Why is bipartisanship so despised?

[OddBeMe]

Isn't that what the founders wanted?

[Sevenpointfive]

actually they wanted freedom of thought and speech. they were opposed to two sides and one side. they were more of a cult than an established gov't. but that's when history recreates itself. so we don't really know what happened unless we're told. i'd love for you to ask a question about that. i think there would be many answers and all footnoted of course.

[OddBeMe]

History is actually quite well documented regarding American founders. It was pretty chaotic during the articles of confederation years, but then the constitution got popular.

Not sure what you mean by "two sides and one sides". I imagine they desperately wanted opposing factions as balance of power was big with them... rather than just one party state.

[Sevenpointfive]

i really don't remember much of that history. i failed all of those classes, but the British wormed their way in somehow. i really can't see a bunch of colonizers repelling the British army

[NaultD]

Tolerance paradox created the nazi party in Germany so their are reasons we can't have nice things.

[OddBeMe]

I'd argue the nazis were given power because conservatives didn't want to play with left wingers. Even non commie lefties, which most were. Called Social Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Bipartisanship is disliked because it usually involves slipping stuff into bills that aren't in thd public's intrest. Also bipartisanship is only necessary when neither party has a majority. Look at thd effects of bipartisanship on Germany, nothing gets done either way.

[OddBeMe]

That happens anyway. On party line bills etc.

[Opinion Owner]

It generally happens if they don't want something to pass. If say the Democrats were putting forward a bill they don't want to pass then they attach some bullshit to it to get it sunk and then blame republicans as to why they can't get anything passed. Politicians should be made to wear their corporate sponsors just like Nascar does.

[OddBeMe]

No. That's fundamentally wrong. Every bill that passes is loaded with pork barrels. It's rare to have a "clean bill" even get voted on.

[Opinion Owner]

Exactly.

[msmissydc]

It didn't work in germany because one party of the three specifically played the opposition within the goverment. They never had the majority so To say. Liberals are not at all on course politically with greens and social-democrats. I agree they need the majority for it to work but BI-partisanship would have worked. The problem was the third party.

[Opinion Owner]

@msmissydc in Germany they had multiple parties in power like 20.

[msmissydc]

Are you talking about the situation we have at the moment? Or are you talking about some point in history?

[Opinion Owner]

@msmissydc in run up to the nazis taking over there were a lot of parties and coalition governments. The communists for instance won seats.

[OddBeMe]

True. But there were conservative and moderate dem parties. Conservatives just went full far right and partnered with the nazis to get a majority. Hence historians talking about trump today.

[Opinion Owner]

The guy hindenberg let it happen. But it was either going to swing right with nazis or left with the communists, economic failure, and the loss in ww1 had bred it.

[IridescentWave]

The founders didn't even conceive of political parties when they drafted the Constitution. Working from models of ancient Greek and Roman government, they thought each statesman would think independently. But the ancient statesmen were mostly independently wealthy and didn't have to answer much to constituents. After a few years, they realized that representative electoral government necessitates parties. They also realized the Electoral College with states running their own elections creates a two-party system. That's why Washington warned about political parties in his Farewell Address. But by then they realized it was already too late.

[Juxtapose]

^^ this.

[OddBeMe]

Ehhh... no

Great Britain approximated a one-party state under the Whigs until King George III came to the throne in 1760 and allowed Tories back in.

[OddBeMe]

And political parties are by demand. Not forced on us

[DrPepper12]

Love a well I formed noob! Welcome! 🤗

[OddBeMe]

@DrPepper12 notice how quiet they are when they're wrong

[Juxtapose]

The founding fathers did not want political parties, that much was made clear. You didn't really make a point where it's replying to because you're wrong.

[Juxtapose]

*make a point like you think you did because you are wrong

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose no you moron. They didn't want an opposition party.

[Juxtapose]

lol whatever you say dumb dumb.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose what do you think the federalist party was? Did you go to history class?

[Juxtapose]

"They also realized the Electoral College with states running their own elections creates a two-party system. That's why Washington warned about political parties in his Farewell Address. But by then they realized it was already too late."

[OddBeMe]

I can't make anytning more clear.

Federalists were a political party
Bidens daughters diary is disowned by the author
A jury of americans found trump guilty of 34 felonies that couldnt hsvs been misdemeanors

[Juxtapose]

1. They didn't want a 2 party system at all.

2. I already explained that. She wrote it, she's just embarrassed. Don't be so naive.

3. Suuuuure lol.

[noohair]

I believe that each side sees the other side as beyond reasonable so we demonize the other side. Many progressives can’t comprehend how anyone voted for Trump. Many conservatives can’t comprehend how anyone could have voted for Harris. The progressives hate the conservatives and the conservatives pity the progressives.

[OddBeMe]

True. But can I ask how the fuck "law and order" was one of their issues yet voted for a convicted felon?

[noohair]

Have you heard of the trem Lawfare?

www.reuters.com/.../

[OddBeMe]

Even if that's the case (it's not) you voted for a convict.

[noohair]

Yes i did...

[OddBeMe]

So stop pretending you care about law and order

[noohair]

The world is grey. Not all convicts are created equal...

[OddBeMe]

Law ain't gray. You break it or you didn't.

[noohair]

When I was your age I believed that too. When you get older you will find out that things are never simple or clear cut.

[OddBeMe]

It's simply a fact. You just rationalize your hate for Haitians.

[noohair]

I don't hate anyone. I worked with Hatians in South Folrida. They were great.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Very interesting

I actually learned right now what was the intent of Bipartisanship wanted, I couldn't know there could be a good intent possible at all? How could I guess that lol. Well, I'm not at all in the US, so from my perspective, just 2 parties can only mean that a huge number of people are unrepresented by the elected representatives. So, even if I understand the good intent wanted, I don't see how it could be good?

[OddBeMe]

It's interesting to compare a two party country to, i assume, your parliament. Probably not a lot of differences. Constant infighting little progress. But either it's a slim majority between two parties, or a govt winning by only 30%. Imagine trunptards yelling rigged. Lol

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

I concur, there is little progress achievable, our national assembly is currently a three headed beast by direct votes of people for representatives. Currently, the center presidential party is going without majority from the assembly unless he tries to please the 2 other parties, which are left coalition and far-right

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

but as I see it, this little progress is representative of people, people, as a whole, per democracy rule have chosen to freeze government capacities. Phrased like that, I like the idea, philosophically, although I don't exactly believe in the efficiency of democracy, it's the least unfair possibility I'd say, with the current state of society

[OddBeMe]

9h def agree. I think the culture of the country has made either system work. And both uk and us aren't too far apart

[DrPepper12]

If the US was a parliamentary democracy the MAGA party would be a regional fringe party garnering at best 15%

Urban themed parties with suburban support would form the coalitions leaving MAGA on the back bench forever

[OddBeMe]

@DrPepper12 but like 30s Germany it's not hard to imagine mainstream conservatives partnering with the fringe than with center left.

[DrPepper12]

Absolutely but it would likely be a plurality not a majority

[OddBeMe]

@DrPepper12 it does force parties to work together. Just hopefully not like Wiemar,

[RavVid]

It is a doubled edge sword in a two party system. On one hand there is unanimity - hopefully centered on the middle of the road voter. On the other hand there is a monopoly. Selling industry off to China was one of those bipartisan policies.

Ideally there would be no parties. Didn't the US have an 'Era of Good Feelings' in the early 1800's without parties?

In Westminster systems, the prime minster is not constitutionally recognized and is only the result of the party system.

[DrPepper12]

And the best model IMHO

[OddBeMe]

No the election of 1800 was the first modern election with party platforms.

[RavVid]

OK. I need to read more then.

[OddBeMe]

Im sure political parties werent as precient as today. But politics was groupthink back then.

[RavVid]

I'm not so sure I'd dignify with prescient. I like to joke the problem with politicians is they hang out together too much. They start worrying about how many genders there are whilst 99% of people know who they do and don't want to fuck, which is as far as gender issues goes for that 99%.

The art of politics perhaps, and perhaps always will be, proficiency in inducing groupthink. I am inclined to slot in Goebbelsian for prescient. if you can make people think something you are being foresighted in a circular way.

Cheers

[OddBeMe]

I think I meant prevalent. Lol but agreed.

[RavVid]

Lets settle on prevalent :) Probably easier to get parties going with the internet. And there is some motivation to start parties to spoil another parties chances. If you could drain off 0.5% of the vote it could be significant.

[OddBeMe]

I just look at American election rules and its all for a country back in 1800. Political parties aren't really needed. Niether is electoral college

[ProbablyClueless]

Both political parties have made a point of painting the other as bad people and a threat to western civilization.

It's hard to work with someone you think is a bad person.

[ArrowheadSW]

I find it to be sad that bipartisanship is frowned upon. I think we should all work together as much as possible in spite of some differences.

[Avicenna]

lol, leftists never want bipartisanship. Now that they’re going to be out of power for awhile they still want to control things (which is what they really mean by “bipartisanship”.

[DrPepper12]

False. I'd like a system that doesn't cater to the extremes but to the moderates and our constitutional model doesn't do that.

[DrPepper12]

No. It's not. Read federalist no 10 by Madison on factions.

[exitseven]

The ideologies in America are so far apart that there is no middle ground. Sarah Huckabee said it best. There is only normal and crazy.

[OddBeMe]

I think that's the lie we're being sold. Like obamacare, pollsters got wildly different responses calling it obamacare versus laying out the individual line items.

[DrPepper12]

Our system guarantees that only the crazy extremis on both ends will be heard. If it was a multi-party parliamentary democracy that would never occur.

[Twalli]

It isn't, but bullies sound better if thry aren't bullying you. Bullies don't compromise

[seeyounexttuesday]

Oh now you want kumbya

[OddBeMe]

I believe it was my guys who worked on the border bill in good faith. Just to be trashed by trump so he'd get the dumbass voters. Like you

[seeyounexttuesday]

That was not a border bill. That was billions to Ukraine that allowed 2 million illegals in the country a year. Remember, your age of propaganda is over.

[OddBeMe]

And harsher border controls and more security. That's called bipartisan dumbass.

[seeyounexttuesday]

How does money to Ukraine secure the US border, exactly?

[OddBeMe]

Sigh.. again every bill has attached pork barrels. If you want your politicians to vote against pork barrels you voted fo4 the wrong party.

But why not fund ukriane? It's giving them gift cards from American defense contractors

[seeyounexttuesday]

Weird way to not answer a direct question. I guess that's what happens when your brain is mush from constant propaganda.

[OddBeMe]

It's not weird if you knew wtf I'm talking about. And you never said why Ukraine shouldn't be funded? Too busy sucking putin cock?

[seeyounexttuesday]

I asked how sending money to ukraine secures the US border. Either it does or it doesn't.

[OddBeMe]

It has nothing to do with it. Every bill passed has attachments that have nothing to do with.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Ok, so thanks for confirming this "border bill" wouldn't have secured the border.

[OddBeMe]

That proves it? No border bill would immediately secure the border dumbass. But funding ukraine immediately stops putin's belligerence.

[seeyounexttuesday]

You just typed “no border bill would secure the border” and called me a dumbass? Lol. God damn no wonder you fucktards got shellacked in the election

[OddBeMe]

Yes because you think there's a 100% solution. Wake up call: there's never a 100% solution

[seeyounexttuesday]

What % solution is letting 10 million over the border in 4 years and losing 300k children?

[OddBeMe]

Who lost children? Trump family separation policy

[seeyounexttuesday]

Biden.

[Agape93]

It doesn't work

[OddBeMe]

So American history is just one party having total control?

[Agape93]

Nope. It's one of two parties having off and on control and only doing the bare minimum cooperation to avoid a total shutdown. They will never truly set aside differences to work for what WE want.

[OddBeMe]

I mean you just said cooperation.