5 ms·

> We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. I think calling people who oppose your po

> We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem, as if the only reasonable position is yours. What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing — and when they refuse to agree with you, your agenda can’t happen. While you say “most Americans”, factually, you lack a majority for your agenda: you’re a minority trying to impose itself. That’s democracy.

autoexec 2y ago
> I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem It would be, except that I never actually said that. Plenty of people can disagree with me and not be an obstructionist. A person in congress can even vote against something I'm in favor of and not be an obstructionist. Obstructionists are something very different from just being "people I don't like" > What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing No, it's certainly not about "forcing an agenda" it's about functional governance which by necessity involves compromise and a willingness to give and take. It's not even always about "agreeing". An obstructionist will vote against their own policy ideas to prevent letting their opponent get their way. > While you say “most Americans”, I mean most Americans. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. > but factually, you lack a majority for your agenda That's incorrect too. While obstructionists can stand in the way of policies that divide the American public there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists. If we lived in a country where the approval rating of senators indicated their likelihood of getting elected you might have a point, as obstructionists being elected and re-elected would indicate that the majority of the people support them and their tactics. That's not the country we live in however. For just one example, notable obstructionist Mitch McConnell is the least popular senator in the entire country. He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. That's not democracy, it's just what happens after many decades of efforts to weaken democracy and erode the ability of the American people to have a meaningful influence on policy and who gets into office.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  > Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. Those same polls show they believe their own representative is doing an adequate job - which is my point: There’s no “obstruction” there, just frustration that your faction doesn’t have the votes to achieve your desired policy because some groups don’t agree with you. > there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists Policies overwhelmingly favored by the majority of Americans are generally blocked by establishment candidates — at a rate far higher than “obstructionists”. > He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. People he doesn’t represent can’t impact this job — correct. And again, we’re seeing that you’re just upset by democracy itself: that you can’t force representatives on people and accordingly, can’t achieve what you want without their support. Your entire post was nothing but deranged bashing of political rivals when you can’t achieve you policy objectives due to their opposition.
pharrington 2y ago
Nope. One example from Mitch McConnell's own mouth, talking about the the Republican Congress created the debt ceiling crisis - "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this - it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  So… because no faction had enough votes, they were forced to compromise to secure a coalition with enough votes? — that’s your idea of “obstruction”? You can just say you don’t like democracy.
  - pharrington 2y ago
    There is a difference between trying to reach a compromise across a different set of ideals, and one party explicitly holding Congress hostage over a routine annual procedure. The first is healthy, functioning government that gets things done. The second is obstructionism that stops things from getting done. Again, from Mitch McConnell - "If I'm still the majority leader of the Senate after next year, none of those things are going to pass the Senate. They won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper: the guy who is going to make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk." He's the same guy who refused to even start the confirmation process of Obama's supreme court justice pick a year from the end of his term. The GOP rejects compromise as a strategy, and does not even pretend to secure coalitions.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

autoexec 2y ago

> I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem It would be, except that I never actually said that. Plenty of people can disagree with me and not be an obstructionist. A person in congress can even vote against something I'm in favor of and not be an obstructionist. Obstructionists are something very different from just being "people I don't like" > What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing No, it's certainly not about "forcing an agenda" it's about functional governance which by necessity involves compromise and a willingness to give and take. It's not even always about "agreeing". An obstructionist will vote against their own policy ideas to prevent letting their opponent get their way. > While you say “most Americans”, I mean most Americans. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. > but factually, you lack a majority for your agenda That's incorrect too. While obstructionists can stand in the way of policies that divide the American public there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists. If we lived in a country where the approval rating of senators indicated their likelihood of getting elected you might have a point, as obstructionists being elected and re-elected would indicate that the majority of the people support them and their tactics. That's not the country we live in however. For just one example, notable obstructionist Mitch McConnell is the least popular senator in the entire country. He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. That's not democracy, it's just what happens after many decades of efforts to weaken democracy and erode the ability of the American people to have a meaningful influence on policy and who gets into office.

zmgsabst 2y ago
> Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. Those same polls show they believe their own representative is doing an adequate job - which is my point: There’s no “obstruction” there, just frustration that your faction doesn’t have the votes to achieve your desired policy because some groups don’t agree with you. > there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists Policies overwhelmingly favored by the majority of Americans are generally blocked by establishment candidates — at a rate far higher than “obstructionists”. > He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. People he doesn’t represent can’t impact this job — correct. And again, we’re seeing that you’re just upset by democracy itself: that you can’t force representatives on people and accordingly, can’t achieve what you want without their support. Your entire post was nothing but deranged bashing of political rivals when you can’t achieve you policy objectives due to their opposition.

pharrington 2y ago

Nope. One example from Mitch McConnell's own mouth, talking about the the Republican Congress created the debt ceiling crisis - "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this - it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."

zmgsabst 2y ago
So… because no faction had enough votes, they were forced to compromise to secure a coalition with enough votes? — that’s your idea of “obstruction”? You can just say you don’t like democracy.
- pharrington 2y ago
  There is a difference between trying to reach a compromise across a different set of ideals, and one party explicitly holding Congress hostage over a routine annual procedure. The first is healthy, functioning government that gets things done. The second is obstructionism that stops things from getting done. Again, from Mitch McConnell - "If I'm still the majority leader of the Senate after next year, none of those things are going to pass the Senate. They won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper: the guy who is going to make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk." He's the same guy who refused to even start the confirmation process of Obama's supreme court justice pick a year from the end of his term. The GOP rejects compromise as a strategy, and does not even pretend to secure coalitions.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]