US Politics: compromising positions

[OldGimletEye]

15 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Republicans aren't trying to destroy socialistic programs like SS, Medicare, etc.

Except of course when they always say "Social Security and Medicare" as if the future funding problems of Social Security are of the same magnitude as Medicare, which they are not. But, to hear them tell it, they are. Anybody that talks about fiscal deficits and then follows it up with "Social Security And Medicare" is being full of shit. And of course when they speak of "Social Security and Medicare" it is usually followed up with a suggestion we cut them because of the deficit.

And then there is Mitch McConnell running around saying the recent spike in deficit spending is because you guessed it "Social Security and Medicare", suggesting we need to cut it, like Republicans always do because they are oh so worried about the defecit, when it was actually due to the Republican Party's corporate tax bill. The funding issues with Social Security(which is an easy fix) and Medicare are future events, so it was complete horseshit on McConnell's part to suggest they were the cause of the current spike in the deficit.

[TrueMetis]

17 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Republicans aren't trying to destroy socialistic programs like SS, Medicare, etc. They don't go after public education unless it's clearly not working in a particular locality. Lots of examples. They'd get creamed by voters if they even looked like they were considering these things. 

Republicans =/= anarchists. 

They don't go after public education? Are you totally unfamiliar with Betsy DeVos?

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

1. Yes, the Republicans have been complete a*holes. But so have the Democrats. Lots of blame to go around. Remember how the ACA was passed?

What exactly is your point here?  The Democrats were assholes to pass the ACA by themselves when the Republicans refused to be involved on a framework that emanated from their think tanks?

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

As for AOC's and Warren's tax rate on the rich being extreme: it is. To the average American.

No, it's not.  The average American supports both.  Pretty overwhelmingly.  Use the google.

27 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Republicans aren't trying to destroy socialistic programs like SS, Medicare, etc.

Oh, thanks, I must have imagined Dubya doing his "60 stops and 60 days" spending over $50 million dollars after being reelected in 2005 trying to privatize Social Security.  I mean, I was 19 and wasted all the time, so sure, must've been a bad dream.

34 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

They don't go after public education unless it's clearly not working in a particular locality.

Right.  Except wanting to abolish the Department of Education being a part of conservative creed.

[Lollygag]

Just now, TrueMetis said:

They don't go after public education? Are you totally unfamiliar with Betsy DeVos?

 

Yeah. She's awful, tied to corruption, is utterly incompetent, and a Trumpbot, so her motives are something...a little different. If you want to say Trump types are going after public education, that's probably worth looking at.  I wonder if it's tied to not requiring judicial nominations to support Brown vs the Board of Education. 

But implying that Republicans are as a whole are on board with going after public education in a plan to destroy the entire institution 'cause government sucks because of DeVos is as accurate as saying Democrats as a whole are going after public education because Obama supported charter schools. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/02/11/betsy-devos-loves-charter-schools-theres-little-love-lost-lots-places-whats-happening-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0222cf0b4f90

 

 

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

But implying that Republicans are as a whole are on board with going after public education in a plan to destroy the entire institution 'cause government sucks because of DeVos is as accurate as saying Democrats as a whole are going after public education because Obama supported charter schools. 

What a clumsy false equivalency.  Make Bullshit Great Again.

[Lollygag]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

1. Yes, the Republicans have been complete a*holes. But so have the Democrats. Lots of blame to go around. Remember how the ACA was passed?

What exactly is your point here?  The Democrats were assholes to pass the ACA by themselves when the Republicans refused to be involved on a framework that emanated from their think tanks?

My point is that if it's used as excuse for not even trying to compromise by either Ds, Rs or both, then everything just stops. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

As for AOC's and Warren's tax rate on the rich being extreme: it is. To the average American.

No, it's not.  The average American supports both.  Pretty overwhelmingly.  Use the google.

Yes, and I've pointed that out here before. Reread the entirety of what I actually wrote. Extreme is deviation from normal and it's relative. By this logic, nothing is extreme if it has majority support. I don't agree with that. That would mean Hitler's crap wasn't extreme because most Germans supported it. Please don't pull my words out of context. 

 

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Republicans aren't trying to destroy socialistic programs like SS, Medicare, etc.

Oh, thanks, I must have imagined Dubya doing his "60 stops and 60 days" spending over $50 million dollars after being reelected in 2005 trying to privatize Social Security.  I mean, I was 19 and wasted all the time, so sure, must've been a bad dream.

If you're willfully trying to not distinguish between destroying it on principle and acknowledging when it's not working right, then sure. Yes, when it doesn't work, as it's in trouble as it is now, Republicans first instinct will be privatizing. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59xjy8/democrats-are-having-a-family-feud-over-the-new-medicare-for-all-bill. And again, you're pulling words out of context and mischaracterizing. What I said was in response to the (implied?) statement that Republicans at every turn seek to undermine government on principle. Which is incorrect. 

Quote

1 hour ago, S John said:

That would require government to work at any level, which hurts Republicans.  Examples of government failures strengthen their cause, not successes.  It's why its all so fucked up.  

Republicans aren't trying to destroy socialistic programs like SS, Medicare, etc. They don't go after public education unless it's clearly not working in a particular locality. Lots of examples. They'd get creamed by voters if they even looked like they were considering these things. 

Republicans =/= anarchists. 

 

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

They don't go after public education unless it's clearly not working in a particular locality.

Right.  Except wanting to abolish the Department of Education being a part of conservative creed.

Again with the taking stuff out of context. I was speaking about abolishing public education on principle of destroying it just because it's government. Shutting down the Dept of Education because of wanting to give states more autonomy =/= destroying all public schools. 

 

 

[Lollygag]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

What a clumsy false equivalency.  Make Bullshit Great Again.

So you have actual proof that Republicans have a conspiracy to shut down all public schools? Cause I live in a red state and there's no such thing here. And no, you can't hold up a position of being for charter schools as a plan to destroy all public education.

Adding, I'm fine discussing things and disagreeing in a civil manner. Strawmen, misrepresentations, willful misunderstanding and rudeness are immature and a waste of time. Goodbye. 

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Totally agree. 

I think there's a huge missed opportunity, maybe a tragically missed opportunity, to test out wilder ideas on a smaller scale at a city or state level where there's less consequence if the experiment doesn't quite work out. Cities and states also have an easier time of tweaking something if it doesn't work making for a more dynamic and informative experiment.  If a lot of smaller places test out ideas in different conditions, we can gather the results from all of the experiments to pull out what works and what doesn't and create a more sound form of execution on a national level. I'd like to see a national push to encourage city and state governments to find solutions locally which could be tapped at least in part for national solutions. 

Republicans got to run their pure Reaganomics experience in Kansas, with terrible results. The state budget deficit exploded, social services had to be slashed, education plummeted, and there was no growth boost to speak of. But they haven't abandoned their bullshit supply-side snake oil. They doubled down and took it national in the form of Trump's tax bill.

This is another reason why it's naive and self-destructive to try to "compromise" with the national GOP. They don't listen to reason or evidence. There is no way to negotiate with people who cling to doctrine over rational inquiry.

[Darth Richard II]

Haha. How dare you use facts! Good day sir!

[Lollygag]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

Republicans got to run their pure Reaganomics experience in Kansas, with terrible results. The state budget deficit exploded, social services had to be slashed, education plummeted, and there was no growth boost to speak of. But they haven't abandoned their bullshit supply-side snake oil. They doubled down and took it national in the form of Trump's tax bill.

This is another reason why it's naive and self-destructive to try to "compromise" with the national GOP. They don't listen to reason or evidence. There is no way to negotiate with people who cling to doctrine over rational inquiry.

I don't disagree at all with the first paragraph. Tbh, at this point I think this is more about holding onto their rich donor base than any adherence to policy principle at this point and they're hiding behind this old idea of Reaganomics. That they don't even mention Reaganomics and trickle down by name anymore is telling. 

But you still can't take a single instance and make it a generality. It's a dead end. Dems need to call out the rich donor issue if this comes up again. Can't imagine it'd play well with a base which is increasingly populist.

[Lollygag]

5 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Haha. How dare you use facts! Good day sir!

The facts were fine...if I had actually made those arguments as represented. Both here and in the book forum, when people start quoting piecemeal, it *almost* always involves pulling things out of context, strawmen, mischaracterizations, misleading topic drift, etc. I stopped reading discussions which devolve into that format a long time ago for this reason. If you knew my history in the book forum, I do the same thing there for exactly the same reasons. And I'm not alone in noticing those tactics. 

Discuss what people actually say, not some premanufactured image projected onto them for whatever reason. 

[DMC]

57 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

My point is that if it's used as excuse for not even trying to compromise by either Ds, Rs or both, then everything just stops. 

If what is used "as an excuse" not even trying?  Please specify.  The example you brought up was the ACA.  Obama essentially adopted RomneyCare as his template.  That's verifiable fact.  How is that "not even trying to compromise."  Seems like a pretty huge ass concession actually.  Name the last time the GOP adopted an approach to major policy that's origins demonstrably came from the left.

57 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Reread the entirety of what I actually wrote. Extreme is deviation from normal and it's relative. By this logic, nothing is extreme if it has majority support. I don't agree with that.

Yes, that is the logic.  Because that's the conceptual and operational definition of extreme.  I really don't care whether you agree with it or not.  Particularly if you don't have any normative argument against it.  Can majority-favored policies be wrong?  Of course.  But instead of providing any argument for that what do you do?  You cry Hitler.  Well debated.

57 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

If you're willfully trying to not distinguish between destroying it on principle and acknowledging when it's not working right, then sure. Yes, when it doesn't work, as it's in trouble as it is now, Republicans first instinct will be privatizing.

1.  So it's in trouble now, huh?  It was apparently in dire straits when Dubya went out on that push.  14 years ago.  Man, that Social Security crisis can keep you waiting better than Martin.  Contextually, this is all a bunch of horseshit considering nobody cares about deficits anymore.  Don't think anyone on the right wants to have a deficit argument right now.  It'd be really stupid if they did.

2.  There is no distinction here.  Privatizing Social Security IS killing - or "destroying" - it.  That's the point of privatizing social security.  Most on the right will admit this at this point.  And it's entirely illogical to argue otherwise.

57 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59xjy8/democrats-are-having-a-family-feud-over-the-new-medicare-for-all-bill.

Uh, why did you link to an article about Democrats' attitudes concerning Medicare for All here?  This make me seriously wonder if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.

57 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

And again, you're pulling words out of context and mischaracterizing. What I said was in response to the (implied?) statement that Republicans at every turn seek to undermine government on principle. Which is incorrect. 

I responded to you saying, as you yourself re-quoted, "Republicans aren't trying to destroy socialistic programs like SS."  I pointed out that President George W. Bush's major legislative initiative upon reelection was trying to destroy Social Security.  This is a fact, it is not putting words in your mouth.

57 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Again with the taking stuff out of context. I was speaking about abolishing public education on principle of destroying it just because it's government. Shutting down the Dept of Education because of wanting to give states more autonomy =/= destroying all public schools. 

I didn't take anything out of context.  You contended the GOP doesn't go after public education "unless it's not working for a locality," or some weird shit.  I responded by asserting the GOP's consistent viewpoint that abolishing the Department of Education is an attack on public education.  Can you disagree with that assertion?  Sure.  But you don't get to tell me that my opinion that wanting to abolish the DoE is clearly "going after public education" is wrong.  So stop playing the victim.

50 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

So you have actual proof that Republicans have a conspiracy to shut down all public schools? Cause I live in a red state and there's no such thing here.

Not at all!  That's why you're false equivalence was so...false.  Even what you're claiming people on the left are claiming about people on the right was bullshit.  Nobody is saying Republicans want to end public education altogether.  That strawman needs to go back to strawman school.  

50 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

And no, you can't hold up a position of being for charter schools as a plan to destroy all public education.

Huh?

[DanteGabriel]

26 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I don't disagree at all with the first paragraph. Tbh, at this point I think this is more about holding onto their rich donor base than any adherence to policy principle at this point and they're hiding behind this old idea of Reaganomics. That they don't even mention Reaganomics and trickle down by name anymore is telling. 

But you still can't take a single instance and make it a generality. It's a dead end. Dems need to call out the rich donor issue if this comes up again. Can't imagine it'd play well with a base which is increasingly populist.

Okay, aside from ignoring the actual results of trickle-down economics, I guess we only have Republican lies about the need to invade Iraq and the way the occupation was conducted, their denial of climate change, their insistence on abstinence-only sex education, rejection of evolution and insistence on creationism, and wholehearted embrace of an obvious fraud like Trump. Definitely no pattern there that would indicate a party that would rather stuff its head up its own ass rather than engage with observable reality.

What the fuck are you even on?

[Larry of the Lawn]

This is an Oscar worthy Poe performance

[Darth Richard II]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is an Oscar worthy Poe performance

I swear it's Poe's Law day. Like, every corner of the internet.

[Lollygag]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

Okay, aside from ignoring the actual results of trickle-down economics, I guess we only have Republican lies about the need to invade Iraq and the way the occupation was conducted, their denial of climate change, their insistence on abstinence-only sex education, rejection of evolution and insistence on creationism, and wholehearted embrace of an obvious fraud like Trump. Definitely no pattern there that would indicate a party that would rather stuff its head up its own ass rather than engage with observable reality.

What the fuck are you even on?

Dude, no one is saying go along with them when they take positions like that. What exactly are you suggesting? Give up completely because you won't get 100%? 

Here, I showed that sometimes they can be counted on to do some good stuff. You take advantage of that if you can get it. And if you can't get it, you keep trying different methods. I don't get this fatalism thing. 

 

[Lollygag]

13 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is an Oscar worthy Poe performance

 

1 minute ago, Darth Richard II said:

I swear it's Poe's Law day. Like, every corner of the internet.

Holy cow. Are you all really arguing for not working with Rs even when it turns out a win-win situation? Are you all really trying to take the position that working with them never turns out anything good, when it actually does happen and I demonstrated this? 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

when it actually does happen and I demonstrated this? 

Please remind me when you demonstrated this.

[DanteGabriel]

What "good stuff" have Republicans done, and how is that balanced against the disasters and atrocities they've inflicted upon the nation and the world? What the SUFFERING FUCK do you think makes up for invading Iraq? For ignoring and exacerbating climate change? For destroying the middle class and empowering a berserk orgy of plutocrat looting? For waging a war against science and forcing creationism into educational curricula? For disenfranchising generations of minority voters? Am I supposed to be excited because someone said something nice about Sherrod Brown or something? What kind of dead-end moron tries to defend this track record?

[Darth Richard II]

9 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

What "good stuff" have Republicans done, and how is that balanced against the disasters and atrocities they've inflicted upon the nation and the world? What the SUFFERING FUCK do you think makes up for invading Iraq? For ignoring and exacerbating climate change? For destroying the middle class and empowering a berserk orgy of plutocrat looting? For waging a war against science and forcing creationism into educational curricula? For disenfranchising generations of minority voters? Am I supposed to be excited because someone said something nice about Sherrod Brown or something? What kind of dead-end moron tries to defend this track record?

You forgot locking kids up in cages.