4 ms·

From the outside, it's been glaringly obvious that the US has had a very nasty partisanship problem for quite a while. In other democracies opposing parties ma

From the outside, it's been glaringly obvious that the US has had a very nasty partisanship problem for quite a while. In other democracies opposing parties manage to build a government and, mostly, work together for the "common good", there exists cooperation even across some of the largest ideological rifts. That kind of cooperation seems impossible in the US, it's like the two big parties have no other purpose but constantly opposing and obstructing each other, often out of sheer principle, every chance they get. Even tho their actual ideological positions ain't that far apart.

throwaway5752 8y ago
Can you give me an examples of that on both sides, though? Because if it's a bipartisan problem, then it should be not terribly difficult to find equivalent examples on both sides. If you can't, then may it's not a partisanship issue and it's something else. edit: this thread doesn't need to go on, so I will say my final word in this edit. In the context of the topic at hand (Russian hacking, criminal conspiracy/obstruction) I think it's without precedent in US history, reaction to it transcends party lines (evidenced by numerous and bipartisan condemnations) and it's not helpful to pull it into the "both sides do it" narrative because it's almost 100% along a party line in terms of who is involved in it.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Its partisanship. Democrats were loud about surveillance and foreign wars during the Bush years. Then they got quiet once Obama came in and did the same. Republicans were super concerned about the deficit during Obama years and now the completely forgot about that. People adjust their opinions based on who is in power. It's almost like 1984 " We've always been at war with Eastasia "
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > Democrats were loud about surveillance and foreign wars during the Bush years. Then they got quiet once Obama came in and did the same. I don't think so. Privacy activists and progressives have been outraged about the Democratic Party passive acquiescence on surveillance from the beginning (with the exception of a few individuals) - when did the party ever object to surveillance? Democrats in Congress supported the Afghan and Iraq wars under Bush Jr. Obama didn't do the same regarding foreign wars, he pulled the U.S. out of Iraq (implementing a deal negotiated by Bush) and reduced involvement in Afghanistan.
- elago 8y ago
  This is absurdly myopic. The only way it's 100% along party lines is if you ignore EVERYTHING else that happens in politics except the issue of Russian influence in the 2016. I could go on and on citing examples of both parties doing absurd things, but you've already indicated you're done with this thread so I won't cut into your Rush Limbaugh listening time and won't mention anything about birth certificates.
jessaustin 8y ago
They fight bitterly so that we won't notice they're so similar. If we did notice that we might wonder about alternatives to Coke-and-Pepsi.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. This quote comes to mind.
- root_axis 8y ago
  This is an oft-repeated platitude that isn't actually true. Do they have some troubling aspects in common, yes, but their differences are so vast that to regard them as the same as absurd. https://bothsidesarenotthesame.com/ https://bothsidesarenotthesame.com/
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    I scrolled down. I didn't see anything about war or defense, which is the primary USA screw-up of the last twenty years. There's nothing about The Drug War, which is the primary USA screw-up of the last 50 years. So yeah, they're the same. There was something about "War on Terror". I think they're trying to imply something about civil liberties or something. There were some 2013 links about Guantanamo. Well I'm not going to take their word for it, so I googled "Guantanamo vote". The first sentence of the first link is, "Tuesday's Senate vote was 91-3." Yeah, that's what I thought.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      > I scrolled down. I didn't see anything about war or defense, Well you didn't look hard enough, ctr+f "war", but even if that were the case, will you address the litany of issues displayed on that page or are you suggesting that none of those issues matter, so who cares how each party votes? > There were some 2013 links about Guantanamo. Well I'm not going to take their word for it, so I googled "Guantanamo vote". The first sentence of the first link is, "Tuesday's Senate vote was 91-3." What are you talking about? Post some specific links so I can verify what you're saying.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"From the outside, it's been glaringly obvious that the US has had a very nasty partisanship problem for quite a while." I don't recall Pelosi saying that she wanted to make Bush a "one term president". I don't recall Daschle refusing to even hold a hearing on Bush's Judicial nominees.
cmurf 8y ago
Their primary election constituencies demand it. Arguably a more democratic process in the primaries has given more power to fringe voters who show up, and taken power away from the elitism but stabilizing process found in caucusing. As the motivated extreme participants win primaries, you see polarized general elections, and polarized governing strategies. Whatever complaints you have about elected officials, they represent a constituency of rabid primary voters, and a lot of PAC money. Either improve primary election participation; or eliminate primaries (next to impossible, the parties own the state defined election process which includes the primary system) in favor of range or preferential voting or even old school run offs; or revert to party elites having more say in primaries.

throwaway5752 8y ago

Can you give me an examples of that on both sides, though? Because if it's a bipartisan problem, then it should be not terribly difficult to find equivalent examples on both sides. If you can't, then may it's not a partisanship issue and it's something else. edit: this thread doesn't need to go on, so I will say my final word in this edit. In the context of the topic at hand (Russian hacking, criminal conspiracy/obstruction) I think it's without precedent in US history, reaction to it transcends party lines (evidenced by numerous and bipartisan condemnations) and it's not helpful to pull it into the "both sides do it" narrative because it's almost 100% along a party line in terms of who is involved in it.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Its partisanship. Democrats were loud about surveillance and foreign wars during the Bush years. Then they got quiet once Obama came in and did the same. Republicans were super concerned about the deficit during Obama years and now the completely forgot about that. People adjust their opinions based on who is in power. It's almost like 1984 " We've always been at war with Eastasia "
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Democrats were loud about surveillance and foreign wars during the Bush years. Then they got quiet once Obama came in and did the same. I don't think so. Privacy activists and progressives have been outraged about the Democratic Party passive acquiescence on surveillance from the beginning (with the exception of a few individuals) - when did the party ever object to surveillance? Democrats in Congress supported the Afghan and Iraq wars under Bush Jr. Obama didn't do the same regarding foreign wars, he pulled the U.S. out of Iraq (implementing a deal negotiated by Bush) and reduced involvement in Afghanistan.
elago 8y ago
This is absurdly myopic. The only way it's 100% along party lines is if you ignore EVERYTHING else that happens in politics except the issue of Russian influence in the 2016. I could go on and on citing examples of both parties doing absurd things, but you've already indicated you're done with this thread so I won't cut into your Rush Limbaugh listening time and won't mention anything about birth certificates.

jessaustin 8y ago

They fight bitterly so that we won't notice they're so similar. If we did notice that we might wonder about alternatives to Coke-and-Pepsi.

maxxxxx 8y ago
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. This quote comes to mind.
root_axis 8y ago
This is an oft-repeated platitude that isn't actually true. Do they have some troubling aspects in common, yes, but their differences are so vast that to regard them as the same as absurd. https://bothsidesarenotthesame.com/ https://bothsidesarenotthesame.com/
- jessaustin 8y ago
  I scrolled down. I didn't see anything about war or defense, which is the primary USA screw-up of the last twenty years. There's nothing about The Drug War, which is the primary USA screw-up of the last 50 years. So yeah, they're the same. There was something about "War on Terror". I think they're trying to imply something about civil liberties or something. There were some 2013 links about Guantanamo. Well I'm not going to take their word for it, so I googled "Guantanamo vote". The first sentence of the first link is, "Tuesday's Senate vote was 91-3." Yeah, that's what I thought.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > I scrolled down. I didn't see anything about war or defense, Well you didn't look hard enough, ctr+f "war", but even if that were the case, will you address the litany of issues displayed on that page or are you suggesting that none of those issues matter, so who cares how each party votes? > There were some 2013 links about Guantanamo. Well I'm not going to take their word for it, so I googled "Guantanamo vote". The first sentence of the first link is, "Tuesday's Senate vote was 91-3." What are you talking about? Post some specific links so I can verify what you're saying.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"From the outside, it's been glaringly obvious that the US has had a very nasty partisanship problem for quite a while." I don't recall Pelosi saying that she wanted to make Bush a "one term president". I don't recall Daschle refusing to even hold a hearing on Bush's Judicial nominees.

cmurf 8y ago

Their primary election constituencies demand it. Arguably a more democratic process in the primaries has given more power to fringe voters who show up, and taken power away from the elitism but stabilizing process found in caucusing. As the motivated extreme participants win primaries, you see polarized general elections, and polarized governing strategies. Whatever complaints you have about elected officials, they represent a constituency of rabid primary voters, and a lot of PAC money. Either improve primary election participation; or eliminate primaries (next to impossible, the parties own the state defined election process which includes the primary system) in favor of range or preferential voting or even old school run offs; or revert to party elites having more say in primaries.