An opportunity for Democrats to prove they are the "bigger" party

[Kurth]

Ignore everything offered as an explanation as to why it isn't a reasonable position, doubling down on a right-wing idea, embracing ignorance, and thinking that makes themselves part of a "majority". Looks like my initial read was on target.

I humbly suggest that this is a very bad take. I understand and agree that it’s not the Dems job to save the GOP from the chaos goblins they’ve chosen to empower. The GOP has no leadership, unless you consider Trump its leader, which is entirely reasonable, but would take me back to the point that the GOP has no leadership.

What you’re fundamentally missing is that most Americans have no fucking idea what is going on in Washington. They don’t know who McCarthy is. They don’t know who Jim Jordan is. They have no clue who Hakeem Jeffries is.

You’re calling out Dave Allen (not a new poster, btw; member since 2004, and I think I maybe remember him from Gone Gold before that) as posting a low-information opinion, but, honestly, it’s probably higher information than most of our fellow citizens.

He may be wrong (he is, in fact), but he’s not a troll. And treating him as such is counter-productive, especially if that approach is extended to the rest of the people who will be voting for POTUS in 2024.

[Edit to add: TL:DR version - let’s not make this a “high information only” clique. Criticize all you want, but let’s hold off on the “troll” stuff unless truly deserved.]

[malchior]

Ignore everything offered as an explanation as to why it isn't a reasonable position, doubling down on a right-wing idea, embracing ignorance, and thinking that makes themselves part of a "majority". Looks like my initial read was on target.

I humbly suggest that this is a very bad take.

It might be a bad take. I'd love to be proved wrong. I have high confidence it won't be.

What you’re fundamentally missing is that most Americans have no fucking idea what is going on in Washington. They don’t know who McCarthy is. They don’t know who Jim Jordan is. They have no clue who Hakeem Jeffries is.

You don't think I don't know this? I talk about it regularly!

You’re calling out Dave Allen (not a new poster, btw; member since 2004, and I think I maybe remember him from Gone Gold before that) as posting a low-information opinion, but, honestly, it’s probably higher information than most of our fellow citizens.

What does membership since 2004 have to do with the price of tea in China? I'm not saying he lives to troll. I said it was a troll post! I explained why I thought so. None of which you even manage to address substantively.

He may be wrong (he is, in fact), but he’s not a troll. And treating him as such is counter-productive, especially if that approach is extended to the rest of the people who will be voting for POTUS in 2024.

Counter-productive? What was the productive outcome going to be? People responded with valid points and they were literally ignored. Nothing productive was likely going to come of this.

[Edit to add: TL:DR version - let’s not make this a “high information only” clique. Criticize all you want, but let’s hold off on the “troll” stuff unless truly deserved.]

Right because what is needed in political discourse is wasting time batting around dishonest right-wing narratives. I don't mean that to say I only want to hear things from the echo chamber. I live for a good informed disagreement but this shit? Fuck that.

[malchior]

Have any of the recent candidates campaigned for Democratic votes at all?

Not a single one. Remember that McCarthy publicly (and with purpose) rejected all talk of a compromise with the Democrats. The whole idea is just broken from the get go. I wouldn't go as far as to say a deal will never happen with Democrats but any deal will fatally wound whoever closes it on the Republican side. And that might not even be figurative considering all the death threats. I'm just struck by how non-serious political analysis has become. The right-wing floats out ideas in bad faith into the world and they get batted around like they were serious ideas in the first place.

[Kurth]

You’re calling out Dave Allen (not a new poster, btw; member since 2004, and I think I maybe remember him from Gone Gold before that) as posting a low-information opinion, but, honestly, it’s probably higher information than most of our fellow citizens.

What does membership since 2004 have to do with the price of tea in China? I'm not saying he lives to troll. I said it was a troll post! I explained why I thought so. None of which you even manage to address substantively.

I was responding to this quote from you upthread:

2. Irregular or new posters in this forum are very likely to have troll intentions. There is a high chance it's trolling when the idea source appears to come from the right wing information space.

He may be wrong (he is, in fact), but he’s not a troll. And treating him as such is counter-productive, especially if that approach is extended to the rest of the people who will be voting for POTUS in 2024.

Counter-productive? What was the productive outcome going to be? People responded with valid points and they were literally ignored. Nothing productive was likely going to come of this.

Not everyone wants to sign on for the R&P-standard debate. Some people - especially those who don’t post often in R&P and maybe even more so those who may not have an opinion that is in line with the majority view here - may every now and then be motivated to make a post. There’s no obligation to stick around for the multi-page debate. That doesn’t make them a troll in my book. And it doesn’t mean that they aren’t reading and thinking about the stuff posted in response to their post. It just means they may not want to get into a protracted debate, for whatever reason.

[Edit to add: TL:DR version - let’s not make this a “high information only” clique. Criticize all you want, but let’s hold off on the “troll” stuff unless truly deserved.]

Right because what is needed in political discourse is wasting time batting around dishonest right-wing narratives. I don't mean that to say I only want to hear things from the echo chamber. I live for a good informed disagreement but this shit? Fuck that.

I don’t think this is where we should want to be as a forum. Unless people are obviously shit-posting, I’d rather we not be quality testing for what constitutes “good informed” points. People should post what they want without fear of being called out as a troll unless they are clearly acting in bad faith. We should be striving for more participation, not less.

[Dave Allen]

Have any of the recent candidates campaigned for Democratic votes at all?

Not a single one.

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

[malchior]

Not everyone wants to sign on for the R&P-standard debate. Some people - especially those who don’t post often in R&P and maybe even more so those who may not have an opinion that is in line with the majority view here - may every now and then be motivated to make a post. There’s no obligation to stick around for the multi-page debate. That doesn’t make them a troll in my book. And it doesn’t mean that they aren’t reading and thinking about the stuff posted in response to their post. It just means they may not want to get into a protracted debate, for whatever reason.

Sure. I was referencing that people had responded with facts and then a post appeared that ignored all that to re-state the original premise. I'm not commenting on frequency or level of engagement.

Edit: To just to be clear, I'm referencing the post with the American flag emoji...which I have trouble seeing as not a bit of a shit post in that it disregards all push back while ticking a bunch of behavioral check boxes that I felt aligned with my analysis. Again I could be wrong but I've yet to see otherwise.

I don’t think this is where we should want to be as a forum. Unless people are obviously shit-posting, I’d rather we not be quality testing for what constitutes “good informed” points. People should post what they want without fear of being called out as a troll unless they are clearly acting in bad faith. We should be striving for more participation, not less.

Again, I had reasons that went beyond the quality of the argument. I explained those reasons in some level of detail upthread.

[Victoria Raverna]

Have any of the recent candidates campaigned for Democratic votes at all?

Not a single one.

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

The Democrats did help Gaetz and his gang removed McCarthy without getting anything in return from Gaetz or other Republicans. So I guess that was the evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party?

[malchior]

Have any of the recent candidates campaigned for Democratic votes at all?

Not a single one.

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

The Democrats did help Gaetz and his gang removed McCarthy without getting anything in return from Gaetz or other Republicans. So I guess that was the evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party?

LOL

[Dave Allen]

Have any of the recent candidates campaigned for Democratic votes at all?

Not a single one.

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

The Democrats did help Gaetz and his gang removed McCarthy without getting anything in return from Gaetz or other Republicans. So I guess that was the evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party?

I don't consider assisting the plunge into legislative chaos as being gracious - like the man who is beating his dog to death and you hand him a bigger stick?
[edit] You were being sarcastic? I am am pretty slow to pick up on that kind of response when not face-to-face.

[Kraken]

I don’t think this is where we should want to be as a forum. Unless people are obviously shit-posting, I’d rather we not be quality testing for what constitutes “good informed” points. People should post what they want without fear of being called out as a troll unless they are clearly acting in bad faith. We should be striving for more participation, not less.

+1

Dave didn't warp in to kick the hornet's nest and leave, like some other provocateurs whom we wished into the cornfield, and shouldn't feel like he should never post again because f those guys.

[hepcat]

Yeah, I'm not getting troll vibes off Dave.

[Victoria Raverna]

I'm getting a bit of MAGA vibe from him but maybe that was because of his quote from bible. I tend to think those that show off that he is Christian by quoting from bible in public are more likely to be part of MAGA crowds.

But maybe that is my bias against people that like to show people that they're religious.

[RunningMn9]

Yeah, I'm not getting troll vibes off Dave.

I’m getting some kind of vibes though. Parachuting in to suggest that Democrats should be the bigger party here and save the country from the GOP, by supporting the GOP who’s trying to seat Jim Jordan as the goddamn speaker….is some kind of vibes.

They don’t feel like genuine vibes either. Best case scenario, they are partisan conservative vibes and it was posted not as a genuine suggestion for the Democrats (because it’s ludicrous), but as a dig to show that the Democrats aren’t willing to put country over party either.

Now that may not be trolling vibes, but it feels trolling adjacent to me. Just one man’s opinion though.

[hepcat]

I guess my litmus test is if they lob the word "libtard" over the wall when called to defend their position, then double down by yelling "deep state" or "swamp" over their shoulder as they run off.

Dave hasn't insulted anyone. He's actually thanked folks who offered up their opinions at times. As for having quotes from the bible in his signature, would anyone call him out if he had quotes from the Quran or from the Torah? Christianity gets a bad rap in this country thanks to the MAGAts and their awful evangelical footsoldiers, but I try not to lump them all into one group.

...I save that for Scientology, which is why I'm glad RM9 removed all those L Ron Hubbard quotes from his signature.

[Unagi]

I think this is maybe just a poor choice of words, troll, in that I don't think Dave Allen is posting with the intent to just mess with people, etc.

However, I do think - at the time Malchior posted what he posted - Dave Allen had indeed made a comment that hinted at a fairly disingenuous attempt to engage in a conversation about the OP.

Dave Allen had been presented with a good deal of posts that honestly and in good faith tried to reply to and illuminate the issues around his position - and he basically replied with something along the lines of "Sorry nope, I'm ignorant of the details and simplistic in my solutions - so none of that matters."

So, I can understand why that's a little frustrating with someone who's taken the effort to actually engage that person in dialog that would provide the missing details and help walk someone through a less simplistic look at the solution.

I don't think the label, 'troll', is right - but I think Dave Allen could also take some more time or care to understand what everyone has been saying. I mean, if Dave Allen self-identifies as 'late to the table and just half-baked', shouldn't Dave Allen be somewhat open to people who try to get them caught up and finish up some of the baking?

Instead, they made it seem like a challenge: "Explain to me why I'm wrong but without me listening to those explanations and instead just falling back on naivety and a shrug with the American flag."

I don't know if that was Dave Allen's intent, but I think it's the way he came across with his reply.

[Kraken]

Well, if this post was honest then he came in misinformed and got corrected. Kinda what we should hope to do here.

Have any of the recent candidates campaigned for Democratic votes at all?

Not a single one.

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

Kevin McCarthy got fired specifically because he cooperated with Democrats, so doing so now -- or even promising to do so -- would be the kiss of death for any GOP Speaker candidate. If any Dems were to jump the fence to put a particular Rep over the hump, they would doom that Rep. The GOP's policy is confrontation, not cooperation. Maybe Dave didn't know that, either.

[RunningMn9]

...I save that for Scientology, which is why I'm glad RM9 removed all those L Ron Hubbard quotes from his signature.

It was the only way to stop the persecution.

I don’t think Dave has insulted anyone, and I don’t care what quotes he has in his signature.

It was just a ludicrous suggested outcome, and it’s become a common talking point on a disingenuous Right to make it look like the Dems won’t put country above party either.

[Alefroth]

And gloating after the first two responses just furthers the notion it was a bad faith discussion.

[Isgrimnur]

Have any of the recent candidates campaigned for Democratic votes at all?

Not a single one.

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

Are you familiar with the story of the frog and the scorpion?

[malchior]

I think this is maybe just a poor choice of words, troll, in that I don't think Dave Allen is posting with the intent to just mess with people, etc.

I do think people are getting wrapped around the axle on the word so I propose an alternative for this behavior. And I'd define it as someone who starts a new thread with right-wing talking points, ignores feedback, and then revels in their ignorance without going super obvious and dropping 'Libtard' or 'Democrat Party' type indicators. I have a couple options at top of mind: 'Posting Coal' or maybe the 'Real American Drive-by'.

[GreenGoo]

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

To what end?

[Dave Allen]

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

To what end?

Some people perceive human kindness as weakness. If you are one of these people, then the kind of help I suggest to Democrats makes no sense. The rest of us will applaud any action intended to alleviate the current legislative confusion and suffering. I am not a Republican or a Democrat - I am an Optimist.

[Smoove_B]

I am not a Republican or a Democrat - I am an Optimist.

[Alefroth]

The rest of us will applaud any action intended to alleviate the current legislative confusion and suffering.

You absolutely will not.

[Pyperkub]

Yeah, I'm not getting troll vibes off Dave.

TBH, I said that explicitly because he wasn't engaging in any meaningful way to dozens of posts after the OP.

Which in the past here has been quite indicative of bad faith posting about politics by certain parties (and the post had much in common with those posts as well as the time-worn GOP bad faith PR blaming the democrats for the effects of republican policy).

Dave, thanks for engaging more. I hope you're getting some of the answers you were looking for.

In other news, The Hill has a look at the latest candidates and whether they are already Oath breakers (tho they should have also included impeachment votes for Jan 6th) :


https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4269 ... -overturn/



Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Victoria Raverna]

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

To what end?

Some people perceive human kindness as weakness. If you are one of these people, then the kind of help I suggest to Democrats makes no sense. The rest of us will applaud any action intended to alleviate the current legislative confusion and suffering. I am not a Republican or a Democrat - I am an Optimist.

The thing is that Democrats have been doing what you suggested in the past and most of the time they ended up losing more and more power to GOP.

Some examples:

They were nice to let Republican presidents to pick Supreme Court justice instead of blocking them but GOP blocked Obama's choice.

They were nice to work with Republican to pass the CR funding bill to avoid shutdown and McCarthy thanked them by blaming them for the potential shutdown.

I still think they should help McCarthy retained his position to avoid potential shutdown when the CR bill expire but I can understand why they didn't want to help McCarthy that have been trying very hard to appease the extreme right members while kept attacking Democrats.

Even after McCarthy losing his speaker position, he still tried to avoid blaming Gaetz by blaming Democrats instead. So you can see why Democrats didn't want to help him. He didn't even approach them to ask for help before the voting. He kept attacking them and he expected them to vote for him for the better good?

[Blackhawk]

I didn't know this - thanks, malchior. If the Republicans have demonstrated this clearly their inability to engage in bipartisanship, it makes any move to help them out as evidence that Democrats are the more gracious party.

To what end?

Some people perceive human kindness as weakness. If you are one of these people, then the kind of help I suggest to Democrats makes no sense.

You're not even close to the mark there. First, you're not suggesting that one side show better sportsmanship, you're suggesting that one side forfeit.

Here's another side's perspective, if you care to hear it. The Republican party of Trump has been actively working on sidelining the tools of our democracy in order to maintain power while many of the views they espouse are in decline. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm sure we can offer plenty of examples.

The Democraticpparty is full of problems as well, but on those issues, compromising isn't just flexing, it's giving up the core principles that our nation runs on. Doing so isn't compromise, it's failure.

On top of that, the Republicans have shown that they negotiate in bad faith. They make agreements and deals, and then ignore them when it becomes inconvenient. Those are never the kind of people you make agreements with.

When it comes right down to it, I agree with the idea of acting graciously, of being the ideal. But they've seen that doing so just means having the Republicans take advantage of them in order to hurt them.

Between the stakes and the way the Republicans have been acting, the Democrats have to treat the whole thing strategically, not as a contest to see who is the most gracious.

You imply that not agreeing with your idea means that you don't believe in human kindness. Beyond the absurdity of that as an argument, the Democrats (and their supporters) see far more suffering in the Republican party's direction. The Democrats holding firm is, to them, the greater kindness.

I am not a Republican or a Democrat - I am an Optimist.

Assuming that you are being honest in your post, you don't come across as an optimist. You come across as an idealist with a blind spot.

I am not a Republican or a Democrat, either. I am a realist.

[hepcat]

Some people perceive human kindness as weakness. If you are one of these people, then the kind of help I suggest to Democrats makes no sense. The rest of us will applaud

Now that, however, did feel a bit insulting. Most folks are pointing out to you that the kind of help you’re suggesting simply won’t work, not that kindness is weakness. That you either don’t understand that, or refuse to, shouldn’t result in this kind of response.

The MAGA crowd is dangerous. We need to purge out government of them if we want compromise and sanity to return to it….at least to a working level.

Although, I honestly don’t know if pre MAGA things were significantly better with the GOP, now that I think about it. I still remember McConnell crowing about blocking Obama’s Supreme Court pick and his response when they jammed one through near the end of Trump’s first term.

[malchior]

The GOP was semi-radicalized prior to MAGA. MAGA just turned up the volume on a problem that had been building for years.

Just as a couple examples we have election denial and the "balanced budget". As to election denial, folks often forget that election denial went back to Nixon vs. Kennedy. That went from a grumble point about the dead voting in Chicago to the Brooks Brother riot in 2000 to it being a central tenant of Republican grievance culture that Trump seized to attempt a coup.

Then we had the balanced budget? It's main driver? Fiscal mumbo jumbo that was cover to try to push back against the civil rights movement and defund the Great Society measures. They blamed every boogeyman and problem on mild deficit spending. The country has been "broke" since the energy crisis if you were listening to them and it went from Reaganomics hollowing out the middle class and creating widespread economic misery to the present day oligarchic looting we are witnessing. They came to be the Tea Party bomb throwers who rampaged against governance throughout the Obama years.

You can point at lots of different areas where this pattern holds, but the point is that it progressively got worse and people who raised the alarm like myself were told over and over that we were overreacting. Why? Because the media normalized the behavior over time and convinced everyone it was just "messy politics". Ultimately, the right-wing is great at manipulating the media to get their messages out and now they've essentially got every "independent" nimrod blaming the Democrats for not cooperating enough in finishing off our Democracy.

[Unagi]

Some people perceive human kindness as weakness.

What is your position on that?

Some people put human kindness above most other things, do you?
Turns out, if a person is capable of a certain level of empathy, they simply cannot support anything the Republican party has come to represent, but the post you decide to make about kindness and being the "bigger" party, is all a condemnation of the Democratic party.

Sorry, I don't think you just have a 'late to the table' and 'simplistic' view on things, I honestly would like to suggest that you are willfully ignorant in order to keep lying to yourself that you are actually a person that holds human kindness in high regard.

In the four years with Trump as the President, did you ever feel compelled to post about the kindness (or lack thereof) you were seeing in the Republican party? Like ever?

[GreenGoo]

Some people perceive human kindness as weakness. If you are one of these people, then the kind of help I suggest to Democrats makes no sense. The rest of us will applaud any action intended to alleviate the current legislative confusion and suffering. I am not a Republican or a Democrat - I am an Optimist.

No, I mean what would your suggestion achieve? I don't think they are looking for applause at this point. If you're suggesting that that applause would turn into meaningful votes, I would have to disagree with you and previous precedent does not support this either. So again I ask you, to what end?

And a personal question. I don't need much detail if you feel it's too personal. What percentage of your voting life have you voted for 1 party's president vs the other? You suggest you're an independent, so I'm curious about your voting history. Related and possibly more interesting, what particular/specific events (such as what you suggested in this thread) occurred that made you switch parties from 1 election to another?

I ask those questions assuming you are suggesting that "applause" translates into "votes". If you didn't mean that, then ignore my questions.

[Apollo]

I largely agree with Dave Allen's point. I feel that some Democrats need to vote "present" if the GOP manages to give a non election-denier a vote on the House floor. Letting the government crash and burn for no purpose other than to make the GOP look bad is a page right out of the GOP MAGA wing's "Tear it All Down" strategy guide and I want no part of that (and it will achieve nothing anyway because the public Doesn't Care).

When Government ceases to function due to GOP meddling it only adds credence to their "The Government is totally incompetent and we'd all be better off without it" messaging, However, this move should not be telegraphed in advance or the GOP will make sure that person never gets a vote on the House floor to begin with. After all, we're going to have a GOP speaker so why not have one we can work with to keep the Government running at the very least? I feel that no Dems backing McCarthy after he put his head on the chopping block to Do the Right Thing in a standoff with the Hard RIght Authoritarian wing of the party was a huge mistake. Time to be the adults in the room, IMHO.

[Smoove_B]

For the purposes of this discussion then, are you able to name a viable candidate based on your conditions for GOP Speaker?

EDIT: I'm not trying to bait anyone here, I just legitimately don't know who they could possible nominate at this juncture. Maybe my bias against the party as a whole isn't helping.

[hepcat]

It's a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. Dems support a GOP candidate (hell, they even give the appearance of supporting a GOP candidate), and that candidate becomes public enemy number one to quite a few Republicans. Trump, McCarthy, McConnell, they've whipped the GOP into a frenzy with fear mongering about how awful it is to work with Dems.

No, the GOP needs to grow the hell up and learn how to work with each other before we can even think about how to work with them. The GOP's dysfunction is the problem here, not the Dems desire to not get involved with their internal feuds.

[Apollo]

...No, the GOP needs to grow the hell up and learn how to work with each other before we can even think about how to work with them. The GOP's dysfunction is the problem here, not the Dems desire to not get involved with their internal feuds.

I never meant to imply that the problem wasn't the GOP's or that the Democrats have some sort of obligation to help the GOP. I'm simply looking at things from a pragmatic point of view. It's hard for me to see the GOP electing a member that doesn't have the backing of the Freedom Caucus right now, so it seems like we have a choice between never-ending chaos or a Hard RIght speaker, the type that will regularly try to shut down or default the Government and will likely try to interfere with the 2024 election results. And if that does happen, we Dems will share some of the responsibility as we could easily have avoided that outcome.

I hate the fact that the Left has become as unwilling to compromise as the RIght nowadays. It seems that those of us who just want the Government to function normally and to stop making every dispute with the other party into some sort of Epic Struggle form which No Compromise Can Be Tolerated have no where to turn anymore.

I'm increasingly fantasizing about a Pragmatic, Centrist third party in the US, but I know that will never happen...right?

[GreenGoo]

I largely agree with Dave Allen's point. I feel that some Democrats need to vote "present" if the GOP manages to give a non election-denier a vote on the House floor.

Great. Maybe Jordan will have another vote.

I think you and I have very different views on what a functioning government looks like. How functional was it prior to the speaker position being vacated? Because so far any new speaker put forth has been far worse.

Worse, you think the Dems are gloating over the GOP dysfunction and would extend it if you they could. That's delusional.

MacCarthy is gone because he never negotiated in good faith and constantly reneged on agreements once he got what he wanted. He's gone because he was bad for governing and bad for the country. Jordan is far worse.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the Dems need to carry the workload and responsibilities of both parties (otherwise they are the villains) while the GOP continue to burn everything to the ground. That's fucked up.

[Apollo]

I largely agree with Dave Allen's point. I feel that some Democrats need to vote "present" if the GOP manages to give a non election-denier a vote on the House floor.

Great. Maybe Jordan will have another vote...

??? Jordan was an election denier. I don't understand this point.

[hepcat]

But I think they HAVE proven they'll work with someone who isn't an extremist. We got a stay of execution on the government shut down out of McCarthy (even if he went on to rail against it like the PoS he is), didn't we?

Biden is old school politician. He remembers a time when Dems and Republicans fought...but eventually compromised and met somewhere in the middle. We don't have that capability in the hard right folks dominating DC right now.

The MAGA crowd prides itself on their hatred of compromise. They've literally shouted it in sessions.

[malchior]

There is a critical flaw in the "Vote Present" argument. And just to belabor it again, this is an idea ALSO sourced from the right-wing by people who want to cast blame anywhere but where it belongs with Republicans.

Anyway, this is where the problem that Hepcat describes kicks in. It'd be tantamount to the Democrats voting for that Speaker and they'd have no control of the caucus. They'd be on a knife's edge fending off attacks. It might sound like a "feel" better to so-called independents but they'd quickly see it presents little functional difference.

The alternative is a coalition that would require GOP members to sacrifice their careers, live with death threats, and maybe even actual violence, and their caucus disowning them. Easy peasy.

In any case, there are plenty of adults in the room, the problem is that several non-adults have enough power to constantly sabotage the process. I am beginning to think this won't be meaningfully settled outside of maybe a patch or very weak, handicapped Speaker until the next election.

[Apollo]

...The MAGA crowd prides itself on their hatred of compromise. They've literally shouted it in sessions.

But are they that different than the Squad? My fear is that the Far Left will slowly but surely grow in influence in the Party until we're just as paralyzed as the GOP. Recent events, such as the reaction to the Israel-Hamas conflict, are making worry that the future of the Democratic party will one day be ungovernable gridlock as well.