The bipartisan floor crossing

[El_Machinae]

You use 'they' an incredible number of times in your post. I heartily, heartily recommend reading The Righteous Mind by Haidt. I've chastised you before on your absolutist language. This is very much one of those times where it doesn't help. You really need to read that book. Its insights onto the different flavours of moral thinking really, really help when trying to figure out different mindsets.

 

[Lexicus]

Isn't Jonathan Haidt the same guy who thinks SJWs on college campuses present an existential threat to free speech?

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe. He also knows a lot more about moral flavours than you do.

 

[Cutlass]

You use 'they' an incredible number of times in your post. I heartily, heartily recommend reading The Righteous Mind by Haidt. I've chastised you before on your absolutist language. This is very much one of those times where it doesn't help. You really need to read that book. Its insights onto the different flavours of moral thinking really, really help when trying to figure out different mindsets.

I'm not the one causing the problem. Why should I be the one who has to capitulate on all I value to have peace?

 

[Lexicus]

@El_Machinae Actually, he isn't the same guy. I was thinking of Jonathan Chait.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh good. I find Haidt to be really insightful. I'd listened to a few of his talks before listening to his book.

I'm not the one causing the problem. Why should I be the one who has to capitulate on all I value to have peace?

You perceive yourself as solely centrist, eh?

 

[Lexicus]

You perceive yourself as solely centrist, eh?

I'm not sure whether he does or not, but in my view it is completely wrong to suggest that liberals and conservatives are equally part of the problem here, with centrists the only ones who have clean hands.
The Republican Party and 'movement conservatism' generally has gone completely off the rails.
And it isn't just me saying that, either:

The Republican Party has become a radical insurgency—ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/finding-the-common-good-in-an-era-of-dysfunctional-governance/

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a misunderstanding. There are people who need to be approached, so that bipartisan projects can move forwards. The "Take the group's ball and go home" wing of the party is not who has to be compromised with. That doesn't mean that there aren't oodles and oodles of projects that can be finished in either of a bipartisan way. Too many people let 'perfect be the enemy of good', and don't see that a rightwing solution is superior to no solution. Or vis versa.

But Cutlass is wildly partisan.

 

[mrt144]

It's a misunderstanding. There are people who need to be approached, so that bipartisan projects can move forwards. The "Take the group's ball and go home" wing of the party is not who has to be compromised with. That doesn't mean that there aren't oodles and oodles of projects that can be finished in either of a bipartisan way. Too many people let 'perfect be the enemy of good', and don't see that a rightwing solution is superior to no solution. Or vis versa.

But Cutlass is wildly partisan.

Perfect be the enemy of the good should be basic civics lesson.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Perfect be the enemy of the good should be basic civics lesson.

But needs to be balanced against "Working be the enemy of improvement." I used to keep a drawing of a cart with square wheels on my office wall. The wheels were offset an eighth of a turn on a hard axle so that when one was on a flat the other was on a point. The cart would in fact "roll" bumpily along, and the complacent guy driving it had a look of complete smug satisfaction. Meanwhile, coming from the donkey doing the pulling there was a thought balloon with a round wheel in it.

 

[mrt144]

But needs to be balanced against "Working be the enemy of improvement." I used to keep a drawing of a cart with square wheels on my office wall. The wheels were offset an eighth of a turn on a hard axle so that when one was on a flat the other was on a point. The cart would in fact "roll" bumpily along, and the complacent guy driving it had a look of complete smug satisfaction. Meanwhile, coming from the donkey doing the pulling there was a thought balloon with a round wheel in it.

I love that.

 

[Zkribbler]

I think the President can sue the Senate, and say they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligations by refusing to approve anybody and sit the required 9 justices in the SCOTUS.

The courts would toss the case, pointing out that the remedy is impeachment.

Does anybody have a guess what would happen? Could the SCOTUS impose rules on the Senate (like: They have to have a vote within 90 days)?

The Constitution says the rules for the Senate are to be made by the Senate.

What you'd have is a political version of a sumo wrestling match, with the two sides stripped down to diapers and belly bumping each other until someone falls on the a$$.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, here's a good example.

Trump here outlines 6 points to "reduce corruption'. Whether or not you trust him, these are six policy point that are being put forward as 'serious'. Which would you want Clinton to port into her policies? Which are a distraction? Which would you want your Congressman to support if Trump wins?

edit: skip to 16:09, and stop after those six policies. Other things might sway you. Sorry I couldn't go straight to the timestamp.

 

[tetley]

Trump has always run as an anti-establishment business guy. So, Trump suddenly giving all these anti-establishment policies--conveniently after the final debate is over--doesn't surprise me. All debate, every debate, he ignores the moderators' questions about policy, and instead goes on and on about insulting, stalking Hillary, and saying she should go to jail. Now suddenly this dirtbag* has all these wonderful ideas how he's going to clean up Washington?

I'm sick and tired of how this billion-dollar con artist preys on the ignorant. I refuse to even address his "policy" talk point-by-point. The time to do so was before or during the debates.


* (presuming this is legal in this forum in a non-RD thread (I'm not positive). Trump is a presidential candidate. And it sure as heck is how I regard him.)

 

[Cutlass]

But Cutlass is wildly partisan.

No, I'm really fudging not. But the fact that you think that I am demonstrates that you refuse to see the situation objectively.

 

[El_Machinae]

True. I don't follow you around with a spycam. I should have caveated with "in his posting on CFC".

 

[uppi]

Unfortunately small quality pic:

What exactly is plotted here?

 

[tetley]

No, I'm really not. But the fact that you think that I am demonstrates that you refuse to see the situation objectively.

In Cutlass' support, there is a big difference between having deeply-held Democrat or Republican ideals, vs. being strongly pro- THESE Democrats or pro- THESE Republicans now.

I am strongly anti- THESE Republicans. If that makes me wildly partisan, so be it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Partisanship is mostly expressed in how much blame you put on cross-party policies for certain bad outcomes. Or on the tolerability of a policy based on who proposes it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Partisanship is mostly expressed in how much blame you put on cross-party policies for certain bad outcomes. Or on the tolerability of a policy based on who proposes it.

That is really difficult to distinguish. I could be called "wildly partisan" based on the fact that I support most of the policies proposed by Obama and Clintons, while I denounce most policies proposed by Trump, Cruz, or Ryan. However, I support policies that appear to me to present some hope of solving problems while denouncing policies that seem to have no logical basis to expect them to work, particularly if they have already been tried and proven not to work. I don't see that as partisanship, wild or otherwise.