Jump to content

Minor Politics & News


Dad

Recommended Posts

Also, he has a duty to represent the entire nation, not just his voter base.

 

In general, that should mean being considerate the opposing views and compromising for them. The entire political system is designed to try and forge compromise between the many many viewpoints in order to best govern the nation. In general, there are merits to both sides. If it weren't the case have so many conflicting viewpoings in the first place.

 

And whilst campaigning, I think it's fine for politicans to focus upon there voter base for the sake of getting elected, but that stops being the case once you are in power. In power, you have a duty to represent all your consituents, not just the ones who voted you in.

 

And right now, Trump is less than a year into a 4 year term. He should be governing, not compainging, and governing means he has to give a damn about and consider the opinions of people like Roxas. Anything else is a deriliction of duty. Obviously, that means he doesn't have to go the whole hog and do s*** they favour entirely, but it means at the very least he should open a dialogue to that side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So he's not a moderate, like I was told?

I don't see how anything I said would contradict that. All I said was to cater to Roxas and Craft, who unshamed far left liberals, he would have to go very far left and would lose more than he gained. 

 

He's got many left leaning economic principles (safety nets), and a few left leaning social ones (like LGB rights)

Also, he has a duty to represent the entire nation, not just his voter base.

 

In general, that should mean being considerate the opposing views and compromising for them. The entire political system is designed to try and forge compromise between the many many viewpoints in order to best govern the nation. In general, there are merits to both sides. If it weren't the case have so many conflicting viewpoings in the first place.

 

And whilst campaigning, I think it's fine for politicans to focus upon there voter base for the sake of getting elected, but that stops being the case once you are in power. In power, you have a duty to represent all your consituents, not just the ones who voted you in.

 

And right now, Trump is less than a year into a 4 year term. He should be governing, not compainging, and governing means he has to give a damn about and consider the opinions of people like Roxas. Anything else is a deriliction of duty. Obviously, that means he doesn't have to go the whole hog and do sheet they favour entirely, but it means at the very least he should open a dialogue to that side.

He's letting people like me down if he caters to Roxas. Either way he's gonna let someone down, the question is does he let down the guy who voted for him, or the one that threw sheet at him the whole campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he lets everyone down. He should, because that's what political compromise is. Nobody gets exactly what they want, but everyone gets a little bit of it. You represent more people overall, and the solution is probably a little bit better as well.

 

Like, would you rather have half of the solution you wanted, and half of another one, than none of yours and all of the one you didn't want?

 

Who voted for him should be irrelevant now that he is actually running the nation, and is thus accountable equally to everyone of his citizens, whether they voted for him as not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he lets everyone down. He should, because that's what political compromise is. Nobody gets exactly what they want, but everyone gets a little bit of it. You represent more people overall, and the solution is probably a little bit better as well.

 

Like, would you rather have half of the solution you wanted, and half of another one, than none of yours and all of the one you didn't want?

 

Who voted for him should be irrelevant now that he is actually running the nation, and is thus accountable equally to everyone of his citizens, whether they voted for him as not.

Half-assing won't get him anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think compromise is half arse anything. Given that the idea of it is to try and reach a solution that gives both sides a little of what they want, one can still get a completely effective solution to a problem and bear this in mind. Usually because there will be elements of merit to both sides solutions to any problem.

 

It doesn't mean he has to split every issue evenly, it doesn't mean he has to sell out his principles. It doesn't mean he has to go a full 180 on whatever positions he has now. He just has to be willing to compromise for the good of the nation; take the good sheet from both sides and try to compile it. Try and see all sides to an issue before making his call, and be able to explain within that context why he got the decisions he reached.

 

I don't know why asking the man to actually make an effort to represent all his consituents should be seen as a bad thing. Once again, I do the classic 'imagine if the situation was reversed' thought experiment.

 

And honestly, him trying to whole arse sheet hasn't gotten him very far on a little of the big talking points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think compromise is half arse anything. Given that the idea of it is to try and reach a solution that gives both sides a little of what they want, one can still get a completely effective solution to a problem and bear this in mind. Usually because there will be elements of merit to both sides solutions to any problem.

 

It doesn't mean he has to split every issue evenly, it doesn't mean he has to sell out his principles. It doesn't mean he has to go a full 180 on whatever positions he has now. He just has to be willing to compromise for the good of the nation; take the good sheet from both sides and try to compile it. Try and see all sides to an issue before making his call, and be able to explain within that context why he got the decisions he reached.

 

I don't know why asking the man to actually make an effort to represent all his consituents should be seen as a bad thing. Once again, I do the classic 'imagine if the situation was reversed' thought experiment.

 

And honestly, him trying to whole arse sheet hasn't gotten him very far on a little of the big talking points.

It was reversed, for 8 years. Obama didn't care. He pumped out all his far left principles to please his base. 

 

The GOP always cucks out, they always compromise when they have a chance, but the Dems will NEVER do it. We begged Obama to pass the 20 week abortion ban that over 80% of Americans support. Nope. 

 

And before you tell us to "be better" they won't change in 8 years either. 

 

What do you think compromise for Craft looks like? I'm one of the more liberal Trump voters out there, and it'd take a near 180 for craft to be ok with what I'd be ok with. Now square that with the more conservative trump voters.

 

They are people who were never gonna support him and will never support him. Trump needs to take them out out back. Nuke the legislative filibuster too and pass everything with the GOP majority. If it's good policy, we'll keep him, if not, the dems will have their chance in 4 years. Let the results speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he's gonna lose me if he starts backing abortion or throwing a fit about Russia like they want

 

Given I'm more inclined to vote for him, he's gonna be running a net less trying to cater to them

 

So let me see if I understand this correctly: Since you're more likely to vote for him than I am, he should cater to you rather than me. That's still favoring division rather than unity. Even if I'm not likely to vote for him, that doesn't mean he can't take efforts to address my concerns.

 

What do you think compromise for Craft looks like?

Why does that matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So let me see if I understand this correctly: Since you're more likely to vote for him than I am, he should cater to you rather than me. That's still favoring division rather than unity. Even if I'm not likely to vote for him, that doesn't mean he can't take efforts to address my concerns.

 

 

Why does that matter?

Because Obama never bother to take efforts to address my concerns. Nor has any democrat thus far. So I'd hope that that the republican I helped vote in would atleast

 

Because by doing what Craft or you want, he's likely not doing what I want. 

 

It's game theory really, I'm the higher payoff matrix for him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Obama never bother to take efforts to address my concerns. Nor has any democrat thus far. So I'd hope that that the republican I helped vote in would atleast

 

Because by doing what Craft or you want, he's likely not doing what I want. 

 

It's game theory really, I'm the higher payoff matrix for him

 

So you think Trump is gonna address your concerns because he's a republican and you voted for him?  I mean that's adorable in concept, but the elite only care about the elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think Trump is gonna address your concerns because he's a republican and you voted for him?  I mean that's adorable in concept, but the elite only care about the elite.

Nah, but it'd be the smarter thing to do than try to appease Craft or Roxas. I'm also one dude, one vote won't matter, but POTUS shouldn't forget that it was Obama->Trump voters that swing the election to him, and if he wants to get re-elected, he needs to remember who got him there. Not the ultra-liberals from California 

 

He also can't until they nuke the legislative filibuster so he can pass thing without needing 8 democrats to vote with him.

 

Trump also clearly hates DC lol, not sure how much he cares for the DC elites 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Obama never bother to take efforts to address my concerns. Nor has any democrat thus far. So I'd hope that that the republican I helped vote in would atleast

 

Because by doing what Craft or you want, he's likely not doing what I want. 

 

It's game theory really, I'm the higher payoff matrix for him

 

So basically, if it's not what you specifically want, then he shouldn't do it at all? Or do you think you represent the "idea" that Trump needs to cater to?

 

Nah, but it'd be the smarter thing to do than try to appease Craft or Roxas. I'm also one dude, one vote won't matter, but POTUS shouldn't forget that it was Obama->Trump voters that swing the election to him, and if he wants to get re-elected, he needs to remember who got him there. Not the ultra-liberals from California 

 

He also can't until they nuke the legislative filibuster so he can pass thing without needing 8 democrats to vote with him.

 

Trump also clearly hates DC lol, not sure how much he cares for the DC elites

"Ultra-Liberals" Hyperbole will get you nowhere, and I don't see what you gain by continuing to homogenize California, and then put down what you just lumped together.

 

Wouldn't Obama-to-Trump voters have switched parties because they were disillusioned by Obama? I can understand if people were let down by Obama, but Trump would also need to avoid the same happening with him. Trump needs to get his own voters to stick with him long enough that they'd actually want to vote for him again. Assuming he doesn't get impeached first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So basically, if it's not what you specifically want, then he shouldn't do it at all? Or do you think you represent the "idea" that Trump needs to cater to?

 

"Ultra-Liberals" Hyperbole will get you nowhere, and I don't see what you gain by continuing to homogenize California, and then put down what you just lumped together.

 

Wouldn't Obama-to-Trump voters have switched parties because they were disillusioned by Obama? I can understand if people were let down by Obama, but Trump would also need to avoid the same happening with him. Trump needs to get his own voters to stick with him long enough that they'd actually want to vote for him again. Assuming he doesn't get impeached first.

He's done things I don't specifically want already, like not pulling out of NATO or dropping Russia sanctions. He made overarching general promises he needs to keep. 

 

Yeah, and that's the trade-issues. Fighting Neo-liberal economics is what got Trump elected (before you jabroni, actually go look up what neo-liberal economics is - this isn't a dig at democrats or liberals)

 

Because Cali was one of the few states that got MORE blue this year. It's not at all like the states that elected Trump, except maybe some parts of Central Valley

 

And this won't be done by ass kissing the Roxas's of the world who gleefully wait for his impeachment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Before you jabroni" Really?

 

In other words, Trump shouldn't kiss my ass, but he should kiss yours.

Yeah, you would have almost certainly jumped on me for calling out "neo-liberal economics" without understanding that the liberal in NLE doesn't refer to "liberal" like you

 

I've already said no, but he sure as hell should kiss my ass more than someone like you who neither voted for him, nor supports him now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could earn some goodwill by trying to listen to why people didn't vote for him. I mean, yeah, I want him gone, but that's just me. I can't speak for everyone. For all I know, some people really could be against Trump, but are willing to change their mind. The very least that Trump could do is work to understand and amend the concerns that people have with him. People can decide whether or not his efforts are good enough, but Trump can still try to make those efforts in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could earn some goodwill by trying to listen to why people didn't vote for him. I mean, yeah, I want him gone, but that's just me. I can't speak for everyone. For all I know, some people really could be against Trump, but are willing to change their mind. The very least that Trump could do is work to understand and amend the concerns that people have with him. People can decide whether or not his efforts are good enough, but Trump can still try to make those efforts in the first place.

And at some point he's going to trade away voters he had for a chance of getting different new ones? How's that smart for someone who wants to get re-elected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......What?

 

Do you not remember the massive GOP opposition to basically everything Obama did? The overwhelming opposition to essentially everything he tried to pass, inspite of multiple times Obama being fully willing to talk, and compromise and discuss the issues. Hell, I remember for one bill (Despite not being able to remember the bill itself), in the weeks running up to it, Obama was going 'I oppose this bill for X, Y and Z, and I'm more than willing to discuss ways to create a new bill we can all support'. Then, the repbulicans passed the bill, and then about a week later, when they realised they cocked up, they said 'We didn't get any warning or attempts to talk about this from the legitslative branch'.

 

I know you have some issues where you are almost one issue (Like abortion) but I think it's insane to say Obama was completely unwilling to compromise, or that the GOP were. That's a complete msirepresentation (from the information I know) of what 6 years of Obama were like, where the Republican majority just acted like obstrusive fucks. Even the 'Obama only pleased his far left base' seems wrong to me, because one of the bigger complaints of Obama is that he turned into a pro corporation, bomb happy, pro security state centrist instead of the man he campaigned to be, and that dissuaded a lot of people.

 

So I don't see, beyond one specific abortion bill which, where that line of thought is coming from.

 

I'll say now; The president respecting his consiteuents doesn't mean he has to do it in every case. He has a duty to represent there interests, but as a elected representitive he is allowed to use his own opinion as the final deciding factor rather than just mob rule. Which means he can do sheet the people disagree with if he is certain that is in there best interests overall. But I don't think this translates, nor do I think it should, into completely ignoring the opinions of half of America on every issue.

 

And of course I'm going to say 'be better'. It's never going to improve if you don't try to improve it. Holding onto the resentment of 'they didn't do it for us' solves no issue, and just ensures that partisanship will remain an issue decades and decades into the future.

 

I also disagree with the argument of 'let results speak for themselves' - The results from political changes and long lasting and long reaching, and it takes years before it actually becomes clear (If ever) what policies do what. It's already an issue of horrible public perception that people can assign blame to politicians for what happens in there term even if it's the last guys fault or vice verse, we shouldn't encourage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're gonna funk us over on the first chance they get. Leftist appointments always vote full left. Right ones are the compromisers

 

Obama became a globalist; neo-liberal economics isn't conservatism. There's a reason Trump beat 16 neo-liberals this year. We hate them.

 

GOP obstruction is such a meme:

 

vvxtio5lempy.jpg

 

They passed Obamacare without a single GOP vote

They gutted any chance on for any moderation on abortion

They crammed their TQ+IA stuff down our throats

 

But hey, atleast he droned a few Jihadists? Oh wait, he's been funking Assad and Putin after he got in a war more disastrous than Iraq. Obama is the daddy of ISIS and him using the NSA as a political tool doesn't make me feel better.

 

I supported the President both times he ran. He repaid me by shipping all jobs out of my hometown,

and cramming coastal elitism down my throat.

 

In the end, we compromise, they funk us.

 

It ends now. It's our turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said centrist, not conservative. I didn't say Obama shifted towards the GOP, (though shifting to the centre is exactly that), I said he shifted away from the far left. Because neo-liberal economics is hated by the far left as well.

 

Are we going to ignore Merrick Garland in the discussion about GOP obstructinism and unwillingness to compromise? The unprecidented like 170 days or more they just refused to give him a hearing? How about the government shutdown in 2013? I mean, how about just comments from prominant republicans calling for the entire GOP to vote against all of his s*** for the simple reason of 'stopping him claiming bipartisan support'? Is that not obstructionist and pety? To vote against everything the other guy did just to be able to say 'He didn't get any of our support'.

 

Maybe the obstructionism is overblown, I don't know the fully details, but it seems crazy to me to say it ouright wasn't a thing, or to say that Republicans were 'always willing to compromise' when we have clear examples of s*** caused by them not doing so.

 

But who knows? Maybe I am completely wrong in this regard? Maybe it's always the duty of the minority to vote against everything proposed, regardless of how reasonable it is to do so? I don't know, but once again I wonder how much better s*** could be if people weren't just being dicks.

 

EDIT: I also don't think that figure of Bushs government is proof of anything by itself; It says that the Republicans were no more obstructionist that Democracts (Without really going into enough detail to be certain of that, because there's a lot of things to consider), but it doesn't consider it long term. It's entirely possible that Bush and Obama had it equally as badly, and thus it's just evidence that everyone in politics is a dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 neo-liberal economics isn't conservatism

 

also this is actually outright false. Like, the rest you could maybe argue based on perspective, but this is, by the definitions of the words used in it, wrong.

 

The "liberal" in neoliberal refers to the old meaning for the word, libertarian, which is most certainly a conservative idealogy. Things like open trade borders, which is one of the policies most commonly referred to as neoliberal, are absolutely right-wing in nature, as they involve a lack of government interference.

 

This is actually probably your worst post in a long time in just how patently wrong about everything it is.

 

0/10, see me after class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also this is actually outright false. Like, the rest you could maybe argue based on perspective, but this is, by the definitions of the words used in it, wrong.

 

The "liberal" in neoliberal refers to the old meaning for the word, libertarian, which is most certainly a conservative idealogy. Things like open trade borders, which is one of the policies most commonly referred to as neoliberal, are absolutely right-wing in nature, as they involve a lack of government interference.

 

This is actually probably your worst post in a long time in just how patently wrong about everything it is.

 

0/10, see me after class.

It's only false if you consider the Reagan revolution to be the new definition of conservatism.

 

Conservatism as it stands now means Trump and reversion to the new-dealish era where government involvement isn't taboo.

 

And that's decidedly not neo-liberal. If you don't believe the shift has happened, look how popular government programs have gotten w/ GOP voters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only false if you consider the Reagan revolution to be the new definition of conservatism.

 

Conservatism as it stands now means Trump and reversion to the new-dealish era where government involvement isn't taboo.

 

And that's decidedly not neo-liberal. If you don't believe the shift has happened, look how popular government programs have gotten w/ GOP voters

Except that government involvement was taboo in conservative politics for much longer than that. Even in the New Deal era, there was allegedly an assassination plot for FDR because they were worried about him being too much of a Socialist, among other reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that government involvement was taboo in conservative politics for much longer than that. Even in the New Deal era, there was allegedly an assassination plot for FDR because they were worried about him being too much of a Socialist, among other reasons.

Meanwhile Nixon and Ike were big government conservatives. The word's meaning isn't fixed love

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...