HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The "we shouldn't do 'x' ...

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 11:45 AM

The "we shouldn't do 'x' because then the Republicans would do 'y' " argument.

This is a faulty argument since the Republicans are comitted to grabbing and consolidating power no matter if we do "x" or not. This argument presupposes that the Republicans will recact with even worse measures in response to something that we do.

From the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 to voter suppression to denying Obama a vote on his SCOTUS nominee to collaborating with the Russians to not calling witnesses in Trump's impeachment hearing to now rushing through a replacement for RBG, tell me what constraints have you seen the Republicans exercise because of their fear of what we might do in response.

8 replies, 387 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply The "we shouldn't do 'x' because then the Republicans would do 'y' " argument. (Original post)
Yavin4 Sep 19 OP
DonaldsRump Sep 19 #1
dalton99a Sep 19 #2
Blaukraut Sep 19 #3
Mike 03 Sep 19 #4
Martin Eden Sep 19 #5
Statistical Sep 19 #6
gulliver Sep 19 #7
JHB Sep 19 #8

Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 11:46 AM

1. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 11:49 AM

2. The Supreme Court officially became a political institution with Bush v. Gore


Now they are practically an auxiliary of the Republican Party


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 11:51 AM

3. Republicans have been doing 'y' without us doing 'x' for over a decade already

It's time the Dems finally get to doing 'x', and for good measure, throw in 'z'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 11:52 AM

4. Zero constraints.

You're right.

In Game Theory, if your opponent never cooperates, you are supposed to punish them, not hope that they might do the right thing eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 11:59 AM

5. I agree. Making concessions in fear of what the other side might do is a losing game.

We have to go on the offensive and stay there, keeping them off balance.

Let THEM look weak when they howl and cry no fair.

Strength commands respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 12:17 PM

6. Exactly. If Democrats have a chance to gain power and use it for good they should. Period.

If that means removing the cloture vote, expanding the Supreme Court, opening DC & PR to statehood, expanding the size of the House SO BE IT.

Whatever option is available to them they need to take to shift the country away from fascism. The future is unknown the right and now is known. That is why the Republicans have been so successful at consolidating and keeping power. Fight for the here and now and there might be a future. Don't and there is no future to protect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 12:29 PM

7. That logic doesn't justify us doing just any old thing, of course.

If we do x, for bad enough x, the number of Republicans can grow and, in turn, do more y.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 12:39 PM

8. Even farther back than that

Exhibit 1: the "say whatever will cajole Democrats into voting for our SC picks, and if they resist throw tantrums to get them to back down" strategy.

The reason Thomas was put on the SC was...

...NOT because he was the most qualified jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black conservative jurist. He wasn't.

He was the most qualified black conservative with reliable but obfuscatable views from a conservative standpoint (no going off the reservation on civil rights issues, fer'instance), and was young enough that he'd stay on the court for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread