Exit Polls
-
Not at all. It's what's necessary for the two sides to heal and work together. Not more cocky we won we won rah rah rah bullshit. I'd be saying the same thing if romney won. The partisanism must end
Not at all. It's what's necessary for the two sides to heal and work together. Not more cocky we won we won rah rah rah bullshit. I'd be saying the same thing if romney won. The partisanism must end
The system is inherently partisan, and by design. It's not going to end, nor should it. It's the inability to compromise that's the problem. It's excessive or blind partisanship.
And if you want examples of that, I can probably point you to some threads in here. If you want an example of people having a normal conversation, I'll point you to a thread with me and Tupa.
I hardly think I'm the problem here. When you're a 4 on the political spectrum and you're arguing with 8s, 9s, and 10s it's not going to led to much in the way of healing. Like I always say, Cysko, I rarely even get to the part where I tell people what I think, or what I want to see happen. I usually just take issue with the nutty and lazy and ill-informed utterances of the people in here. Ex: just last night I was trying to point out that the idea that Republicans are the only people who think we face a fiscal crisis are clueless. Everyone knows this.
I mean, we're talking baby steps in here.
Plus, some of these people are fucking crazy, my brother. They're fucking nuts. I have no interest in compromising with them, or healing with them. And I noticed the other day that neither did you.
-
I have interest in solving problems. I wouldn't be an engineer if I didn't. I've voted both republican and democrat, so actually I do have an interest in compromise. Not with crazy people, but most people on both sides aren't dangerously insane. They are dangerously partisan though. To keep pushing us vs. Them will be disastrous. So if the compromising could start in the capitol that would be fine.
-
I'm with you. I just would disagree - completely - that both parties are equally guilty here. The Republican Party has simply gone off the reservation. They need to moderate. They need to be more inclusive. They need to put their rigid ideology aside and return to their history of being a party that solves problems. They've completely given up on that. Now their guiding philosophy is "Don't do anything about anything" and "Shit on people who we don't like."
Just look around in here. Or turn on Fox. Their explanation for why people don't want to vote for them is "minorities want to take shit from the white establishment." This is the prevailing explanation in the fever swamp.
Or look at it this way: there are virtually no moderate Republicans left. Almost none.
This makes the compromise you say you want - that I want - so much harder.
In the end, I think they're going to get this done if only because they have to. Obama knows it. Boehner knows it.
-
By naming we need tom tupa intellectually elite and then pointing to the conversations you have with him, you declare yourself intellectually elite. That's convenient, because it allows you to think every person that disagrees with you is crazy, wrong, and stupid. You're a very intelligent person, clearly, but I've always considered you a narcissist.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
There are many moderate republicans. They just aren't very vocal, especially when Republican has been painted as a near synonym to Racist.
-
Democrats engaging in "we're less at fault then Republicans." Are guilty of partisan finger pointing. That's exactly what I mean. You're only proving my statement right. Who cares who's more at fault? They're both at fault.
-
There are many moderate republicans. They just aren't very vocal, especially when Republican has been painted as a near synonym to Racist.
There are many moderate republicans. They just aren't very vocal, especially when Republican has been painted as a near synonym to Racist.
I'm talking about in office. There really aren't any left. Moderate Republicans get primaries. They get called RHINOs and lose to other Republicans.
Political scientists measure these things. Both parties have gotten more ideological, but the Republicans have shifted much more to the right than Democrats have to the left. It's simply not correct to say this is a problem that's just as much a problem on the left as on the right.
-
By naming we need tom tupa intellectually elite and then pointing to the conversations you have with him, you declare yourself intellectually elite. That's convenient, because it allows you to think every person that disagrees with you is crazy, wrong, and stupid. You're a very intelligent person, clearly, but I've always considered you a narcissist.
By naming we need tom tupa intellectually elite and then pointing to the conversations you have with him, you declare yourself intellectually elite. That's convenient, because it allows you to think every person that disagrees with you is crazy, wrong, and stupid. You're a very intelligent person, clearly, but I've always considered you a narcissist.
Oh no. Trust me. My long conversations with Steve and Cal do nothing but make me hate myself.
-
There are many moderate republicans. They just aren't very vocal, especially when Republican has been painted as a near synonym to Racist.
I'm talking about in office. There really aren't any left. Moderate Republicans get primaries. They get called RHINOs and lose to other Republicans.
Political scientists measure these things. Both parties have gotten more ideological, but the Republicans have shifted much more to the right than Democrats have to the left. It's simply not correct to say this is a problem that's just as much a problem on the left as on the right.
I'm talking about in office. There really aren't any left. Moderate Republicans get primaries. They get called RHINOs and lose to other Republicans.
Political scientists measure these things. Both parties have gotten more ideological, but the Republicans have shifted much more to the right than Democrats have to the left. It's simply not correct to say this is a problem that's just as much a problem on the left as on the right.
It is, though, because that would be one party flatly refusing to accept any blame. Degrees of blame don't help anyone. Instead of pointing fingers why don't the democrats start using actions to try and pretend like they're interested in compromising on issues. Demanding republicans accept all the blame for years of failing to get ANYTHING done on either side will only increase hard feelings.
Abe Lincoln also said of the confederates when asked by Robert E. Lee how the vanquished confederates were to be treated
"Let them up easy" Rubbing their faces in the loss wasn't going to work then and it will not work now.
-
Democrats engaging in "we're less at fault then Republicans." Are guilty of partisan finger pointing. That's exactly what I mean. You're only proving my statement right. Who cares who's more at fault? They're both at fault.
Democrats engaging in "we're less at fault then Republicans." Are guilty of partisan finger pointing. That's exactly what I mean. You're only proving my statement right. Who cares who's more at fault? They're both at fault.
Well, I just disagree. I care, and it matters. They're not equally at fault and it's worth pointing out.
I can point you to the use of the filibuster by Republicans versus Democrats. That's a good measure. I mean, let's be real: when President Obama got in to office, he was riding a huge wave. The Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, devised a strategy to oppose everything he did. Really. Just say no to everything. The theory was that if Obama promised change and a new tone, and then the public saw none of it happen and partisanship, they'd turn on Obama and put Republicans back in charge. And it worked pretty well in 2010.
"“People were pretty demoralized, and there were two totally opposite thoughts on how to approach the situation,” a McConnell aide recalls. “One was, `we don't like the president, we ought to pop him early.’ The other was, `he’s really popular, we should work with him, because that’s what people want us to do.’ The boss’s take was: Neither." McConnell realized that it would be much easier to fight Obama if Republicans first made a public show of wanting to work with him."
As Sen. Voinovich recalled, "“He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
Or Joe Biden: “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said [senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says. The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.
...Is that the kind of partisanship you're talking about needing to go away? I think so too.
-
Democrats engaging in "we're less at fault then Republicans." Are guilty of partisan finger pointing. That's exactly what I mean. You're only proving my statement right. Who cares who's more at fault? They're both at fault.
Well, I just disagree. I care, and it matters. They're not equally at fault and it's worth pointing out.
I can point you to the use of the filibuster by Republicans versus Democrats. That's a good measure. I mean, let's be real: when President Obama got in to office, he was riding a huge wave. The Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, devised a strategy to oppose everything he did. Really. Just say no to everything. The theory was that if Obama promised change and a new tone, and then the public saw none of it happen and partisanship, they'd turn on Obama and put Republicans back in charge. And it worked pretty well in 2010.
"“People were pretty demoralized, and there were two totally opposite thoughts on how to approach the situation,” a McConnell aide recalls. “One was, `we don't like the president, we ought to pop him early.’ The other was, `he’s really popular, we should work with him, because that’s what people want us to do.’ The boss’s take was: Neither." McConnell realized that it would be much easier to fight Obama if Republicans first made a public show of wanting to work with him."
As Sen. Voinovich recalled, "“He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
Or Joe Biden: “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said [senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says. The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.
...Is that the kind of partisanship you're talking about needing to go away? I think so too.
Well, I just disagree. I care, and it matters. They're not equally at fault and it's worth pointing out.
I can point you to the use of the filibuster by Republicans versus Democrats. That's a good measure. I mean, let's be real: when President Obama got in to office, he was riding a huge wave. The Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, devised a strategy to oppose everything he did. Really. Just say no to everything. The theory was that if Obama promised change and a new tone, and then the public saw none of it happen and partisanship, they'd turn on Obama and put Republicans back in charge. And it worked pretty well in 2010.
"“People were pretty demoralized, and there were two totally opposite thoughts on how to approach the situation,” a McConnell aide recalls. “One was, `we don't like the president, we ought to pop him early.’ The other was, `he’s really popular, we should work with him, because that’s what people want us to do.’ The boss’s take was: Neither." McConnell realized that it would be much easier to fight Obama if Republicans first made a public show of wanting to work with him."
As Sen. Voinovich recalled, "“He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”
Or Joe Biden: “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said [senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says. The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.
...Is that the kind of partisanship you're talking about needing to go away? I think so too.
Listen, clearly, the republicans are not helping anything. If the democratic party has any brains they will realize they've won, celebrate in private, and extend the olive branch for real. Otherwise the partisanship will eventually come to civil war. Both parties need to back off certain really divisive issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control and work on things everyone can agree upon like employment and the budget. Sometimes the best thing that can happen is nothing. Barack Obamas legacy will be much better If we get out of the debt crises more or less unscathed than if the ship sinks but gays are finally allowed to marry (for the record I'm for gay marriage.) The big picture is what's important right now.
-
You disagree largely because you're all in for one side. Where, exactly, do you differ from the liberal ideology?
-
I'm not all in for one side. There's just no one to cheer for on the other side anymore. I grew up as a Bill Weld Republican, but there are no Bill Weld Republicans anymore. They don't get elected. In fact, how did Bill Weld's career come to a close? His nomination to be ambassador to Mexico was blocked. By Jesse Helms.
I'm probably what you'd call a "corporate Democrat." Which used to be a moderate Republican.
-
Chris Christie? Is he a giant turd sandwich? I like Christie. I wish he wasn't fat though, because a fat guy isn't an attractive choice in American Idol Politics
-
I like Christie and his candor, but he's not in Congress. He's the governor of a blue state. If I had to name some other Republicans I like, that don't freak me out, I'd say Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins. Guys like Tom Coburn and Bob Corker are conservatives, but serious guys who you can deal with.
There aren't that many. Every time one goes away, like a Richard Lugar or a John Warner, the Republican taking their place is almost always more conservative, more ideological, and less willing to compromise.
I'm hardly the only one making this critique of the Republican Party's draft to the right, or even to crazytown. You can find it pretty much everywhere.
-
Yeah we've established there's plenty of blame for republicans. Are you willing to accept blame for the partisanship of democrats? How willing are prominant dems to work across the aisle, really.
-
They're very willing. Watch what happens in the next few weeks.
Or read about the negotiations for the grand bargain. Look at what Obama put on the table.
-
They're very willing. Watch what happens in the next few weeks.
Or read about the negotiations for the grand bargain. Look at what Obama put on the table.
They're very willing. Watch what happens in the next few weeks.
Or read about the negotiations for the grand bargain. Look at what Obama put on the table.
I'd love for that to happen, that would be just fine. The New Deal was well hated by the right and we got through that. The world war didn't hurt, though. Lots of jobs in a world war.
-
Do you think democrats would agree to outlaw abortion with provisions for incest, rape, and legitimate life threatening situations? And only those things?
-
Oh, no. Absolutely not.
It's unlikely you're going to have that kind of compromise on abortion because that'd just be seen as mostly the Republican position. It's simply not a tenable compromise. And the politics are such that it's such a base issue for both sides, a big fundraiser and vote getter, that the people most invested in it have no desire to compromise anyway.
If the Democrats offered a compromise position it'd be something like in Germany, where abortions are banned after the first trimester except in cases where the mother's life or health are in danger. But that wouldn't satisfy anyone on the right because that's essentially what we have now. So you're stuck.
I'd look for compromises elsewhere. Or look for ways we can reduce abortions.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login