No amount of argumentation or evidence will sway either side -- and so why not just admit it? — Xtrix
These are conservatives, and Republicans; they are the people who like to self-identify as the opposite of what they are. And they spend vast resources in an effort to convince everyone they are not these things. — James Riley
I thought it's the left that does that. — fishfry
The disastrous Iraq war was bipartisan. Bush would have been stopped in his tracks if Hillary hadn't given an impassioned thirty minute speech on the Senate floor supporting the invasion of Iraq. — fishfry
By “bipartisan” do you mean working together? — DingoJones
(In the US since 1980) "bipartisan" = status quo. — 180 Proof
Yeah but die among whom? The public? Political Pundits? I honestly think at this point that it's just a fetish among the political elites at the point. — Saphsin
But money talks and BS walks. So, those who see the writing on the wall need to risk, need to invest, need to innovate, and lure labor and government subsidy and youth and vigor and courage away from the past and into the future. These are the liberals. — James Riley
That's funny, I thought it's the left that does that. Racists who claim to be anti-racist. Fascists who claim to be anti-fascist. Global elitists who claim to be against wealth inequality. People who live in gated communities with private security forces who want to defund the police so that more poor people can get killed. — fishfry
there's not a hare's breath (or a hair's breadth, never know which one it is) between the left and the right in the US — fishfry
The reason there's so much enmity between the two sides is that they are fighting on the margins about things that don't matter all that much; while the big things are ignored. That's how the global elite and the military/intelligence/media/industrial complex like it. — fishfry
Let's face it: sometimes two groups of people simply inhabit different worlds; they can't agree on basic facts nor on common goals. They have nearly opposite visions for the future, grounded on value systems that are light-years apart.
No amount of argumentation or evidence will sway either side -- and so why not just admit it? Why continue the pretense of "bipartisanship" and the hope of compromise? — Xtrix
Political pundits, yes -- but mostly the public. It's hard to say exactly whether the public even wants "bipartisanship" anymore, but if they do then yes, that idea should die. — Xtrix
wouldn't call climate change or wealth inequality the "margins." One party at least acknowledges both are problems and makes proposals to deal with them — Xtrix
If a policy was enacted that not only failed to achieve its intended results but actually managed to significantly worsen the situation, plunging millions of people into further poverty along the way, it would be considered reckless mismanagement to continue with it.
Yet this is the situation Ireland and the EU finds itself in. Fully aware that European biofuel targets are leading to increased hunger and land grabs in the developing world, European energy ministers, including Pat Rabbitte, on December 12th failed to address this disastrous policy.
The Green New Deal has changed the conversation among progressive Democrats about how to deal with climate change, from simply managing a disaster to how to take advantage of an existential threat to build a more just society.
However, should this legislative concept be transformed from the hypothetical framework it is today into actual policies, some of the solutions it engenders could make global inequality worse. As a scholar of colonialism, I am concerned that the Green New Deal could exacerbate what scholars like sociologist Doreen Martinez call climate colonialism – the domination of less powerful countries and peoples through initiatives meant to slow the pace of global warming.
So working together is a dogma that needs to die? — DingoJones
Things haven't always been that way. — Mr Bee
The NYT was basically gushing over Biden's first infrastructure bill by bypassing the Republicans, and now Biden is being tempted to go back to that nonsense again. — Saphsin
So nice that you picked those two, since they're diametrically opposed and clearly reveal liberal elitist hypocrisy.
Every time you reduce air pollution over a first-word liberal enclave, you condemn another hundred thousand or so third worlders to death. When you make energy more expensive, poor people can't afford it. The very poorest in the world can't get clean water and die of disease. All so wealthy liberals in developed countries can feel good about themselves.
Here's a small example. In Ireland, they're diverting crops to biofuels. Environmentalists like that. Sadly, the policy is starving the poor. — fishfry
You can Google around for dozens of similar stories. — fishfry
The fact is, green energy policies are a disaster for the poor people in developing countries. — fishfry
"Clean up the environment!" "Raise up the poor!" Never thinking for a moment that these two objectives are in conflict — fishfry
You exemplify the type. — fishfry
What can you do about it? — Judaka
We're talking past each other despite agreement, I meant nonsense as in bipartisanship. — Saphsin
Division, to me, is the sign of a healthy politics. — NOS4A2
If they kill it and ram through everything they want they will never lose power. If they don't kill it and get nothing done, they will lose power in the mid-terms and never recover. It's gotten that far. It's now or never. — James Riley
Like anything, it depends. I personally don't think it's healthy to have division about climate change -- that's something that should be agreed upon, as it was a few years ago before the Koch network took the Big Tobacco playbook and manufactured controversy.
But as for responsibility for legislation -- yes, which is precisely why both parties like the idea. Except for the top priorities (i.e., what their corporate constituents want), they'd prefer to have the congress dysfunctional. That's why McConnell didn't break the filibuster for major non-budgetary legislation -- because his top priority was reshaping the courts and cutting taxes. Since the Republicans have no ideas beyond that, having everything else be completely stalled -- now and in the future -- was the best bet.
I don't really think it has anything to do with unity or division, it's a bit of a strange way of talking about what's going on, a kind of red herring. — Saphsin
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. — Xtrix
Which part is causing difficulties in understanding? — god must be atheist
I assume bipartizan warfare comprises non-military fighting brigades who fall on the non-binary gender spectrum. — god must be atheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.