We gotta be able to work WITH the GOP

[Skillcraft]

There are two ways the bolded can occur.

1) neither party wants to cooperate
2) only one party is open to cooperation

If one of the parties has decided upon and is implementing a policy of obstruction, that is all that is needed for deadlock.

Compounding the problem is that the obstructionists claim there is a path to bipartisan action, but that path involves coercing the other party to act against its core principles. A recent and unsubtle example had to do with holding the national budget hostage to extremist demands.

That is entirely one party’s fault.

I agree with you on both points. But I also believe that both sides are guilty of it. I do not agree with most of the republican platform and I will vote for a Democrat again this cycle if Trump is the republican nominee.

 

[cannabineer]

I agree with you on both points. But I also believe that both sides are guilty of it. I do not agree with most of the republican platform and I will vote for a Democrat again this cycle if Trump is the republican nominee.

I would appreciate if you could link to a solid instance of national-level Democrats doing it.

For Republicans, it’s easy as spearfishing in a barrel. Tuberville, military appointments.

Why a single senator is blocking US military promotions and what it means for the Pentagon

Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville is waging an unprecedented campaign to try to change Pentagon abortion policy by holding up hundreds of military nominations and promotions.

apnews.com

 

[Skillcraft]

I would appreciate if you could link to a solid instance of national-level Democrats doing it.

I am not computer savvy enough to share lengths. I am an old man who barely can type. The border is the number one issue that comes to mind. Drilling for oil is another. Shutting down the keystone pipeline is another. I can go on with what I view as obstructing by our political parties.

 

[cannabineer]

I am not computer savvy enough to share lengths. I am an old man who barely can type. The border is the number one issue that comes to mind. Drilling for oil is another. Shutting down the keystone pipeline is another. I can go on with what I view as obstructing by our political parties.

My rebuttal is that you have only listed Democrats doing good things.

Perhaps we weight climate issues differently.

That becomes less about party and more about deeper underlying premises. Like, is climate change real?

From this observer in the Mojave who has endured a corker of a summer heat wave and is now staring down the barrel of a profoundly unseasonable tropical storm … emphatically yes

 

[CANON_Grow]

My rebuttal is that you have only listed Democrats doing good things.

Perhaps we weight climate issues differently.

That becomes less about party and more about deeper underlying premises. Like, is climate change real?

From this observer in the Mojave who has endured a corker of a summer heat wave and is now staring down the barrel of a profoundly unseasonable tropical storm … emphatically yes

There is a valid discussion to be had on where money and effort is best focused to combat climate change. Do you believe fossil fuel emissions will be less over the next 20-30 years than they would have been had those pipelines been built?

 

[Skillcraft]

There is a valid discussion to be had on where money and effort is best focused to combat climate change. Do you believe fossil fuel emissions will be less over the next 20-30 years than they would have been had those pipelines been built?

No I do not believe that. But instead of waiting to get everything you want all at once get it piece mill over time. Not just the Dems are guilty of it. The republicans are just as guilty if not more so.

 

[cannabineer]

There is a valid discussion to be had on where money and effort is best focused to combat climate change. Do you believe fossil fuel emissions will be less over the next 20-30 years than they would have been had those pipelines been built?

Probably. The pipelines make the fosdil
carbon cheaper to use. Ripple effect.

But that’s a drop in the bucket. More concerning are red-state taxes on EVs.

 

[cannabineer]

No I do not believe that. But instead of waiting to get everything you want all at once get it piece mill over time. Not just the Dems are guilty of it. The republicans are just as guilty if not more so.

It is difficult to overstate the urgency of stopping the use of fossil carbon. The time for an incremental approach ended 20
years ago.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

It is difficult to overstate the urgency of stopping the use of fossil carbon. The time for an incremental approach ended 20
years ago.

We need to pretend aliens are attacking from the planet carbon and go to a warlike footing on climate change.

 

[cannabineer]

We need to pretend aliens are attacking from the planet carbon and go to a warlike footing on climate change.

But that’s woke

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

But that’s woke

If aliens attacked (as in a bad 50s sci-fi movie) humanity would be united, make sacrifices and spare no expense. It just that this particular threat doesn't trigger those instinctive tribal traits that lead to prosocial behavior.

 

[Skillcraft]

It is difficult to overstate the urgency of stopping the use of fossil carbon. The time for an incremental approach ended 20
years ago.

I am not defending or attacking any position on any subject. It may be to late for incremental changes. But isn't an incremental change better than no change?

 

[CANON_Grow]

Probably. The pipelines make the fosdil
carbon cheaper to use. Ripple effect.

But that’s a drop in the bucket. More concerning are red-state taxes on EVs.

It's not always that straight forward though. There is the social capital cost to get society to buy in to all the changes needed, and the next step needed will now be that much harder.



"The war in Ukraine has also taken a toll, pushing up gas prices and making coal cheaper by comparison, tempting companies and countries to burn more of the dirtiest fuel."

Too many new coal-fired plants planned for 1.5C climate goal, report concludes

Number of new plants planned fell last year, but coal-generated electricity rose by 9% to record high

www.theguardian.com

 

[cannabineer]

I am not defending or attacking any position on any subject. It may be to late for incremental changes. But isn't an incremental change better than no change?

Often but not always. In a catastrophic change, a delayed incremental approach is not distinguishable from zero effort.

If you’re going 80 and stuff happens, incremental vs extreme braking have pretty different outcomes. I think this is such a threshold situation.

 

[Skillcraft]

Often but not always. In a catastrophic change, a delayed incremental approach is not distinguishable from zero effort.

If you’re going 80 and stuff happens, incremental vs extreme braking have pretty different outcomes. I think this is such a threshold situation.

Well sir we will have to agree to disagree. But I do respect your opinions.

 

[cannabineer]

Well sir we will have to agree to disagree. But I do respect your opinions.

I am very worried that we are at or past tipping points that can be visualized as a fulcrum. Before you reach it, small forces dictate outcome. But past the fulcrum, effort that makes a difference exponentiates.

 

[HGCC]

Picking up on arguing against the idea that both sides are getting too/more extreme....

1. Trump brought in a bunch of first time republican voters. I think we would all agree they are not moderate Republicans, the new voters came in as part of pushing out the RINOs. Forgive me being lazy and not putting in links, but I do recall articles about trump driving turnout in 2016 and it being lots of new voters (not young, just people who hadn't voted before).

2. Moderate Republicans left the party. Some stayed home, others crossed the aisle and went with the democrats. Mix this with the above (and population growth), and record high turnouts for both parties make sense.

3. That's changed the makeup of the Ds and Rs ever since.

4. Political parties represent their members. If they don't, the members leave. They tend to go towards the middle of whatever their group is, if they go too far in catering to any particular group of constituents they risk losing support of the others. The abortion situation is a good example.

5. Democrats picked up a bunch of moderate republicans...so as a whole group that moved them to the right. To keep those voters the democrat party moved that way as well. Republicans lurched further right, they both lost their moderates and picked up people further right.

6. As such, the argument that the dems went left doesn't make sense.

Yay/nay???

 

[ttystikk]

Picking up on arguing against the idea that both sides are getting too/more extreme....

1. Trump brought in a bunch of first time republican voters. I think we would all agree they are not moderate Republicans, the new voters came in as part of pushing out the RINOs. Forgive me being lazy and not putting in links, but I do recall articles about trump driving turnout in 2016 and it being lots of new voters (not young, just people who hadn't voted before).

2. Moderate Republicans left the party. Some stayed home, others crossed the aisle and went with the democrats. Mix this with the above (and population growth), and record high turnouts for both parties make sense.

3. That's changed the makeup of the Ds and Rs ever since.

4. Political parties represent their members. If they don't, the members leave. They tend to go towards the middle of whatever their group is, if they go too far in catering to any particular group of constituents they risk losing support of the others. The abortion situation is a good example.

5. Democrats picked up a bunch of moderate republicans...so as a whole group that moved them to the right. To keep those voters the democrat party moved that way as well. Republicans lurched further right, they both lost their moderates and picked up people further right.

6. As such, the argument that the dems went left doesn't make sense.

Yay/nay???

I'll just address #4; I don't know how many times I've heard people tell me I'm throwing away my vote on a third party. How ELSE am I supposed to vote to hold the Deceptocrats accountable?!

Also, they say "but third parties would be competitive if people voted for them" while ignoring all the barriers put in place specifically to keep the parties from every getting on the ballot.

In short, this is a lie.

 

[HGCC]

I'll just address #4; I don't know how many times I've heard people tell me I'm throwing away my vote on a third party. How ELSE am I supposed to vote to hold the Deceptocrats accountable?!

Also, they say "but third parties would be competitive if people voted for them" while ignoring all the barriers put in place specifically to keep the parties from every getting on the ballot.

In short, this is a lie.

Doesn't what you say corroborate what I said? Democrats didn't represent you so you left for a 3rd party.

 

[ttystikk]

Doesn't what you say corroborate what I said? Democrats didn't represent you so you left for a 3rd party.

I'm not disagreeing with you in particular, just commenting on how America's political class has chosen to treat other political options.