|
Scott Addams literally lost the ability to speak through a neural disorder and then affirmationed it back again, so I can't blame him for believing that poo poo.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
haveblue posted:At least we're getting a good example of what happens when you lose this game across the pond. Excellent point. So very thoughtful of the Brits to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yes, I'm aware of that. It's a deliberate strategy. The Republicans have been actively trying to burn down the country for electoral gain. Fig A. https://twitter.com/grabmybutstick/status/747814531733172224 I'll grant this is just one (particularly stupid) example, but the attitude that "libruls" (read: centrists) are inherently passive and lazy seems pretty pervasive lately. Why, they don't even treat every conflict as a struggle to the death, the spineless worms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
greatn posted:Scott Addams literally lost the ability to speak through a neural disorder and then affirmationed it back again, so I can't blame him for believing that poo poo. Which disorder removes the ability to write blogs
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
haveblue posted:At least we're getting a good example of what happens when you lose this game across the pond. Cameron tried a bit of classical Republican brinkmanship but the westminister system doesn't really lend itself well to that style of politics because they don't have the built in safeguards that prevent something like Brexit from happening in the United States
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Things that "need to get done" are the basic functions of government that are as apolitical as it gets. Things like increasing the debt ceiling, passing appropriations bills, appointing judges, and the rest. We've had a couple debt ceiling crises and complete governmental shutdowns from the Republicans because they think playing chicken with the the existence of the country is a useful electoral strategy. Wait, are you seriously suggesting that court appointments are apolitical? The GOP is desperately opposing a SCOTUS appointment because a court stacked against them will make their long term political goals almost impossible to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
greatn posted:Scott Addams literally lost the ability to speak through a neural disorder and then affirmationed it back again, so I can't blame him for believing that poo poo. Someone on my Facebook feed unironically thinks Scott Adams is the coolest guy and doesn't believe me when I tell him this sort of stuff. It's there a link talking about this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Wait, are you seriously suggesting that court appointments are apolitical? The GOP is desperately opposing a SCOTUS appointment because a court stacked against them will make their long term political goals almost impossible to achieve. Elections have consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
They've been blocking tons more than just SCOTUS appointments and they almost unanimously voted garland in to a lower court 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Wait, are you seriously suggesting that court appointments are apolitical? The GOP is desperately opposing a SCOTUS appointment because a court stacked against them will make their long term political goals almost impossible to achieve. It's as apolitical as it gets, as I said. Courts need judges. Not having them means a basic function of government breaks down. Everything is partisan to some degree. Some stuff is basic to the continuance of government, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
emdash posted:They've been blocking tons more than just SCOTUS appointments and they almost unanimously voted garland in to a lower court The strategy is transparently to delay until after the presidential election, because there is a greater-than-zero chance that the elected president won't be a Democrat. It's all a huge waste of time as long as Trump is such a clear loser, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
nm
Goatman Sacks fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/scottbraddock/status/747844354325155840 Thanks, buddy. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:Didn't Adams get caught posting comments under a fake name agreeing with himself? Yes. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppet/
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:It's called the garden state because there's a Rosenblum on every corner. Don't do this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The strategy is transparently to delay until after the presidential election, because there is a greater-than-zero chance that the elected president won't be a Democrat. Well yeah, although mcconnell is posturing like they won't accept garland afterward either. (Won't matter, if dems take the senate.) Point was that there are appointments much less political than SCOTUS that repubs have been spite-blocking for years
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's as apolitical as it gets, as I said. Courts need judges. Not having them means a basic function of government breaks down. Which gets to the heart of the issue: a sizable portion of one party believes that government does not and should not function. How do you compromise with them? What middle ground is going to be acceptable? And then go ahead and add in the fact that court appointments directly affect issues like LGBT rights and abortion where even the tiniest victory for one side represents an actual loss for the other one. I'm not defending Republican obstructionism here, I'm just pointing out that the kind of compromise you want really can't exist unless the GOP is willing to fundamentally change their stance on a large number of issues. Edit- The bottom line here is that this isn't even close to the kind of "ideological purity" issue that comes up between Clinton and Sanders supporters. This isn't about picking the more pragmatic of two positions that are relatively close on the same policy spectrum. This is about diametrically opposed viewpoints that cut through nearly everything the government does. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Which gets to the heart of the issue: a sizable portion of one party believes that government does not and should not function. How do you compromise with them? What middle ground is going to be acceptable? And then go ahead and add in the fact that court appointments directly affect issues like LGBT rights and abortion where even the tiniest victory for one side represents an actual loss for the other one. Well, in that case the ones refusing to compromise are the Republicans, and that makes them the If one faction genuinely refuses to cooperate in the governance of the country, everything does collapse and there's nothing we can do about it. Democratically elected nihilists are our kryptonite. My original point was that a willingness to compromise is a virtue, and we're seeing what an unwillingness to compromise looks like. I think they've shown that it's a bad way to get what you want and should not be emulated by anyone in the future. They've gained almost nothing from it at a huge cost to the party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
greatn posted:Scott Addams literally lost the ability to speak through a neural disorder and then affirmationed it back again*, so I can't blame him for believing that poo poo. *Note: actually just recovered like most people who get the disorder did, and the affirmations was just one of many wacky things he tried during during recovery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
I forgot which forum I was posting in again!
Mozi fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:My original point was that a willingness to compromise is a virtue, and we're seeing what an unwillingness to compromise looks like. I think they've shown that it's a bad way to get what you want and should not be emulated by anyone in the future. They've gained almost nothing from it at a huge cost to the party. And what I'm saying is that you're making a mistake by blaming our current state of affairs on a lack of compromise. Are you willing to compromise on same sex marriage? How about abortion? Healthcare? The whole point of compromise is to find an acceptable middle ground, which means we have to give something up too. The inability of our politicians to reach an acceptable consensus is a symptom, not the actual disease.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, in that case the ones refusing to compromise are the Republicans, and that makes them the "It's a bad way to get what you want" is a strategic evaluation, not a moral one. If you honestly believed (for instance) that abortion is murder, then "the Republicans have always caved in the end" is an ethical disaster, and you'd be justified in using whatever leverage you could grasp. Their electorate doesn't believe that compromise will ever achieve the goals they want to see, and frankly (and from my perspective, thankfully!) it looks like they're right. The only reason it would be morally wrong for them to commit to brinksmanship is because their position is wrong to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:And what I'm saying is that you're making a mistake by blaming our current state of affairs on a lack of compromise. Are you willing to compromise on same sex marriage? How about abortion? Healthcare? The whole point of compromise is to find an acceptable middle ground, which means we have to give something up too. The inability of our politicians to reach an acceptable consensus is a symptom, not the actual disease. There can be no compromise on same-sex marriage because either it's legal with all rights and privileges of marriage or it isn't - you can't compromise on something binary, right? As for healthcare, I would consider a compromise if their side presented me with actual policies rather than the nebulous handwaving plus tort reform that they've been touting literally nonstop since 2010. Seriously, point me to one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Which gets to the heart of the issue: a sizable portion of one party believes that government does not and should not function. How do you compromise with them? What middle ground is going to be acceptable? And n go ahead and add in the fact that court appointments directly affect issues like LGBT rights and abortion where even the tiniest victory for one side represents an actual loss for the other one. It's especially funny to argue that court appointments are just apolitical government housekeeping when people ITT have been openly talking about how they can't wait for Hillary to pack the court with liberal justices so that they can turbofuck the GoP agenda for a generation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's especially funny to argue that court appointments are just apolitical government housekeeping when people ITT have been openly talking about how they can't wait for Hillary to pack the court with liberal justices so that they can turbofuck the GoP agenda for a generation. it will be an unmitigated good thing, op
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's especially funny to argue that court appointments are just apolitical government housekeeping when people ITT have been openly talking about how they can't wait for Hillary to pack the court with liberal justices so that they can turbofuck the GoP agenda for a generation. Yeah I can't wait, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I am absolutely willing to compromise on abortion. Make it illegal outside of health exceptions after twenty weeks or whatever. Require the doctor to inform the woman about possible side effects. I could keep going but you get the joke, right? That's literally the official Republican line. Your compromise is "pass the anti-abortion bill as proposed by Congressional Republicans in this, the 114th Congress." Yes, there are more extreme proposals, but that's only because the Overton window has shifted to make your "compromise" the "centrist" position when it was anything but 10 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:And what I'm saying is that you're making a mistake by blaming our current state of affairs on a lack of compromise. Are you willing to compromise on same sex marriage? How about abortion? Healthcare? The whole point of compromise is to find an acceptable middle ground, which means we have to give something up too. The inability of our politicians to reach an acceptable consensus is a symptom, not the actual disease. Same sex marriage and abortion were legalized by the courts, not by Congressional compromise. On some issues that's the only way it gets resolved. Compromise positions are possible on most issues, which is the basis of incrementalism. You get a bunch of small bites and eventually get all you want. If you keep winning elections on the basis of getting more bites, you get them. Health care was a compromise. The ACA was a bill that had been worked on bipartisanly for more than a decade and represented a middle ground that both parties supported. The Republicans turned against it deliberately just because Obama proposed it. There are numerous instances of the Republicans vociferously opposing positions they had supported under the Bush administration (like cap and trade on carbon emissions). Their goal was negating the outcome of the 2008 election, nothing more. It's a difference of long-term versus short-term perspective. If you believe in the rightness of your cause, you can afford to compromise because you know that in the long run you'll get what you want because you're going to be there for a while. Demanding all or nothing is a symptom of someone who thinks they won't get another chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah I can't wait, personally. It's gonna be awesome, but it's also completely logical for the GOP to desperately try to stop it from happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's especially funny to argue that court appointments are just apolitical government housekeeping when people ITT have been openly talking about how they can't wait for Hillary to pack the court with liberal justices so that they can turbofuck the GoP agenda for a generation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:That's literally the official Republican line. Your compromise is "pass the anti-abortion bill as proposed by Congressional Republicans in this, the 114th Congress."  (I think the compromise is loving awful. Don't believe I'm backing it. But if what it takes to prevent it being completely illegalized is a time frame and some bullshit doctor warnings, then yes, I'd rather have abortion legal.) e:  double post my bad
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Yeah, the hidden underside of this is that it's as much of a battle over what is considered culturally and socially "normal" as it is over elected offices. The rule of law isn't just a manifestation of people's beliefs, it also affects them; it works both ways.Deteriorata posted:It's a difference of long-term versus short-term perspective. If you believe in the rightness of your cause, you can afford to compromise because you know that in the long run you'll get what you want because you're going to be there for a while. Demanding all or nothing is a symptom of someone who thinks they won't get another chance. That's not "if you believe in the rightness of your cause," it's "if you believe that circumstances favor your cause." There's nothing about moral rightness that guarantees success or popular support, even in the long term. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:
Sorry, it's just that compromise usually means that each party actually gives up something as opposed to one party getting exactly what they proposed. I get your general point though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/787f24044f57480d9059628255b922bf/6m-donated-100k-children-us-see-hamiltonquote:$6M donated for 100K children in US to see "Hamilton" Shoot me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Is trump's speech going on right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Yeah, the hidden underside of this is that it's as much of a battle over what is considered culturally and socially "normal" as it is over elected offices. The rule of law isn't just a manifestation of people's beliefs, it also affects them; it works both ways. We seem to be talking past each other. You keep emphasizing electoral expediency over all else, while I am emphasizing long-term governance. Refusal to compromise can be beneficial for short-term electoral gains, but in the long term is bad for the country as it makes governance impossible. Morally, refusing to compromise is to deny the validity of others' opinions and to place your own needs above theirs. In most moral systems that's considered bad behavior, but your mileage may vary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Yeah. I don't think he has actually said what he is going to do yet in his big policy economic speech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
gtkor posted:Yeah. I don't think he has actually said what he is going to do yet in his big policy economic speech. https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/747860851084791808 ohhh boy
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
I'm surprised it wasn't "Trump stares down (((globalists)))"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:We seem to be talking past each other. You keep emphasizing electoral expediency over all else, while I am emphasizing long-term governance. We are talking past each other, but you're mischaracterizing my position. I'm not talking about electoral expediency in particular: I'm talking about having a long-term goal you want to achieve by any means necessary, that you (possibly) value more than you value the stability and efficiency of government in general. I think that, in certain circumstances, refusal to compromise can either a) be beneficial to your long-term goals or b) have no effect on long-term goals that you seem likely to lose on anyways, in which case achieving short-terms goals is the best you can do, plus you can hold out for a sudden, unexpected shift in circumstances. Also, all of that is still strategy. Even "refusal to compromise is always a bad strategy" still isn't a moral judgment. The acid test for our respective positions would be "what if shutting down the government did get you want you want," in which case the question is how important is this thing that you want, and how much will the shutdown actually hurt you, your electorate, and everyone else in the mean time. Deteriorata posted:Morally, refusing to compromise is to deny the validity of others' opinions and to place your own needs above theirs. In most moral systems that's considered bad behavior, but your mileage may vary. I don't lose any sleep at night over denying the validity of most Republican policy positions. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 19:40
|
|