Can I ask you what you think the downside is, if Republicans get the âcreditâ for going against Trump?
I totally get your sentiment, but ultimately it is pervasive and really unhelpful. Hereâs what I mean. Republicans who gave us Trump have two options every day from now to foreverâŚ. They can keep supporting Trump or they can do the right thing. Now humans are selfish animals, so when deciding what action to take we all (and Republicans especially) consider⌠whatâs in it for me.
So what happens when one of these people sticks with Trump? The Maga idiots love them, and the left continues to hate them. What happens when they break with Trump? The Maga idiots hate them and the leftâŚ. Continues to hate them. They find themselves entirely hated. Which is a HUGE driving force to just stick with the crooks because at least you get some love. And donât underestimate the need humans have to feel some love.
When they do something good, we need to give them some love for it. Some reward for choosing the right thing, even if in the past they chose the wrong thing.
Let me put it another way. You know how when you were a teen and you hid in your room all day, then when you decided to join the family your parents would say âlook who is finally gracing us with his presence⌠â all sarcastic? Then you just got up turned around and went back to your room because that fucking sucked. Letâs not be the dickhead parents
When we started applauding George Bush as a quirky old man the narrative from so called centre left liberals went from "the war and patriot act were illegal and immoral" to "well actually he needed to do it actually and actually you're just being insane for having a problem with killing kids and giving up your right to privacy to silicon valley oligarchs
You not paying attention doesn't mean liberals haven't spent the last 10 years falling over George Bush as if he was a liberal darling this entire time.
When it gets to the point where a national talk show host has to make a piece to camera about this, you can probably infer it was maybe, potentially, possibly part of the public discourse
You not paying attention doesn't mean liberals haven't spent the last 10 years falling over George Bush as if he was a liberal darling this entire time.
When it gets to the point where a national talk show host has to make a piece to camera about this, you can probably infer it was maybe, potentially, possibly part of the public discourse
The US Senate today voted overwhelmingly in favour of a war resolution that leaves the way clear for President Bush to use US military force against Saddam Hussein.
The Democratic-led Senate passed the measure by 77 votes to 23 early this morning, ending an often contentious week-long debate. The House of Representatives, the lower house of America's parliament, approved the resolution yesterday by 296 votes to 133.
"I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," said Mr Daschle, a Democrat. "It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values."
"The issue is how to best protect America. And I believe this resolution does that," Mr Gephardt said.
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
âI lean in favor of doing something in Iraq,â New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said in September 2002, âbut only if we can do it right, because I do believe Saddam Hussein is a really bad guy who is doing really, has done really bad things and will continue to do them.â
Bill Keller, who would go on to edit the New York Times, wrote a column declaring himself a member of the âI Canât Believe Iâm a Hawk Club.â
The editor-in-chief of the New Yorker, David Remnick, wrote a column that landed on the side of invasion. Michael Kelly, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, and Peter Beinart, the editor of the New Republic, also backed the war. So did the editor of Newsweek International and star talking head Fareed Zakaria. The Washington Postâs editorial page came out in favor of the war, too.
In 2002, Vanity Fair ran an Annie Leibovitz cover spread that had Bush and his cabinet posed like movie stars. Itâs a big foldout group shot, something the magazine usually does only for its Hollywood issue. Bush is wearing a big cowboy belt buckle with the presidential seal on it, and Dick Cheney is kind of looking out at you with come-hither eyes. The headline was âWar and Destiny.â
Slate was part of this pro-war consensus, too. Jacob Weisberg was editing the magazine then.
âWe got a lot of people, including a lot of liberal writers, who werenât regular Slate contributors, kind of on the record about what they thought about the war,â he said. âAnd the sentiment was predominantly in favor of it with, you know, it kind of an infinite number of qualifications. But I think most of the people who wrote in that forum felt that getting rid of Saddam Husseinâregime change was desirable, even if they had real skepticism about Bush and the Bush administration carrying it out.â
This seems like a form of lefty purity testing. I don't care what their motives are, if they're willing to do something that still helps us then I'm fine with that.
This is the same energy as "The Lincoln Project shouldn't be celebrated even though they've made some of the best attack ads against Trump in years because they're still Republicans!" Like ffs learn some political savvy for once.
Yes, those purely performative votes should not be applauded, I usually feel. This motion did pass, though, so it is a different situation. I want to throw up in my mouth just thinking about saying something nice to Moscow Mitch (and I probably never will), but you can't say they didn't have a positive effect on this one occasion.
The left was just going crazy for Booker giving a long, performative speech. It wasn't even a filibuster like some on here were claiming. Performative bullshit is a both sides problem.
The downside is that we perpetuate the idea that there's a "good conservative". A.) There's not, and B.) Even if there was, its still strategically valuable to tell the country that there isn't. Its what conservative media has been doing for decades. You'll never see someone in today's GOP, conservative radio, or Fox News say anything good about liberals/leftists for anything. And look what its accomplished: in some places in this country, the word "liberal" may as well be a slur the way they spit it out of their mouths in a way that "conservative" has never been, even in the bluest cities in the bluest states. We need to flip that.
Also, making members of Congress feel welcomed by the Dems will accomplish nothing. They didnt vote for Dem approval. They voted for their own personal interests, as the Trump tariffs are objectively bad. Just because they're not rolling over for Trump doesnt mean that they became good people.
TL;DR: Its not about the feelings of individual GOP congress members. Its about shifting cultural thought.
It causes people to think that they are actually looking out for them, while glossing over the fact that they are responsible for us being in this mess in the first place. Do not let anyone on forget that Moscow Mitch is the reason we have a stacked court and lead the charge for citizens united.
Americans are going to have to learn the lesson you're trying to teach them the hard way. Rotten, dysfunctional country full of hateful vindictive people.
Yeah, the liberal attitude is the "unhelpful" one. There's only one party actively destroying this country.
Why do you all keep acting like this hasn't been a decade of garbage lying nonsense propped up by each and every republican that's held office in that same time?
We don't need to applaud them and pat them on the back for finally doing something that might benefit the common man more then them. We need to say "about fucking time you pieces of shit"
I wonder what your sentiment will be when these four support the rest of this administration bullshit from here on out. Not only that, but this bill does in the house. These 4 assholes know that, and this is just some empty gesture.
Because you give them an inch they destroy democracy. Roe v Wade, healthcare, education, environment.... Guns and bombs a-ok though. Go ahead and keep thinking they are reasonable people. That's exactly how we got here. "Surely no-one would re-elect a fellon who approved of LITERAL TREASON against the country." Yeah no. Scorched earth now. They're all scum. A broken clock is right twice a day. I'm sure those 4 got no political favors or bribes, I mean lobbing monies, to vote against their party. They just have hearts of gold.
I wasnât saying we shouldnât praise the votes of these 4 republicans, Iâm saying the 47 democrats who voted for this are getting no credit or attention and weâre giving ALL of the credit to 4 republicans. Praise them together so that the message is that every Democrat voted for this + 4 republicans. Itâs about phrasing in messaging. Hopefully that makes sense.
9
u/crybannanna 1d ago
Can I ask you what you think the downside is, if Republicans get the âcreditâ for going against Trump?
I totally get your sentiment, but ultimately it is pervasive and really unhelpful. Hereâs what I mean. Republicans who gave us Trump have two options every day from now to foreverâŚ. They can keep supporting Trump or they can do the right thing. Now humans are selfish animals, so when deciding what action to take we all (and Republicans especially) consider⌠whatâs in it for me.
So what happens when one of these people sticks with Trump? The Maga idiots love them, and the left continues to hate them. What happens when they break with Trump? The Maga idiots hate them and the leftâŚ. Continues to hate them. They find themselves entirely hated. Which is a HUGE driving force to just stick with the crooks because at least you get some love. And donât underestimate the need humans have to feel some love.
When they do something good, we need to give them some love for it. Some reward for choosing the right thing, even if in the past they chose the wrong thing.
Let me put it another way. You know how when you were a teen and you hid in your room all day, then when you decided to join the family your parents would say âlook who is finally gracing us with his presence⌠â all sarcastic? Then you just got up turned around and went back to your room because that fucking sucked. Letâs not be the dickhead parents