Is bi-partisan support for certain issues dead in the water in the US?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by the8thark, Sep 13, 2017.

  1. the8thark macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #1
    It seems everywhere I read or hear talk about US issues, related to poltics or how the nation is travelling as a whole, Republican supporters and Democrat supporters just blaming each other for issue after issue. I'll list a few examples I have read today.

    • Violent political rallies
    • Disaster relief efforts
    • The failure to get congress passing good
    • Party supporters being discriminatory (sexist, racist etc etc)
    I have read many more but these illustrate my point well.
    • Both sides, Democrat and Republican have held violent rallies
    • Both sides, Democrat and Republican have accused the other for not helping enough with disaster relief
    • Both sides, Democrat and Republican have accused the other of failing to get Congress to pass good legislation
    • Both sides, Democrat and Republican have accused the others supporters of being discriminatory.
    These four issues and many others exist on both sides. People on both sides are doing them. One side saying "we never do this, but the other side always do it" actually harms the issues more than it fixes them. Certain people in the US need to get their head out of the sand and wake up to the reality that when both sides cause an issue, you need both sides working together to fix the issue.

    Is the US in general still capable of recognising issues that both sides are causing and working together in a bi-partisan way to deal with them?
    Or is the US in general incapable of dealing with these issues and only capable of blaming the other side for issues and ignoring the fact that both sides are at fault here?
     
  2. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #2
    People are tired of false narratives, tired of a media that wants to tell us what we should be enraged about. That's why you hear the term "fake news" so much. You know what people care about, the balance of their checking account, and the balance of their government's funds.

    Media, and politicians want to distract us, to tell us what we should be enraged about, while they laugh all the way to the bank.
     
  3. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #3
    It's all about using an issue to divide and win elections so that policy can be crafted in a manner that one side prefers. Why compromise when you can hold out and try to win more seats so that the same bill can take an even bigger left or right slant. Hence the gridlock. You have the far wings of both parties pulling our country further apart and they're quite happy doing so.
     
  4. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #4
    The politics of division, creating "issues" that force people into one camp or the other, and never letting them die.
     
  5. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #5
    It also doesn't help 99% of our news media has an agenda and a narrative they want to spin as well.
     
  6. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #6
    Nothing can be done about it, there has always been "activist" media. News papers endorse candidates, in the US, they pretty much always have.

    Voters need to be smart enough to see through spin, to discern what is objective fact, and what is subjective opinion.
     
  7. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #7
    The answer to your question lies in how you have framed it: "Republican vs Democrat".

    The problem, of course, is that the two parties have retreated into their respective right and left corners to an extent not seen in decades (probably not since before the parties swapped their left-right leanings). Neither party is going for the "big tent" any more; they are now more like third parties, opting for ideological purity over compromise.

    It is no longer accurate to describe debate in the US as Republican vs Democrat, because so few Americans really fit into either box. Indeed, the number of citizens who describe themselves as "independent" now is enormous, and growing every year. But the two parties still hold all the power, and so they get to squabble among themselves as the rest of the country looks on, powerless to stop them.
     
  8. the8thark thread starter macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #8
    I totally agree with you. However the people do have the power. If so few voted Republican and Democrat that a 3rd candidate became President, that'd would be an eye opener. The public have the power to do this if they all want this. If the majority still vote for one party or the other, then nothing changes.

    There is nothing stopping the US people creating a 3rd major party like the UK has. To challenge the major two. Someone needs the guts and cash reserves thuogh to actually pull it off and be popular enough to get enough people jpoining the party to make it an actual force.

    Since that is not happening, the few who want actual change are powerless to do anything about it.
     
  9. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #9
    The two major parties have an established "ground game", and they make the laws, so things will continue to favor them, so long as they can provide bread and circus.
     
  10. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #10
    Sometimes mischief undertaken by US legislators is still bipartisan, perhaps especially if it relates to easing up on regulations having to do with habitat or resource conservation, and even more particularly if it's about regulations that tend to preserve habitat or resources somewhere offshore.

    In other words, who in the USA will notice or care if something we do generates a significant global scarcity by making it happen somewhere else. It's an increasingly safe bet because of our short term model of doing business.


     
  11. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    The UK has a very different system that makes it much easier for governments to form even if no one has an absolute majority. You need a majority to get anything done in the US which is why it is very difficult to get a third party going in the US.
     
  12. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #12
    You need $$$$ and unless that candidate is someone like Trump or an extremely wealthy person who doesn't need the RNC or DNC's coffers, it will never happen. They won't get enough exposure.
     
  13. weckart macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    #13
    That is more than nothing. The amounts raised during during conventions are absolutely eye watering to the rest of the world. Because cash is king, it is going to colour the calibre of potential candidates.
     
  14. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #14
    Yeah and when you look at the top of that list in the USA, with a very few exceptions (if any, depending on ones' political alignments), that's really depressing.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/201426/the-richest-people-in-america/
     
  15. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #15
    When grown men in their 60's and 70's do an about-face on social issues they were on a different side of before running for office, then yes, bipartisan support is usually dead.

    There are fleeting moments of bipartisan support. One great example was Bush, President-elect Obama and Washington coming together to donate billions of taxpayer dollars to giant banks and wallstreet.
     
  16. hulugu, Sep 15, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2017

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #16
    This is simply not true. You might as well be arguing that the sky is green.

    Actually, no you're right. The news media has an agenda. The agenda is "What is happening?" And, the spin is "how do we tell good stories."

    A friend of mine spent the last two weeks slogging through storm waters in two different states. Another friend is in Cuba doing the same. Another friend is in Baghdad. Another was in Guam, but on the flight back got reassigned and headed directly to Houston.

    Another spent all week in Washington running down court cases. One friend figured out that Facebook was selling ad segments for people who hate Jews. Another spent the last six weeks running down a tip that a Motel 6 was calling ICE on its guests.

    I've been on assignments long enough that my kid grew an inch and lost a tooth while I was gone.

    Everyone complains about the media, but I didn't see the entire population of America slogging through stormwaters in Houston. So, how did you know about a hurricane's aftermath?

    Oh right, the gorram news media. The reporters and photographers, and producers, and camera-women. Two reporters nearly died in Houston. Dozens of others risked their lives in Florida. Cuba was a nightmare. The U.S. Virgin Islands are flattened.

    How do we know this? Because some fool reporter got there and shot video, make photos, or recorded a radio segment.

    --- Post Merged, Sep 15, 2017 ---
    Maybe they can rely on Facebook. Increasingly, most people couldn't understand the difference between objective fact if it bit them on the nose.

    And, yes, there are "activist" media outlets. They are called Fox News and Breitbart.
     
  17. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    CNN is completely neutral of course. Never had to fire an employee for posing with a severed head of the president, or helping a candidate cheat during the primaries.
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #18
    This post might be the best sign for why this argument is so fantastically dopey.
     
  19. the8thark thread starter macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #19
    I honestly hope you don't believe this.
    The majority of the meida does have an agenda beyond just reporting the news. If there was no agenda then a lot of the issues happening now would not exist.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Give me an example.

    Or are we talking about the media’s anti China bias or pro establishment bias which it’s had for fifty years at least?
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #21
    Having worked in the industry for a while (+/- an eon), I've met dozens of journalists working at all all levels, from the biggest national outlets to the smallest, independent newspapers. I've worked with freelancers, national outlets, alternative weeklies, local news, and public media.

    What is often perceived as "an agenda" is myth making. Now, you might trot out a story of one particular news outlet or another screwing up (sometimes serially so). But, this doesn't prove anything about the news media, any more than a screwup by Volkswagen proves that Subaru is bad.

    Fundamentally, the different genres of news, and the difference in outlets, means that there's a far greater variation of our "agenda."

    Now, someone will dust off the old idea that reporters are more Democratic, or more liberal. This might be true to a point.

    Most reporters have at least a college degree. Though because of the structure of the news business, there are top-level editors who flunked out of college, and editors who went from High School to the sports desk and never looked back. These guys are more blue-collar than anything else. And, photographers and camerawomen are almost invariably as workaday and put upon as anyone.

    Plus, except for a tiny sliver of elite working out of New York and Los Angeles, most reporters make lousy money. We're down there with teachers—plumbers and garbage men often make more.

    There isn't an agenda. (Well, you know except for the one we talk about during the monthly Soros meetings.)
     
  22. the8thark thread starter macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #22
    US example
    Almost every 2016 presidential election analyst that had air time on television, newspapers or radio.

    Australian example
    The ABC - The ABC and SBS left bias is well documented.

    Note Well - Before you say both examples are biased in favour of the left, the left of the US and the left in Australia are nothing alike. Ideologically and representationally different in most ways.
     
  23. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #23
    I believe that you have an agenda in stating that the media has an agenda. People who state publicly that all of the news is false are much more likely to be wanting to falsify the truth than to actually report the truth.
     
  24. the8thark thread starter macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #24
    There is no myth creation, the agenda is real. In Australia you have certain wealthy individuals who donate a large sums of money to various newspapers. They donate in the form of paid advertising, so it's classed as business and not a donation to the newspaper. This individual (often at the request of others) tells the newspaper, if you report on certain things or in certain ways I pull my advert revenue from your newspaper. That's millions of dollars of revenue gone.

    This is how political agenda enters the newspaper. The newspaper not wanting to risk is revenue goldmine, agrees not to report the dirt on one side of the political spectrum or not to report on somethnig else or to give something else a better page in the paper so more people actually see it.

    Also you have the larger newspapers and television stations at the whim of their owners as to their bias. Then you have the two main publicly funded broadcasters the ABC and SBS which are biased left but are not held to account. Both sides just hand out the money to them every year with to methods to make them actually responsible for the millinos of taxpayer dollars in funding they get every year.

    This is grey corruption. Perfectly legal in Australia, but highly immoral and we're fighting to stop it.

    Notw Well - the way you used the word Democratic, as in the party and nothing to do with the democratic process, does not exist in in Australia. In Australia, Liberals and Conservatives are both on the right. Labor and the Greens are both no the left. Also the words Liberal and Conservative have totally different meanings here than in the US. Our meaning of them is a lot closer to the UK meaning of the words.
     
  25. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #25

    Covering politics and covering hurricane is a little different in my eyes but OK.
     

Share This Page

39 September 13, 2017