Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

> Remember, it is perfectly valid to be equally aware of how the parties are different, but being more frustrated by the ways they are the same

That's an easy genericism.

In fact this particular issue under discussion is quite asymmetric. It's routine for a republican congress to block legislation that would otherwise pass (c.f. current bills for border security and Ukraine aid, our now-quarterly government shutdown jamboree, etc...). The reverse really is not true. I can't think of a notable bipartisan bill in the last decade blocked by a democratically-controlled government organ. Can you?

It's perfectly valid to have complaints about both parties, but not to invent frustrations about how they are the same.

View on HN

There seem to be some tautologies happening here. There are only 2 major parties in the US Congress. Bipartisan bills, somewhat by definition, are going to be passed by both parties. Similarly, since there are 2 major parties, if legislation is proposed by one party then it would pass unless the other blocks it.

I don't see how you're expecting things to work differently. Would we expect Democrat-sponsored legislation to fail for reasons apart from Republican opposition?

> The reverse really is not true.

I doubt that is a true statement, but assuming it is then logically that would just mean that Republicans only propose legislation after they have talked to the Democrats and confirmed they are willing to vote it through. But that would suggest the Republicans are avoiding opportunities to kick up a fuss which doesn't sound like the US Congress we all know and love.

> c.f. current bills for border security

Unrelated note but it is amazing to me that the US has been an entity for a couple of centuries now and doesn't have legislation already in place to control the border.

Of course the US has legislation to control the border. There is an entire agency called the border patrol. The thing is right now , it seems, additional legislation is needed to actually compel the executive to have the border patrol do their job. Which this last bill didn't even do and would have simply dumped money into an auxiliary judicial system that serves virtually no purpose and would continue to do so even with more money. Shortening the time for an asylum hearing doesn't even matter because people don't show up for them.

Any bill that maintains the current administration's position of simply letting people go completely free during their asylum waiting period is useless. Sure, people with legit claims might show up, but crimminals, which are the problem, are not going to come back for the hearing.

Most Americans don't mind immigrants or immigration at all and not even the idea of illegal immigration is really a problem. It's just the people that commit crimes that are the problem, it's one of the reason we see recent immigrants be so strongly in favor of border security, because the people they specifically tried to get away from are showing up too.

Not only are people caught crossing the border illegally not detained, but apparently even when they commit additional crimes it's too much for some cities and states to even keep them in jail for those crimes.

This comment really highlights how you can have someone like GP thinking Republicans are inhibiting border control and Democrats are trying to do something about it. The discourse around the subject dictates what concepts are held in the mind while considering it. The implication by the left seems to be that the US should, obviously, allow anyone into the country and that the problem is the speed of the immigration process. The reality of the situation is that no country, the US included, can maintain the stable identity and order required to be considered “a country” while allowing unrestricted immigration. It’s simply not possible to accept immigrants without requiring that they know and follow the law, and that takes time to learn. Immediate access to the country does not facilitate that learning and obviously causes significant crime.

> The implication by the left seems to be that the US should, obviously, allow anyone into the country

Indeed, there's a disconnect. I can't see anywhere in modern discourse that would have led you to believe that. Can you maybe cite the relevant policymakers or thought leaders or whoever that you are sure hold that opinion? Because I guarantee they don't actually exist.

What you just typed is an echo chamber point. It's not what your political enemies think, at all. It's what your political allies[1] want you to think your political enemies think. It's nonsense.

[1] Specifically the content-makers running the partisan media you consume.

He said the world 'implication' . I don't think you understand what it means.

If I'm your child's teacher, and your child doesn't do his homework and gets and F, you are not able to say to me "show me where my kid said he wouldn't do his homework!" , as a defense.

> I don't see how you're expecting things to work differently. Would we expect Democrat-sponsored legislation to fail for reasons apart from Republican opposition?

There is a popular perception that:

- If Democrats are in the minority and want to block a Republican bill, they will attempt to drum up public pressure, advocate on the floor and with individual legislators, etc.

- If Republicans are in the minority and want to block a Democrat bill, they will by any means necessary. They'll use various edge cases of parliamentary procedure, attach/amend/manipulate bills to poison them, etc. 'Playing dirty'.

I have no idea if this is actually true, but it's a common idea I've heard from both sides. The Democrats see it as a sign of their moral superiority, and the Republicans see it as an demonstration of conviction.

It sounds kinda stupid as theories go and I'm not going to believe there is anything meaningful happening without specific examples. Although I'll say on the outset that it wouldn't surprise me if it is basically a misdirection that the congresspeople are promulgating on a bipartisan basis to help them brand themselves.

> use various edge cases of parliamentary procedure, attach/amend/manipulate bills to poison them, etc. 'Playing dirty'.

This in particular is the part that seems a bit ridiculous. I'm sure they technically do all that, but if they have the numbers to do these things they also have the numbers to just vote bills down. It isn't 'playing dirty'. And these bills are generally rider-filled messes regardless.

Maybe the argument is that the Republicans are secretly plotting against their own voters and trying to conceal it, which is the sort of theory that people on the right wing already believe. It is the right wing. One of the core political tenants is that politicians are corrupt, incompetent and untrustworthy. The right wing politicians don't really need to pretend, their voters already know - many of them go in with a mandate to try and shut the whole government down to try and limit the damage the Congress does. The bulk of voters on the right seem to be well aware by now that professional politicians, as a class, hate them. That is why there is this whole Trumpian revolt underway.

that's interested because you created a point I didn't make, in order to discredit the point I did make

I won't call it a strawman argument since the grandparent post did say "inability to functionally govern and reach bi-partisan support for a lot of meaningful issues renders us helpless to improve bad systems", I was not making a point about bills passing

my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same.

you decided to talk about one way you believe they are different. its fine if that was a misunderstanding of my point, but if you're not aware of any unproductive way the parties are the same, then this discussion isn't for you.

> my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same.

You made that "isolated" point in a subthread about gridlock and the inability to pass meaningful legislation. And in that particular argument to which you replied, you were wrong: the parties are not "the same".

Republicans block bills because they're stuffed full of unrelated things (by design - that way they can easily be painted as the bad guys - which is working, see your own comment). I'm not saying that the reverse doesn't happen - perhaps Democrats are okay with bloated bills, I dunno.

Good rule of thumb is when a bill is blocked by one party, go find out everything that's in it and what parts the blocking party objected to. I guarantee it won't be the stuff the bill is named after.

Nonsense. Republicans were given everything they asked for on the border as a stand alone offer and refused it. It has nothing to do with some sort of genuine political position over riders on bills, and a simple examination of literally anything republicans have sponsored in the last 30 years will demonstrate that starkly. The point is obstructionism instead of governance.

It's still quote humorous how Biden can create these messes and yet Republicans are still the bad guys here... This is how nothing changes.

Republicans have blocked any attempt at reforming immigration, going back to Bush Jr's proposed bill in 2005. They have blocked bills with the exact terms they demanded just the day before. They are factually the bad guys here.

What you’re describing is called compromise: you get what you want in exchange for something else.

In context, he's not describing a compromise, he's talking about a 'wrecking amendment'. Adding something absurd to a bill. The difference is that the person adding the amendment doesn't actually want or expect their amendment to be passed.

Wikipedia has a fun example:

> The Wyoming House of Representatives Committee of the Whole amended House Bill 0085, a proposal to study the state's emergency preparedness, in order to kill the bill. The amendment would have required the state to consider purchasing an aircraft carrier (even though Wyoming is a landlocked state), purchasing fighter jets, establishing a military, initiating a draft, and creating a currency.

No, he definitely is not. Painting every bill Republicans have blocked as having a wrecking amendment is beyond silly. He’s describing a refusal to compromise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com