The republicans do not think that is how it works. Or does it only apply to democrats?
5 Likes
There is a difference between how a government should work, and how Republicans have been “working” for decades now. If you think any of them use your definition of “compromise”, the only lying going on is from you, to yourself.
11 Likes
6 Likes
As I said upthread, there is one party that believes in process and one that, as currently constituted, doesn’t. Unless Democrats control all branches of government–which they will not for at least the next 15-20 years, thanks to two years of unified Republican control of the House, Senate and Presidency which allowed Republicans to extend their control to the judiciary–there is literally no prospect of getting anything at all done without working with Republicans. Even if Democrats win both houses of the legislature and the presidency in 2020, they will still have to contend with an entrenched conservative judiciary that will look for any constitutional hook it can find to block Democrats’ plans.
I’m sorry that this is the world we find ourselves in, but it’s where we are.
In a more normally functioning government divided between two parties with different policy preferences but a belief in some version of process, of course, there will necessarily be compromise between the parties.
2 Likes
This sentiment is wholly about substance. Any Democratic candidate, whoever that may be among the current dozen serious-ish contenders, would be immensely, substantively better than Trump in any number of ways.
Indeed, and there isn’t a single Democratic candidate who would be worse than Trump (or even close to as bad). I’m going to assume that Vigo the Carpathian isn’t going to join the Democratic field, so I feel safe that this will remain so.
So, all the supporters of these candidates should fight like hell for their first choice in the primary, push everyone as much as possible to good policy positions, and then go out and vote for whoever the Democrats put up. Anything else is lunacy.
7 Likes
Hillary lost the election because she lost Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida. The difference between the Green party vote in 2012 and 2016 would not have won her enough electoral college votes to win the election. She would have won Michigan and Wisconsin but lost the other two, still leaving us with a Trump victory.
Still, any Democratic candidate who alienates the left wing and relies on Trump being shit to win is playing a dangerous game, and they should be called out on it.
8 Likes
maybe someone will hack a snellen chart
I would embroider some teez if I could find a nack
any suggestions
I would have to insist on copyright left field though
1 Like
I wanted to pull out this part of your post because it doesn’t get said enough. I see that the bumper sticker designer has pointed out that the adhesive used is specifically to make it easy to pull off and replace with the actual candidate once we know who it is. Right now, this bumper sticker is true and funny – and we need that! – but in what will seem like an eternity but in actuality will be a short time period, all of the losing candidates and all of the voters need to make it clear that they’re 100% in agreement, not still nursing Bernie bro grudges or whatever the equivalent will be in this coming election.
4 Likes
right. i think this is a relevant “explainer” as to the paradox dems find themselves in.
3 Likes
yes, the parties absolutely need to be able to work together, and this will require compromise. but sometimes you get to a point where you have compromised so much of your principles away, you find that you’re just appeasing. there are certain ideas about which further compromise with republicans would be tantamount to abandonment. because compromise has been the name of the game that democrats have been playing for so long, it’s expected, meanwhile republicans have been changing the rules altogether and demanding that any compromise solely benefit them.
6 Likes
Losing Michigan and Wisconsin had to do with the new Republican extremism in those states, which historically had never happened before. They were always reliably Democratic states, thanks to Scandinavian political culture (MN) and union workers (MI). Those states were lost before the election happened.
4 Likes
People seem to like to call “false equivalency” a lot. Given the wide misuse, I’m not sure people are using it correctly. In this case, he’s not making an equivalency argument at all. He’s not saying two things are the same. The argument he’s making is that blind loyalty/opposition can lead to bad results, Trump being a perfect example of that.
If I can try to rephrase what he may be saying: Voting for Trump’s opposition is an easy decision. But voting, in principle, should never be a blind decision.
1 Like
I am definitely a Bernie bro. I bitched and moaned about the 2016 candidates the whole time, but at the end of the day, I voted for Clinton. Why? Because Trump poses an existential threat to our democracy. Clinton is not without her faults, but at least she won’t dismantle democracy literally to own the libs. Not only was one candidate markedly better in my eyes, but that candidate was better across the board.
It also didn’t matter whom I voted for, because my district was going to go Clinton no matter what. I still voted for Clinton because I had to lead by example. I couldn’t very well say “you vote for Clinton, I don’t want to”. I also couldn’t say any district was going to be “safe”, considering how fast the fivethirtyeight numbers were revising downward.
Also don’t write all of this off to Bernie bro grudges, because voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering are very real things and only getting worse. I don’t know what shenanigans are coming this election and I’m afraid to even guess.
But yes, this election is vitally important, and I’m voting for The Democrat, because I can’t afford not to. Even a choice between eating a gas station bologna sandwich and a garbage can full of hot steaming dog turds is a clear choice.
11 Likes
I am so glad to hear this.
What we all need to do this time is drop our preferences the morning after the primary election. Everyone we meet needs to know that we are backing the official candidate. “Bitching and moaning” about who didn’t win the primary divides focus and confuses those who do not pay a lot of attention to politics.
4 Likes
Certainly not to the magnitude of Trump. Not even close. But I did have a philosophical qualm about her (it applies to the Bushs, Kennedys, etc). Political dynasties seem antithetical to democracy. Choosing rulers based on heritage is a hallmark of aristocracy.
Not arguing against you. Just venting about a political pet peeve.
1 Like
No, it’s much more complicated than the democrats wouldn’t work with the GOP… because they’ve pretty much always worked well with the GOP. The past 2 democratic presidents had great track records of working across the aisle.
3 Likes
The bitching and moaning wasn’t about who didn’t win, but about the position of having a candidate (and her supporters) who are alienating a sizable chunk of the base. The election was contentious, and many of us felt our needs (not preferences) would not be met. This was a warning. If the candidate (in last election and this one) doesn’t have a genuine come to Jesus moment and address the needs of their voters, they will lose votes. They are not entitled to those votes. There will always be people willing to eat shit instead of baloney sandwiches, even if that’s not what a reasonable person does.
So yes, I will vote for The Democrat, but I will also hold them accountable.
7 Likes
LOL your rant. Country was at stake before, and was lost. There is no more “country” … GONE. 
You should realize we no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies wil9000. The world is a college of corporations. Inexorably determined by the imutable bylaws of business. The World is a business wil9000. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live to see that perfect world in which there’s no war, or famine, oppression, or brutality. One vast ecumenical holding company. For who all men will work to serve a common profit, and which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided. All anxieties tranquilized. All boredom amused.
2 Likes
If you mean Mitch McConnell walked Obama down the street like a dog while refusing to give a millimeter to the Democrats, then yes.
12 Likes
I do. And Bill Clinton worked on quite a few bills with Newt Gingrich when he was speaker. Working across the aisle has been an article of faith for the post-Clinton democratic party for years, all while the GOP has gotten ever more hostile to any democratic initiatives. Working across the aisle has come to mean “bend to the GOP will” essentially.
12 Likes
