4 ms·

For those Americans on HN born before the 90s, have American politicians always been this petty and ignorant? It seems like for since Obama elected the entire

by zht 15y ago

For those Americans on HN born before the 90s, have American politicians always been this petty and ignorant? It seems like for since Obama elected the entire opposition party has tried to do everything in their power to oppose anything that the party in power has come up with. And when Democrats and GOP do agree on something, it's bills like SOPA and NDAA.

jquery 15y ago
This is not unique to America or recent history.
- viraptor 15y ago
  Probably the most ridiculous example is Liberum Veto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto - not sure if any law at all would pass these days if that option was still possible.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
It seems like for since Obama elected the entire opposition party has tried to do everything in their power to oppose anything It hasn't been forever, but certainly much longer than Obama's term. I believe that it was under GWB that the stonewalling through threatened filibusters, and refusal to fill judicial appointments, really heated up. Obviously that was spearheaded by the Democrats, by which we can see that both parties can be petulant and petty.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > I believe that it was under GWB that the stonewalling through threatened filibusters, and refusal to fill judicial appointments, really heated up. The Clinton presidency was full of pettiness, the Republican congress following their 1994 popularity wave were intent on destroying his two terms utterly, just because.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    I was ready to listen to your argument, except that (A) you haven't provided any concrete examples of this pettiness, and (B) your "just because" comment shows me that your mind isn't open to the possibility that there could be rational policy objections that really need to be debated.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      For one example, the House Republicans impeached President Clinton over a blowjob after a years-long fishing expedition that failed to turn up any actual misconduct.
    - masklinn 15y ago
      > I was ready to listen to your argument Excuse me for not believing a word of this. > your "just because" comment shows me that your mind isn't open to the possibility that there could be rational policy objections that really need to be debated. I'm fully open to this idea, but have not managed to find any, let alone any which would justify the level of dogged pursuit and of dismissal of concerns the Republican congress put the Clinton presidency through: Ken Starr (an unusually fervent Republican to handle a case possibly involving a Democratic president), initially appointed for the Whitewater investigation, expanded it in a broadside, anything goes investigation into anything which could touch the president. The Clinton presidency is also — as far as I know — the first one since Watergate for which many potential issues were quickly labelled -gates: Whitewatergate, Nannygate, Filegate, Travelgate, and of course the various callings of the Lewkinsky affair (monicagate, lewkinskygate, tailgate, zippergate, sexgate) If you have policy-based justifications for these, I'm interested though not exactly hopeful.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mahyarm 15y ago
Politians are petty and ignorant in general pretty much world wide. Look at broadcasts at other countries political procedures and you'll see name calling, witty speeches and so on.
dugmartin 15y ago
Here is the first example I thought of - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80th_United_States_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80th_United_States_Congress
georgieporgie 15y ago
Sadly, my Google-fu is failing me. I believe it was a This American Life episode which looked into partisan politics, and how the majority tries to stomp all over the minority at all times. When the tables are turned, the exact same thing happens again. It's always happened, and the politicians know it. They treat the minority opposition terribly, knowing full well that they may be on the on the receiving end of such treatment in only a few years. It's simply seen as the way things are done.

by zht 15y ago

jquery 15y ago

This is not unique to America or recent history.

viraptor 15y ago
Probably the most ridiculous example is Liberum Veto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto - not sure if any law at all would pass these days if that option was still possible.

CWuestefeld 15y ago

It seems like for since Obama elected the entire opposition party has tried to do everything in their power to oppose anything It hasn't been forever, but certainly much longer than Obama's term. I believe that it was under GWB that the stonewalling through threatened filibusters, and refusal to fill judicial appointments, really heated up. Obviously that was spearheaded by the Democrats, by which we can see that both parties can be petulant and petty.

masklinn 15y ago
> I believe that it was under GWB that the stonewalling through threatened filibusters, and refusal to fill judicial appointments, really heated up. The Clinton presidency was full of pettiness, the Republican congress following their 1994 popularity wave were intent on destroying his two terms utterly, just because.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  I was ready to listen to your argument, except that (A) you haven't provided any concrete examples of this pettiness, and (B) your "just because" comment shows me that your mind isn't open to the possibility that there could be rational policy objections that really need to be debated.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    For one example, the House Republicans impeached President Clinton over a blowjob after a years-long fishing expedition that failed to turn up any actual misconduct.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > I was ready to listen to your argument Excuse me for not believing a word of this. > your "just because" comment shows me that your mind isn't open to the possibility that there could be rational policy objections that really need to be debated. I'm fully open to this idea, but have not managed to find any, let alone any which would justify the level of dogged pursuit and of dismissal of concerns the Republican congress put the Clinton presidency through: Ken Starr (an unusually fervent Republican to handle a case possibly involving a Democratic president), initially appointed for the Whitewater investigation, expanded it in a broadside, anything goes investigation into anything which could touch the president. The Clinton presidency is also — as far as I know — the first one since Watergate for which many potential issues were quickly labelled -gates: Whitewatergate, Nannygate, Filegate, Travelgate, and of course the various callings of the Lewkinsky affair (monicagate, lewkinskygate, tailgate, zippergate, sexgate) If you have policy-based justifications for these, I'm interested though not exactly hopeful.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mahyarm 15y ago

Politians are petty and ignorant in general pretty much world wide. Look at broadcasts at other countries political procedures and you'll see name calling, witty speeches and so on.

dugmartin 15y ago

Here is the first example I thought of - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80th_United_States_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80th_United_States_Congress

georgieporgie 15y ago

Sadly, my Google-fu is failing me. I believe it was a This American Life episode which looked into partisan politics, and how the majority tries to stomp all over the minority at all times. When the tables are turned, the exact same thing happens again. It's always happened, and the politicians know it. They treat the minority opposition terribly, knowing full well that they may be on the on the receiving end of such treatment in only a few years. It's simply seen as the way things are done.