🏳️🌈🖖🏽
The GOP-led House is in disarray and focused on all the wrong things. They couldn’t even get a bill to fund the Pentagon through a procedural vote because five of their far-right members revolted. And now Speaker McCarthy has pulled the continuing resolution to fund the government, one that was hammered out by the different factions this weekend, from any consideration because it also doesn’t have the votes.
Instead of doing their job and passing a budget—one they already agreed to earlier this year—they are preceding with an impeachment inquiry into President Biden because the Orange Guy insists he shouldn’t be the only impeached candidate up on stage. The hearing will now happen just two days before the government shuts down because they don’t have a budget in place.
This is the GOP in a nutshell, folks. Paralysis, political theatrics, and chaos.
🇳🇱
I have no love for the GOP my friend, but you are criticizing them for doing the one thing the democrats arent doing and should.... Vote their conscious rather than just agreeing with the group.
We **want** politicians who are there to vote whats right, not what their party tells them to vote.
That depends on what they think is right. If someone is voting for terrible things, I'm not going to admire them for it because it's what their conscience tells them. I care somewhat more about what the politicians are voting for, than about whether they are showing an Independent Spirit by doing it. I'm fine with pols following the party line, if that line is actually good.
If a small group of Republicans is willing to harm the nation as a whole if they don't get to gut education, social services, food safety, etc, that is decidedly not what I "**want**" in any sense.
> That depends on what they think is right. If someone is voting for terrible things, I'm not going to admire them for it because it's what their conscience tells them. I care somewhat more about what the politicians are voting for, than about whether they are showing an Independent Spirit by doing it. I'm fine with pols following the party line, if that line is actually good.
If you think independently and make good decisions, and that just happens to be in agreement with the party line, fine I have no problem with that.
But when its clear you are following the party line for sake of following the party line, espcially considering how poor a job the party is doing, then yea we have a problem. The problem is, I cant rely on you to make the right choice should the party become corrupted, so its not a good safeguard.
The democrats sadly have shown a pattern of voting the party line for the sake of voting the party line, group think has become very central to both parties, though moreso to the left it seems (based on george's post)
Thinking independently and making good decisions are not necessarily correlated! People can independently come to extremely bad conclusions.
I'm just saying that the quality of the decisions is far more important than whether they are arrived at independently.
Certainly if the group is going in a bad direction, then independence is good. But it's good because it increases the odds of getting to a good place, not because of some inherent virtue.
> Thinking independently and making good decisions are not necessarily correlated! People can independently come to extremely bad conclusions.
They sure can. Which is why i said **only** thinking independently while making bad choices is bad.
That isnt an argument against the need for independent though. Just means other qualities are needed to make a politician a good one.
> I’m just saying that the quality of the decisions is far more important than whether they are arrived at independently.
Thats not an argument against the need for independent thought. All your arguing for is that you want both qualities, independent thoght AND good decisions... and yes this is true.
I never said independent thought is the most important quality to have.. others may be more important... but it is still one of the list of important qualities to have, and thus desirable
> Certainly if the group is going in a bad direction, then independence is good. But it’s good because it increases the odds of getting to a good place, not because of some inherent virtue.
Sure i dont care about any inherent virtue either... thing is, its also good when the group is headed in a good direction. Why?because it is a safeguard against the future when/if the group makes bad decisions.
There are quite a few other secondary reasons its important too.. the main one being that group think prevents ideas from being raised and discussed in opposition as it drives polarity.
You seem to be cherry-picking only cases where "independent thinking" leads to good outcomes. If the groups is heading in a good direction, and someone who would prefer a bad direction uses their "independence" to cause trouble and slow that down or redirect it, that's bad.
So it can be good or bad, whatever direction the group is currently headed, depending exactly on whether the "independence" is a deviation in a good or a bad direction.
I guess this is contrary to the American Founding Narrative or something :) but it seems kind of self-evident to me.
> You seem to be cherry-picking only cases where “independent thinking” leads to good outcomes. If the groups is heading in a good direction, and someone who would prefer a bad direction uses their “independence” to cause trouble and slow that down or redirect it, that’s bad.
You are making assumptions, I didnt say or do that.
For starters I didnt cherry pick any cases. George picked the case and we are discussing it. It was quite clearly picked by someone else. How could I cherry pick that?
I have also stated many times that while independent thinking is a requirement for any healthy effective legislature, it is **not** the only requirement. I have stated clearly that it requires both indepednent thought, and moral judgement to be effective.
Therefore if all we look at is independent thiking we will see both bad and good examples, because it is only one among many required properties.
> So it can be good or bad, whatever direction the group is currently headed, depending exactly on whether the “independence” is a deviation in a good or a bad direction.
No thats incorrect.
If a person is a bad person who doesnt engage in independent thought, then they will join a group that is a bad group. Bad people choose to want to be a part of things that are by extension bad. When a person joins party A or party B to join they will go with the one they perceive to be the one that they agree with the most (though maybe not agree with eniterly)... this leads to bad people forming bad groups.
So if i am a bad person, in a bad group, as tends to be the case, then i have two options, follow my own bad independent thought, or the groups bad collective thought. When you make a bad decision it isnt because you were thinking independently, its because your a bad person and would have made that bad decision either way.
Bad people joining good groups isnt the norm. But even when it does happen. Then if they act independently and do a bad thing, it isnt the fact that they are indepedent that is to blame, its the fact that they are morally corrupt (as a good person wouldnt do that). If that same person were to follow the group it would now result in a good act, but eliminate the protection against the group turning bad int he future. So while you may have gotten a good result this time, it is still a far more dangerous state than a good person thinking independently.
You were cherry-picking when you gave an example of independence being good because it can lead a good person to resist a good group going bad, without mentioning the obvious possibility of independence leading a bad person to resist a group doing good; that's what I was referring to.
If it helps any, I will definitely agree that independent thinking is a good quality in a good person. :)
But I will maintain that it's not a good quality in the particular Republicans in question.
Using the term "cherry picking" for a hypothetical example of where having independence while being a good person is a weird use of the word... cherry picking is usually where you take real world data and ignore part of it... not where you give an example of a particular thing, yes its cherry picked, thats the point, its an example of something that happens.
> If it helps any, I will definitely agree that independent thinking is a good quality in a good person. :)
Considering this is what i said like 1000 times over, then you were never disagreeing with me. You literally just admirted you've been 100% agreement this whole time as this is exactly what I reiterated many times.
> But I will maintain that it’s not a good quality in the particular Republicans in question.
You are literally saying it was a bad bill and shouldnt have passed, and that these 5 republicans stopped it because they were acting independently... yet this was a bad thing?
I dunno your logic isnt adding up. What they did, according to you stopped the bill. Stopping the bill is a good thing according to you... yet somehow also a bad thing they were independent in this vote? What?
I had the impression that you were saying this independence was a good trait in everyone, bad people as well as good (since you seemed to be saying it's something we want even in for instance extreme right Republicans). My mistake. :)
And again, the reason you don't find the logic adding up is that you think this is about one vote on one bill. It isn't. At all.
> I had the impression that you were saying this independence was a good trait in everyone, bad people as well as good
Independence from your choosen groups of association **is** a good trait in everyone. It is not, however, a sufficient trait. And having one good insufficient trait is not an indication that you will be a good person or make good choices.
> since you seemed to be saying it’s something we want even in for instance extreme right Republicans
You have now added the word "extreme" twice despite me objecting to the description of these 5 people as extreme for voting in line with democrats.
I am saying it is a quality we want in republicans as a whole however. Because groupthink means they follow a immoral party, and without dissent no change occurs.
Republicans who think independently will still be bad actors like their party, so in and of itself wont immediately give us good results. But since they were going to be bad if they followed the party too, no harm caused.. BUT this does mean now the republican party has the mechnisms in place for change and dissent, and yes, that is what we want.
> My mistake. :)
I know :)
> And again, the reason you don’t find the logic adding up is that you think this is about one vote on one bill. It isn’t. At all.
"this is about"... what is this here? If you mean the discussion thread, then yes, we are discussing very specifically one vote on one bill (a very large one containing smaller bills)... so yes that is exactly what **this** is about.
Now if your pointing out the dynamic in the senate is more complex than this one bill.. sure, of course it is, I am quite aware of that too. and guess what, being aware of all that, your logic still seems nonsensical for the reasons I described.
You keep paraphrasing what i say, and injecting words (seemingly intentionally) that complete change what I said and then discuss what i didnt say rather than what I said. In fact the word you inserted in the very last post I had pointed out was erroneous and not what I was saying.. and we go inserting a similar various in your paraphrasing again
> I disagree that there is anything good about dissenting from an immoral party in an even more immoral direction.
Now look at what your responding to.
> You have now added the word “extreme” twice despite me objecting to the description of these 5 people as extreme for voting in line with democrats.
>
> I am saying it is a quality we want in republicans as a whole however. Because groupthink means they follow a immoral party, and without dissent no change occurs.
If it is the whole of the republican party then how is it "even more immoral" direction? Presumably some members will be above the average morality, others below.
I also quite explicitly correct your use of "extreme" and point out that is not what im arguing... yet this new variations adds it back.
> Simply causing trouble does not cause the party to have mechanisms for change and dissent in any significant sense.
I didnt argue for "simply causing trouble", I argued for independent thought. So now we are back to these 5 GOP voting the same way as dems is "simply causing trouble" and not good, buyt the 200+ dems who voted that way due to groupthink, those guys arent?
Describing a vote that stopped a bad bill from passing, that you agree is a bad bill, and woul have passed if they didnt is "simply causing trouble"... sorry but your biases are showing.
> I don’t recall you objecting to the word “extreme” before.
I quoted where I said it above.. but no big deal, I suspect it isnt intentional but subconscious, just kinda annoying
> And in any case, they are extreme.
Whether they are extreme or not doesnt matter. I have made no claims as to how moderate they may be, nor did I praise this quality of them in any way. I will never understand why people on the far left will constantly go off topic to talk about bad qualities of the GOP that have no relefvance to the point being made (that independent thought is one among a collection of properties neccesary to make a good politician).
I think people on the left just really struggle with discussing the part seperate fromt he whole. They just cant accept having a conversation that admits anything remotely good, however valid, about a person who is overwhelming evil.
That said I guess the right isnt usually that much better with this
> They voted with the Democrats not because they agree with them that the bill cuts too much; they voted against the bill (actually against the rule to allow the bill to advance) because they didn’t think it cut enough. They’re extreme.
Ok, but I never said they were good people or extremism was a desirable quality... so again how does thiws even have relevance.
> And no, the discussion thread is not only about one particular rule vote on one particular defense appropriations bill. But I doubt I’m going to convince you of that.
You can of course discuss related matters, Im not trying to say you arent allowed to do that... But again we made it very clear that we are remarked about a single action (independence) taken on a single vote, and how that action, as a general concept, is one of a collection of properties that a good politician needs.
So sure, you can spend all the time you want arguing about cause and effect and other bills and other votes that may have effected it.. but to what end? No one defended the GOP as desirable good people, so your just wasting your breath arguing about something that isnt what anyone is saying or asserting
@freemo
I disagree that there is anything good about dissenting from an immoral party in an even more immoral direction. Simply causing trouble does not cause the party to have mechanisms for change and dissent in any significant sense.
I don't recall you objecting to the word "extreme" before. And in any case, they are extreme. They voted with the Democrats not because they agree with them that the bill cuts too much; they voted against the bill (actually against the rule to allow the bill to advance) because they didn't think it cut enough. They're extreme.
And no, the discussion thread is not only about one particular rule vote on one particular defense appropriations bill. But I doubt I'm going to convince you of that.
@georgetakei