US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4270 (2024)

If one side is "force no women" and the other side is "force all women" then would it be "force half women"?

Dems (especially Biden) have not done a good job communicating their accomplishments or their plans for the future, which could make Trump-skeptics more at ease. That is different than needing to change stances on key political issues.

These "compromises" and "concessions" intrinsically cannot exist for pro-lifers, or else they become pro-choicers. I'm not sure how many different ways we can explain this. Let me try it this way:

Person A is pro-choice up to 10 weeks.
Person B is pro-choice up to 20 weeks.
Person A and Person B can compromise at 15 weeks. It's a little longer than A would prefer, and a little shorter than B would prefer, but at the end of the day the agreement is still pro-choice, which both of them identify as.

On the other hand...

Person A is pro-choice up to 10 weeks.
Person C is pro-life, which means 0 weeks and only 0 weeks. (We're referring to standard pregnancies unrelated to exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.)
Even if Person A would be willing to compromise to 5 weeks, Person C would not be willing to compromise to 5 weeks. This is because the agreement would be pro-choice, and Person C has planted an unmoving flag at their pro-life position of 0 weeks, no matter what.

Pro-choice advocates are willing to entertain wiggle room and flexibility, but pro-life advocates are not. So when you critique Democrats for not letting pro-life advocates in, what you're really saying is * Dems welcome pro-choice people at 5 weeks and 10 weeks and 15 weeks and 20 weeks and a whole bunch of other positive-numbers-of-weeks, but gosh darnit why can't Dems f*ck over all of those people and let the Zero-Weeks-With-No-Other-Options just take over? *

If a pro-life person wants to compromise with a pro-choice person, any sort of "meeting in the middle" will necessarily not be zero weeks. The result is going to be a positive number of weeks for abortion to be legal. I'm fine with that, but pro-life people would not be fine with that. (And I'm not even saying that the pro-life people would be wrong or inconsistent for their lack of budging, since they'd view it as killing an unborn baby even after one week of pregnancy. It's just that being pro-life is inherently incompatible with compromise, so don't yell at Democrats when it's actually the fault of the Republicans for not being capable of compromising on the topic of abortion.)

Still not answering my main but I'll indudlge this very slightly.

At this point, Dems not kicking out people who disagree would be a compromise. Maybe you can simply allow pro-life people into the party and let them advocate their positions and disagree while you also work on other things. You'd think Dems would know how to do this, considering basically their whole party history is as a coalition of interest groups, but they have apparently forgotten.

I hate to be this way, but not you, and not a single person here seemingly, can name a single thing dems have to done to assuage the concerns of Trump skeptical voters. Instead, you'd like to dive back into the weeds on abortion, a topic on which the party used to be less of a monolith (a fact that is proof that all these long posts about how impossible it is are wrong). I think that's telling by itself.

There are millions of Republican Person As and Person Bs, including their presumptive nominee. Not everyone who describes themselves as pro life is a single issue voter - this is a projection of the fact that that's how pro choice advocates think so you presume pro life voters must be the same. But they aren't all advocates either.

Even many Person Cs can rationally come to the conclusion that winning on a position of Person A, and simultaneously winning on other issues that are important to them is better than losing on all of the issues. But in a large sense they have recognized that part of the way to advocate is cultural and building support for pregnancy, not just criminalizing abortion. That just because something is legal doesn't mean it needs to be encouraged. That's the same philosophy with legalizing recreational drug use. sh*t like "shout your abortion" doesn't help moderates.

We followed your lead on abortion as you scolded Democrats on imaginary gate-keeping and a lack of logically-impossible compromise, up until you realized that your position made no sense. Not every pro-choice advocate agrees on the ideal number of weeks for abortion to be legal, and I even used that fact in my previous example of Person A and Person B for you. And then I even gave you an example of an issue that you could have discussed (gun control), if you had sincerely wanted to have the conversation on compromise that you initially asserted. But sure, change the subject to messaging instead of the actual issues. Messaging is absolutely important! Just realize that when you pivot, people who originally were talking to you about something else don't have to pivot with you, especially if your pivot comes off as dishonest.

I think you missed a significant part of the earlier discussion, where BlackJack and I (and others) were talking about differences between privately pro-life (or choice) and universally-enforcing pro-life (or choice). Four positions here, not two.

Democrats already welcome people who describe themselves as pro-life, as long as they don't want to push that pro-life stance onto everyone else. Having a universally-enforcing public policy of pro-choice means that individuals can be pro-life or pro-choice. You aren't kicked out of the Democratic party just because you don't want to have an abortion. The only group that is inherently incompatible is the universally-enforcing public policy of pro-life, which was where the problem of compromise came into play. Person C is that kind of person, not the privately pro-life person. I never said that 40% of people were Person C (I wasn't even the one to cite the 40% statistic at all), and I definitely didn't say that being privately pro-life means you're also trying to universally enforce the pro-life position.

"There are millions of Republican Person As and Person Bs"
Great! Those people are pro-choice, and they're exempt from the "universally-enforcing pro-life" scenario with Person C that I was describing

My example makes perfect sense, as I have continued to point out that the Democratic party used to be ore open minded. All your game theory above completely misses what actually was, which I suppose would be on brand for someone on the left. The only person dodging is you (well and everyone else), because again, all theory, no example of dems actually making concessions to ensure Trump's defeat. It's all theoretical, because they haven't actually done it.

D tries to work together

R steps back

R: Be reasonable and meet me in the middle

Repeat as needed.

Tale as old as time.

Democrats are closer to Nixon/Reagan era centrist Republicans on several issues than modern Republicans are. Healthcare, Immigration and Gun Control are just a few examples.

This is basically how Democrats got there.

We have talked about some of that before, and I would dispute some (or much) of your characterization. But I have no problem saying that A) Nixon was a liberal Republican, no doubt B) the issues and their exact valences can change over time (though I think the GOP overall has been more consistent through its history). But I daresay that Nixon would be more welcome in his party nowadays then some Democrat version of him would be in that party. But that's debatable.

I'm not talking about 40 years ago, I'm talking about, like, 8 years ago. I know you view the Democratic party from the entire other side but I don't think people share that view. Biden and the Dems haven't even tried to appeal to centrist Republicans, they just try to appeal to the sense of disgust certain squishy, Republican leaning voters have towards Trump and hope that is enough (and maybe blue state frustration with things like the SALT cap, a very self-interested line of appeal).

There’s no such thing as being “privately pro-life.” What do you think that means? Someone that bans themselves from having an abortion? Of course the only enforcement of said ban would be someone’s personal choice to not have an abortion. Key word in bold there.

As for pro-life VOTERS, the Democrats have a consistent policy of allowing abortions. So if you are a voter who is dead-set on forbidding abortions everywhere but are also worried about Trump, you'll have to decide what is more important to you. The Democratic party obviously won't be turning away votes, but nor will they indulge those voters on changing their overall policy proposals for legalising abortion.

Considering most polls I’ve perused have Trump consistently rocking 70-80% approvals amongst self-described Republicans/registered ones, it just doesn’t feel a particularly pragmatic vein to attempt to mine.

I honestly had the impression democrats have shown willingness to compromise on both immigration/border security and gun control. Like, Obama was actually derided as 'deporter in chief' by the left. A few months ago I recall Trump telling republicans to go back on a border security/immigration bill (also included aid to Ukraine) because if it was implemented republicans wouldn't be able to attack democrats as efficiently for not doing anything about immigration. (although I'm sure some republicans like Rand Paul voted against more because of the support for Ukraine than to please Trump) This bill was even written by McConnell.

Biden is even the compromise candidate. Part of his whole package (which again, troubles the left part of your political spectrum) is his desire to be bipartisan. Working across the aisle was one of his selling points during his campaign, and I have the impression he's been trying to do that but that his efforts are largely thwarted by Republicans because their election chances improve the more disgruntled they are with Biden's inability to deal with the cases they care most about.

I'll totally grant you that there's a wing of the democratic party with no interest in compromise and I can even picture that wing dominating politics in california. But Biden isn't that, and nationally, the republicans (during the Trump era especially but also McConnell during Obama years) have been more guilty of opposing compromise because they thrive under a dysfunctional government. I'll also agree that democrats have been unwilling to compromise with Trump, but Trump is not and has never been a compromise candidate - his 'art of the deal' is not 'come to an agreement both sides are kinda meh but reasonably content with'.

Honestly that's a good quality write up. But coming from germany this reminds me at the RAF pamphlets that go pages and pages and pages going on tangents, trying to sound academic and well reasoned.... only to justify killing people and a flawed onesided interpretation on facts.

Poor people exist? Let's just kill a rich guy! That will help!

On Topic:
Any guy with a webbrowser should be able to research that "abortion" is not a lifestyle that's about killing babies.
Conservatives and Christo-Fascists like to dumb down the problem on "women of questionable character f*cking around, and not have the spine and morale bear the consequences"

Abortion is a medical procedure.
Not getting an abortion because of religious beliefs is also fine .. but the political right used to be fighting the taliban, not join them.
You don't have to make others follow your beliefs by force. Just accept that people are different.

And to Trump:

1. He says he will be a dictator/king. He knows the "Strong man" rhetoric appeals to his base.. and to me.. unlimited power is just the thing he'd never give up again.

2.
Trump didn't accept an election result. Unlike Bush, he wasn't patient enough to go through the courts, and as all findings showed: there were no missing ballots in his favour, there wasn't evidence for tampering.
Until now.. basicly they only found people trying to rig the election in his favor and now are going to jail - trials to his own actions are delayed, delayed, delayed... even if there are wittnesses that received calls from him personaly, to "find me some votes"

Have you all forgotten Rudy in the 4seasons parking lot?

Also Trump knew that he could not rely on the military to overtake Washington for him.
His presidency was 4 years of rallying, photo ops and bureaucrats telling him "No Mr. President".

That's were Project 2025 comes in. The SCOTUS bulldozerd Chevron defense, all the rules made up by experts are now negotiable again.
From the lead content of drinking water to the mercury content of children's toys.

And further:

Trump tried to make all government officials "political hires". Biden Admin reversed that.
Trump and Project 2025 will try it again.

Right now they officials and experts on the topic can't be fired if their findings are scientificly legit - even if they don't match the political view.
That's a thing that should change. You have to be able to align sclience and politics ..again.. this makes things easier!

This absolutely reminds me on communism and aparatkshiks.

If you want an artist interpration, go for HBO's "Chernobyl" and the scene where the scientists argues with the local government after taking readings of high radiation and suggesting evacuation.

"I am a nuclear physicist, you used to work in a shoe factory"

"Yes, I worked in a shoe factory..and now I am in charge"

This is what Trump has brought already/will bring again with setting up SCOTUS like it is. Allowing itself to be bribed, allowing itself to decide what is an "official act" and when the president gains total immunity, and giving back the power of negotiating about factual reality in courts, ulitmatively before themselves.

This is legit dangerous.

SCOTUS can't be impeached - if they work hand-in-hand with a president they can selectively grant immunity to.. all "checks&balances" have been thrown out the window.

I think you're bringing up a point of semantics that isn't particularly important in the broader scope of whether or not the position of "universally-enforcing pro-life" is compatible with anything related to pro-choice, but I'm happy to clarify what I'm referring to. And you've pretty much nailed it:

If a person's position is "If I get pregnant one day, I'm unwilling to even entertain the option of having an abortion (maybe outside of rape, incest, saving my own life, etc.), but I don't feel comfortable removing that option from everyone else, because they may have different circ*mstances that I can't understand", then I would describe that as a position that is both "privately pro-life" and "universally-enforcing pro-choice".

I recognize, as you pointed out, that such a self-imposed personal ban on abortion (i.e., being "privately pro-life") is a choice, and so in this context, "privately pro-life" vs. "universally-enforcing pro-life" might more accurately be described as "abortion is preemptively off the table for me" vs. "abortion is preemptively off the table for everyone". The former is compatible in a world that permits pro-choice options, since being privately pro-life is indeed a personal choice and could still allow other pregnant people to choose whether or not to have an abortion, but the latter is incompatible because it removes the opportunity for other pregnant people to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

Biden won on the media generated image of grandpa Joe who was a popular president's VP. One of the amusing things about the Dem debates was how much they all agreed with each other. And Biden has failed to live up to his promise of taking down the temperature and pursued, where it was in his power, left-wing policies. From anti-trust to student loans, there really isnt much for a centrist, slightly right-leaning person to like. A problem he should take seriously if Trump is the threat they say he is. There has been bipartisan legislation on shared goals, which is commendable even if I don't actually really like either peice of legislation. Every presidency has one try on some sort of immigration bill, often killed by the right because the goodies the left want are front loaded. That, and the central thing that gets underplayed, is that Republican voters are about as distrustful of their own senate leadership as they are of Democrats. Trump didn't really kill that bill, he just figured out which way the wind was blowing. If you want immigration, as an example fine, but I think Biden panicking after effing up the border shouldn't really count considering his dereliction of duty there in the first place (the bill was an attempt at blame shifting and the feeling they had to do *something*. When it failed he went right back to blaming Republicans for his failure). Ukraine...that's actually oen of Trump's big cross party appeals. A less interventionist streak has always been present in both parties, Ukraine aid is basically a topic on which Biden can get GOP support not because he's conceded anything, but because a large part of the GOP agrees with him in the first instance. Ditto for some of the China legislation (a change on China being a thing Trump is actually responsible for in large part).

Biden and the dems didn't give Republicans much for Ukraine aid or the CHIPs act (if anything, he made big changes to it that Republicans didn't like but swallowed anyways). Tariffs on China? Also not a concession, but something Biden honestly believes in. So I don't count areas where the parties agree almost entirely on ends and quibble about means.

Biden's message for the last 3 years is, "you have to vote for me because Democracy is on line." Look how thrown off they are by the attack on Trump. They are trying to figure out what to run on, because fear was like half his shtick. The dem party had moved left on every single issue, I don't really think that's deniable, and it makes appeals to the good of the country seem insincere. And I haven't even talked about all his demagoguery (thr Georgia election bill springs to mind).

All that looks like nitpicking, I guess I'm still asking for something he and dems have conceded on for the sake of beating Trump, not examples of working across the aisle to advance shared objectives. If I could vote for Trump and get half of that anyways then I think we have a problem with using that as an example. I think when phrased that way it's clear what I mean.