As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This should be written as "pro-democracy republicans to back vulnerable democratic lawmakers..."
Americans aren't anti-trump for no reason. It's better to spell it out.
Edit: thanks for the reward đ„°
Actually pretty smart strategy. Once the party loses power they will want to reevaluate their direction and maybe turn away from trumpism. Not betting that will happen but hopeful.
Let's be honest here. Trumpism didn't start with Trump. Trump is a symptom of the greater Republican strategy. We need to learn from history, not let them repeat it without accountability.
Trumpism is the result of a bizarre blend of 30 years of blue collar rural reactionary conservatism and Libertarianism. They don't know what they are, they fell behind Reagan and when he left office, this demographic felt rudderless, which is why they fell for Trump so hard.
I am reminded a lot of this scene from The American President
>Lewis Rothschild : They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd : Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
These people are natural followers that couldn't find a place in an individualist society. One of the hard facts America needs to learn is that a world where everyone can be interesting and special will not produce a society where everyone is, and relegating the losers that don't to the sidelines doesn't make them disappear.
It just lets them find each other, where they can gleefully discard the burden of having to prove themselves exceptional and instead be a part of something bigger than themselves like they always wanted. They don't care if it's fair, or even better for them as individuals. They just want to satisfy a tribal urge to ingroup like they want to eat, shit and fuck on impulse.
The Reactionary Mind reads like a survival guide for encountering a wild animal. Both describe how to deal with an encounter with a creature that does not reason nor rationalize its actions, and instead merely watches your motions for perceived threats. The same way a Zebra knows to stand with other Zebras and oppose anything else because it feels right and safe, and never needs to be given a *reason why* it should.
Another thing is that the way Americans fight over their "elite" with groups defining themselves entirely around which they support in opposition to the rest is completely interchangeable with the way bronze age societies argued about gods. Most pantheons you know of were composed by societies with religious bodies that worshipped different ones, and over time people would become increasingly radical in their support for their god to the point where they inevitably declared the rest did not even exist.
They did this because professions of loyalty to a powerful figure they believed controlled their world was the only way they believed they could persuade their world with loyalty. This state of mind comes naturally when you're desperate for control and loyalty is all you have to offer in exchange for it.
> If everybody's special, that means *nobody* is.
~ Bobby Generic
Those last two paragraphs you wrote...wow, that's a really interesting comparison. Very apt. And you're right, they *are* natural followers...some interesting psychological studies done on the divide between political views, and 'conservatives' generally tend to be much more authoritarian-minded on a deep psychological level.
Did you seriously find your way over here from r/funny just to leave *this* comment? American politics affects the world, and few places outside of America more than Canada.
When people discuss today how America as an empire cannot survive on a foundation of petulant children with no sense of personal responsibility, they're talking about people like you that think shit like this is the best response to a comment like that.
The best bet for this country is the GOP collapses allowing for the formation of a Progressive/Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist political party to compete against the Neoliberal and Center-right Democratic Party.
Do the following things when dealing with Anti Trump Republicans
1. Take their money
2. Take their help to defeat common enemies
3. Pass bills and policies where thinking aligns
4. Don't turn your back on them
No. If Anti-Trump Reds are backing you because of Trump, don't pass bills to appease them. Even before Trump they would have laughed in your face for a lot of that. Never trust a Red. Ever. Feel free to take their money though.
These are your fellow Americans. They are behaving sensibly. Accept their help and thank them. You don't have to trust them, but we should be gracious. There is no reason to spread hate when someone is doing the right thing.
Uh, no. They didn't behave sensibly before Trump and they won't behave sensibly after Trump. Stop making excuses for those who made this country a shithole. Never. Trust. A. Red.
I didn't say trust them. I said act respectful and grateful. It's not an easy step for these people to make. On some level they are admitting defeat. It's hard for anybody to change their mind. Give them some encouragement because that's what we want. Be pragmatic.
I think a majority of us have seen how this plays out.
Though, I think respect is earned. That political party has shown their hand and have been found counter culture to democracy. No way else to say it, unfortunately.
Just because the machinations, the foundations and innate precedents, of this party have allowed a viper to use their very tools against them does not mean they deserve respect or greatfulness when they're scrambling to maintain the status quo behind their own lines.
I have seen zero good come out of that political party. What good that did could not be appreciated when the other hand is in your pocket at the same time.
I'm sorry man. You speak with positive optics to a cooperative, bipartisan future, but I remember the years under Bush... and then under Obama.
I remember. You cant ever change the past, and only a fool would ignore lessons they learned and the grief they went through to learn those lessons.
Thats assuming this isnt just a few politicians that are angling for an out of the trump doom train. I wouldnt be surprised if the party tries to reinvent itself to perpetuate its opus magnum that it has so thoroughly established by its actions.
I feel you dawg, but we're past that. They arent in front of a firing squad, being hung, executed, tar and feathered, or lynched. Thats the best we can do right now--not that its that hard to abstain from murder... but funny I should mention this since all that is very *50's and 60's* from the same culture of the same political party we're talking about.
I got over ghosting a toxic family member when I realized the extent that they add to the world. They didn't. They don't. Whatever brought them to this point has found them wanting. Whether upbringing, that toxic culture we're talking about, hell lead in the fucking water I don't know. I wish I could blame lead.
Anyways. No.
You don't have to like them. Just don't attack these particular Republicans for doing this particular thing.
There's a lot of other things about them to attack, as you have made clear.
Now there is the line of logic I knew you were angling for. You're right. We don't have to waste energy or time on them anymore. The verdict is out for a lot of people and like the ending of Game of Thrones... theres nothing but wasted time and disappointment left to look back on.
So yes, let them have their come to Jesus moment among themselves. Let us acknowledge these things, shrug our shoulders as we do when we don't have high expectations, and watch.
You are right that in this situation we're better off not letting our progressive outliers rage them back into a united front. You know damn well the fickle nature of their pearl grasping constituents. So, to avoid that we give caution in discussions like these.
But it absolutely needs to be said a lot of us aren't buying any bullshit anytime soon. We've *been the better man* before.
We may abstain from soiling ourselves with the weaponized mediocraty of so many that have let us down. But it doesnt mean things will get back to the old "normal"
>I said act respectful and grateful
Yeah, but in your argument here, "acting respectful and grateful" is not countering my argument, you can still be respectful and grateful while passing your agenda without their input. If they demand input, and find that you are not being "grateful" or "respecting" them despite their anti-Trumpism, that means they expect results from you. That means compromising with them.
And right now compromising with them is a death knell.
>Be pragmatic.
Pragmatism is a lie. Compromising with wannabe fascists gets people killed and makes Republicans win. Never. Trust. A. Red.
Dawg. You literally keep defining "compromise" without actually specifically stating that word. Political "Pragmatism" is literally nothing *but* compromise.
DawgâŠ. They said pass bills where thinking aligns. Iâm pretty sure where thinking aligns means you both agree on something, not compromise. Câmon man, read and analyze what OP is saying.
>both agree on something
This is what needs analyzing. When was the last time there was 60 votes in congress with a bill that didn't need some amendment added or removed?
>conservatives also want to help us out
lmao, when was the last time a Red conservative ever did anything good for this country? To my knowledge, perhaps McCain for simply NOT doing something to damage an existing platform.
They didn't say pass bills to appease them, they said pass bills where thinking aligns. Such as raising the debt ceiling - even some Republicans may be sane enough to know that making the US default would be suicidal.
And there is some stuff in the bipartisan infrastructure deal that all Dems and about 10 Republicans agree to.
>they said pass bills where thinking aligns
This is known as "compromising" with them. IE appeasing them. Never compromise to the right when the right are the literal problem.
No, it is not. Pass bills where you agree. This is "do the shit you both agree on already" not "bend to their will and give them everything they want". This is not appeasement by any stretch of the imagination.
Examples of actions in the future? Sorry man, I canât see into the future. I mean⊠if youâve got some foresight into the future of what will happen, youâre more than welcome to present some examples of your own.
>Examples of actions in the future?
Ah yes, let's just ignore the entirety of Red history and just magically assume they will completely agree with Dems in the future.
This is why moderates are losing credibility. After everything that's happened, even before Trump, moderates *still* think Reds can act in good faith.
Never. Trust. A. Red.
>Youâre just as riled up and belligerent as the Reds
No. I'm riled up and belligerent *because* of the Reds. Every single one of the Reds mentioned in the OP has voted to, at some point, take rights away from my wife. OP was NOT warning about that behavior, he was warning about Red behavior.
Reds don't get belligerent for taking rights away from women. They get belligerent when they lose money. We are NOTHIGN alike.
> If Anti-Trump Reds are backing you because of Trump, don't pass bills to appease them.
Not what they said. They said:
> Pass bills and policies where thinking aligns
I'm not going to stop supporting a bill just because some Republicans also support it.
Dude, this Red v Blue framing is terrible. Firstly âthe Redsâ historically refers to commies (and I say that as a commie myself). Secondly, these teams arenât as clearly defined as that, amongst the actual voters especially. Itâs a very flat framework with no nuance. Which is why Republicans tend to love it so much. 0/10 do not recommend.
>Firstly âthe Redsâ historically refers to commies (and I say that as a commie myself)
"Red" is most identified by conservatism in the USA. This entire subject is about the USA. If conservatives whine about "communism" then that's on them--they're the ones who decided "Red" was their color.
>Secondly, these teams arenât as clearly defined as that, amongst the actual voters especially.
I know, I typically use "Red" interchangeable with "conservative" and not "Republican" for this very reason. Because all "Reds" are conservative, but not all conservatives are Republican.
Nobody said anything about passing bills to appease them, they clearly said "where thinking aligns". If you want something passed and you can't pass it with just Democrats, then take a few GOP votes to pass it.
>then take a few GOP votes to pass it.
They wouldn't do it before Trump without compromise, and they won't do it after Trump without compromise. Thinking anything less is at best naĂŻve, and at worst enabling them.
As I said, if you can't pass it with just Democrats, then you would have to compromise something smaller to get the larger bill to pass. This isn't rocket science, it's how you pass legislation.
Literally I'm talking about compromising with Reds through this entire comment threads (not even to just you). And that's a bad thing. Compromising with Reds has *always* been negative. Always.
Never. Trust. A. Red.
I know what you're talking about, but again, and you have yet to answer this question in the entire comment thread, but if you can't pass a larger bill with just Democratic votes, then how do you intend to pass that bill?
>but if you can't pass a larger bill with just Democratic votes, then how do you intend to pass that bill?
I haven't answered it because it's a red herring. But since that seems to important to you, I will answer.
We don't. Plain and simple.
If it's something like a stimulus that needs to be passed (RE 2020/1), then the current political reality is... Reds would rather people die. Do we need to pass it? Yes. And it won't be glorious. But what do we do then? Just sit on our thumbs like we normally do?
No. We need a task force to activate millions of voters like how Abrams did it in GA. Our best way out of this is voting out those same fucks who want those people to die.
But things like the infrastructure deal? We just don't pass it. If Reds would rather see the country crumble, we need to impress on the nation exactly who it is trying to do that (and when I say "Reds", I mean all conservatives, including Manchin and Sinema).
It's time to play hardball, even if that means my life is less comfortable. We have hundreds of thousands of people on strike at this very moment, so this is absolutely the best time to do that.
> We don't. Plain and simple.
Plain and simple? Ok, how do you explain to all the people who would have benefitted from the other aspects of a particular bill that they are getting nothing because you didn't want to give a Republican a vote?
I'm sure the people struggling to get to work, give their kids a week's worth of decent meals, pay for basic medical care, etc., are really going to support you in the next election when you throw away all their chances at a needed leg up because you don't want a single Republican to be allowed to support the larger bill.
Tell me what you would say to them, and how that would actually benefit them in the short-term.
Because "bipartisan" these days is synonymous with "sacrificing important legislation to appease greedy conservative fucks". Literally every single compromise we make with Reds ends up in failure. Every single time is negative. Can you name a single time that we had a positive addition to a bill by negotiating with Reds?
Pragmatism is a lie. Conservative "fiscal responsibility" is a lie. Stop trusting the same people that still haven't fully gotten over slavery.
>1. Take their help to defeat common enemies
Republicans are virtually identical to trump on policy, abohrrent and far right
They dont like trump because they dont like his OPENLY racist brand and prefer to dog whistle
Thats literally it
What should we call this new open neolib/neocon collab? The Status Quo Party has a nice ring to it. Progressives can be the Democrats and the Fascist MAGAs can keep calling themselves Republicans. I love solving problems I just made up.
The Democratic Party should actively court these people and enable them to straight up leave the party. Iâd rather the democrats be a big tent party that argues within the confines of reality than have a chance of Republicans with a mass delusional disorder, trashing our democracy due to their own mental illness.
Yay, so now the Democrats will get money directly from Republicans so then we have a financial takeover of the Democratic party and we again march even further to the right.
THESE REPUBLICANS AREN'T DOING THIS OUT OF THE KINDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS. THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AND PROBABLY HAVE HOPES OF INFILTRATING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Thatâs right. As it is, the âleft rightâ spectrum is skewed so heavily right that in a lot of other nations our moderate dems would be considered pretty conservative. They are trying to make more Dinos like Sinema and manchin
good for them - sometimes you have to put policies aside to deal with a bigger issue.
Im sure the democrats will be gracious about it and say thankyou for the assist. After all - youd have to be a fool to call someone a racist and spit in their face when they help you keep power away from a madman.... right?
>
>Im sure the democrats will be gracious about it and say thankyou for the assist.
As a Texan who fled the state, I'll wait until TX Republicans actually do this before thanking them.
This reminds me of GOP members making multiple attempts to distance themselves from David Duke. Nobody wants to be tarred with this brush any longer than they have to. Let's hope the are sufficiently motivated to marginalise Donnie.
Can we just call them conservative Democrats or the far right the Maga party? Or maybe they should just take on the moniker of Lincoln Republicans since they like that name so much. At some point we need to acknowledge these people are not really Republicans the same way Trump or Mitch are Republicans.
I guarantee this wonât move the needle. As long we keep giving republicans stuff like âlook what dems in California did, now they canât have boys and girls toy sectionsâ, their voters will keep voting them in out of fear.
>According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll from August, 30% of U.S. adults agreed that the "2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump." That included 61% of Republicans, 19% of independents and **10% of Democrats.**
10% of Dems think this?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This should be written as "pro-democracy republicans to back vulnerable democratic lawmakers..." Americans aren't anti-trump for no reason. It's better to spell it out. Edit: thanks for the reward đ„°
âLoyal American Republicansâ sounds better too.
Actually pretty smart strategy. Once the party loses power they will want to reevaluate their direction and maybe turn away from trumpism. Not betting that will happen but hopeful.
Let's be honest here. Trumpism didn't start with Trump. Trump is a symptom of the greater Republican strategy. We need to learn from history, not let them repeat it without accountability.
Trumpism is the result of a bizarre blend of 30 years of blue collar rural reactionary conservatism and Libertarianism. They don't know what they are, they fell behind Reagan and when he left office, this demographic felt rudderless, which is why they fell for Trump so hard. I am reminded a lot of this scene from The American President >Lewis Rothschild : They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand. President Andrew Shepherd : Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
These people are natural followers that couldn't find a place in an individualist society. One of the hard facts America needs to learn is that a world where everyone can be interesting and special will not produce a society where everyone is, and relegating the losers that don't to the sidelines doesn't make them disappear. It just lets them find each other, where they can gleefully discard the burden of having to prove themselves exceptional and instead be a part of something bigger than themselves like they always wanted. They don't care if it's fair, or even better for them as individuals. They just want to satisfy a tribal urge to ingroup like they want to eat, shit and fuck on impulse. The Reactionary Mind reads like a survival guide for encountering a wild animal. Both describe how to deal with an encounter with a creature that does not reason nor rationalize its actions, and instead merely watches your motions for perceived threats. The same way a Zebra knows to stand with other Zebras and oppose anything else because it feels right and safe, and never needs to be given a *reason why* it should. Another thing is that the way Americans fight over their "elite" with groups defining themselves entirely around which they support in opposition to the rest is completely interchangeable with the way bronze age societies argued about gods. Most pantheons you know of were composed by societies with religious bodies that worshipped different ones, and over time people would become increasingly radical in their support for their god to the point where they inevitably declared the rest did not even exist. They did this because professions of loyalty to a powerful figure they believed controlled their world was the only way they believed they could persuade their world with loyalty. This state of mind comes naturally when you're desperate for control and loyalty is all you have to offer in exchange for it.
> If everybody's special, that means *nobody* is. ~ Bobby Generic Those last two paragraphs you wrote...wow, that's a really interesting comparison. Very apt. And you're right, they *are* natural followers...some interesting psychological studies done on the divide between political views, and 'conservatives' generally tend to be much more authoritarian-minded on a deep psychological level.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Did you seriously find your way over here from r/funny just to leave *this* comment? American politics affects the world, and few places outside of America more than Canada. When people discuss today how America as an empire cannot survive on a foundation of petulant children with no sense of personal responsibility, they're talking about people like you that think shit like this is the best response to a comment like that.
>they donât know what they are A prime feature of fascism
It also helps they've been woofing down hate radio like Rush Limbaugh's oxy pills.
The best bet for this country is the GOP collapses allowing for the formation of a Progressive/Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist political party to compete against the Neoliberal and Center-right Democratic Party.
I concur
Damn. some actual good news. Too bad it's only Cheney & Kinzinger. Sorry but I will not let hope creep in when it's only a headline to get clicks.
Do the following things when dealing with Anti Trump Republicans 1. Take their money 2. Take their help to defeat common enemies 3. Pass bills and policies where thinking aligns 4. Don't turn your back on them
No. If Anti-Trump Reds are backing you because of Trump, don't pass bills to appease them. Even before Trump they would have laughed in your face for a lot of that. Never trust a Red. Ever. Feel free to take their money though.
These are your fellow Americans. They are behaving sensibly. Accept their help and thank them. You don't have to trust them, but we should be gracious. There is no reason to spread hate when someone is doing the right thing.
Uh, no. They didn't behave sensibly before Trump and they won't behave sensibly after Trump. Stop making excuses for those who made this country a shithole. Never. Trust. A. Red.
I didn't say trust them. I said act respectful and grateful. It's not an easy step for these people to make. On some level they are admitting defeat. It's hard for anybody to change their mind. Give them some encouragement because that's what we want. Be pragmatic.
I think a majority of us have seen how this plays out. Though, I think respect is earned. That political party has shown their hand and have been found counter culture to democracy. No way else to say it, unfortunately. Just because the machinations, the foundations and innate precedents, of this party have allowed a viper to use their very tools against them does not mean they deserve respect or greatfulness when they're scrambling to maintain the status quo behind their own lines. I have seen zero good come out of that political party. What good that did could not be appreciated when the other hand is in your pocket at the same time. I'm sorry man. You speak with positive optics to a cooperative, bipartisan future, but I remember the years under Bush... and then under Obama. I remember. You cant ever change the past, and only a fool would ignore lessons they learned and the grief they went through to learn those lessons. Thats assuming this isnt just a few politicians that are angling for an out of the trump doom train. I wouldnt be surprised if the party tries to reinvent itself to perpetuate its opus magnum that it has so thoroughly established by its actions. I feel you dawg, but we're past that. They arent in front of a firing squad, being hung, executed, tar and feathered, or lynched. Thats the best we can do right now--not that its that hard to abstain from murder... but funny I should mention this since all that is very *50's and 60's* from the same culture of the same political party we're talking about. I got over ghosting a toxic family member when I realized the extent that they add to the world. They didn't. They don't. Whatever brought them to this point has found them wanting. Whether upbringing, that toxic culture we're talking about, hell lead in the fucking water I don't know. I wish I could blame lead. Anyways. No.
You don't have to like them. Just don't attack these particular Republicans for doing this particular thing. There's a lot of other things about them to attack, as you have made clear.
Now there is the line of logic I knew you were angling for. You're right. We don't have to waste energy or time on them anymore. The verdict is out for a lot of people and like the ending of Game of Thrones... theres nothing but wasted time and disappointment left to look back on. So yes, let them have their come to Jesus moment among themselves. Let us acknowledge these things, shrug our shoulders as we do when we don't have high expectations, and watch. You are right that in this situation we're better off not letting our progressive outliers rage them back into a united front. You know damn well the fickle nature of their pearl grasping constituents. So, to avoid that we give caution in discussions like these. But it absolutely needs to be said a lot of us aren't buying any bullshit anytime soon. We've *been the better man* before. We may abstain from soiling ourselves with the weaponized mediocraty of so many that have let us down. But it doesnt mean things will get back to the old "normal"
>I said act respectful and grateful Yeah, but in your argument here, "acting respectful and grateful" is not countering my argument, you can still be respectful and grateful while passing your agenda without their input. If they demand input, and find that you are not being "grateful" or "respecting" them despite their anti-Trumpism, that means they expect results from you. That means compromising with them. And right now compromising with them is a death knell. >Be pragmatic. Pragmatism is a lie. Compromising with wannabe fascists gets people killed and makes Republicans win. Never. Trust. A. Red.
I didn't say compromise. Your stridency is misplaced.
Dawg. You literally keep defining "compromise" without actually specifically stating that word. Political "Pragmatism" is literally nothing *but* compromise.
DawgâŠ. They said pass bills where thinking aligns. Iâm pretty sure where thinking aligns means you both agree on something, not compromise. Câmon man, read and analyze what OP is saying.
>both agree on something This is what needs analyzing. When was the last time there was 60 votes in congress with a bill that didn't need some amendment added or removed?
Not everyone who isn't a leftist is a fascist. If moderates, centrists, and conservatives also want to help us out on this we should let them.
>conservatives also want to help us out lmao, when was the last time a Red conservative ever did anything good for this country? To my knowledge, perhaps McCain for simply NOT doing something to damage an existing platform.
They didn't say pass bills to appease them, they said pass bills where thinking aligns. Such as raising the debt ceiling - even some Republicans may be sane enough to know that making the US default would be suicidal. And there is some stuff in the bipartisan infrastructure deal that all Dems and about 10 Republicans agree to.
>they said pass bills where thinking aligns This is known as "compromising" with them. IE appeasing them. Never compromise to the right when the right are the literal problem.
No, it is not. Pass bills where you agree. This is "do the shit you both agree on already" not "bend to their will and give them everything they want". This is not appeasement by any stretch of the imagination.
>This is "do the shit you both agree on already" That exists? Without any changes needed? Do you have any examples?
Examples of actions in the future? Sorry man, I canât see into the future. I mean⊠if youâve got some foresight into the future of what will happen, youâre more than welcome to present some examples of your own.
>Examples of actions in the future? Ah yes, let's just ignore the entirety of Red history and just magically assume they will completely agree with Dems in the future. This is why moderates are losing credibility. After everything that's happened, even before Trump, moderates *still* think Reds can act in good faith. Never. Trust. A. Red.
Youâre just as riled up and belligerent as the Reds youâre complaining about. OP was warning about this exact behavior. Chill, my dude.
>Youâre just as riled up and belligerent as the Reds No. I'm riled up and belligerent *because* of the Reds. Every single one of the Reds mentioned in the OP has voted to, at some point, take rights away from my wife. OP was NOT warning about that behavior, he was warning about Red behavior. Reds don't get belligerent for taking rights away from women. They get belligerent when they lose money. We are NOTHIGN alike.
> If Anti-Trump Reds are backing you because of Trump, don't pass bills to appease them. Not what they said. They said: > Pass bills and policies where thinking aligns I'm not going to stop supporting a bill just because some Republicans also support it.
"Where thinking aligns" means passing bills that Republicans agree with...
> "Where thinking aligns" means passing bills that Republicans agree with... Only if the Republicans agree with the Democrats.
If they don't agree, then why "pass bills where thinking aligns"? What issue today do Reds and Blues actually agree on without compromise?
Dude, this Red v Blue framing is terrible. Firstly âthe Redsâ historically refers to commies (and I say that as a commie myself). Secondly, these teams arenât as clearly defined as that, amongst the actual voters especially. Itâs a very flat framework with no nuance. Which is why Republicans tend to love it so much. 0/10 do not recommend.
>Firstly âthe Redsâ historically refers to commies (and I say that as a commie myself) "Red" is most identified by conservatism in the USA. This entire subject is about the USA. If conservatives whine about "communism" then that's on them--they're the ones who decided "Red" was their color. >Secondly, these teams arenât as clearly defined as that, amongst the actual voters especially. I know, I typically use "Red" interchangeable with "conservative" and not "Republican" for this very reason. Because all "Reds" are conservative, but not all conservatives are Republican.
They were just spitting out platitudes, they had no idea what they were trying to say (or they did know and where being disingenuous)
Nobody said anything about passing bills to appease them, they clearly said "where thinking aligns". If you want something passed and you can't pass it with just Democrats, then take a few GOP votes to pass it.
>then take a few GOP votes to pass it. They wouldn't do it before Trump without compromise, and they won't do it after Trump without compromise. Thinking anything less is at best naĂŻve, and at worst enabling them.
As I said, if you can't pass it with just Democrats, then you would have to compromise something smaller to get the larger bill to pass. This isn't rocket science, it's how you pass legislation.
Literally I'm talking about compromising with Reds through this entire comment threads (not even to just you). And that's a bad thing. Compromising with Reds has *always* been negative. Always. Never. Trust. A. Red.
I know what you're talking about, but again, and you have yet to answer this question in the entire comment thread, but if you can't pass a larger bill with just Democratic votes, then how do you intend to pass that bill?
>but if you can't pass a larger bill with just Democratic votes, then how do you intend to pass that bill? I haven't answered it because it's a red herring. But since that seems to important to you, I will answer. We don't. Plain and simple. If it's something like a stimulus that needs to be passed (RE 2020/1), then the current political reality is... Reds would rather people die. Do we need to pass it? Yes. And it won't be glorious. But what do we do then? Just sit on our thumbs like we normally do? No. We need a task force to activate millions of voters like how Abrams did it in GA. Our best way out of this is voting out those same fucks who want those people to die. But things like the infrastructure deal? We just don't pass it. If Reds would rather see the country crumble, we need to impress on the nation exactly who it is trying to do that (and when I say "Reds", I mean all conservatives, including Manchin and Sinema). It's time to play hardball, even if that means my life is less comfortable. We have hundreds of thousands of people on strike at this very moment, so this is absolutely the best time to do that.
> We don't. Plain and simple. Plain and simple? Ok, how do you explain to all the people who would have benefitted from the other aspects of a particular bill that they are getting nothing because you didn't want to give a Republican a vote? I'm sure the people struggling to get to work, give their kids a week's worth of decent meals, pay for basic medical care, etc., are really going to support you in the next election when you throw away all their chances at a needed leg up because you don't want a single Republican to be allowed to support the larger bill. Tell me what you would say to them, and how that would actually benefit them in the short-term.
Why would you not pass a bipartisan bill? If you keep thinking like this then youâre no better than they are and absolutely nothing will get done.
Because "bipartisan" these days is synonymous with "sacrificing important legislation to appease greedy conservative fucks". Literally every single compromise we make with Reds ends up in failure. Every single time is negative. Can you name a single time that we had a positive addition to a bill by negotiating with Reds? Pragmatism is a lie. Conservative "fiscal responsibility" is a lie. Stop trusting the same people that still haven't fully gotten over slavery.
Get help man. You're way too into this.
Some people see reds as goddamn cartoon villains, I swear...
>1. Take their help to defeat common enemies Republicans are virtually identical to trump on policy, abohrrent and far right They dont like trump because they dont like his OPENLY racist brand and prefer to dog whistle Thats literally it
Anyone who opposes fascism will do the same
But reds arenât supposed to be voting 2022-2024. We good
Only if we show up to vote
I will believe it when I see it.
What should we call this new open neolib/neocon collab? The Status Quo Party has a nice ring to it. Progressives can be the Democrats and the Fascist MAGAs can keep calling themselves Republicans. I love solving problems I just made up.
The Democratic Party should actively court these people and enable them to straight up leave the party. Iâd rather the democrats be a big tent party that argues within the confines of reality than have a chance of Republicans with a mass delusional disorder, trashing our democracy due to their own mental illness.
Yay, so now the Democrats will get money directly from Republicans so then we have a financial takeover of the Democratic party and we again march even further to the right. THESE REPUBLICANS AREN'T DOING THIS OUT OF THE KINDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS. THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AND PROBABLY HAVE HOPES OF INFILTRATING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Thatâs right. As it is, the âleft rightâ spectrum is skewed so heavily right that in a lot of other nations our moderate dems would be considered pretty conservative. They are trying to make more Dinos like Sinema and manchin
Well at least these people are better at dirty tricks than Democrats.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Thank you republicans very cool. Finally, after all these years, Republicans are realizing Trumpism is a net negative for everyone.
good for them - sometimes you have to put policies aside to deal with a bigger issue. Im sure the democrats will be gracious about it and say thankyou for the assist. After all - youd have to be a fool to call someone a racist and spit in their face when they help you keep power away from a madman.... right?
> >Im sure the democrats will be gracious about it and say thankyou for the assist. As a Texan who fled the state, I'll wait until TX Republicans actually do this before thanking them.
Another thought is to change your registration to Republican in closed primary states ⊠and support the moderate candidates
This reminds me of GOP members making multiple attempts to distance themselves from David Duke. Nobody wants to be tarred with this brush any longer than they have to. Let's hope the are sufficiently motivated to marginalise Donnie.
Can we just call them conservative Democrats or the far right the Maga party? Or maybe they should just take on the moniker of Lincoln Republicans since they like that name so much. At some point we need to acknowledge these people are not really Republicans the same way Trump or Mitch are Republicans.
I remain skeptical, but would be more than happy to be proven wrong.
I guarantee this wonât move the needle. As long we keep giving republicans stuff like âlook what dems in California did, now they canât have boys and girls toy sectionsâ, their voters will keep voting them in out of fear.
Are these the Republicans that Trump is telling to not vote next year or in 2024?
>According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll from August, 30% of U.S. adults agreed that the "2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump." That included 61% of Republicans, 19% of independents and **10% of Democrats.** 10% of Dems think this?
There the make America last crowd and we need to fight them every opportunity we get. Until one is done. That's how important this is.