4 ms·

Right now the two major parties cannot agree even on the causes of the problems (or on some level even that there is a problem) - why would I expect politics as

by Aloha 11y ago

Right now the two major parties cannot agree even on the causes of the problems (or on some level even that there is a problem) - why would I expect politics as usual to produce different results?

ocfx 11y ago
They don't want to agree because then they lose issues to platform on that the general public is excited about.
Frondo 11y ago
It's funny, because if this were a large software project that was going awry for whatever reason, I don't think anyone here would suggest, "hey, this isn't going well, bring in that blowhard from marketing, at least that'll break it spectacularly!" Not sure why it's different when it's your government we're talking about.
- maratd 11y ago
  That would be exactly what people would suggest, because they know from experience the "blowhard from marketing" will screw things up so badly, that the only viable option will be to start over with a clean slate. And that's exactly what's needed for a "large software project that was going awry" but it's always easier to say patch this here, tweak it there. Only when you can no longer patch and tweak yourself to anything functional will people actually clamor for a clean break. That's why they vote for Trump. Nobody expects him to fix anything. They expect a clean slate at some point. Whether it's during his tenure or after, it's irrelevant. He's the catalyst.
  - harryjo 11y ago
    It won't be a clean slate. It will be a very dirty slate, with the detritus of millions of ruined lives spattered around it. A lot of what people hated about GWB was how he tried to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into a clean slate, and made a huge mess. Why would you want to do the same to USA (except out of some sense of radical fairness...)
krapp 11y ago
Why would you expect a "wrecking ball" to produce positive results?
- maratd 11y ago
  If you want to build a new house, you have to tear down the old one first. That's what people use wrecking balls for. I suppose the demolition in and of itself is not a positive. It is destruction, after all. But if your desire is to build a new house, you can't skip that step. I don't think anybody wants Trump building that new house... but I don't think it matters who the wrecking ball is? Hence the original sentiment of the OP that it doesn't matter if it's Trump or Bernie, same result.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Heh, to follow your metaphor a little further, where do we live after knocking down the old house with the wrecking ball?
    - davidw 11y ago
      Somalia, presumably, to get a taste for what the aftermath of a wrecking ball looks like.
  - krapp 11y ago
    >I don't think anybody wants Trump building that new house... ...other than anyone who votes for Trump, which leads me to suspect they haven't thought it through beyond setting him loose and watching him burn down the White House. The repercussions of a bad presidency can last for decades, and are felt across the globe. I shudder to think about a purposely destructive presidency.
unchocked 11y ago
They can't agree on anything because the national Republicans have been captured by the tea party, who has in turn now been captured by the Trumpists. Both events were based on newcomers to the political process claiming that the system is broken beyond repair, and that they were the needed "Wrecking Ball". The tea party managed to scuttle Obama's "Grand Bargain" with Boehner, which consisted of TEN TRILLION DOLLARS of spending cuts in return for one trillion in new revenue (taxes). In my mind, this is when the national republicans ceased to be a rational force, in others' minds it could be the blowup over our debt ceiling or the government shutdowns, but regardless most rational observers with an understanding of the political process would agree that the right has lost its mind because of capture by revolutionaries. A Trump administration would bring far worse (just this week he suggested that he'd be open to partial default on US government debt). It's basically a self-reinforcing cycle of crazy where bad outcomes from bad decisions cause irrational actors to make worse decisions in response. So the reason the two parties can't agree on anything is that there's really only one party, and that's the Democrats. This is problematic, because our political system is based on having two parties, either of which could be trusted to provide reasonably responsible governance. The United States is, despite the apocalyptic rhetoric, a strong nation with a relatively stable government and an economy that is literally the envy of the world. We certainly do have problems, and that is what "politics as usual" is designed to fix. So I urge you to play the game rather than try to kick over the table.
- Aloha 11y ago
  Americans need jobs. The democrats want to soak the rich (I agree that, we probably should pay more anyhow), create a comprehensive social safety net, broadly have a larger role for government in individuals lives. The republicans seem very concerned with collective security, 'judicial overreach' (any policy they don't like from a judge), and smaller government - this mostly seems to manifest itself as a firm 'no' to any proposed solution from the democrats. Neither of them (at least at a national level) is focusing on what I see as the elephants in the room: 1. Broad swaths of the country that were prosperous 20 years ago are now not - and enormous areas that were busy 40 years ago are now dead wastelands. If you go out to a rural area, you'll see this, go on a road trip, go thru small towns, the only new buildings (built after ~1974 or so) are usually government or at funded by outside capital, (like McDonalds, or a Wal*Mart) sure, the college towns and county seats are often somewhat prosperous, but not like they were even in the 80's. If you look in third and fourth tier cities, you see similar trends. 2. In either place, rural or urban, its also very very hard for the young to find a good job, with or without a college degree - this has a multitude of causes - from we're teaching our youth the wrong things, to companies expecting inexperienced workers to come magically all trained up for the job - this topic alone is a couple thousand words - just suffice it to say, something is wrong. Neither party is really speaking to this, they broadly don't see outside the beltway - I blame free trade, one size fits all regulation, and excessive defense spending (instead of say, infrastructure) for this malaise - I believe very strongly unless we fix these problems, they will come to breach the very foundations of our republic and we may end up with a much worse system than we have now.

by Aloha 11y ago

Right now the two major parties cannot agree even on the causes of the problems (or on some level even that there is a problem) - why would I expect politics as usual to produce different results?

ocfx 11y ago

They don't want to agree because then they lose issues to platform on that the general public is excited about.

Frondo 11y ago

It's funny, because if this were a large software project that was going awry for whatever reason, I don't think anyone here would suggest, "hey, this isn't going well, bring in that blowhard from marketing, at least that'll break it spectacularly!" Not sure why it's different when it's your government we're talking about.

maratd 11y ago
That would be exactly what people would suggest, because they know from experience the "blowhard from marketing" will screw things up so badly, that the only viable option will be to start over with a clean slate. And that's exactly what's needed for a "large software project that was going awry" but it's always easier to say patch this here, tweak it there. Only when you can no longer patch and tweak yourself to anything functional will people actually clamor for a clean break. That's why they vote for Trump. Nobody expects him to fix anything. They expect a clean slate at some point. Whether it's during his tenure or after, it's irrelevant. He's the catalyst.
- harryjo 11y ago
  It won't be a clean slate. It will be a very dirty slate, with the detritus of millions of ruined lives spattered around it. A lot of what people hated about GWB was how he tried to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into a clean slate, and made a huge mess. Why would you want to do the same to USA (except out of some sense of radical fairness...)

krapp 11y ago

Why would you expect a "wrecking ball" to produce positive results?

maratd 11y ago
If you want to build a new house, you have to tear down the old one first. That's what people use wrecking balls for. I suppose the demolition in and of itself is not a positive. It is destruction, after all. But if your desire is to build a new house, you can't skip that step. I don't think anybody wants Trump building that new house... but I don't think it matters who the wrecking ball is? Hence the original sentiment of the OP that it doesn't matter if it's Trump or Bernie, same result.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Heh, to follow your metaphor a little further, where do we live after knocking down the old house with the wrecking ball?
  - davidw 11y ago
    Somalia, presumably, to get a taste for what the aftermath of a wrecking ball looks like.
- krapp 11y ago
  >I don't think anybody wants Trump building that new house... ...other than anyone who votes for Trump, which leads me to suspect they haven't thought it through beyond setting him loose and watching him burn down the White House. The repercussions of a bad presidency can last for decades, and are felt across the globe. I shudder to think about a purposely destructive presidency.

unchocked 11y ago

They can't agree on anything because the national Republicans have been captured by the tea party, who has in turn now been captured by the Trumpists. Both events were based on newcomers to the political process claiming that the system is broken beyond repair, and that they were the needed "Wrecking Ball". The tea party managed to scuttle Obama's "Grand Bargain" with Boehner, which consisted of TEN TRILLION DOLLARS of spending cuts in return for one trillion in new revenue (taxes). In my mind, this is when the national republicans ceased to be a rational force, in others' minds it could be the blowup over our debt ceiling or the government shutdowns, but regardless most rational observers with an understanding of the political process would agree that the right has lost its mind because of capture by revolutionaries. A Trump administration would bring far worse (just this week he suggested that he'd be open to partial default on US government debt). It's basically a self-reinforcing cycle of crazy where bad outcomes from bad decisions cause irrational actors to make worse decisions in response. So the reason the two parties can't agree on anything is that there's really only one party, and that's the Democrats. This is problematic, because our political system is based on having two parties, either of which could be trusted to provide reasonably responsible governance. The United States is, despite the apocalyptic rhetoric, a strong nation with a relatively stable government and an economy that is literally the envy of the world. We certainly do have problems, and that is what "politics as usual" is designed to fix. So I urge you to play the game rather than try to kick over the table.

Aloha 11y ago
Americans need jobs. The democrats want to soak the rich (I agree that, we probably should pay more anyhow), create a comprehensive social safety net, broadly have a larger role for government in individuals lives. The republicans seem very concerned with collective security, 'judicial overreach' (any policy they don't like from a judge), and smaller government - this mostly seems to manifest itself as a firm 'no' to any proposed solution from the democrats. Neither of them (at least at a national level) is focusing on what I see as the elephants in the room: 1. Broad swaths of the country that were prosperous 20 years ago are now not - and enormous areas that were busy 40 years ago are now dead wastelands. If you go out to a rural area, you'll see this, go on a road trip, go thru small towns, the only new buildings (built after ~1974 or so) are usually government or at funded by outside capital, (like McDonalds, or a Wal*Mart) sure, the college towns and county seats are often somewhat prosperous, but not like they were even in the 80's. If you look in third and fourth tier cities, you see similar trends. 2. In either place, rural or urban, its also very very hard for the young to find a good job, with or without a college degree - this has a multitude of causes - from we're teaching our youth the wrong things, to companies expecting inexperienced workers to come magically all trained up for the job - this topic alone is a couple thousand words - just suffice it to say, something is wrong. Neither party is really speaking to this, they broadly don't see outside the beltway - I blame free trade, one size fits all regulation, and excessive defense spending (instead of say, infrastructure) for this malaise - I believe very strongly unless we fix these problems, they will come to breach the very foundations of our republic and we may end up with a much worse system than we have now.