7 ms·

What's your solution, then? What form of a left wing would have been any better than Obama in light of the obstruct-at-all-cost policy the Republicans held for

by bojl 10y ago

What's your solution, then? What form of a left wing would have been any better than Obama in light of the obstruct-at-all-cost policy the Republicans held for the last 6 years? >I do not agree with lots of things that (old) republicans did... but they get shit done. They wanted to block (stupid) gun control legislation, they did. They wanted to block returning Guantanamo prisoners to the USA, they did. Blocking legislation (esp legislation brought forth by the opposition party) is, always has been, and always will be 100x easier than putting forth any legislation. Blocking legislation isn't getting anything done. We already see a failure to get things done by the Republicans in their handling of Obamacare-- they have no collective idea as to how to replace it, despite their vigor in denouncing and repealing the bill. They have had 6 years.

ufmace 10y ago
I can agree that blocking legislation is much, much easier than passing it. On the other point, I lean Republican, and I'm more inclined to agree with 464192002d7fe1c. A lot of leftists love to blame the Republicans for being obstructionist during the Obama administration. But were you paying any attention to Obama's attitude? See [1]. He basically says "I won, deal with it, if you don't like it, then go win some elections". Well, they did, and they obstructed him in exactly the spirit that he invited. And in roughly the same spirit that the Democrats obstructed GWB during his term. A good leader accepts the political situation and seeks to work within it. If your political opponents have control of Congress, you better learn how to compromise and work with them to get things done. This might actually involve not getting everything your way and sometimes doing something that the other side wants. Whining that you can't get the things that you want done is poor leadership. I'll grant that there's a big divide between the two sides, and neither side is innocent in perpetuating it. But who can be the bigger person, lay off the name calling for a while, and make some compromises? Evidently not Obama. Maybe Trump will? I guess we'll see soon enough. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/10/17/president-obama-to-republicans-i-won-deal-with-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/10/17/pr...
- bojl 10y ago
  You're acting like the Republicans had no choice but to obstruct Obama. And when I say obstruct, I don't just mean denying legislation. I mean performing stunts like literally shutting down the government. Like irresponsibly fucking with the debt ceiling. Like attempting to repeal the ACA with no replacement plan, screwing over so many of their constituents. And let's not act like these were attempts to better America in light of differences of opinion on policy; the ACA was based on Republican health care initiatives for christ's sake. Obama needed to be a better leader? Give me a goddamn break. Maybe he wasn't perfect, but in order for him to have done a better job unifying he would have had to bend over backwards to the GOP. There's a clear right and wrong in this situation.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Well, they did, Well no. They REDMAP'd it. That was impolite, so to speak: not technically illegal, but sufficiently unethical that in 2004 the Supreme Court basically said they'd ban it if only they had some consistent standard to apply. This year they might have that consistent standard, and starting with North Carolina and Wisconsin, the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent. In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent. > In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy. The GOP has controlled the House for only six years running. Before that, the Democrats controlled it for four - before that, the GOP controlled it for six, and before that, the Democrats controlled it for 61 years, with the exception of one term (1947, under Truman). During the vast majority of that time, the Senate was also under Democratic control as well, although the Senate has leaned slightly more right than the House fairly consistently ever since the Seventeenth Amendment was passed. I agree that a democratic system should not be controlled by a single party, but it's rather silly to say that the GOP has a "permanent Congressional majority" given how recent their majority is.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>What form of a left wing would have been any better than Obama in light of the obstruct-at-all-cost policy the Republicans held for the last 6 years? Greater judicial opposition to the REDMAP gerrymandering program that, starting in 2010, helped to guarantee Republicans the consistent seats in Congress and state-houses that they needed to obstruct Democratic measures. The Republicans do have plenty of voters, probably "too many" if you're a Democrat, but there was no historical necessity for them to have a chokehold on Congress until 2020.

by bojl 10y ago

ufmace 10y ago

I can agree that blocking legislation is much, much easier than passing it. On the other point, I lean Republican, and I'm more inclined to agree with 464192002d7fe1c. A lot of leftists love to blame the Republicans for being obstructionist during the Obama administration. But were you paying any attention to Obama's attitude? See [1]. He basically says "I won, deal with it, if you don't like it, then go win some elections". Well, they did, and they obstructed him in exactly the spirit that he invited. And in roughly the same spirit that the Democrats obstructed GWB during his term. A good leader accepts the political situation and seeks to work within it. If your political opponents have control of Congress, you better learn how to compromise and work with them to get things done. This might actually involve not getting everything your way and sometimes doing something that the other side wants. Whining that you can't get the things that you want done is poor leadership. I'll grant that there's a big divide between the two sides, and neither side is innocent in perpetuating it. But who can be the bigger person, lay off the name calling for a while, and make some compromises? Evidently not Obama. Maybe Trump will? I guess we'll see soon enough. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/10/17/president-obama-to-republicans-i-won-deal-with-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/10/17/pr...

bojl 10y ago
You're acting like the Republicans had no choice but to obstruct Obama. And when I say obstruct, I don't just mean denying legislation. I mean performing stunts like literally shutting down the government. Like irresponsibly fucking with the debt ceiling. Like attempting to repeal the ACA with no replacement plan, screwing over so many of their constituents. And let's not act like these were attempts to better America in light of differences of opinion on policy; the ACA was based on Republican health care initiatives for christ's sake. Obama needed to be a better leader? Give me a goddamn break. Maybe he wasn't perfect, but in order for him to have done a better job unifying he would have had to bend over backwards to the GOP. There's a clear right and wrong in this situation.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Well, they did, Well no. They REDMAP'd it. That was impolite, so to speak: not technically illegal, but sufficiently unethical that in 2004 the Supreme Court basically said they'd ban it if only they had some consistent standard to apply. This year they might have that consistent standard, and starting with North Carolina and Wisconsin, the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent. In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent. > In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy. The GOP has controlled the House for only six years running. Before that, the Democrats controlled it for four - before that, the GOP controlled it for six, and before that, the Democrats controlled it for 61 years, with the exception of one term (1947, under Truman). During the vast majority of that time, the Senate was also under Democratic control as well, although the Senate has leaned slightly more right than the House fairly consistently ever since the Seventeenth Amendment was passed. I agree that a democratic system should not be controlled by a single party, but it's rather silly to say that the GOP has a "permanent Congressional majority" given how recent their majority is.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>What form of a left wing would have been any better than Obama in light of the obstruct-at-all-cost policy the Republicans held for the last 6 years? Greater judicial opposition to the REDMAP gerrymandering program that, starting in 2010, helped to guarantee Republicans the consistent seats in Congress and state-houses that they needed to obstruct Democratic measures. The Republicans do have plenty of voters, probably "too many" if you're a Democrat, but there was no historical necessity for them to have a chokehold on Congress until 2020.