3 ms·

The Democrats seem to be the single party that is capable of governing. It’s not selfish to want to replace dysfunction with function.

tivert 3y ago
> The Democrats seem to be the single party that is capable of governing. It’s not selfish to want to replace dysfunction with function. Not really. The Democrats take deliberate action to cultivate and perpetuate that dysfunction for partisan advantage. They scream about the danger of "Ultra MAGA" Republicans while supporting those very same people in primaries, and they refuse to take very easy actions to stabilize the system (e.g. not siding with Matt Gaetz's antics). That shows they're not interested in "replac[ing] dysfunction with function" but rather with acquiring power. And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  > Not really. The Democrats take deliberate action to cultivate and perpetuate that dysfunction for partisan advantage. They scream about the danger of "Ultra MAGA" Republicans while supporting those very same people in primaries, and they refuse to take very easy actions to stabilize the system (e.g. not siding with Matt Gaetz's antics). That shows they're not interested in "replac[ing] dysfunction with function" but rather with acquiring power. We're going in circles here. "[The Democrats] acquiring power" in this case, IMO, is replacing function with dysfunction. And the Democrats were trying to stabilize the system. After Gaetz made the motion to vacate, there were active discussions happening between moderates from both sides to pass rule changes to go along with saving McCarthy's skin. McCarthy decided to blow that up by not waiting for that to play out before holding the vote. One of the very few things that I'm in wholehearted agreement with Matt Gaetz is that a clear majority of the House did not trust McCarthy's word, and rightfully so. The Democrats have no obligation to save someone that they don't trust on the assumption that the Republicans would be unable to agree amongst themselves on a replacement. > And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities. Thank you for reminding me to think about it carefully. Ok, I've thought about it carefully. When I speak of the capability of governing, I'm speaking pretty close to literally. When the Democrats are in power there is no risk of the government shutting down and there is no risk that making our debt payments will be used as a hostage to achieve policy goals.
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities. > Thank you for reminding me to think about it carefully. Ok, I've thought about it carefully. When I speak of the capability of governing, I'm speaking pretty close to literally. When the Democrats are in power there is no risk of the government shutting down and there is no risk that making our debt payments will be used as a hostage to achieve policy goals. You're not thinking that carefully. There's no risk of those things happening when Republicans are in power either. Shutdowns happen when the government is split and Republicans and Democrats refuse to compromise. And your comment is a good example of the kind of propaganda rhetoric I was talking about: two sides won't come to an agreement, but half that equation is forgotten to take shots at the enemy. It's pure myside bias.
    - bandyaboot 3y ago
      > You're not thinking that carefully. There's no risk of those things happening when Republicans are in power either. Shutdowns happen when the government is split and Republicans and Democrats refuse to compromise. And your comment is a good example of the kind of propaganda rhetoric I was talking about: two sides won't come to an agreement, but half that equation is forgotten to take shots at the enemy. It's pure myside bias. Well sure, if you don’t have a particularly good understanding of how the House works, then one might be tempted to lazily both-sides these fiascos. In reality, the House is a body dominated by the party in the majority. They have absolute control over the agenda. In the latest near shutdown drama, the Republicans were only trying to solve the issue themselves. There was no compromise for the Democrats to agree to. Once it was clear that he couldn’t avert the shutdown this way, McCarthy sought a compromise solution to get Democrats on board, and they quickly agreed. So stop with the gaslighting. As for the debt ceiling nonsense that only happens when Republicans control the House and there’s not a Republican President, no, you don’t reward hostage-taking.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  Here is a simple test to see if the republicans are ready to govern, select a speaker.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Here is a simple test to see if the republicans are ready to govern, select a speaker. And here's the real test if Democrats are serious about being the responsible party: help deal with pricks like Gaetz instead of complaining while simultaneously chanting "not my responsibility." Selecting a speaker is the job of the whole house, and there's nothing stopping Democrats from voting for a moderate Republican (and maybe they should stop trying to get those guys primaryed). If they're not willing to do that, they should drop all the rhetoric about responsibility and dysfunction and say what they really want: a government that's as dysfunctional as possible whenever they're not in control.

tivert 3y ago

> The Democrats seem to be the single party that is capable of governing. It’s not selfish to want to replace dysfunction with function. Not really. The Democrats take deliberate action to cultivate and perpetuate that dysfunction for partisan advantage. They scream about the danger of "Ultra MAGA" Republicans while supporting those very same people in primaries, and they refuse to take very easy actions to stabilize the system (e.g. not siding with Matt Gaetz's antics). That shows they're not interested in "replac[ing] dysfunction with function" but rather with acquiring power. And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities.

bandyaboot 3y ago
> Not really. The Democrats take deliberate action to cultivate and perpetuate that dysfunction for partisan advantage. They scream about the danger of "Ultra MAGA" Republicans while supporting those very same people in primaries, and they refuse to take very easy actions to stabilize the system (e.g. not siding with Matt Gaetz's antics). That shows they're not interested in "replac[ing] dysfunction with function" but rather with acquiring power. We're going in circles here. "[The Democrats] acquiring power" in this case, IMO, is replacing function with dysfunction. And the Democrats were trying to stabilize the system. After Gaetz made the motion to vacate, there were active discussions happening between moderates from both sides to pass rule changes to go along with saving McCarthy's skin. McCarthy decided to blow that up by not waiting for that to play out before holding the vote. One of the very few things that I'm in wholehearted agreement with Matt Gaetz is that a clear majority of the House did not trust McCarthy's word, and rightfully so. The Democrats have no obligation to save someone that they don't trust on the assumption that the Republicans would be unable to agree amongst themselves on a replacement. > And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities. Thank you for reminding me to think about it carefully. Ok, I've thought about it carefully. When I speak of the capability of governing, I'm speaking pretty close to literally. When the Democrats are in power there is no risk of the government shutting down and there is no risk that making our debt payments will be used as a hostage to achieve policy goals.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities. > Thank you for reminding me to think about it carefully. Ok, I've thought about it carefully. When I speak of the capability of governing, I'm speaking pretty close to literally. When the Democrats are in power there is no risk of the government shutting down and there is no risk that making our debt payments will be used as a hostage to achieve policy goals. You're not thinking that carefully. There's no risk of those things happening when Republicans are in power either. Shutdowns happen when the government is split and Republicans and Democrats refuse to compromise. And your comment is a good example of the kind of propaganda rhetoric I was talking about: two sides won't come to an agreement, but half that equation is forgotten to take shots at the enemy. It's pure myside bias.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    > You're not thinking that carefully. There's no risk of those things happening when Republicans are in power either. Shutdowns happen when the government is split and Republicans and Democrats refuse to compromise. And your comment is a good example of the kind of propaganda rhetoric I was talking about: two sides won't come to an agreement, but half that equation is forgotten to take shots at the enemy. It's pure myside bias. Well sure, if you don’t have a particularly good understanding of how the House works, then one might be tempted to lazily both-sides these fiascos. In reality, the House is a body dominated by the party in the majority. They have absolute control over the agenda. In the latest near shutdown drama, the Republicans were only trying to solve the issue themselves. There was no compromise for the Democrats to agree to. Once it was clear that he couldn’t avert the shutdown this way, McCarthy sought a compromise solution to get Democrats on board, and they quickly agreed. So stop with the gaslighting. As for the debt ceiling nonsense that only happens when Republicans control the House and there’s not a Republican President, no, you don’t reward hostage-taking.
nickthegreek 3y ago
Here is a simple test to see if the republicans are ready to govern, select a speaker.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Here is a simple test to see if the republicans are ready to govern, select a speaker. And here's the real test if Democrats are serious about being the responsible party: help deal with pricks like Gaetz instead of complaining while simultaneously chanting "not my responsibility." Selecting a speaker is the job of the whole house, and there's nothing stopping Democrats from voting for a moderate Republican (and maybe they should stop trying to get those guys primaryed). If they're not willing to do that, they should drop all the rhetoric about responsibility and dysfunction and say what they really want: a government that's as dysfunctional as possible whenever they're not in control.