Reagan was loved by the country at the time and was extremely effective at implementing his agenda.
All of it is monstrous to me as well, but to compare him to Trump, who didn’t even try to implement much of an agenda and literally had ZERO party platform for his second term… it makes a little more sense in that context.
It’s specifically designed that way so they can use it to shut down the government, there’s also no reason why we need a debt ceiling. We could completely eliminate the concept tomorrow if we wanted to, but that’s one less thing the Republicans can use to hold our country hostage with
Trump is obviously running on the border as his linchpin issue, why is anybody expecting republicans to make some kind of a deal given that would undermine their candidate?
I can never fathom how this sort of thing works. Why on earth is funding aid for a European ally in a state of war tied into the same bill as one about immigration policy?
They have nothing to do with each other, as far as I can see. I’m not from the States, but if anyone can ELI5 why this is a good way to run things, I’d really like to know.
From the outside, it just seems like a way to pile deals/compromises/favours/blackmail all into one big sticky mess. And a good way to get nothing done!
Mike Johnson, the leader of our lower legislative house, is blocking all votes on Ukraine aid. He won’t allow it to come to a vote. So, as a way to pressure him, it has been linked to something he ostensibly supports so that he has a harder time unilaterally blocking it.
He can still probably block it, but its harder to justify to his voters.
Ukraine aid on its own is a flat no, though, for as long as he occupies his position, which he got fairly recently.
Ah ok, so that sounds like it’s the reverse of what I thought - I thought the GOP were saying “No help for Ukraine unless we get what we want,” but it sounds more like the Dems are trying to use border stuff as a carrot to get Ukraine aid through.
It still seems so weird to me though, that it’s even possible to tie two such unrelated things into a single package. Like, I could see it happening unofficially, behind the scenes deals and all that. But having it officially linked? So bizarre.
Mind you, I’m from the UK, so I’m in no position to comment on bizarre political/governmental arrangements… :-)
It is weird, we are taught about “pork” bills in our government civics class. I remember distinctly thinking it was stupid and backwards and probably leads to a lot of bullshit slipping through the cracks. My teacher touted it as “an american original.” This was around the time I started refusing to participate in the daily indoctrination pledge every american student is mandated to be subjected to.
The military aid would not pass on it’s own, in order to get the Republican vote they added border policy to it
This is pretty common in the usa, it’s nickname is “pork barrel” or “Texas pork”
I would say it is not a good way to do things (I like very little about our government) but with the way it is set up this is pretty much the only way to pass bills
Voters and the political narratives are an ourobouros of bullshit. Voters are fickle and their priorities are ephemeral. One voter can respond to four polls in one day and give four different answers as to why they are voting for their candidate. We internalize the news articles that tell us one candidate is more likeable or has a stronger connection with certain demographics.
There are also ten ways to spin any result, and humans are really bad at being objective when it comes to their own thinking. You could say Trump beat Haley by double digits, or you could say Haley outperformed her expectations, getting almost half the votes. Or you could say New Hampshire is barely relevant and hardly a representation of national Republicans. What voters will believe and what voters want to be true usually overlap.
Haley’s pitch is that she’s a conservative who isn’t Trump. But she can’t attack him too hard for being Trump, because his followers are absolutely devoted to supporting him. If Haley is going to win, she needs Trump supporters as well as her own. But Trump is deeply unpopular in a lot of states. Haley could actually win a few states in the primaries.
And Trump could be disqualified for supporting an insurrection. The SCOTUS will rule in February, and while I’m not holding my breath, anything is possible.
And Trump could die. The man is old and in poor health. He also owes a lot of money to oligarchs who might decide he’s more of a liability than an asset.
So, if you’re asking why people are supporting Haley, like the one Koch who is bankrolling her campaign, you can ignore what they actually say and assume it’s because they want a contender in fighting shape just in case Trump isn’t available for one reason or another. That, or they just despise Trump and will vote for any other conservative.
Thank God they’re voting based on their horrid principles. The GOP just might’ve picked someone [seemingly] moderate enough to keep liberals and progressives at home. If Trump ever gives up his quest for the presidency we might be in deep shit. All of the other candidates are the same but they don’t say the quiet stuff out loud nearly as often.
Union organization support of a party or candidate usually doesn’t mean anything.
Here in Canada I’m with the NDP and I’ve gone to a few party conventions… my early ones I met lots of great people but they also taught me a bitter truth.
Union people are often easily manipulated and are fairly narrow with their views.
Even when their entire organization shows support for the NDP, the members will often vote for conservative or liberal and never NDP.
-and another union foolishly ties itself to a sinking ship. I guess even “militant” unionists still can’t think outside the ballot box. Disappointing, but unsurprising.
He just flushed away the political capital of an almost 400,000 worker union. Way to negotiate for even a crumb of a symbolic concession, before the primaries are even over. And to a president who crushed a rail strike just a year ago.
He has also hosted fundraisers for a controversial nonprofit group that financially supports Jan. 6 defendants, and campaign finance records show that his political action committee donated $10,000 to the group.
In the days immediately after the Capitol riot, when he was still president, Trump "floated the idea" of a blanket pardon for everyone involved in Jan. 6, ...
npr.org
Hot