3 ms·

> Remember, it is perfectly valid to be equally aware of how the parties are different, but being more frustrated by the ways they are the same That's an easy

by ajross 3y ago

> Remember, it is perfectly valid to be equally aware of how the parties are different, but being more frustrated by the ways they are the same That's an easy genericism. In fact this particular issue under discussion is quite asymmetric. It's routine for a republican congress to block legislation that would otherwise pass (c.f. current bills for border security and Ukraine aid, our now-quarterly government shutdown jamboree, etc...). The reverse really is not true. I can't think of a notable bipartisan bill in the last decade blocked by a democratically-controlled government organ. Can you? It's perfectly valid to have complaints about both parties, but not to invent frustrations about how they are the same.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
Republicans block bills because they're stuffed full of unrelated things (by design - that way they can easily be painted as the bad guys - which is working, see your own comment). I'm not saying that the reverse doesn't happen - perhaps Democrats are okay with bloated bills, I dunno. Good rule of thumb is when a bill is blocked by one party, go find out everything that's in it and what parts the blocking party objected to. I guarantee it won't be the stuff the bill is named after.
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  Nonsense. Republicans were given everything they asked for on the border as a stand alone offer and refused it. It has nothing to do with some sort of genuine political position over riders on bills, and a simple examination of literally anything republicans have sponsored in the last 30 years will demonstrate that starkly. The point is obstructionism instead of governance.
  - mlrtime 3y ago
    It's still quote humorous how Biden can create these messes and yet Republicans are still the bad guys here... This is how nothing changes.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
      Republicans have blocked any attempt at reforming immigration, going back to Bush Jr's proposed bill in 2005. They have blocked bills with the exact terms they demanded just the day before. They are factually the bad guys here.
- oivey 3y ago
  What you’re describing is called compromise: you get what you want in exchange for something else.
  - ozr 3y ago
    In context, he's not describing a compromise, he's talking about a 'wrecking amendment'. Adding something absurd to a bill. The difference is that the person adding the amendment doesn't actually want or expect their amendment to be passed. Wikipedia has a fun example: > The Wyoming House of Representatives Committee of the Whole amended House Bill 0085, a proposal to study the state's emergency preparedness, in order to kill the bill. The amendment would have required the state to consider purchasing an aircraft carrier (even though Wyoming is a landlocked state), purchasing fighter jets, establishing a military, initiating a draft, and creating a currency.
    - oivey 3y ago
      No, he definitely is not. Painting every bill Republicans have blocked as having a wrecking amendment is beyond silly. He’s describing a refusal to compromise.
roenxi 3y ago
There seem to be some tautologies happening here. There are only 2 major parties in the US Congress. Bipartisan bills, somewhat by definition, are going to be passed by both parties. Similarly, since there are 2 major parties, if legislation is proposed by one party then it would pass unless the other blocks it. I don't see how you're expecting things to work differently. Would we expect Democrat-sponsored legislation to fail for reasons apart from Republican opposition? > The reverse really is not true. I doubt that is a true statement, but assuming it is then logically that would just mean that Republicans only propose legislation after they have talked to the Democrats and confirmed they are willing to vote it through. But that would suggest the Republicans are avoiding opportunities to kick up a fuss which doesn't sound like the US Congress we all know and love. > c.f. current bills for border security Unrelated note but it is amazing to me that the US has been an entity for a couple of centuries now and doesn't have legislation already in place to control the border.
- hattmall 3y ago
  Of course the US has legislation to control the border. There is an entire agency called the border patrol. The thing is right now , it seems, additional legislation is needed to actually compel the executive to have the border patrol do their job. Which this last bill didn't even do and would have simply dumped money into an auxiliary judicial system that serves virtually no purpose and would continue to do so even with more money. Shortening the time for an asylum hearing doesn't even matter because people don't show up for them. Any bill that maintains the current administration's position of simply letting people go completely free during their asylum waiting period is useless. Sure, people with legit claims might show up, but crimminals, which are the problem, are not going to come back for the hearing. Most Americans don't mind immigrants or immigration at all and not even the idea of illegal immigration is really a problem. It's just the people that commit crimes that are the problem, it's one of the reason we see recent immigrants be so strongly in favor of border security, because the people they specifically tried to get away from are showing up too. Not only are people caught crossing the border illegally not detained, but apparently even when they commit additional crimes it's too much for some cities and states to even keep them in jail for those crimes.
yieldcrv 3y ago
that's interested because you created a point I didn't make, in order to discredit the point I did make I won't call it a strawman argument since the grandparent post did say "inability to functionally govern and reach bi-partisan support for a lot of meaningful issues renders us helpless to improve bad systems", I was not making a point about bills passing my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same. you decided to talk about one way you believe they are different. its fine if that was a misunderstanding of my point, but if you're not aware of any unproductive way the parties are the same, then this discussion isn't for you.
- ajross 3y ago
  > my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same. You made that "isolated" point in a subthread about gridlock and the inability to pass meaningful legislation. And in that particular argument to which you replied, you were wrong: the parties are not "the same".

by ajross 3y ago

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago

Republicans block bills because they're stuffed full of unrelated things (by design - that way they can easily be painted as the bad guys - which is working, see your own comment). I'm not saying that the reverse doesn't happen - perhaps Democrats are okay with bloated bills, I dunno. Good rule of thumb is when a bill is blocked by one party, go find out everything that's in it and what parts the blocking party objected to. I guarantee it won't be the stuff the bill is named after.

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
Nonsense. Republicans were given everything they asked for on the border as a stand alone offer and refused it. It has nothing to do with some sort of genuine political position over riders on bills, and a simple examination of literally anything republicans have sponsored in the last 30 years will demonstrate that starkly. The point is obstructionism instead of governance.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  It's still quote humorous how Biden can create these messes and yet Republicans are still the bad guys here... This is how nothing changes.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
    Republicans have blocked any attempt at reforming immigration, going back to Bush Jr's proposed bill in 2005. They have blocked bills with the exact terms they demanded just the day before. They are factually the bad guys here.
oivey 3y ago
What you’re describing is called compromise: you get what you want in exchange for something else.
- ozr 3y ago
  In context, he's not describing a compromise, he's talking about a 'wrecking amendment'. Adding something absurd to a bill. The difference is that the person adding the amendment doesn't actually want or expect their amendment to be passed. Wikipedia has a fun example: > The Wyoming House of Representatives Committee of the Whole amended House Bill 0085, a proposal to study the state's emergency preparedness, in order to kill the bill. The amendment would have required the state to consider purchasing an aircraft carrier (even though Wyoming is a landlocked state), purchasing fighter jets, establishing a military, initiating a draft, and creating a currency.
  - oivey 3y ago
    No, he definitely is not. Painting every bill Republicans have blocked as having a wrecking amendment is beyond silly. He’s describing a refusal to compromise.

roenxi 3y ago

There seem to be some tautologies happening here. There are only 2 major parties in the US Congress. Bipartisan bills, somewhat by definition, are going to be passed by both parties. Similarly, since there are 2 major parties, if legislation is proposed by one party then it would pass unless the other blocks it. I don't see how you're expecting things to work differently. Would we expect Democrat-sponsored legislation to fail for reasons apart from Republican opposition? > The reverse really is not true. I doubt that is a true statement, but assuming it is then logically that would just mean that Republicans only propose legislation after they have talked to the Democrats and confirmed they are willing to vote it through. But that would suggest the Republicans are avoiding opportunities to kick up a fuss which doesn't sound like the US Congress we all know and love. > c.f. current bills for border security Unrelated note but it is amazing to me that the US has been an entity for a couple of centuries now and doesn't have legislation already in place to control the border.

hattmall 3y ago
Of course the US has legislation to control the border. There is an entire agency called the border patrol. The thing is right now , it seems, additional legislation is needed to actually compel the executive to have the border patrol do their job. Which this last bill didn't even do and would have simply dumped money into an auxiliary judicial system that serves virtually no purpose and would continue to do so even with more money. Shortening the time for an asylum hearing doesn't even matter because people don't show up for them. Any bill that maintains the current administration's position of simply letting people go completely free during their asylum waiting period is useless. Sure, people with legit claims might show up, but crimminals, which are the problem, are not going to come back for the hearing. Most Americans don't mind immigrants or immigration at all and not even the idea of illegal immigration is really a problem. It's just the people that commit crimes that are the problem, it's one of the reason we see recent immigrants be so strongly in favor of border security, because the people they specifically tried to get away from are showing up too. Not only are people caught crossing the border illegally not detained, but apparently even when they commit additional crimes it's too much for some cities and states to even keep them in jail for those crimes.

yieldcrv 3y ago

that's interested because you created a point I didn't make, in order to discredit the point I did make I won't call it a strawman argument since the grandparent post did say "inability to functionally govern and reach bi-partisan support for a lot of meaningful issues renders us helpless to improve bad systems", I was not making a point about bills passing my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same. you decided to talk about one way you believe they are different. its fine if that was a misunderstanding of my point, but if you're not aware of any unproductive way the parties are the same, then this discussion isn't for you.

ajross 3y ago
> my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same. You made that "isolated" point in a subthread about gridlock and the inability to pass meaningful legislation. And in that particular argument to which you replied, you were wrong: the parties are not "the same".