4 ms·

Surely you can find examples of Schumer saying that his party is fully committed to obstructing the Trump administration, right? Or Harry Reid saying it during

Surely you can find examples of Schumer saying that his party is fully committed to obstructing the Trump administration, right? Or Harry Reid saying it during the Bush administration? No, it's not normal. That's exactly my point. If it's normal, cite it. Believing it's normal for one party to have as an explicit goal to simply obstruct everything the administration is doing is a symptom of drinking too much Koolaid.

Alupis 2y ago
[flagged]
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  > "One-hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration" Actual words stated by Mitch McConnell. His goal is not to pass policy that's good for the American people, not to prevent the administration from overstepping or making mistakes, not to do anything except simply "stopping this new administration." The purpose of our government is to collaborate and compromise to find solutions that are good for the country. Consider two children tasked with collaborating on a problem. One of them walks up and says "One-hundred percent of my focus is on stopping you." Are you similarly confused about who's the asshole? Is that "partisan propaganda" to say that the child who states that is an asshole? Are you really so smart that this becomes a tricky situation to understand?
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Clearly by "collaborate and compromise" you actually mean "so long as my side gets their way". This is the negative result of buying into entirely one-sided propaganda - it limits your perspective to, frankly, bullshit. I do not see a point in continuing since you seem unwilling to actually contemplate the entire environment. Not only do you have absolutely no response to obvious intellecual hypocrisy, but you are indeed one of "those" people who links to propaganda to support their deliberately narrow and naïve perspective of the world - and demands others participate in this alternative reality. It's not fun, nor intellectually stimulating to engage in this type of debate.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      No, that's actually not what I mean. Note that I'm not taking issue with any GOP policies, because I don't have a problem with GOP policies. I have a problem with stated goals of simply obstructing the people they are supposed to be collaborating with, thus I am directly quoting statements made that explicitly state their goal of obstructing their collaborators. Again, citing someone's own words cannot possibly be considered "propaganda" against them, lol. They said it, and to my knowledge they weren't even held at gunpoint! I mean you haven't even given me an analogous example of the problem I'm pointing out, so I'm not sure what "clear hypocrisy" I'm exhibiting. Give me an example case and I'll tell you what I think and then you can decide whether I'm hypocritical.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        There was oodles of collaboration during the Trump Administration - how did I ever forget how willing to compromise and collaborate Democrats were back then! It was an amazing time for our Congress - so much collaboration was done that we got sick and tired of collaborating!
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        So again, since obstructing the opposing administration is "normal," you can find statements declaring such an objective. Right?
      - wredcoll 2y ago
        I'm impressed by your efforts to communicate something that is this basic, and yet depressed by how difficult it is! Normalizing this "current" republican position of literally not having policies deserves to be called out.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    > The purpose of our government is to collaborate and compromise to find solutions that are good for the country. > Consider two children tasked with collaborating on a problem. One of them walks up and says "One-hundred percent of my focus is on stopping you." The purpose of our government is clearly lined out in the Constitution. A lot of people happen to think that the federal government has stepped way outside of the bounds prescribed therein[0], and that this causing harm to the country. If you take that view, then being 100% obstructionist at the federal level is in fact acting for the good of the country. [0]: To be clear, this has been going on for nearly a century. It's not a recent thing, nor is it specific to the parties or presidents involved at any given time.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  You're just trolling at this point. Please stop.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    You are too easy to troll...

Alupis 2y ago

[flagged]

llamaimperative 2y ago
> "One-hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration" Actual words stated by Mitch McConnell. His goal is not to pass policy that's good for the American people, not to prevent the administration from overstepping or making mistakes, not to do anything except simply "stopping this new administration." The purpose of our government is to collaborate and compromise to find solutions that are good for the country. Consider two children tasked with collaborating on a problem. One of them walks up and says "One-hundred percent of my focus is on stopping you." Are you similarly confused about who's the asshole? Is that "partisan propaganda" to say that the child who states that is an asshole? Are you really so smart that this becomes a tricky situation to understand?
- Alupis 2y ago
  Clearly by "collaborate and compromise" you actually mean "so long as my side gets their way". This is the negative result of buying into entirely one-sided propaganda - it limits your perspective to, frankly, bullshit. I do not see a point in continuing since you seem unwilling to actually contemplate the entire environment. Not only do you have absolutely no response to obvious intellecual hypocrisy, but you are indeed one of "those" people who links to propaganda to support their deliberately narrow and naïve perspective of the world - and demands others participate in this alternative reality. It's not fun, nor intellectually stimulating to engage in this type of debate.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    No, that's actually not what I mean. Note that I'm not taking issue with any GOP policies, because I don't have a problem with GOP policies. I have a problem with stated goals of simply obstructing the people they are supposed to be collaborating with, thus I am directly quoting statements made that explicitly state their goal of obstructing their collaborators. Again, citing someone's own words cannot possibly be considered "propaganda" against them, lol. They said it, and to my knowledge they weren't even held at gunpoint! I mean you haven't even given me an analogous example of the problem I'm pointing out, so I'm not sure what "clear hypocrisy" I'm exhibiting. Give me an example case and I'll tell you what I think and then you can decide whether I'm hypocritical.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      There was oodles of collaboration during the Trump Administration - how did I ever forget how willing to compromise and collaborate Democrats were back then! It was an amazing time for our Congress - so much collaboration was done that we got sick and tired of collaborating!
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        So again, since obstructing the opposing administration is "normal," you can find statements declaring such an objective. Right?
    - wredcoll 2y ago
      I'm impressed by your efforts to communicate something that is this basic, and yet depressed by how difficult it is! Normalizing this "current" republican position of literally not having policies deserves to be called out.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > The purpose of our government is to collaborate and compromise to find solutions that are good for the country. > Consider two children tasked with collaborating on a problem. One of them walks up and says "One-hundred percent of my focus is on stopping you." The purpose of our government is clearly lined out in the Constitution. A lot of people happen to think that the federal government has stepped way outside of the bounds prescribed therein[0], and that this causing harm to the country. If you take that view, then being 100% obstructionist at the federal level is in fact acting for the good of the country. [0]: To be clear, this has been going on for nearly a century. It's not a recent thing, nor is it specific to the parties or presidents involved at any given time.
anigbrowl 2y ago
You're just trolling at this point. Please stop.
- Alupis 2y ago
  You are too easy to troll...