9 ms·

There is bipartisan agreement that China needs to be confronted and contained. How it is accomplished may be debated, but that is tractable. There is almost no

by rmk 6y ago

There is bipartisan agreement that China needs to be confronted and contained. How it is accomplished may be debated, but that is tractable. There is almost no agreement on the rest of the agenda, though. Democrats and leftists want green initiatives and universal healthcare, which both have zero support from Republicans. The leftist wing of the Democratic Party will be emboldened by their successes this election and will hijack the agenda, forcing America to smack the new administration (and Congress) back into doing nothing by putting in Republicans during the midterms. Republicans have much more discipline as a party and will work to obstruct, because that's what wins them votes. Why should they cooperate with a party that spent the majority of the past four years trying to impeach a legitimately elected President? In fact, they might start a similar effort, because the saga of Biden's ne'er do well son Hunter has barely begun. Trump is not going away, neither is Steve Bannon. They have a lot more time on their hands to team up again, possibly bringing Donald Trump Jr. into the fold, to build a grassroots opposition campaign to stymie the Democrat agenda. Remember that Trump has already made the Republicans' long-sought wish of a Conservative Supreme Court (for almost a generation) a reality. He has also given the Republican party a good number of wins in the House (+5/6 for Republicans vs +1 for Democrats). So from their perspective, it may make sense to ride the Trump wave some more, because it has delivered for them.

crooked-v 6y ago
> hijack the agenda Please elaborate on what you perceive as 'hijacking the agenda'.
- rmk 6y ago
  Biden is pretty centrist and is not willing to go for universal healthcare, whereas the Bernie side of the spectrum explicitly campaigned for this. That's one of the examples.
  - mhoad 6y ago
    A very clear majority of Americans support universal healthcare every time they are polled about it. This isn’t the radical agenda that you seem to be claiming it to be, it’s about bringing the US system to be closer in line with what every other first world nation has already had for decades. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/%3Famp%3D1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2...
    - rmk 6y ago
      A majority of Americans also reject tax increases on their incomes, and this program is very expensive: A majority Republicans and Republican-leaning voters reject the notion that the Government should provide overall coverage. Roughly 37% overall do not want this at all. Interestingly, Pew only asked the question of what the public wants, but not how much things cost and how they will be paid for. As always, the devil is in the details: Roughly 53% do not support raising income taxes on incomes above 250,000! It's clear that when we are asked whether we want something and then also asked if we want to pay for it via higher taxes, we have balked. Ultimately, if folks are not willing to pay for something, they can't have it! And if they are unwilling to pay for something, they're effectively saying they don't want it. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/27/more-americans-favor-raising-than-lowering-tax-rates-on-corporations-high-household-incomes/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/27/more-americ...
amykyta 6y ago
I’ve seen the impeachment described as illegitimate somehow. It was political sure, no doubt about it. But he tried to use his office to coerce a foreign government to take down his political opponent. That should be a fireable offense. He only escaped it because of purely political defense.
- rmk 6y ago
  He violated campaign finance laws, but there was not enough evidence to support the charge of misuse of office in a treasonous manner. You may personally be convinced of the President's wrondoing, but to try a sitting President for what is a grave offense, there are much higher standards of evidence and procedure. The whole impeachment was an exercise in power from day one, but Democrats made a huge fuss about a similar exercise in power by Trump: appointing a Justice t the Supreme Court in an election year. Both were actions that where the actors were entirely within their rights (The lower house has the right to impeach, and the upper house has the right to try the President; similarly, a President absolutely has the right to appoint a Justice of the Supreme Court for as long as he is President.), but the President made no bones about what the whole thing was, while the Democrats tried hard to couch their act in moral and ethical terms. Judging by the way the election went (razor thin margins at almost every level with 70+ million popular votes for Trump), the public were having none of it.
  - yongjik 6y ago
    > You may personally be convinced of the President's wrondoing, but to try a sitting President for what is a grave offense, there are much higher standards of evidence and procedure. Some of us remember the good old days when a (Democratic) president almost got impeached for lying about getting oral sex from an intern, so I'm not really convinced about your argument here.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      But he admitted to lying. That’s pretty rock solid evidence.
dodobirdlord 6y ago
> Why should they cooperate with a party that spent the majority of the past four years trying to impeach a legitimately elected President? What does the legitimacy of his election have to do with anything?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Why should they cooperate with a party that spent the majority of the past four years trying to impeach a legitimately elected President? Because effective government of the country depends on that, or them not having the votes to matter. Also, the impeachment power presupposes that anyone subjected to it will hold office legitimately but be abusing that office; someone who does not legally hold office doesn't need to be impeached, as their pretense of exercising the authority of the office is a legal nullity.
sagarm 6y ago
Impeachment was intended to be used in the context of an elected president. It's kind of the point.
rtx 6y ago
They can tackle it in other ways. US government can setup hospitals and employ doctors. It can be free of cost. Build more nuclear plants, no one from the right will oppose it.
ZeteticElench 6y ago
"Why should they cooperate with a party that spent the majority of the past four years trying to impeach a legitimately elected President" This is some very Fox Newsish spin. Trump was impeached because he commited a crime worthy of impeachment. He actually did about 10.

by rmk 6y ago

crooked-v 6y ago

> hijack the agenda Please elaborate on what you perceive as 'hijacking the agenda'.

rmk 6y ago
Biden is pretty centrist and is not willing to go for universal healthcare, whereas the Bernie side of the spectrum explicitly campaigned for this. That's one of the examples.
- mhoad 6y ago
  A very clear majority of Americans support universal healthcare every time they are polled about it. This isn’t the radical agenda that you seem to be claiming it to be, it’s about bringing the US system to be closer in line with what every other first world nation has already had for decades. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/%3Famp%3D1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2...
  - rmk 6y ago
    A majority of Americans also reject tax increases on their incomes, and this program is very expensive: A majority Republicans and Republican-leaning voters reject the notion that the Government should provide overall coverage. Roughly 37% overall do not want this at all. Interestingly, Pew only asked the question of what the public wants, but not how much things cost and how they will be paid for. As always, the devil is in the details: Roughly 53% do not support raising income taxes on incomes above 250,000! It's clear that when we are asked whether we want something and then also asked if we want to pay for it via higher taxes, we have balked. Ultimately, if folks are not willing to pay for something, they can't have it! And if they are unwilling to pay for something, they're effectively saying they don't want it. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/27/more-americans-favor-raising-than-lowering-tax-rates-on-corporations-high-household-incomes/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/27/more-americ...

amykyta 6y ago

I’ve seen the impeachment described as illegitimate somehow. It was political sure, no doubt about it. But he tried to use his office to coerce a foreign government to take down his political opponent. That should be a fireable offense. He only escaped it because of purely political defense.

rmk 6y ago
He violated campaign finance laws, but there was not enough evidence to support the charge of misuse of office in a treasonous manner. You may personally be convinced of the President's wrondoing, but to try a sitting President for what is a grave offense, there are much higher standards of evidence and procedure. The whole impeachment was an exercise in power from day one, but Democrats made a huge fuss about a similar exercise in power by Trump: appointing a Justice t the Supreme Court in an election year. Both were actions that where the actors were entirely within their rights (The lower house has the right to impeach, and the upper house has the right to try the President; similarly, a President absolutely has the right to appoint a Justice of the Supreme Court for as long as he is President.), but the President made no bones about what the whole thing was, while the Democrats tried hard to couch their act in moral and ethical terms. Judging by the way the election went (razor thin margins at almost every level with 70+ million popular votes for Trump), the public were having none of it.
- yongjik 6y ago
  > You may personally be convinced of the President's wrondoing, but to try a sitting President for what is a grave offense, there are much higher standards of evidence and procedure. Some of us remember the good old days when a (Democratic) president almost got impeached for lying about getting oral sex from an intern, so I'm not really convinced about your argument here.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    But he admitted to lying. That’s pretty rock solid evidence.

dodobirdlord 6y ago

> Why should they cooperate with a party that spent the majority of the past four years trying to impeach a legitimately elected President? What does the legitimacy of his election have to do with anything?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Why should they cooperate with a party that spent the majority of the past four years trying to impeach a legitimately elected President? Because effective government of the country depends on that, or them not having the votes to matter. Also, the impeachment power presupposes that anyone subjected to it will hold office legitimately but be abusing that office; someone who does not legally hold office doesn't need to be impeached, as their pretense of exercising the authority of the office is a legal nullity.

sagarm 6y ago

Impeachment was intended to be used in the context of an elected president. It's kind of the point.

rtx 6y ago

They can tackle it in other ways. US government can setup hospitals and employ doctors. It can be free of cost. Build more nuclear plants, no one from the right will oppose it.

ZeteticElench 6y ago

"Why should they cooperate with a party that spent the majority of the past four years trying to impeach a legitimately elected President" This is some very Fox Newsish spin. Trump was impeached because he commited a crime worthy of impeachment. He actually did about 10.