Is bipartisanship dead in the U.S., or is media just not covering it enough?

[Twisted Crow]

This is a genuine question I am asking, even if somewhat rhetorical. I listen to the left and the right, often disagreeing with both given how extreme and wholesale they've seemingly become these days.

So in your own words, preferably with as little bias for your own party as possible... is bipartisanship dead? Or are we just not able to see it come about because it is "more fun" to have media stir up Race Wars III: Revenge of the Sith or just classic "Right vs. Left" scorekeeping and often petty "what-about-isms".

Just something I have been contemplating with this whole Shutdown thing. I can't help but feel like both parties are ultimately losing with this one. The longer this goes on, the more I believe that common people just get angry at the fact that both are just not willing to work anything out and get anything done.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/history-of-bipartisanship-2/

[legomaster00156]

The U.S. has been suffering asymmetric polarization for some time now. Democrats have been moving farther to the left, but the power base remains centered on the center-left. On the other hand, Republicans have been moving rightward at a provably quicker pace. Increased polarization leads inevitably to fewer compromises. Dead, though? I don't know.

[Missy]

It's just the inevitable outcome of the limited party state

[TheGlyphstone]

It's just the inevitable outcome of the limited party state

I've said it before, but I'm uncertain how much different multi-party/parliamentary systems are in actual practice. Small parliamentary parties form coalitions of Government and Opposition based on mutual benefit/overlapping interest, or at minimum quid-pro-quos, with the two groups trading roles at times without changing who they're allied to. The two-party arrangement of the US is much the same except the coalitions have been stable so long that they're de facto official groupings.

[Callie Del Noire]

It's just the inevitable outcome of the limited party state

It’s the result of ultra partisan hacks controlling the part. Newt Gingrich started this latest round and folks like McConnel and Pelosi perpetuated it.

At this point unless you can come up with a reason to get things moving outside your platform..say... term limits for EVERYONE. There is no skin in the game to step outside your parties platform, particularly knowing you will lose your primary nomination and the party will back another person who will

[Regina Minx]

I disagree with the premise of the question. While it's superficially true that politics is more partisan these days, that does not mean that politics has ever been less divisive. A more peaceful and unified past, some lost golden age of civility and unity was pretty much never.

The issues we fight over...gender, race, immigration, cultural issues, the scope and role of government... divide Americans neatly and consistently under party labels. The current moment feels divisive because major policy and political questions are “sorted” between the parties — Republicans are mostly unified around one set of answers, and Democrats are mostly unified around another. Once upon a time, conflict about these issues would have taken place both between and within the parties.

[Tolvo]

It should be mentioned being bipartisan also does not equate to good or positive. If both parties agree to do something harmful that isn't suddenly a good thing because they worked together to achieve a common goal. Partisan things can be quite good if only one group has a positive solution. It really depends on the issue at hand and if there is anything either agree on and if anything they agree on is actually positive. Compromise can be a good thing and very important but not all compromise is good, if you are compromising on very important matters and giving up things that are necessary for certain people to live so that you can get what you want it's quite horrible.

For certain things compromise is necessary especially when there are lesser differences but when the divide is massive as it often is compromise can just be allowing horrible things to pass as long as some good things do too, when you should fight for more good things and less awful things.

[Kitteredge]

I object to the assertion that both sides are equally at fault. That's just sloppy thinking, both in evaluating rhetoric and policy. Example: when the shutdown started, who controlled Congress and who was President? How have things changed since that moment?

From there you might continue: Who still controls the process? Who are the two key figures in stopping the shutdown, the ones who can stop it at any moment? What are they demanding vs. what are they doing to actually fix the situation? Are these demands sensical, or not?

It's easy to just look at the situation and think these are equal parties. It takes a slight bit of effort to evaluate what is going on, but it's demanded of us as citizens.

[Twisted Crow]

Unsure of what post that was referring to but I never said they were "equal" in fault, I say they still both lose. I could argue all day about whether or not I'd rather have my house burglarized or my truck stolen. I also may prefer being shot in the face as opposed to being sodomized to death. However, they both still suck as choices, none of which benefit me at all and therefore... they both lose.

When you are a loser, it does not matter to me who is the "bigger loser". A loser is one who loses. It is like when people try that "lesser of two evils; but vote anyway... because civic duty and servicemen!" logic on me (even more insulting to me because I had served in the military, myself). Feigning some significance on "more evil" is pointless when both views have been dismissed as 'evil' in the first place. It ceases to matter to one when they have both been eliminated as viable choices. It also undermines any altertive options from being brought to the table, fueling both "evils" currently in power whilst surrendering one's own. Which is amazing that we still cower to this mentality. For example, Common urban populace gets all cavalier about racism or racist speech... even if it isn't real hate speech, but the same apparently seem 100% okay with race (you know, human people) being divided and weaponized for political expedience. That is, you know, until I mention that about either party doing this in a given situation.  ^-^

*PoliticsSins ding*

I also agree with Tolvo... to a point.

[Twisted Crow]

Also, Kitteredge...

That's just sloppy thinking, both in evaluating rhetoric and policy...

...It's easy to just look at the situation and think these are equal parties. It takes a slight bit of effort to evaluate what is going on, but it's demanded of us as citizens.

I am almost positive that I know what you are doing here in these sentences and i don't like it. So enough with all of that or kindly stay out of my topic with that noise. Not only did you completely miss the scope of what I saying but these two here were specifically upsetting to read.

You can think I am stupid and lazy all you like, however thinly veiling this opinion behind another 'what-about-ism' eludes the whole point of this discussion (and ironically reinforces my point in a roundabout fashion). And if I am reading too much into these, then perhaps better care in words could be expected, hmmm? I mean I had a few people already disagree with me above all without appearing to insult or belittle my intelligence.
-_-

[Tolvo]

But your views on losing are also why Democrats would chose not to go with giving Trump his demands so he'll end his government shutdown. Giving Trump the Wall is an awful choice with no benefits for them or anyone really. They'd rather prevent giving Trump more power and support for anti-immigrant stances and policies and wasting of money. To them giving Trump the wall has been eliminated as a viable choice due to the severe damage it would do to them and the USA. So it loses. The choice for them is not between two awful things, but between doing an awful thing or not doing an awful thing. They're going to go with the obvious choice.

For your example, if someone asks you whether or not you'd like your house burglarized or your truck stolen, you'd rather just choose neither. Both options lose to you. Because neither are desirable and both cause you harm. Democrats are in this position, and have chosen to not go with either option.

I'm not sure what the "urban populace" has to do with bipartisanship though. Or what this has to do with hate speech and racism. Or why you decided to paint such a broad brush and believe "urban" people are dividing by race and weaponizing race for political expedience. It seems really unrelated other than that certain demographics will vote for and support the groups that treat them better.

[Kitteredge]

I hear this stuff all the time. Both sides are bad! It's terrible!

No, they're not. Take some time and actually evaluate what is going on. It really is lazy and not doing your job to just throw up your hands and make those kinds of claims. Maybe a few years ago I would have more patience for it, but at this point it looks more like attention seeking to me. "I want somebody to cater to me."

Maybe two years of Trump (three plus, really) and extremist rhetoric have whittled away my patience, but the 'both sides are bad' line is just nonsense now. You may DISAGREE with either side, but to say they are equivalent in terms of rhetoric is nonsense. As for claims about bipartisanship, the entire Obama era was a course in obstruction on the part of Mitch McConnell and both chambers of Congress, which was plainly stated as their objective. This has been going on four a while, and it started from one side.

I'm not saying you lack the intelligence to evaluate our political situation, but I don't I don't think there's anything wrong in suggesting you're not coming to this with the honesty you suggest.

[Twisted Crow]

The urban populace race thing was more of a counter for the "equal parties" argument, not so much bipartisanship. Though...

It seems really unrelated other than that certain demographics will vote for and support the groups that treat them better.

That is one reason I mentioned it. Also promises of support to treat one better doesn't mean they will do jack for them. One example is Sheila Jackson Lee, a pariah even among fellow democrats.



The two choices to me are both taking an L. We either go with Democrat's "Let's just let everyone in unchecked, this country was stolen anyway" mentality or Republican's "Steel Wall EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING" approach. I like neither. They both lose to me on basic principles.

Kitteredge, just get out. It is obvioua that whatever I say you are just going to improperly transpose, anyway. So, get out. Now.

If you have no patience with even trying to understand what I am asking, then get out or I will ask staff to get involved. You are talking around me, not with me about this. If you don't have the patience for this, then get out.

I will not ask you a third time.

[legomaster00156]

I don't know of any Democrat supporting open borders, however much Trump likes to claim they do. In fact, the last few budget bills they've passed have included more money for border security as a compromise - just not money for a wall.

[Twisted Crow]

It is not so much supporting open borders, its not implementing anything really effective to account for illegal immigration once they have gotten here and overstayed. I don't know about ICE being "the answer", but I have mixed feelings on that issue.

I also like how I wanted to discuss about bipartisanship but... make the mistake of mentioning the shutdown and the topic nearly instantly derails... ::)

[Twisted Crow]

To be fair, though... part of that is my fault.  ^-^

[gloriouslyabsurd]

Bipartisanship isn't dead, it's just being thwarted by leadership, largely Republican, and misrepresented in the media.

Let's look at the border and the current shutdown.  You're misrepresenting the Democrat's position, but it's been misrepresented a lot.  They were willing to give 1.6 billion for border security....more officers, better equipment, drones, etc.  It passed the Senate unanimously... that's pretty bipartisan.  Trump then changed his mind and threatened a veto, and Republicans followed his lead.  The house passed an identical bill after the Democrats took over, again that passed the Senate unanimously.  It should be a bipartisan no brainier, but Mitch won't even let it get a vote because he doesn't want to thwart Trump.  That's an exercise in bipartisanship being thwarted by two people.

We can go back further to see it again.  Democrats offered 56 billion for the wall in exchange for protections for the Dreamers.  Democrats were on board, Republicans were on board, Trump said he was on board.  Trump changed his mind, the bipartisan deal fell through.

[Twisted Crow]

And just like that. We are back on topic, it's amazing.

This is why I wanted to ask this question. The point of this topic is how much is the government lying to me and how much is media lying to me?

Thank you for getting us back on track.

I can find coverage on the Google Machine for 1.6 billion propasal, but not the 56 billion one. Any help?

[Iniquitous]

We either go with Democrat's "Let's just let everyone in unchecked, this country was stolen anyway" mentality ...

For fucks sake. Really Dallas????

The Dems are not saying let everyone in unchecked. They never have.  They are for border SECURITY, they just do not think a wall is needed and is immoral.  Do some research please.

[Tolvo]

But again, your example is one true one that the Republican party is pushing for the Wall, and a false one, that Democrats want open borders or what that actually means. Democrats generally don't want that, it is more of a left wing position that the Democratic party does not tend to take. Only specific members who are left wing do. Most don't. Many are pretty conservative about immigration, though appear more progressive when compared to the GOP position. Keep in mind, the Democratic Party is the Center party, and in many countries would be Right Wing. Even the Democratic Socialists are left leaning center. The Democratic Party is heavily capitalist which is heavily counter to left wing politics. And what open borders means is still registering people, taxing people, the process just without throwing out people based on where they were born, for their skin color, etc. It is a focus on allowing more refugees, more people, but not suddenly making crime legal or something silly like that. For Democrats, mostly they just don't want the useless Wall built on hate. They otherwise support pretty strict border control largely.

Also yes it does not mean a party will do anything for them, but people will vote based on the past. Democrats for instance have fought for Civil Rights in the past, Republicans tend not to and there are GOP leaders today who in the past were pro-segregation when it was popular. The levels of progress made by Democrats is still not satisfying to many, but, they consider it better than no progress often. Though people also will vote neither because the difference between the two is not great enough for them. As well depending on their past, though some vote for their future rather than the past(Black voters largely supported Hillary for her statements and policies and recent past, though in her earlier past she made racist statements. Hillary to many wouldn't be considered a paragon but better regarding race than any GOP candidates). People tend to vote in their self interest, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on their interests.

Regarding Bipartisanship, Democrats are the Bipartisan focused party, the Republicans are not. Democrats heavily focus on Bipartisanship and often consider it one of their greatest goals, I believe to their detriment. The Republican party is far more partisan focused. They really only bring it up when they want the Democrats to give them something, the Democrats do then ask for something in exchange, then Republicans usually go "Why would we give you that? We don't want that." "But we compromised we gave you what you want what about what we want?" "Who cares? We got what we want. You get nothing."

How much is the media lying to you depends on the media you're reading. Broadly many are misleading and want to push a message, certain things are more about finding out the facts of what happened. Then the facts can be interpreted many different ways. If you can always try to find the original sources for things and actual quotes and footage of the statements made by individuals to verify they really said something.

[Twisted Crow]

For fucks sake. Really Dallas????

The Dems are not saying let everyone in unchecked. They never have.  They are for border SECURITY, they just do not think a wall is needed and is immoral.  Do some research please.

Or you know... enlighten/educate me, if I am ignorant. The leftists I have been exposed to (so I have been recently told) have been pretty much been limited to the extremist end of the wing. When Buzzfeed and other crapsack sites surface as "sources" in research it begs the question on where one can get the facts without all the angles. So, great post. I guess that was helpful..



My thanks, Tolvo. That... actually clarifies much. Or at least, makes me think. And doubt more, but that isn't all in all too bad.

[Twisted Crow]

To clarify, the majority of democratic supporters I have been exposed to are largely extremist pro-leftists.

[Kitteredge]

Yeah, I had Dallas nailed as a right-wing troll just wanting some attention. His beliefs were clear from the start and he doesn't care about rhetoric or bipartisanship at all. He's looking to be patted on the back for being 'intelligent' while his abhorrent leadership crumbles. In truth he's politically adrift as Trump falls apart and is only now saying things close to good faith. He's not worth the time, so good day.

[Tolvo]

That's very strange, leftists are much less common than centrists among Democratic supporters. Leftists don't usually like the Democratic party as it is against a lot of their interests(Especially anti-capitalist interests, as Democrats are largely pro-capitalism).

Like I'm one you definitely have met as I'm a far leftist. And I hate the Democratic party, as do many leftists. But will vote Democrat because I consider the other choice so much worse. Though there are also many who are so disenfranchised by Democrats they just won't vote at all because the Democratic party is so anti-Leftist.

It should be mentioned like I did in another thread, Buzzfeed is not a great source. BuzzfeedNews however is a very good source. They're very different, and BuzzfeedNews has led a lot of important investigations into various things. It is similar to how a lot of sites label what types of article something is, they'll have at the top whether something is for entertainment, an opinion piece, satire, or actual news. People often totally miss these things and assume they're all the same when they're very different and labelled on most sites.

[Twisted Crow]

Yeah, I had Dallas nailed as a right-wing troll just wanting some attention. His beliefs were clear from the start and he doesn't care about rhetoric or bipartisanship at all. He's looking to be patted on the back for being 'intelligent' while his abhorrent leadership crumbles. In truth he's politically adrift as Trump falls apart and is only now saying things close to good faith. He's not worth the time, so good day.

More like a moderate being crapped on by both sides for "not knowing" but not making any attempts to let me know, thus proving that they don't really care about their cause enough to inform others about it.

But thank you for your lack of civility.

[Twisted Crow]

Also, I have smacked around Republicans numerous times, even calling Trump administration a dangerous hydra at one point. In what magical world does that make me right wing? ::)

That's very strange, leftists are much less common than centrists among Democratic supporters. Leftists don't usually like the Democratic party as it is against a lot of their interests(Especially anti-capitalist interests, as Democrats are largely pro-capitalism).

Like I'm one you definitely have met as I'm a far leftist. And I hate the Democratic party, as do many leftists. But will vote Democrat because I consider the other choice so much worse. Though there are also many who are so disenfranchised by Democrats they just won't vote at all because the Democratic party is so anti-Leftist.

It should be mentioned like I did in another thread, Buzzfeed is not a great source. BuzzfeedNews however is a very good source. They're very different, and BuzzfeedNews has led a lot of important investigations into various things. It is similar to how a lot of sites label what types of article something is, they'll have at the top whether something is for entertainment, an opinion piece, satire, or actual news. People often totally miss these things and assume they're all the same when they're very different and labelled on most sites.

I will admit, I  had thought that Buzzfeed and BuzzfeedNews as the same.

[TheGlyphstone]

It's an umbrella organization. Think how Fox Entertainment and Fox News are different.

[Tolvo]

Well someone can be Right Wing without being a Republican, it is just the largest Right Wing party in the USA. If someone believes in many right wing views and positions and takes those stances but hates Trump, they still are right wing. There are right wing Democrats. Hillary is considered pretty right wing among Democrats but in the last ten years has taken some progressive positions regarding social issues, but still supports a lot of industries like the prison industry, military industry, etc, that mark her as very right wing. Left wing Republicans though are nearly unheard of as Republicans are so anti-left wing in all respects. There are conservatives and Republican voting people here on E who have mentioned they don't like the GOP and especially Trump but are still right wing.

It's something I've considered making is a thing on media literacy and understanding sources and how to read news, since it is something a lot of people haven't really been taught about or figured out how to do. And is pretty important for this section of the site.

[Twisted Crow]

Well someone can be Right Wing without being a Republican, it is just the largest Right Wing party in the USA. If someone believes in many right wing views and positions and takes those stances but hates Trump, they still are right wing. There are right wing Democrats. Hillary is considered pretty right wing among Democrats but in the last ten years has taken some progressive positions regarding social issues, but still supports a lot of industries like the prison industry, military industry, etc, that mark her as very right wing. Left wing Republicans though are nearly unheard of as Republicans are so anti-left wing in all respects. There are conservatives and Republican voting people here on E who have mentioned they don't like the GOP and especially Trump but are still right wing.

It's something I've considered making is a thing on media literacy and understanding sources and how to read news, since it is something a lot of people haven't really been taught about or figured out how to do. And is pretty important for this section of the site.

Hmmm. Based on what you describe as left wing... I don't see a lot of myself in. With the exception of supporting military, but i get the feeling you might mean something else by 'military industry' (like blowing billions on weapon projects and what not).

It's an umbrella organization. Think how Fox Entertainment and Fox News are different.

I think that might be why it is easy to make that mistake, then. People might be using "a source from Buzzfeed" loosely, then. Sometimes the contributions I have read in discussions have been quite biased, others just seemed like a news article, to me. So this might explain a lot.

[Twisted Crow]

Correction, what you decribe as "right wing". Sorry, the past incivility earlier has left me a bit rattled. :-)

[Kye]

I think it's time for everyone in this thread to take a break.  Walk away from the computer and calm down.  I don't want to have to lock this thread, as there is some decent discussion going on, but tempers are obviously high.  Any further incivility from anyone will not be tolerated. 

[Tolvo]

Hopefully things are more calm now.

Well there are various views on the military among left wing groups. Some are against any military, though that doesn't mean they think it won't be necessary to have one more so they want to create a world where they aren't necessary. Some want a people's army. Others are very pro-revolution so they want an army of revolutionaries. Authoritarian leftists tend to be very pro military but want a left wing only military. While anti-authoritarian leftists do not want large powerful militaries. An incredibly powerful military and using it to control the rest of the world and people is usually more right wing though authoritarian leftists can support that but they'll still hate the right wing version of it.

But the largest most powerful over funded military in the world, as well as Imperialism, are very anti-left wing stances. So the US military is not liked by the left wing largely.

Though with anything, hating the military does not mean hating soldiers. It means hating the system and that it exists, not that anyone who serves or has served deserves hatred. A lot of leftist groups accept former military members, especially many were accepted among soldiers disenfranchised with the US government who served in Vietnam.

Centrist and right wing tend to support the military itself, with Democrats tending to want aid for the soldiers. Leftists more so want aid for everyone which would include soldiers. Democrats also lean in this direction but don't go all in. While Republicans on and off support aid for soldiers, currently Trump doesn't and he's deciding a lot of that though they heavily fund the military itself.

For news there will always be bias because every person has bias that has ever existed. Even most AI has bias because the people designing AI have their own biases and biased data available. It's more about how much bias influences something or makes someone unable to clearly assess something. BuzzfeedNews is very factual but also is left wing so the commentary is left wing but they are still very factual. And do link to sources when they're available. It's when an article does not contain factual information, does not include sources or any way to verify anything, and treats their statements as truth without any backing, that it is a problem.

Though this has branched out a lot from Bipartisanship. Bipartisan news doesn't really exist as it would basically be incredibly confusing to read, people can link to different sources among different political alignments but if an article itself is Bipartisan or is made up of people working on it who are of very strongly different political views, it will jump all over and will largely be more of a debate than news. Certain sites and organizations have people with very different views but it often causes the organization problems and makes people across different sides angry with the organization for platforming people they do not like and political views they hate. For instance if you have a news site that publishes an article about how transgender people are mentally ill, on the same site with an article about how doctors largely agree transgender people are real and valid, that will confuse and piss a lot of people off and people won't know which one the organization agrees with or believes in or considers a fact. That example by the way happens a lot with organizations like the BBC, The Guardian, and others.

[Twisted Crow]

Though with anything, hating the military does not mean hating soldiers. It means hating the system and that it exists, not that anyone who serves or has served deserves hatred. A lot of leftist groups accept former military members, especially many were accepted among soldiers disenfranchised with the US government who served in Vietnam.

Yeah, this is what I thought you were referring to. I very much understand this relation and I figured you meant a distinction It annoys me to see liberals or just left-leaning people in general being put in this box of "hating the troops" just because they don't agree with a runaway military budget. I would definitely go to bat for the left in that case, as I feel like soldiers should be taken care of. However, when the money goes to military toys instead of their fiscal security... that is one thing that I have a problem with in spite of what some right-leaners have insisted with me.

[Skynet]

Or you know... enlighten/educate me, if I am ignorant. The leftists I have been exposed to (so I have been recently told) have been pretty much been limited to the extremist end of the wing. When Buzzfeed and other crapsack sites surface as "sources" in research it begs the question on where one can get the facts without all the angles. So, great post. I guess that was helpful..



My thanks, Tolvo. That... actually clarifies much. Or at least, makes me think. And doubt more, but that isn't all in all too bad.

Mainstream Democrats are not in favor of a stateless society where people can move about as they please. Clinton, Obama, and many Democrats have been in favor of funding border patrols.

The leftists who DO want unregulated immigration are communists and anarchists who want to do away with the concept of government entirely and tend to...not run for office in the United States in the first place.

[Skynet]

PS Examples of Democrats in favor of various varieties of border regulation.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683623555/president-obama-also-faced-a-crisis-at-the-southern-border

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/hillary-clinton-europe-must-curb-immigration-stop-populists-trump-brexit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996

[Twisted Crow]

I will take a look at these.


*sigh*

Perhaps I should change my political purple thread title to Politically Confused. I haven't felt a part of either ship due to their convuluted portrayals. And everytime I voice this confusion, whether requesting to soundboard or an innocuous question. I am simply met with either aggression from either party and given plenty of reasons to just not contribute to politics. It's one reason many why I have trouble voting, as I am rarely sure what I am voting for. And I don't trust the media when it tells me who and what voting for these people represent.  :-\

[Twisted Crow]

But I thank you for your contribution, Sky.

[Skynet]

I will take a look at these.


*sigh*

Perhaps I should change my political purple thread title to Politically Confused. I haven't felt a part of either ship due to their convuluted portrayals. And everytime I voice this confusion, whether requesting to soundboard or an innocuous question. I am simply met with either aggression from either party and given plenty of reasons to just not contribute to politics. It's one reason many why I have trouble voting, as I am rarely sure what I am voting for. And I don't trust the media when it tells me who and what voting for these people represent.  :-\

But I thank you for your contribution, Sky.

No worries. :)

I found that it's a lot easier to avoid labels and take them on when you find an ideology which you agree on the majority of issues with. Or at least the core message. Mixing political parties into things makes it a lot more volatile when said parties end up changing or not practicing what they preach.

It's part of why when I criticize hateful elements among evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians I say "evangelical culture" rather than "Christian culture." Or talk specifically about "Republicans" rather than "conservatives."

Your confusion is in part due to the broader perception in the United States that the Democrats are a left-wing party. They're not; like others said they're more centrist or even right-wing in places. It would be far better served as a thread of its own going into detail, but in short even when they do champion leftist causes they often do the bare minimum necessary or focus on issues which won't hurt the bottom line of their rich campaign donors. Or only start to move when there's actual pushback, like many of them voting in favor of an Iraqi invasion but turning around once that turned into a quagmire.

It's more the case of the fact that the GOP is so hateful and dogmatic that every other ideology looks like a radical communist in comparison to them nowadays.

[Tolvo]

Yeah, and in regard to Bipartisanship, if the parties in our country were more balanced and reasonable and cared more about everyone's rights, lives, etc, Bipartisanship would be more desired and effective. But currently one party is incredibly extreme and promoting violence and hatred, so giving them what they want and conceding to them is not desired. If there was a right wing party in power here that was more fair and cared about common people and everyone's interests then it'd make more sense to be Bipartisan with them.

Political terminology is often based on the time and opposition and place. Since I know you know Japanese history, Oda Nobunaga for instance was a progressive. He was a monarchist who believed in oppressing peasants and military might. But he was forward thinking regarding elevating soldiers and technology, so he was progressive, for his time and place. Today he'd be a very conservative. The founding father's were considered radicals and anarchists and liberators, their views on free speech would mark them free speech extremists. Extremists are usually defined in opposition to the status quo. As is terrorism, which usually is defined by non-state actors. So bombing 3,000 civilians to instill terror is fine if it's done by a military. Blowing up 10 civilians is a terror attack if done by a non-government body. Currently I'd probably be called a radical leftist, as I'm very extreme when it comes to human freedoms and rights. In 50 years my current views might be downright conservative compared to what new people may think.

[Twisted Crow]

I am reminded of my family using JFK as sort of a passive slam at the left. "JFK couldn't be elected today (because he is too conservative by left standards)" or something like this. His famous "Ask not... " phrase was used to back this up, but my gut tells me that my fam is cherry-picking this a little bit. But JFK was long before me, it is difficult to argue events that I never present for when my folks were. I love my family but they have been known to cherry-pick shit. Religion, politics, et. al. And some of their interests are at odds with mine and what I view as equality. So, a reason I can't just jump on Club Trump or Club GOP like some of them can.

In truth, I would like to see Trump take one for the team and not fulfill his promise on the wall. We could use 5 billion for a lot of other things to benefit our people while having some monitoring of the border to fight problems some claim to want to fight ( trafficking, for example). Trump hasn't given me much reason to think he will reach across the aisle. I have been also interested in what is considered "good bipartisanship" and what has been not so good, hence one of purposes of the thread coming to be.


The news went crazy about this when George H.W. Bush passed on. Though, I wasn't able to catch all of this considering I watching over my grandmother at the time.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am reminded of my family using JFK as sort of a passive slam at the left. "JFK couldn't be elected today (because he is too conservative by left standards)" or something like this. His famous "Ask not... " phrase was used to back this up, but my gut tells me that my fam is cherry-picking this a little bit. But JFK was long before me, it is difficult to argue events that I never present for when my folks were. I love my family but they have been known to cherry-pick shit. Religion, politics, et. al. And some of their interests are at odds with mine and what I view as equality. So, a reason I can't just jump on Club Trump or Club GOP like some of them can.

In truth, I would like to see Trump take one for the team and not fulfill his promise on the wall. We could use 5 billion for a lot of other things to benefit our people while having some monitoring of the border to fight problems some claim to want to fight ( trafficking, for example). Trump hasn't given me much reason to think he will reach across the aisle. I have been also interested in what is considered "good bipartisanship" and what has been not so good, hence one of purposes of the thread coming to be.


The news went crazy about this when George H.W. Bush passed on. Though, I wasn't able to catch all of this considering I watching over my grandmother at the time.

Thing is.. odds on that JFK wouldn't have made a 2nd term at the time he was shot.

1. Bobby has literally shat on the man that most assuredly gave him a good chunk of the south. LBJ. The Vice President. Doing things like broadcasting in the clear to the embassies that the VP was visiting Europe but he was not doing it in an official capacity.
2. His father's deals with the various machines fell thru. Bobby went after the Mob. He, the president, failed to follow through on promises to the wrong sort of people

It was a different time.

[HannibalBarca]

Dallas, I'm a leftist. I believe in socialism. I don't like communism at all. I think capitalism is pretty much a tricked-out version of feudalism for modern times.  But I've never belonged to any political party, ever.  I was raised in a conservative, military family, so I have a very thorough understanding of such points of view.  In my opinion, it's vitally important to understand opposing points of view, and articulate them, or you end up debating caricatures of your opposition.

However...I'm very dissatisfied with the concept of 'both-siderism', in which it seems that forcing the neutral position is held above all else.  In many things, balance is the natural position...mostly in nature.  But in the human condition, the middle ground does not tend to be the actual natural state.  Take the United States, for example.  In their era, the Founding Fathers of the United States were considered very radical, left-wing individuals.  The American Tories, King George, and his supporters in Parliament were considered right-wing or conservative.  In the present-day United States, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as slave owners, would be seen as so far extreme to the right that they wouldn't be able to even see the middle.  This shifting view of what is right, middle, and left is known as the Overton Window.  As new information becomes available, people are exposed to new modes of thinking, new perspectives, and people who are different than themselves.  This opens them up to differing perspectives, broadening their horizons--and making them move more to the left, which, on the whole, tends to be much more tolerant of different perspectives and opinions...except for those perspectives and opinions which shut down dissent.

[sdparquinn]

Politics *is* partisan to it's very core. Without division there is no such thing as politics. There's this bizarre but common view of politics as being so exercise in reaching the best possible solution between raceless, sexless, classless, ect... people that simply honestly disagree who's demographic interests are not at odds. But that's silly on both a normative and descriptive level. Or should I better say, "not preferable on a normative level because of how it operates on a descriptive level".

[Oniya]

Politics *is* partisan to it's very core. Without division there is no such thing as politics. There's this bizarre but common view of politics as being so exercise in reaching the best possible solution between raceless, sexless, classless, ect... people that simply honestly disagree who's demographic interests are not at odds. But that's silly on both a normative and descriptive level. Or should I better say, "not preferable on a normative level because of how it operates on a descriptive level".

Still, there are things that most people - by the sheer virtue of being human - can agree on.  Breathing is good.  We should have clean air.  Food and water are good.  We should have clean water and untainted food.  So forth and so on.  Of course, these are things that we shouldn't see in the media just because of the fact that there shouldn't be a disagreement over them.  'Man eats breakfast, doesn't die' does not get page-views.  Half the time that I see something paraded around for having 'bipartisan support', it's like they're expecting to be congratulated for being decent human beings.  Like - you actually had to vote on that?  Or discuss it for more than five minutes?

[sdparquinn]

Still, there are things that most people - by the sheer virtue of being human - can agree on.  Breathing is good.  We should have clean air.  Food and water are good.  We should have clean water and untainted food.  So forth and so on.  Of course, these are things that we shouldn't see in the media just because of the fact that there shouldn't be a disagreement over them.  'Man eats breakfast, doesn't die' does not get page-views.  Half the time that I see something paraded around for having 'bipartisan support', it's like they're expecting to be congratulated for being decent human beings.  Like - you actually had to vote on that?  Or discuss it for more than five minutes?

Yes as a matter of species survival I 100% agree. If I could wave a wand and have everyone on the same page about combating environmental destruction I would do it. So just as a disclaimer: I think you and I agree on a ton of things policy wise. But...

Many upper class individuals, especially elderly and/or those not concerned with their descendants, don't have a group interest to combat climate change. Because that would require some heavy taxation (among other things that hurt their bottom line).

If, and it's a big if, we could all agree on some form of utilitarian ethics along the lines of "greatest good for the greatest number of people" I would agree. that politics would not be politics in the partisan mode. But that's a tall order.