Trump admits he ruined border deal to hurt Democrats
Trump admits he ruined border deal to hurt Democrats
Former President Trump during a Tuesday Fox News town hall essentially admitted to killing the border deal in order to hurt Democrats.
You're viewing a single thread.
To me, this kind of thing epitomizes the difference between liberals and conservatives. Though there are exceptions on both sides, broadly speaking liberals are for or against things based on underlying principles, while for conservatives it matters more who sponsored it and whether or not liberals are against it.
When Trump was in office, Democrats were more than happy to support any bill that aligned with the things they wanted to get done. Doesn't matter who sponsored it or if Trump was for it. But here we have yet another example of a bipartisan bill that has what Republicans wanted being shot down because it would be a point in Biden's favor, and would take away one of their arguments against him. No principles other than screw the liberals and make sure the other team doesn't get points on the board, regardless of whether or not it hurts the people.
Remember that list of how members of Congress voted on various issues, and how wildly the Republicans swerved back and forth depending on who was in office that year? Pepperidge Farm remembers ...
Exactly! Liberals will change their view and their vote on things, too. Biden changed his stance on a number of things over his decades in office. But it usually comes from an evolution of understanding, or even personal growth. It isn't because they want to screw the other side.
He's pretty stubborn on genocide it seems.
For repubs politics has turned into team sports. It is no longer arguing about ideas and policies. This is always what happens in a first past the post voting system. Having a viable strong third party forces the need for compromise on all parties in order to pass any sort of legislation. But no third party in our current voting system will emerge because instead of voting for someone, which may cause the spoiler effect, I have to decide to vote against the more terrible option.
I don't know, we went hundreds of years without this being as significant of a problem. The first overtly significant thing in this vein I remember was when McConnell said they wouldn't vote for anything that came out of Obama's administration because it was more important to ensure he was a one term president than to actually pass any legislation.
It had been getting bad before that for sure. Really, I think the bad times started when Republicans started courting evangelical christians as a way to grow their power (older folks will remember that Republicans used to be pro choice because they saw it as a government regulation issue, not a moral one). To do that, they went from saying Democrats were wrong to saying Democrats were evil. You can negotiate and compromise with someone you think is wrong, not someone you think is evil.
But that stuff isn't inherent in a two-party system. We had one for ages without that problem.
the civil war did happen and the year it did was from a 3rd party being like "yeah the federal gov shouldn't enforce the fugitive slaves act, but we shouldn't ban slavery" I don't think the US is necessarily facing slavery level of direness but we do need to decide whether we're a modern country with a livable working class or a billionaire owned theocratic hellscape.
Lol. You don't get to decide that though
no I dont, but its the issue at the heart of the modern US schizophrenia. It might seem insurmountable but there are only hundreds of billionaires.
Hundreds of billionaires with governments and armies on the payroll.
Which Republican said years ago, something to the effect of: whatever they are for, we are against.
Newt Gingrich
That's not ringing a bell. It sounds to close to the Groucho Marx song, I'm Against It.
You mean they worked together? Yes. I wish more people would exemplify that approach.