Political Fantasies

[Josh]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... y-00128949

I found this article interesting.

Made me wonder whether there was a time when Congress got more done because there were more moderates? If so, when were those years?

And if you like, you can talk about whether these same forces show up in churches and what that looks like. (please talk about it nicely )



Please keep partisan comments/debates out of this thread - avoid comments that reflect negatively on either right-leaning or left leaning political persuasions or characters. Please keep this thread focused on the topic.

That was a very partisan article (mostly complaining about Republicans, and in particular, the non-elite wing of the Republicans), so it will be hard not to be partisan.

Anyway, I found this a questionable take:

What Roy, Trump and their ilk cannot see is that conquering the Republican Party is not the same as conquering America. A meaningful majority of Americans find their policies to be extreme, their methods odious, their leaders foolish and their vision for America untethered to reality.

This doesn't seem factual, because every single member of Congress was voted in by a majority (or plurality) of people in their district. The Congresspeople in Congress are exactly whom the American people want and whom they voted into office.

Ernie, you may want to be aware that Politico is generally considered a biased and partisan source of news, or in this case, opinion pieces.

From AllSides:

Politico displays a Lean Left bias primarily through an overall tilt in coverage that focuses more on issues of importance to people on the political left, and sometimes describes issues in ways that match the left perspective.

[Josh]

Likewise, this description of Republicans contains multiple factual errors.

To them, it is self-evident that Obamacare should be repealed and spending for food stamps and education cut in half, that climate change is a hoax and billionaires are overtaxed, that no one should be able to get an abortion under any circumstances but anyone should be able to buy a bunch of AK-47s.

Laws against "buying a bunch of AK-47s" have been on the books since 1968 and very strictly since 1986. Buying an AK-47 requires buying one manufactured and registered before 1986, a 6 to 12 month waiting period, and payment of a tax stamp to the ATF, plus a background check plus approval from the local sheriff or chief of police, who has discretion to allow or deny the purchase. Furthermore, the cost of such weapons which may be legally bought is in the $30,000 - $70,000 range. Here is an example: https://www.rockislandauction.com/detai ... le-ishevsk

There has been no push at all to repeal the NFA and allow easy purchase of a "bunch of AK-47s". Furthermore, I'm not aware of any mass shootings being conducted with guns like that one above that sold for $74,000.

Spending for food stamps has soared, so there is not an attempt to "cut in half", but rather just get spending back to levels it was in at 2019. From Pew Research:



As I documented in my other thread, a family of 4 children can get over $1,600 a month in food stamps. That's a lot of groceries, and seems awfully high. I think $800 would be enough money. I myself get $960 a month in SNAP with a family of 2 children, and we never come close to spending it all. We're probably going to find a place that sells seeds/fruit trees (with you can buy with SNAP) to use up all the extra money. I would be more than happy to get a SNAP amount that equals how much we actually spend on groceries.

[barnhart]

Reagan and Bush 1st compromised positions to move forward on other things. Clinton was famous for "triangulation" which was adopting the most popular aspects of your opponents issues to gain support from centrists in both parties while alienating the extremes. To my eye there was more legislation accomplished in those eras.

[Grace]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... y-00128949

I found this article interesting.

Made me wonder whether there was a time when Congress got more done because there were more moderates? If so, when were those years?

And if you like, you can talk about whether these same forces show up in churches and what that looks like. (please talk about it nicely )



Please keep partisan comments/debates out of this thread - avoid comments that reflect negatively on either right-leaning or left leaning political persuasions or characters. Please keep this thread focused on the topic.

LOL...We should discuss a partisan opinion piece from a a partisan media source and keep the comments non partisan? Anyway, thanks for a chuckle this morning.

[Jazman]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... y-00128949

I found this article interesting.

Made me wonder whether there was a time when Congress got more done because there were more moderates? If so, when were those years?

And if you like, you can talk about whether these same forces show up in churches and what that looks like. (please talk about it nicely )



Please keep partisan comments/debates out of this thread - avoid comments that reflect negatively on either right-leaning or left leaning political persuasions or characters. Please keep this thread focused on the topic.

LOL...We should discuss a partisan opinion piece from a a partisan media source and keep the comments non partisan? Anyway, thanks for a chuckle this morning.

The article opens this way: "At the heart of today’s dysfunction in Congress — the serial ousting of speakers, the perpetual threat of government shutdowns, the inability to address pressing issues like immigration, runaway deficits or climate change — lie three political fantasies. These illusions warp the perceptions, cloud the judgment and misdirect the energies of House and Senate members of both parties. Letting go of them will be the necessary first step to restoring a functioning legislature to a country that desperately needs one."

Can you explain how this is partisan? What is your definition of partisan?

[Josh]

Can you explain how this is partisan? What is your definition of partisan?

Both Politico and the author in question are considered partisan by unbiased, neutral observers. That doesn't mean it's a bad article or not worth discussing, but it's impossible to have a discussion like Ernie asked about it.

[Bootstrap]

Both Politico and the author in question are considered partisan by unbiased, neutral observers. That doesn't mean it's a bad article or not worth discussing, but it's impossible to have a discussion like Ernie asked about it.

Are there unbiased, neutral observers? Where do I find them?

Why not start by discussing the article before denouncing it? Seems like we often don't get past the stream of attempts to discredit something instead of discussing it. And that's actually a big part of the problem in Congress that the article is discussing.

[Ernie]

Both Politico and the author in question are considered partisan by unbiased, neutral observers. That doesn't mean it's a bad article or not worth discussing, but it's impossible to have a discussion like Ernie asked about it.

Are there unbiased, neutral observers? Where do I find them?

Why not start by discussing the article before denouncing it? Seems like we often don't get past the stream of attempts to discredit something instead of discussing it. And that's actually a big part of the problem in Congress that the article is discussing.

Exactly.

[Bootstrap]

The article opens this way: "At the heart of today’s dysfunction in Congress — the serial ousting of speakers, the perpetual threat of government shutdowns, the inability to address pressing issues like immigration, runaway deficits or climate change — lie three political fantasies. These illusions warp the perceptions, cloud the judgment and misdirect the energies of House and Senate members of both parties. Letting go of them will be the necessary first step to restoring a functioning legislature to a country that desperately needs one."

Congress has a job to do.

Are they doing it? What are they doing instead?

If we list the most important problems America faces where Congress has a legitimate role, is Congress doing anything to address them? Which list takes longest to make:

1. A list of outrageous insults and vivid lies made by people in Congress
2. A list of prominent media appearances made by people in Congress
3. A list of actual Congressional accomplishments on the basic problems in their job description

[Josh]

Are there unbiased, neutral observers? Where do I find them?

Not in the Politico opinion section.

Why not start by discussing the article before denouncing it? Seems like we often don't get past the stream of attempts to discredit something instead of discussing it. And that's actually a big part of the problem in Congress that the article is discussing.

You asked people to read a biased, partisan article from a biased, partisan source but somehow respect the article and avoid engaging in biased, partisan political discussion of the article. That's basically impossible.

The "problem" the article discusses is essentially "Congress isn't passing enough of the kind of legislation that my politics and ideology want them to be passing". This is not necessarily an actual problem. It's just something that the author holds a political opinion that it's a problem.