of thing. If the Democrats had been pushing for far-left policies, I would have understood why the Republicans wouldn't play ball, but that's not how things were going down.

Now, under Trump, they aren't trying to find that middle. They're doing whatever Trump wants, and complaining that the Democrats won't back it. Which is ridiculous. If they want bipartisan approval, you need to create bipartisan policy.

[Gamdwelf]

A divided federal government is a limited federal government, and that's good for everyone. The constitution never intended for the federal government to have power over the states, but unequally in the last 40 years power has shifted drastically to the federal government. They were setup to be a checks and balance of each other.

Oh really because so far trump is getting everything he wants even though so many Republicans say they don't agree.

[Celista]

Additudes like this on both sides just make me think that none of these people give a fuck about the people and country they are supposed to represent.

Republicans in several red states turned down no-strings extended Medicaid funding that would have given poor people in their state access to health care, just to prove a political point.

At least one side of the aisle seems to give zero fucks about everyone else, that is for sure.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The difference, I would argue, is that the Obama administration tried to find compromise, and the Republicans still stonewalled things. Either refusing to vote for plans they contributed to the writing of, like the ACA, or refusing to even consider a moderate SCOTUS appointment, that sort of thing. If the Democrats had been pushing for far-left policies, I would have understood why the Republicans wouldn't play ball, but that's not how things were going down.

Now, under Trump, they aren't trying to find that middle. They're doing whatever Trump wants, and complaining that the Democrats won't back it. Which is ridiculous. If they want bipartisan approval, you need to create bipartisan policy.

It is true that Republicans are extremely aggressive on their platform. I don't want to enter the religious sphere too much, but when individuals think they are righteous and fighting for the real thing, they tend to be extremely... well, irrational.

I don't mind Trump as much as Bush or Pence, because at least the policies being pushed are less bad. The keyword here is less. That doesn't prevent the whole other group of individuals that can be fairly assessed as bigots to push their bigoted policies, nor does it prevent madness in spheres that shouldn't be touched, like environment.

[belleflop]

That is not everything. They allowed Obama to pass a lot of judges, nominees, fill 2 supreme court slots, passed budgets and entire cabinets.

Obama doesn't pass judges, nominees, supreme court slots, budgets. He RECOMMENDS them, then congress passes them. You might want to brush up on the whole advise and consent part of of these actions.

[Gamdwelf]

Republicans in several red states turned down no-strings extended Medicaid funding that would have given poor people in their state access to health care, just to prove a political point.

At least one side of the aisle seems to give zero fucks about everyone else, that is for sure.

Hey that's my state where many poor rural people had options for like minor health care at a set cost that got revoked with Obama care because our governor didn't opt in to the Medicaid expansion.

[belleflop]

Oh really because so far trump is getting everything he wants even though so many Republicans say they don't agree.

A republican SAYING they don't agree conflicts with their actions when it comes to vote. A lot of republicans are SAYING they disagree with stuff, but so far they have voted in lockstep with their king trump wishes. As I always insist, don't listen to what someone is saying, look at what they are doing. Mouth breathing in a mic and saying you are against something is playing politics. Then quietly voting for it when hopefully no one is looking is basic politics 101. Show me one republican that has gone against something trump said and then show me their voting record to show they were consistent. You won't find one. I mean Betsy Devos got through committee and will be voted in as the next Sec of Education. That right there is a perfect example. She's a train wreck even most republicans agree, but when it came to voting, gotta keep with their party, damn your conscience!

[Theodarzna]

No see, when they do it its called "Resistance!" in the most shameless use of Emotive Conjugation of 2017.

[TrumpIsPresident]

The difference, I would argue, is that the Obama administration tried to find compromise

And I'll challenge that argument to say there was never any evidence of said supposed "trying".

There was a lot of pen & phone work and consequently its Trump's pen & phone now.

If the Democrats had been pushing for far-left policies, I would have understood why the Republicans wouldn't play ball, but that's not how things were going down.

Policies aren't the only thing to consider, although many were far to the Left.

Things like agenda and public campaigns and the radicalism that operates just outside of the Capitol still impact what goes on inside.

Why would fiscal and socially conservative types ever want to compromise with wealth redistribution and identity obsession types, and vice versa?

Too much bad blood and it don't wash off even for the sake of compromise.

/shrug

[Celista]

Hey that's my state where many poor rural people had options for like minor health care at a set cost that got revoked with Obama care because our governor didn't opt in to the Medicaid expansion.

He should have opted in then. What options for minor health care got revoked?

Here's one story of the impact on rural health care in the US:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/19/smal...dez/index.html

[Endus]

And I'll challenge that argument to say there was never any evidence of said supposed "trying".

There was a lot of pen & phone work and consequently its Trump's pen & phone now.



Policies aren't the only thing to consider, although many were far to the Left.

Things like agenda and public campaigns and the radicalism that operates just outside of the Capitol still impact what goes on inside.

Why would fiscal and socially conservative types ever want to compromise with wealth redistribution and identity obsession types, and vice versa?

Too much bad blood and it don't wash off even for the sake of compromise.

/shrug

Right. This is the poisonous attitude that's fundamentally irrational and completely baseless, and which directly attacks the democratic process.

I'm not sure why you've decided to act it out in person, though.