Education is key. People need to know what a zygote is.

And steal the oil.

Yeah, but here's the thing. Most pro-lifers don't think that women getting abortions should be punished like murderers, and furthermore, many pro-lifers are against contraceptive funding and comprehensive sex education, both of which have done wonders to reduce the numbers of abortions. They also frequently oppose subsidizing prenatal care, even though its decrease has led to a marked uptick in deaths of both fetus and mother in Texas.

Yeah, I reject the notion that that really is what the mindset is, even if that's what people like to say it is.

Given Trump's TPP announcement yesterday I find this video hilarious as a comparison of conservatives then and now...

So Chait ran this article arguing against the Democrat infrastructure bill

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...68ujvp27d.html

The logical conclusion of this article, though Chait tries to hedge it, is that the electoral incentives all line up for Democrats to go total obstructionism, and not even try to propose anything. But if the "moderate" Democrats are proposing total obstruction, isn't just better to admit that the US system of governance has failed? The logical conclusion is that the out of power party should obstruct everything, all the time, until people get fed up with the people in power and elect the opposition, at which time the parties will simply switch with the other side simply obstructing everything.

If that's what the game theory leads to, then wouldn't it be better to have a British system parliamentary system where the opposition has no real power, but merely is there to provide alternative viewpoints until the majority party is voted out, instead of two years of majority control, 2 years to 6 years of gridlock, and then 2 years of the alternative majority control?

Bannon is feeding it to him like Rasputin. Trump is so stupid he actually believes it.

It's all about taxes. Whatever it takes to make the tax bill lower. Which is ironic since if abortions become illegal, taxes will rise due to more people needing social programs.

did you catch the date on it is wrong?

Yep.

Partisanship makes this an even easier calculation. And I wonder how much of the trend toward partisanship is actually top-down instead of bottom-up.

That is, politicians getting wise to optimal strategy -- not compromising but instead obstructing and demonizing the other side -- driving partisanship rather than the other way around.

Don't be silly, churches will take over all social problems letting us cut taxes even more!

It's hard to argue that a Westminster system wouldn't be better than what we have now, but obviously that doesn't disprove Chait's arguments about the Dem stratagem. I read an argument last week that the key failing of our existing system is the downfall of strong party organizations with incentives to keep things running responsibly so they can dole out spoils to insiders. That's probably easier to reverse than the fundamental political structure of the US.

As to the merits of Chait's argument, there's some political tactical stuff that's hard to evaluate, but it also has a whiff of one clever trick to bring down Trump. Which is to say, what is the point of this maneuver? Is it just to get infrastructure spending? If so, is that goal worth the cost of giving Trump a victory on a bipartisan infrastructure deal? Others can disagree, but the state of infrastructure is not on my top 10 list of concerns about America right now. Is the goal to steal credit for the infrastructure bill? How does that really work with voters in 2 or 4 or 6 years? I worry that the Dems are reluctant to buckle down to bitter, dogged opposition status because it's not very fun, so they're resorting to misguided grand bargaineering.

+1

By the way, the best counter argument I've seen to this I believe was from something Larry Summers wrote a few years ago.

IIRC, the argument was basically that, it's a good thing the US political system is set up for slow change because it helps us avoid mistakes. The checks and balances make it such that any change needs to have widespread support. Thus, you rarely get changes the other side would think of as extreme.

So as a liberal, yeah, maybe you don't get liberalpolicyX. But you also don't get conservativepolicyY, which could be worse than X would be better.

You also prevent the uncertainty of constant policy change. For example, tax rates could swing wildly so people may hesitate to invest.

I'm personally not persuaded by this argument, but found it interesting.

Could the last 6 months have gone any worse than this? I mean barring a meteor or something totally unforseen.

1. Bannon turns Trump's campaign around and earns trusted advisor role.
2. Trump wins election.
3. Scott Adams and Bill Mitchell are now visionaries.
4. Republicans hold both houses and soon to be SCOTUS majority.
5. Trump has nominated multiple people to cabinet positions who believe the agency they are going to run should be abolished.
6. Trump has nominated several people to key security positions who have open ties to Russia.
7. Instead growing up once winning the election, or taking the presidency - as Rudy Giuliani speculated he would do - Trump has continued to behave like a bipolar teenager.
8. Congress is setting the stage to: kill Obamacare, end abortion, sell off national park lands, destroy the environment, kill funding for the arts, kill PBS and NPR.
9. Trump continues to tell obvious blatant lies and has declared war on the media. Millions of Americans believe nothing but Trump's twitter.
10. Trump is speculating about stealing Iraq's oil.
11. What else am I forgetting?

Can anyone think of one realistic outcome which could have gone worse?

haven't heard any mention of locusts

The wheels are turning in Broadway's head.

I guess Republicans could actually have enough state houses to pass amendments. That could be worse.

We don't need to do a deep psychological dive into pro-life people. They are motivated by one thing, the idiotic idea that their imaginary bff stuffs some undefined and undetectable thing called a soul into us at conception. All other hand waving is just smoke and mirrors. It's the exact same reason none of them can give a reason against homosexuality other than the bible says so. It's medieval garbage that should be called just that and not taken seriously in any medical or policy discussion.

Just let California secede and let Hillary be the president of California. Easy game win win.

That will literally become a reality if the 2018 election is as bad as the 2016 was.

Jesus christ. The title makes it sound like Congress is actually throwing down about this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-congr...-politics.html

butnah

Not the title is changed but the main link and the chrome tab title still says: "GOP Congress Confronts Trump's False Claims"

Yeah, IDK. If they think they are going to steal credit for the bill, then LOL at them.

Well, he hasn't announced gigantic tax cuts or subsidy for middle class Americans. If he did that, he could open Mexican Death Camps tomorrow and nobody would care. Trump is a nationalist, not a national socialist. This is my big fear. We know Bannon wants the infrastructure bill. If Trump starts pivoting to the left on economic policy, he will be able to get away with all kinds of horrific ventures on the right.

So far its been the opposite actually. Trump shamed the dirty repubs from gutting the ethics committee.

And i really dont think that was coincidental. Trump is actually better than the rest of that party.