Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

in the world of trump & faux news, even if they wanted to "be nice guys", they couldn't. the base wouldn't stand for it. likewise they can't suddenly do a 180 now.

Who is "they"? Republicans? What does being "nice" have to do with anything? I'm confused about this, are you functionally arguing that Republicans are refusing to act in good faith because their base demands it? I fail to see how that alters the fact that they're still not acting in good faith, and should consequently be ignored whenever possible.

hating them is fine but the problem they present isn't going to magically disappear via hating.
its notable that most of the newly elected repub congressmen are the worst of the lot.

Some were, sure. And it's not about "hating" them, it's about treating them as irrelevant because they are fundamentally not a serious political party. Like, at all. See the "BANNING BEEF!" shit, that's some clown show bullshit. What will make it go away is Democrats ignoring their stonewalling and showing voters what happens when you have some competency and an actual vision for the future that's capable of making meaningful improvements in peoples lives.

"Getting shit done", so to say.

the earmarks coming back is like, huge even though it didn't make much news. this gives them actual political incentive to work with dems, whereas before there wasn't any beyond "look like a nice guy", which wasn't what the people who elected them wanted. now they can bring stuff back home to show their constituents that actually matters to them.

Earmarks are an awful, garbage, no-good way of "bipartisanship" that's not actually bipartisan. It doesn't solve any of the problems, and doesn't make Republicans any more serious just because they can snag $10M in federal funding from blue states to rebuild a bridge in their state because their Republican legislature has cut revenues so much that they rely on federal socialism.

[Breccia]

in the world of trump & faux news, even if they wanted to "be nice guys", they couldn't. the base wouldn't stand for it.

Um...no. No, this is just flat-out wrong. Look at Trump's 2016 run. Point to the part where he said "Well, I want to be bipartisan, but the voters won't let me". Because I think all you'll find is Trump saying "FIGHT THE MEDIA! FIGHT THE DEMOCRATS! LOVE ME AND ONLY ME!"

That line you wrote is just false. The former Republican Party, now Party of Trump, cultivated this divisiveness and hate and did it on purpose. The end.

[starlord]

This would be a good time to point to when, in the last 14 years or so, the GOP have taken this opportunity. For example, we can start with Trump labeling Democrats as treasonists and unAmerican. Just before he riled up a mob and aimed them at the Capitol.

Or, I guess to use your terminology. "reeeeeeeee I hate ebil dems!!"

which again, they wouldn't have lasted long if they did because there was no beneficial (for them) reason to.
but by all means, continue down the same road as repubs have been, since its working so well for their integrity as a party & government.
polarization is good as long as "my team" wins, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Um...no. No, this is just flat-out wrong. Look at Trump's 2016 run. Point to the part where he said "Well, I want to be bipartisan, but the voters won't let me". Because I think all you'll find is Trump saying "FIGHT THE MEDIA! FIGHT THE DEMOCRATS! LOVE ME AND ONLY ME!"

That line you wrote is just false. The former Republican Party, now Party of Trump, cultivated this divisiveness and hate and did it on purpose. The end.

he was elected because he said he wasn't going to be bipartisan. the more "moderate" repubs didn't make it, and still struggle. thus, the base won't let them be bipartisan.

[Levelfive]

so the plan is, what, "ignore the other party, nuke the filibuster to steamroll stuff through congress, then hope and pray that they dont inevitably gain power in congress and promptly undo everything that they had no part in making and then steamroll their own agenda"?
sounds... great.

Yes. The reality is that Republican policy positions, to the extent they exist anymore, are broadly unpopular; Democratic policies are hugely popular. The last thing in the world McConnell wants is a filibuster-free majority--he has no interest in legislating, and has spent the majority of his time breaking norms (including now-you-see-me with the filibuster on judicial nominees) to reshape the judiciary so that batshit partisan and frequently incompetent judges can essentially legislate the conservative vision (dismantle the social safety net / civil rights, and make the powerful richer and the rich more powerful) without recourse or accountability, and no one in his caucus has to be on record taking an uncomfortable vote they'd have to answer to their constituents for. This is why that's all they did when they had the majority, and it's why McConnell had a public meltdown threatening that Republicans would totally do and undo stuff when they re-take the majority--why would he threaten to implement an agenda he ostensibly believes in / repeal policies he ostensibly hates? Because he's terrified. Because he knows it will cost Republicans electorally. So yes, 100% worth it to call his bluff, move on as much of the Democratic agenda as possible, and let Republicans try to undo it.

[starlord]

Who is "they"? Republicans? What does being "nice" have to do with anything? I'm confused about this, are you functionally arguing that Republicans are refusing to act in good faith because their base demands it? I fail to see how that alters the fact that they're still not acting in good faith, and should consequently be ignored whenever possible.



Some were, sure. And it's not about "hating" them, it's about treating them as irrelevant because they are fundamentally not a serious political party. Like, at all. See the "BANNING BEEF!" shit, that's some clown show bullshit. What will make it go away is Democrats ignoring their stonewalling and showing voters what happens when you have some competency and an actual vision for the future that's capable of making meaningful improvements in peoples lives.

"Getting shit done", so to say.



Earmarks are an awful, garbage, no-good way of "bipartisanship" that's not actually bipartisan. It doesn't solve any of the problems, and doesn't make Republicans any more serious just because they can snag $10M in federal funding from blue states to rebuild a bridge in their state because their Republican legislature has cut revenues so much that they rely on federal socialism.

how are you going to get shit done in 2 yrs when dems lose their slim majority and the repubs have lost any moderating force?

[Edge-]

he was elected because he said he wasn't going to be bipartisan. the more "moderate" repubs didn't make it, and still struggle. thus, the base won't let them be bipartisan.

So...how is this Democrats fault, then? Like, you're opening admitting that Republicans can't allow themselves to be bipartisan because they're afraid of their base here. What are Democrats supposed to do to fix this, just give Republicans what they want? Because that's not bipartisan either.

It's kinda Republicans own fault they're being held hostage by their lunatic, violent base. That's the monster they've spent decades creating.

[starlord]

Yes. The reality is that Republican policy positions, to the extent they exist anymore, are broadly unpopular; Democratic policies are hugely popular. The last thing in the world McConnell wants is a filibuster-free majority--he has no interest in legislating, and has spent the majority of his time breaking norms (including now-you-see-me with the filibuster on judicial nominees) to reshape the judiciary so that batshit partisan and frequently incompetent judges can essentially legislate the conservative vision (dismantle the social safety net / civil rights, and make the powerful richer and the rich more powerful) without recourse or accountability, and no one in his caucus has to be on record taking an uncomfortable vote they'd have to answer to their constituents for. This is why that's all they did when they had the majority, and it's why McConnell had a public meltdown threatening that Republicans would totally do and undo stuff when they re-take the majority--why would he threaten to implement an agenda he ostensibly believes in / repeal policies he ostensibly hates? Because he's terrified. Because he knows it will cost Republicans electorally. So yes, 100% worth it to call his bluff, move on as much of the Democratic agenda as possible, and let Republicans try to undo it.

we seem to keep waffling between "dems policies are so good that theres no way repubs would undo it" and "repubs aren't afraid of denying or eliminating or handicapping popular things and implementing unpopular ones." i mean there were people on obamacare who voted to repeal it.

was obamacare so popular that repubs were afraid to eliminate it or was McCain the hero who saved the day against all odds?

[Shadowferal]

Tried bipartisanship..and it didn't work well at all.

[starlord]

So...how is this Democrats fault, then? Like, you're opening admitting that Republicans can't allow themselves to be bipartisan because they're afraid of their base here. What are Democrats supposed to do to fix this, just give Republicans what they want? Because that's not bipartisan either.

It's kinda Republicans own fault they're being held hostage by their lunatic, violent base. That's the monster they've spent decades creating.

who said its the democrats fault? its what they have to work with.
yes they could go the repub route of treating the opposite party as monsters; but we saw how thats working for them. a temporary gain at best, and the splintering of their party.

[Edge-]

who said its the democrats fault? its what they have to work with.

You can't work in a bipartisan manner with a party that refuses to entertain being bipartisan lest their own base threaten to lynch them in public.

So honestly I have no clue what you're clutching pearls about. If Republicans refuse to work in good faith, that shouldn't hamstring the ability of the government to operate and function. That's their loss that they will have little impact or involvement with legislation passed, and consequently struggle to claim responsibility for benefits their constituents enjoy - like Rep. Cawthorne trying to claim credit for the latest stimulus plan he fuckin voted against.

Weird that Republicans are bragging about Democratic legislation they nearly universally voted against, eh? Almost like it's a good thing and Democrats should keep things going the way they are. I don't recall any Democrats trying to claim credit for the Republican tax cut, by contrast, which remains historically unpopular. Which is damned impressive for a tax cut.

[Shadowferal]

yes they could go the repub route of treating the opposite party as monsters; but we saw how thats working for them. a temporary gain at best, and the splintering of their party.

...so the dems are supposed to capitulate?

[Levelfive]

we seem to keep waffling between "dems policies are so good that theres no way repubs would undo it" and "repubs aren't afraid of denying or eliminating or handicapping popular things and implementing unpopular ones." i mean there were people on obamacare who voted to repeal it.

was obamacare so popular that repubs were afraid to eliminate it or was McCain the hero who saved the day against all odds?

The failure to repeal Obamacare is one of the examples I was thinking of--McConnell knew how McCain was going to vote (Murkowski and Collins I'm pretty sure were already no votes). If they want to undo popular policies with their majority, they should absolutely try, and be on record doing so.

[Fugus]

Democrats need to learn to play the same bullshit goalpost game.

Shift Democratic policy to full-on socialist democracy. Abolition of the capitalist economy completely, no private ownership of means of production whatsoever. Abolishment of stock markets, etc.

Then you "compromise" with the fascist racists on the right, and end up back at the center as a result. As opposed to now, where Democrats push centrist (lately, slightly left of center) policy and keep being expected to "compromise" with the fascists by ending up in the moderate/far-right range.

If you can't fix the problem, you can at least fuck it from both sides equally.

Nah, that would play into the Republicans hand as that is what they have been labeling them as to drum up fear.

The Democrats play, in my opinion, should be to actually call them out for what they have done and are doing and don’t mince words with it either, call them out bluntly and with authority in the tone with proof. Show the power in that words that the GOPs on own people loved about Trumps words except you are actually being honest.

And transition the platform as being, “returning the power to the people” and actually push for stuff like HR1 as being your main platform for at least an administration. Have that be as central to your plan as the ACA was to Obama’s.

After an administration dedicated to that had even a single term and was effective at it, it would kill the GOPs games greatly while also showing lots of good will to the people.

And by this, I also mean them making sure 3rd parties are viable which also forces every party to compromise as at that point, neither will likely get the flat out majority to steam roll again.

But doubt that would happen as that would require them to give up some power for themselves to make sure that the others can’t wield the power they had stolen before.

[Breccia]

which again, they wouldn't have lasted long if they did

No. This is wrong, and sounds disingenuous. Republicans put themselves in this position. You can't say "oh no, they're in this position!" when it's their decades-long conscious decision. Don't stroll out onto the highway wearing black clothes at night and complain when you get run over.

[DarkTZeratul]

which again, they wouldn't have lasted long if they did because there was no beneficial (for them) reason to.
but by all means, continue down the same road as repubs have been, since its working so well for their integrity as a party & government.
polarization is good as long as "my team" wins, right?

- - - Updated - - -

he was elected because he said he wasn't going to be bipartisan. the more "moderate" repubs didn't make it, and still struggle. thus, the base won't let them be bipartisan.

So basically, your argument is that we should give the Republicans the opportunity to act in good faith but also that they can't and won't and we shouldn't expect them to because their base would crucify them?

[starlord]

You can't work in a bipartisan manner with a party that refuses to entertain being bipartisan lest their own base threaten to lynch them in public.

So honestly I have no clue what you're clutching pearls about. If Republicans refuse to work in good faith, that shouldn't hamstring the ability of the government to operate and function. That's their loss that they will have little impact or involvement with legislation passed, and consequently struggle to claim responsibility for benefits their constituents enjoy - like Rep. Cawthorne trying to claim credit for the latest stimulus plan he fuckin voted against.

Weird that Republicans are bragging about Democratic legislation they nearly universally voted against, eh? Almost like it's a good thing and Democrats should keep things going the way they are. I don't recall any Democrats trying to claim credit for the Republican tax cut, by contrast, which remains historically unpopular. Which is damned impressive for a tax cut.

well, to recap:
all i said was that i think bidens plan has a lot of potential for the repubs to act in a bipartisan manner while remaining in the good graces of their base, and y'all went on a rant about how evil repubs are and theres no possible way they can ever do anything good and they should never have a carrot, only sticks.

you are basically looking at the state of repubs now and being like "yea, i want that" as that was literally the same strategy you are advocating.

[Levelfive]

Nah, that would play into the Republicans hand as that is what they have been labeling them as to drum up fear.

The Democrats play, in my opinion, should be to actually call them out for what they have done and are doing and don’t mince words with it either, call them out bluntly and with authority in the tone with proof. Show the power in that words that the GOPs on own people loved about Trumps words except you are actually being honest.

And transition the platform as being, “returning the power to the people” and actually push for stuff like HR1 as being your main platform for at least an administration. Have that be as central to your plan as the ACA was to Obama’s.

After an administration dedicated to that had even a single term and was effective at it, it would kill the GOPs games greatly while also showing lots of good will to the people.

And by this, I also mean them making sure 3rd parties are viable which also forces every party to compromise as at that point, neither will likely get the flat out majority to steam roll again.

But doubt that would happen as that would require them to give up some power for themselves to make sure that the others can’t wield the power they had stolen before.

This whole "we have to avoid playing into their hands" thing is a fool's errand. Republicans will literally make shit up regardless of what Democrats actually do or don't do--Democratic voters need to shake their conditioning to shadowbox Republicans from a defensive crouch, because it looks like elected Democrats are learning to largely ignore them and move ahead with their agenda. It's quite beautiful, actually.

[Endus]

Nah, that would play into the Republicans hand as that is what they have been labeling them as to drum up fear.

As you admit, they're gonna call you "commies" anyway. Hell, I got called a commie here, again, just today.

Who cares what the Republicans call you?

Also, no, I'm not worried about losing "independents". If those "independents" will kneejerk over this and vote for someone like Trump instead, they were always far-right fanatics anyway, and lying about their independence.

[starlord]

So basically, your argument is that we should give the Republicans the opportunity to act in good faith but also that they can't and won't and we shouldn't expect them to because their base would crucify them?

no, i said politicians have to do a lot of political theater despite whatever their actual inclinations may be so don't necessarily take it at face value.

[anyaka21]

which again, they wouldn't have lasted long if they did because there was no beneficial (for them) reason to.
but by all means, continue down the same road as repubs have been, since its working so well for their integrity as a party & government.
polarization is good as long as "my team" wins, right?

- - - Updated - - -

he was elected because he said he wasn't going to be bipartisan. the more "moderate" repubs didn't make it, and still struggle. thus, the base won't let them be bipartisan.

TBH, I think Trump was elected on the simple point that he portrayed himself as the outsider vs the lifelong politicians. The anti-establishment vs the establishment that's created all the problems we now face. Trump pointed to closed down factories, sending jobs overseas, etc... That's what got him elected.

Granted, he in no way fulfilled that position as he became very quickly the epitome of establishment because he just didn't really know what the fuck he was doing, so he ceded his power to establishment figures.