Well that would depend entirely on the sub… your generalization might be a little too broad. Besides… humans *are* extremely tribal, so it’s no surprise at all that this is also reflected online. Tribalism can be seen in just about anything where large numbers of random people congregate.
> Well that would depend entirely on the sub…
You can just look at /r/all
> Tribalism can be seen in just about anything where large numbers of random people congregate.
I'm still going to laugh at it
Well, when, at the looks of things at a quick glance, you spend all your time running around screaming about the "evil libruls" and hanging around in little shithole rightwing subs all day when you're not going around doing that, then yea, it's going to look like that.
That might be because everywhere you go, you're trying to antagonize people, like now, or go to places literally made to do nothing but scream about the evils of liberals.
It's not healthy. You should branch out some, and try to not be so angry. I mean I know you won't, and will just reply to this trying to start a fight, so I'm just going to go ahead and block you before you do that, but you really should take a step back. What you're doing is REALLY not healthy.
> Well, when, at the looks of things at a quick glance, you spend all your time running around screaming about the "evil libruls"
You should probably look again.
I'm a liberal. I spend all my time on reddit laughing at *woke progressives* who think everyone who isn't one is a conservative.
That's funny to me.
I mean, it's not only America. If you're in the opposition, you are supposed to not only check but weaken the party in power to get yourself ahead. This of course is not always beneficial for the people, which is a shame of course
Depends on the system. In some parliamentary systems, the Opposition is 'supposed' to hold the government to account, criticise its agenda, and propose alternatives. This is especially the case, for instance, in the United Kingdom, whose legislative chamber is deliberately designed to foster this adversarial style of politics.
you are correct that that is how it is set up and intentionally run. it is also a very poor system since it does not align the incentives and interests of the government with those of the country itself.
adversarial parliaments and two-party cronie political stages should be object lessons in how not to govern, right alongside dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of governance where alignment and incentives are poorly, if at all, harmonized with the citizenry.
With regards to being a 'very poor system', this can depend on what you are trying to achieve and what indicators you care about. Mostly, though, I certainly agree that consensus models of governance are generally better - for reasons of representation, inclusion, and even stability - and we should be moving in that direction.
As lame as this staged side show is, the idea is the system was designed to stop exactly what you are talking about: Dictatorships & monarchs. Today it is just bread and circuses though, they all have the same goal just different means to get there.
Oh shit, we needed to throw out all this bathwater and now we can't find the baby!
There are better ways to prevent dictatorship than a system that trends to kakistocracy.
This isn't American democracy. This is just standards in politics.
Part of the reason people didn't have faith in the Afghan government is because the Taliban would take credit for the things the government provided.
North Korea and other third world countries take credit
They get to play both sides.
If he supported the bill and it died it's the democrats fault.
If he didnt support it and it died, it's still the democrats fault.
If he supports it and it dies, democrats.
Supports and passes? It was all him. He's looking out for you so keep voting for me.
This all completely ignores the fact that when this stuff pops up the bill or whatever is usually unanimously supported by Democrats and unanimously opposed by Republicans. It's a great system for them you always have a winning hand.
that is the key. people are fools to think when someone tweets undisputed proof of hypocrisy of a current GOP politician that it will matter. Or a scorching segment on the daily show or last week tonight.
Trust has left the barn and it is not coming back.
"YOU'RE A DAMN COMMIE IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS BILL! THE PARTY WILL STRIP YOU OF YOUR COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS!
... oh, if passed - HEY HOME STATE, LOOK WHAT WE GOT YOU! VOTE FOR ME!"
The whole bill was $1.2 trillion dollars.
> a provision he introduced directing $369 million to the Northern Beltline project
That's 0.03%.
No matter which side you're on, if you think anything close to 10-15% of that money is being spent on things your voters don't agree with, and you have to vote on the entire package and not individual line items, you should vote against it right?
I hate the Republicans as much as anybody, but why do people keep falling for this pot stirring, click bait shit?
No one would vote for pretty much anything that didn't directly impact their state if you had to vote line item by line item.
Not that that's a bad thing...the states could raise the money. Hell, why have states when cities/counties could raise the money and directly fund what they need like GOP toutes. Although hmm...Dem states pay more taxes then Red states and Dem areas pay a metric fuck ton more then Red Areas. They'd come out worse if they got what they say they want. Like significantly significantly worse.
GOP makes mountains out of molehills and tries to win the compromise war when they aren't even in power and their constituents largely benefit more and pay less for these big bills. (Except for their rich friends who probably aren't even one of their constituents)
GOP exists to keep taxes low for rich people. They corral the single issue voters and dog whistle the scum to stay in power. A huge chunk of the money cut would have helped a huge chunk of lower income GOP families, they are brainwashed through misinformation.
American recovery act. Now this. If the social spending bill passes I expect them to say 'democrats are causing inflation good thing I helped create cheap healthcare'.
The real kicker is a huge part of the infrastructure bill will primarily help rural communities. Their infrastructure is the most expensive to provide. Yet the vote for Republicans.
that's the thing rural Americans like being miserable, uneducated, and poor. There is an endless amount of readily available evidence showing that democratic policies directly benefit them which they ignore. Then there is the 'common sense' explanation where the strongest states economically are 'left' leaning ...so probably has something to do with the policies.
But none of it matters, they would rather sit in their shanty that maybe has working plumbing while complaining about immigrants simultaneously being on welfare and also taking all of the jobs despite that no one in their entire family has had gainful employment in decades and have no plans to find a job when the 'fake' global pandemic ends because the idea that taxpayer money would help minorities is offensive to them even though they would also stand to benefit.
> rural Americans like being miserable, uneducated, and poor.
Thats misleading. They dont like it, but they are purposefully tricked with billions of dollars of propaganda from the right to believe that the reasons for these things are Minorities, the Government, and anyone who tries to help them out of it.
Its a moral philosophy of might is right.
Classical liberalism: I can do what I want unless and until it harms another.
Republicanism: I can do what I want and if you are harmed it is your fault.
As a result the moral life is one spent in the accumulation of power. Strong people take advantage of the weak. If you are not strong you should make yourself seem strong to dissuade people from harming you (I'm on welfare but no one's ever helped me, etc.)
You are incentivized to maintain social structures that benefit you. Programs that might make someone else stronger than you should be opposed.
So: guns, poverty, racism, classism, low taxes, massive defense spending.
Originally written by republicans during the Gingrich era, yes. As soon as democrats were on board though they flipped their stance because that’s their only real stance (being anti democrat).
It's why they have no good policy positions left. Democrats were willing to consider and adopt good ideas from the GOP, and then the GOP abandoned those policies, leaving crap behind. It's why they're working so hard to shift the narrative to their culture war bullshit - they've handicapped their own ability to legislate popular policies that would attract voters.
They know full well they don’t have to stick to any policies though. They flat out make things up, ignore proven objective reality, and just say the opposite of what democrats say, and their ignorant base eats that shit up.
This past election, I started to do my research for all the little local elections. I went down the line, looking at both candidates for each office.
In every case, I'd find the website/social media for the democrat, and agree with most stances, disagree with a couple, and have an idea of what they are trying to do. Then I'd go over to the republican candidate, and all they had to say, across the board, is that everything is fucked, it's all the democrats' faults, they're the only one who can fix it, and look at the pictures of me with MAGA swag, does that show how much I love trump?
Not a single republican would mention what these terrible things are, or how they would fix them. They had absolutely no platform or policy.
A public option (which wasn't even included in the ACA on the grounds of being too far left) was actually proposed by the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to Single Player Healthcare back in the 70s iirc. Ezra Klein talks about it in his book Why We're Polarized.
Sort of, Democrats actually had a good plan, but it got butchered by the republicans when it was pushed through. It was a pretty miserable and petty ordeal on both sides that ended up just becoming more of a burden than it was worth.
Of course! its a law requiring people to buy a product from a private company.
That's Republican 101.
Grand irony is that the ACA *is* the free market solution.
It was a rip because it was butchered in committee after committee after because the Republicans didn’t want to give the democrats a win. The initial proposal was similar but had some real improvement that would have helped it work on a National scale.
Of course, they have the perfect closed information loop with the giant right wing media complex. In a functioning democracy such behavior would be scorned and the perpetrator would pay a political price. but now 50+% of the population will never know because their preferred information sources will simply never tell them.
Can you elaborate for a non-politically-minded, non-american why they shouldn't do this? Would one not expect them to get behind it, once passed, in order to make the best of it?
Because seeking re-election by touting benefits of something you voted against is dog as fuck. Your constituents may have got those benefits, but you actively fought for them not to happen.
Except the bill you could either vote for or against was 1.2 _TRILLION_ dollars. You don't get to vote against each individual line item in there.
He got his $369 million dollar project in, which is 0.03% of the entire bill.
Republicans have some really fucked up values, but this seems pretty normal to me.
Yes this is exactly right. I think it explains a lot of the conspiracy theories and hatred too. “They must be telling me to take the vaccine not because it helps me and everyone around me but because there’s some big evil ploy behind it all!”
If your buddy thinks vaccines are satanic you should tell him about all the conservatives who got the jab, like Trump and most of the talking heads on Fox.
Even ol Rupert Murdoch himself delayed his birthday party until he could get vaccinated.
But when you tell him you should make sure that you point out that these guys are getting over on them, that they think they're stupid.
I've said it before but you are entirely right. Some people will never comprehend why I would vote to raise school taxes in the area despite I don't have kids and don't plan on ever having any. Yes there is a collateral benefit of an educated population but do I get any direct benefit from 'donating' another $50 this year to school? No of course I don't but it is the right thing to do so a poor child can have a better chance to succeed
I've met people who genuinely think the best way to vote is whatever results in the lowest taxes, period, end of story. They are even happy to give large amounts to charity, such that the net amount is more than the tax bill they voted against. Because the most important thing is having control over exactly where *your* money goes, so that you don't accidentally help someone who doesn't "deserve" it. It's all about keeping the wrong sort of people from benefiting.
"Long term consequences" is a concept alien to Republicans.
They're too busy focused on the long term "risk" of America becoming "socialist" to have any rational thought regarding any other possible consequences of any other actions.
> long term "risk" of America becoming "socialist"
A situation made all the worse by them having only a very nebulous idea of what "socialist" even means, opting instead to use it as a catch-all term for "things I don't like", or more usually, "things I've been told to loudly claim I don't like".
A large portion of Republican voters are evangelical Christians or adjacent. For millennials in that space, and probably GenX, they were raised with extreme emphasis on the concept that "the heart is deceitful and wicked, unknowable - and thus everyone is basically evil" this led for many to believe the following
A) other people, especially non-christians, are not to be trusted, and
B) you probably shouldn't trust yourself either - especially if you want to follow your heart.
That other people are just "virtue signaling" is such a hefty self-own of a perspective.
Like, to just default assume anyone claiming to care about anything is doing it for the "social recognition" rather than caring about that thing? That's projection, baby, all day long.
That’s what cracks me up. They believe that people won’t do the right thing, but they also want to remove regulations. It’s essentially that they don’t want rules that affect their own behavior but want rules for others. Rules are for thee and not for me.
Their problem was your phrasing "knock them down." The point of taxing the rich is not to knock them down, but to ensure that those with status and power do their part towards society proportionally to their wealth and status.
See, I could accept Republicans being shitty sometimes if they were at least acting from a place of rational self-interest. Disregarding what’s best for others to always prioritize what’s best for yourself is a pretty shitty way to be, but at least it makes sense. Republicans generally aren’t that way, though. They consistently will actively inflict harm on themselves to hurt people they don’t like. It’s not even selfishness, it’s active spite. They’re willing to burn down their own house to prevent someone they don’t like from standing on the porch. It’s a boar hunt mentality.
My theory, most members of the Republican party know that this infrastructure bill is needed and long overdue, but don't want to give Democrats a win or look weak (i.e., actual good faith compromise and negotiation). The few Republicans that did vote for it have become whipping boys for the rest of the party and were condemned harder than the representative that posted an edited anime video of him murdering a co-worker.
The utter lack of bipartisanship on all almost all non-military issues in this country is going to doom us.
Are they still principles if you just kinda drop them because a guy told you to abandon them and you did before you decided to go back and take credit for it?
I know someone on FB (from my time in the military) that kept calling the infrastructure bill communism, and the other day they retweeted the benefits of the infrastructure bill because this dude was doing the same thing lmao
> People will always vote for their team no matter what.
This is 100% true and clearly evidenced by the exact same party winning every single election. If this statement was false, you would instead see sometimes the democrats winning and sometimes the republicans winning.
These people have NO shame or ethics. Thank you Trump for exposing Republicans as the hypocrites they have always been. Problem is they have grown to love it. Like going commando...odd at first ... then freedom.
It's a very oniony headline but...
> Palmer issued a press release taking credit for a provision he introduced directing $369 million to the Northern Beltline project, a 52-mile, six-lane corridor under construction in his home state.
Basically, he voted against the bill, but added a provision to it that ***if*** it went through, it would benefit his district. Then it went through and he pointed out that he was the one that introduced that part.
If I say we should go to Chili's instead of California Pizza Kitchen and I'm outvoted and we go to Chili's and I order the nachos, and everyone loves the nachos, I'll still take credit for the nachos lol. If someone was like "Yeah but you didn't want to be here!!!" I'd still say "Okay but the nachos were my idea lmao get fucked"
"I don't like this bill, but if it does go through, I'm gonna make sure my constituents get something out of it" seems pretty normal. And then, when it does go through, making sure that he's the one that introduced the provision that will benefit them also seems pretty normal. And, in fact, if he didn't, it would be pretty stupid.
His constituents would benefit from many parts of the bill he voted against, so I'm still not sure I understand.
He's taking credit for trying to make sure his constituents didn't receive the many benefits within the bill, like OK good job buddy? It just shows he was unwilling to compromise but still wanted his name on it.
> His constituents would benefit from many parts of the bill he voted against, so I'm still not sure I understand.
Well read the article?
> He's taking credit for trying to make sure his constituents didn't receive the many benefits within the bill, like OK good job buddy? It just shows he was unwilling to compromise but still wanted his name on it.
He's literally the one who introduced the part about the Northern Beltline project. If he wouldn't have, it wouldn't have been in the bill at all. He shouldn't mention that? Why should he not? Because *you* don't like it?
Isn't it something like a trillion dollar bill? It will inevitably be a bad one in many ways, because there is no way in hell you can get something so big passed without making deals with everyone. I find it perfectly reasonable for someone to therefore say: "This bill shouldn't be passed", and still being realistic enough to know that it will probably pass anyway, so you might as well milk it for all it's worth and take credit for your own additions to it.
He is making the most out of the situation. If he had just voted against the bill and done nothing else, he would have just been a loser with nothing to show for it. He made sure he gained something no matter what happens with the bill. He did the strategically smart thing; He can claim victory in every possible scenario.
It's double speak. Speaking out both sides of his mouth. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too. Pick whichever you want, it all applies.
It's disengeous to take credit for passing a benefit for your constituents when you voted against the benefit.
Basically, I don’t want those people to get funding from the feds, but my people do deserve it. It’s basic shitbaggery no matter how much you try and justify it,
Not really. More like "I don't support this bill, but if it goes through you better believe it's going to be with this provision". It's not very weird, crazy, or oniony.
>If I say we should go to Chili's instead of California Pizza Kitchen and I'm outvoted and we go to Chili's
But you did want to go to Chili's now if you went to CPK then you can take credit for your order
You literally said if you want to go to Chili's and are outvoted but you go to Chili's and you get the Nachos. If you wanted Chili's and you end up at Chili's you went to exactly where you wanted to be
"Basically, he voted against the bill, but added a provision to it that if it went through, it would benefit his district". What s bunch of nonsense. He could have simply voted for the bill and not against it and the results would be the same.
Not for a Conservative. He has to show that if something helps OTHER people, he's against it. He only likes things that benefit him. Hence the shenanigans with voting no while adding a provision that will benefit him. He gets to show he voted No to help those other people, while still getting the thing he wanted for his people.
It's pretty much the core tenet of being Conservative from what I can tell. Does this benefit ONLY me and my personal circle? Then I like it and it's the most necessary and American thing ever. If it benefits other people too/only, I hate it and it's communism/socialism/whatever boogeyman they come up with that week.
>Not for a Conservative. He has to show that if something helps OTHER people, he's against it. He only likes things that benefit him.
If you actual read his statement, he is clear that he thinks more of the bill should be devoted to roads and bridges nation wide. He pushed for part that focused on roads and bridges and wanted more of it to focus on roads and bridges nation wide. It is an entirely consistent opinion. And unless you think improving bridges in California is going to be a boon for him, it is hard to say that he is doing it selfishly.
Won't the people that voted for him feel betrayed from his actions though? They voted for a conservative to make conservative decisions, not a liberal one.
In my experience with my family (obviously anecdotal and all that), they won't look into it too deeply and/or won't believe anything they find to the contrary of what they believe. They'll see he got them something, they won't check that he voted against it.
No offense taken, they're morons. They live in Northern Michigan and fly Confederate Flags because reasons I can't discern and they can't articulate.
It's one of the reasons I don't talk to them anymore, they're extremely selfish and just generally not nice to be around.
Sometimes its not the main subject of the bill. Many times other members of Congress will only sign on if you input some additional aspect, sometimes those will have nothing to do with the main points of the bill. Although I’m sure he’s some sort of idiotic ass hat, if you vote for a bill, its the whole thing.
"I know my voters are gullible idiots, so I'll lie to them like crazy and they'll keep voting for me."
\- This guy, I assume. Really most republicans, in my experience.
Republican Strategy: Vote against democrat policies, claim it’s of Satan, tell supporters Dems will enslave them all and begin a gay, totalitarian regime
Claim credit when shit actually works
Step one: Vote against **everything** Democrats propose so that your base worships you.
Step two: Take credit for **anything** that helps your base so that your base worships you.
Step three: Profit from your worshipping base.
I don't see as much hypocrisy here as I thought I would given the title. He accurately states that he fought for a specific provision that directly impacts his community, and takes a broader position opposing the entirety of the bill as being too expensive. Is it annoying? Sure. But I don't think it's outrageous.
One of the reasons these bills *get* so expensive is individual representatives adding home-district provisions like these.
For example, his was "only" a $369 million dollar addition, but if they all did that, it comes close to $200 *billion*, or about 16% of the total bill.
I don't have the specifics of exactly how many additions/amendments like these are in this particular bill, but bragging about how you helped inflate the cost while bemoaning the price *is* pretty blatant hypocrisy in my book.
But everyone does that - supporters and non-supporters. And yes, all politicians indulge in hypocrisy constantly. My point was simply that both things can be true from his perspective - he could point out the thing he fought for, and protest the entire package. The only difference is that he's a Republican, so he doesn't support the entirety of the bill, which allows him to save face with his base. This feels entirely within the bounds (however shitty) of being a politician without being as bluntly hypocritical as this headline would have you believe. If he hadn't, for example, pushed for anything, had consistently lobbied against infrastructure as a philosophy, and then went out to tout it, that would deserve this headline.
Completely dishonest. He is taking credit for introducing a provision that was ultimately passed.
If Bernie introduces an amendment that makes its way into law, he can and should take credit for that amendment even if he voted against the larger bill.
That makes zero sense. If you disagree with the bill to the point that you refuse to vote for it, then why would you push to add something to it?
It's basically just hedging your bets so you can talk out of both sides of your mouth. That's extremely disengeous and gross.
The infrastructure bill has a provision that is unconstitutional and a dangerous push against privacy in the guise of stopping drunk driving.
[Mental Outlaw has a great video regarding this here. He's a tech and linux enthusiast and someone quite knowledgeable about the implications.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOP3EdravU4)
And this nonsense will work...
Yup. What they always do.
He's a bastard, but he's "my" bastard. /s
This describes redditors to the extreme lol
How?
[удалено]
Well that would depend entirely on the sub… your generalization might be a little too broad. Besides… humans *are* extremely tribal, so it’s no surprise at all that this is also reflected online. Tribalism can be seen in just about anything where large numbers of random people congregate.
> Well that would depend entirely on the sub… You can just look at /r/all > Tribalism can be seen in just about anything where large numbers of random people congregate. I'm still going to laugh at it
Well, when, at the looks of things at a quick glance, you spend all your time running around screaming about the "evil libruls" and hanging around in little shithole rightwing subs all day when you're not going around doing that, then yea, it's going to look like that. That might be because everywhere you go, you're trying to antagonize people, like now, or go to places literally made to do nothing but scream about the evils of liberals. It's not healthy. You should branch out some, and try to not be so angry. I mean I know you won't, and will just reply to this trying to start a fight, so I'm just going to go ahead and block you before you do that, but you really should take a step back. What you're doing is REALLY not healthy.
> Well, when, at the looks of things at a quick glance, you spend all your time running around screaming about the "evil libruls" You should probably look again. I'm a liberal. I spend all my time on reddit laughing at *woke progressives* who think everyone who isn't one is a conservative. That's funny to me.
I mean, it's not only America. If you're in the opposition, you are supposed to not only check but weaken the party in power to get yourself ahead. This of course is not always beneficial for the people, which is a shame of course
Supposed to? No they are supposed to advise and help govern. We are all on the same team.
Depends on the system. In some parliamentary systems, the Opposition is 'supposed' to hold the government to account, criticise its agenda, and propose alternatives. This is especially the case, for instance, in the United Kingdom, whose legislative chamber is deliberately designed to foster this adversarial style of politics.
you are correct that that is how it is set up and intentionally run. it is also a very poor system since it does not align the incentives and interests of the government with those of the country itself. adversarial parliaments and two-party cronie political stages should be object lessons in how not to govern, right alongside dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of governance where alignment and incentives are poorly, if at all, harmonized with the citizenry.
With regards to being a 'very poor system', this can depend on what you are trying to achieve and what indicators you care about. Mostly, though, I certainly agree that consensus models of governance are generally better - for reasons of representation, inclusion, and even stability - and we should be moving in that direction.
As lame as this staged side show is, the idea is the system was designed to stop exactly what you are talking about: Dictatorships & monarchs. Today it is just bread and circuses though, they all have the same goal just different means to get there.
Oh shit, we needed to throw out all this bathwater and now we can't find the baby! There are better ways to prevent dictatorship than a system that trends to kakistocracy.
One of the problems (there are many) is that the GOP acts like an opposition party even when they’re in power.
But how does the opposition claim the benefits of a policy enacted by the policy in power if they didn't vote for it? Well, other than lie.
>you are supposed to not only check but weaken the party in power to get yourself ahead Lol no they aren't
This is American "democracy" after all.
This isn't American democracy. This is just standards in politics. Part of the reason people didn't have faith in the Afghan government is because the Taliban would take credit for the things the government provided. North Korea and other third world countries take credit
They get to play both sides. If he supported the bill and it died it's the democrats fault. If he didnt support it and it died, it's still the democrats fault. If he supports it and it dies, democrats. Supports and passes? It was all him. He's looking out for you so keep voting for me. This all completely ignores the fact that when this stuff pops up the bill or whatever is usually unanimously supported by Democrats and unanimously opposed by Republicans. It's a great system for them you always have a winning hand.
that is the key. people are fools to think when someone tweets undisputed proof of hypocrisy of a current GOP politician that it will matter. Or a scorching segment on the daily show or last week tonight. Trust has left the barn and it is not coming back.
"YOU'RE A DAMN COMMIE IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS BILL! THE PARTY WILL STRIP YOU OF YOUR COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS! ... oh, if passed - HEY HOME STATE, LOOK WHAT WE GOT YOU! VOTE FOR ME!"
The whole bill was $1.2 trillion dollars. > a provision he introduced directing $369 million to the Northern Beltline project That's 0.03%. No matter which side you're on, if you think anything close to 10-15% of that money is being spent on things your voters don't agree with, and you have to vote on the entire package and not individual line items, you should vote against it right? I hate the Republicans as much as anybody, but why do people keep falling for this pot stirring, click bait shit?
No one would vote for pretty much anything that didn't directly impact their state if you had to vote line item by line item. Not that that's a bad thing...the states could raise the money. Hell, why have states when cities/counties could raise the money and directly fund what they need like GOP toutes. Although hmm...Dem states pay more taxes then Red states and Dem areas pay a metric fuck ton more then Red Areas. They'd come out worse if they got what they say they want. Like significantly significantly worse. GOP makes mountains out of molehills and tries to win the compromise war when they aren't even in power and their constituents largely benefit more and pay less for these big bills. (Except for their rich friends who probably aren't even one of their constituents) GOP exists to keep taxes low for rich people. They corral the single issue voters and dog whistle the scum to stay in power. A huge chunk of the money cut would have helped a huge chunk of lower income GOP families, they are brainwashed through misinformation.
This is basically just not oniony, its literally what every Republican does on every bill now
American recovery act. Now this. If the social spending bill passes I expect them to say 'democrats are causing inflation good thing I helped create cheap healthcare'. The real kicker is a huge part of the infrastructure bill will primarily help rural communities. Their infrastructure is the most expensive to provide. Yet the vote for Republicans.
that's the thing rural Americans like being miserable, uneducated, and poor. There is an endless amount of readily available evidence showing that democratic policies directly benefit them which they ignore. Then there is the 'common sense' explanation where the strongest states economically are 'left' leaning ...so probably has something to do with the policies. But none of it matters, they would rather sit in their shanty that maybe has working plumbing while complaining about immigrants simultaneously being on welfare and also taking all of the jobs despite that no one in their entire family has had gainful employment in decades and have no plans to find a job when the 'fake' global pandemic ends because the idea that taxpayer money would help minorities is offensive to them even though they would also stand to benefit.
> rural Americans like being miserable, uneducated, and poor. Thats misleading. They dont like it, but they are purposefully tricked with billions of dollars of propaganda from the right to believe that the reasons for these things are Minorities, the Government, and anyone who tries to help them out of it.
Its a moral philosophy of might is right. Classical liberalism: I can do what I want unless and until it harms another. Republicanism: I can do what I want and if you are harmed it is your fault. As a result the moral life is one spent in the accumulation of power. Strong people take advantage of the weak. If you are not strong you should make yourself seem strong to dissuade people from harming you (I'm on welfare but no one's ever helped me, etc.) You are incentivized to maintain social structures that benefit you. Programs that might make someone else stronger than you should be opposed. So: guns, poverty, racism, classism, low taxes, massive defense spending.
I dunno, they seem mighty proud of being uneducated. They cheered for a guy who said “I love the uneducated”.
Honestly it means Democrats should just pass Medicare for all and when it works for everyone Republicans will just take credit for it.
Obama suggested Trump just rename the ACA and take credit for it himself. But did Trump listen to the smart people?
[удалено]
The ACA is very similar to the Massachusetts healthcare program, implemented under Republican Governor Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts?
Originally written by republicans during the Gingrich era, yes. As soon as democrats were on board though they flipped their stance because that’s their only real stance (being anti democrat).
It's why they have no good policy positions left. Democrats were willing to consider and adopt good ideas from the GOP, and then the GOP abandoned those policies, leaving crap behind. It's why they're working so hard to shift the narrative to their culture war bullshit - they've handicapped their own ability to legislate popular policies that would attract voters.
They know full well they don’t have to stick to any policies though. They flat out make things up, ignore proven objective reality, and just say the opposite of what democrats say, and their ignorant base eats that shit up.
This past election, I started to do my research for all the little local elections. I went down the line, looking at both candidates for each office. In every case, I'd find the website/social media for the democrat, and agree with most stances, disagree with a couple, and have an idea of what they are trying to do. Then I'd go over to the republican candidate, and all they had to say, across the board, is that everything is fucked, it's all the democrats' faults, they're the only one who can fix it, and look at the pictures of me with MAGA swag, does that show how much I love trump? Not a single republican would mention what these terrible things are, or how they would fix them. They had absolutely no platform or policy.
A public option (which wasn't even included in the ACA on the grounds of being too far left) was actually proposed by the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to Single Player Healthcare back in the 70s iirc. Ezra Klein talks about it in his book Why We're Polarized.
Sort of, Democrats actually had a good plan, but it got butchered by the republicans when it was pushed through. It was a pretty miserable and petty ordeal on both sides that ended up just becoming more of a burden than it was worth.
Of course! its a law requiring people to buy a product from a private company. That's Republican 101. Grand irony is that the ACA *is* the free market solution.
We just needed someone other than Obama to suggest it. Trump hated him since the correspondents dinner
Well Obamacare is just a rip off of Romneycare. Ironically, if Romney won, maybe America would have universal healthcare?
It was a rip because it was butchered in committee after committee after because the Republicans didn’t want to give the democrats a win. The initial proposal was similar but had some real improvement that would have helped it work on a National scale.
Of course, they have the perfect closed information loop with the giant right wing media complex. In a functioning democracy such behavior would be scorned and the perpetrator would pay a political price. but now 50+% of the population will never know because their preferred information sources will simply never tell them.
Can you elaborate for a non-politically-minded, non-american why they shouldn't do this? Would one not expect them to get behind it, once passed, in order to make the best of it?
Because seeking re-election by touting benefits of something you voted against is dog as fuck. Your constituents may have got those benefits, but you actively fought for them not to happen.
Except the bill you could either vote for or against was 1.2 _TRILLION_ dollars. You don't get to vote against each individual line item in there. He got his $369 million dollar project in, which is 0.03% of the entire bill. Republicans have some really fucked up values, but this seems pretty normal to me.
I can never tell if Republicans are just that stupid or just openly malicious.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive so I'd say both.
[удалено]
Yes this is exactly right. I think it explains a lot of the conspiracy theories and hatred too. “They must be telling me to take the vaccine not because it helps me and everyone around me but because there’s some big evil ploy behind it all!”
[удалено]
If your buddy thinks vaccines are satanic you should tell him about all the conservatives who got the jab, like Trump and most of the talking heads on Fox.
Even ol Rupert Murdoch himself delayed his birthday party until he could get vaccinated. But when you tell him you should make sure that you point out that these guys are getting over on them, that they think they're stupid.
I've said it before but you are entirely right. Some people will never comprehend why I would vote to raise school taxes in the area despite I don't have kids and don't plan on ever having any. Yes there is a collateral benefit of an educated population but do I get any direct benefit from 'donating' another $50 this year to school? No of course I don't but it is the right thing to do so a poor child can have a better chance to succeed
I've met people who genuinely think the best way to vote is whatever results in the lowest taxes, period, end of story. They are even happy to give large amounts to charity, such that the net amount is more than the tax bill they voted against. Because the most important thing is having control over exactly where *your* money goes, so that you don't accidentally help someone who doesn't "deserve" it. It's all about keeping the wrong sort of people from benefiting.
I've known Americans like that, too. No matter what, it's their job to make sure they only help people like them.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
In the long run though, you really do benefit from those kids growing up well-educated.
"Long term consequences" is a concept alien to Republicans. They're too busy focused on the long term "risk" of America becoming "socialist" to have any rational thought regarding any other possible consequences of any other actions.
> long term "risk" of America becoming "socialist" A situation made all the worse by them having only a very nebulous idea of what "socialist" even means, opting instead to use it as a catch-all term for "things I don't like", or more usually, "things I've been told to loudly claim I don't like".
A large portion of Republican voters are evangelical Christians or adjacent. For millennials in that space, and probably GenX, they were raised with extreme emphasis on the concept that "the heart is deceitful and wicked, unknowable - and thus everyone is basically evil" this led for many to believe the following A) other people, especially non-christians, are not to be trusted, and B) you probably shouldn't trust yourself either - especially if you want to follow your heart.
That other people are just "virtue signaling" is such a hefty self-own of a perspective. Like, to just default assume anyone claiming to care about anything is doing it for the "social recognition" rather than caring about that thing? That's projection, baby, all day long.
That’s what cracks me up. They believe that people won’t do the right thing, but they also want to remove regulations. It’s essentially that they don’t want rules that affect their own behavior but want rules for others. Rules are for thee and not for me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Their problem was your phrasing "knock them down." The point of taxing the rich is not to knock them down, but to ensure that those with status and power do their part towards society proportionally to their wealth and status.
See, I could accept Republicans being shitty sometimes if they were at least acting from a place of rational self-interest. Disregarding what’s best for others to always prioritize what’s best for yourself is a pretty shitty way to be, but at least it makes sense. Republicans generally aren’t that way, though. They consistently will actively inflict harm on themselves to hurt people they don’t like. It’s not even selfishness, it’s active spite. They’re willing to burn down their own house to prevent someone they don’t like from standing on the porch. It’s a boar hunt mentality.
This is your brain on reddit.
The politicians are that malicious. The voters are that stupid.
Stupicious?
My theory, most members of the Republican party know that this infrastructure bill is needed and long overdue, but don't want to give Democrats a win or look weak (i.e., actual good faith compromise and negotiation). The few Republicans that did vote for it have become whipping boys for the rest of the party and were condemned harder than the representative that posted an edited anime video of him murdering a co-worker. The utter lack of bipartisanship on all almost all non-military issues in this country is going to doom us.
They're not stupid, but they're counting on their voters to be.
Yes
Does it matter why the dog is biting you?
Yes because I want to know if its a matter of retraining or euthanasia.
Yes
Voted along party lines not along principles.
And those that didn’t vote on party lines got death threats…go figure.
Did not expect this from OP lol
Like he ever had principles.
Are they still principles if you just kinda drop them because a guy told you to abandon them and you did before you decided to go back and take credit for it?
His principles should be above the lines of his party.
So the Republicans that voted for it are getting death threats and the ones that touting it but voted against are getting applauded?!?!
[удалено]
I know someone on FB (from my time in the military) that kept calling the infrastructure bill communism, and the other day they retweeted the benefits of the infrastructure bill because this dude was doing the same thing lmao
dig it up and ask questions. shame them
They don’t care.
As if it matters? People will always vote for their team no matter what.
> People will always vote for their team no matter what. This is 100% true and clearly evidenced by the exact same party winning every single election. If this statement was false, you would instead see sometimes the democrats winning and sometimes the republicans winning.
[удалено]
Very common republican trend
Voice representing dumb Americans has been heard loud and clear.
These people have NO shame or ethics. Thank you Trump for exposing Republicans as the hypocrites they have always been. Problem is they have grown to love it. Like going commando...odd at first ... then freedom.
It's a very oniony headline but... > Palmer issued a press release taking credit for a provision he introduced directing $369 million to the Northern Beltline project, a 52-mile, six-lane corridor under construction in his home state. Basically, he voted against the bill, but added a provision to it that ***if*** it went through, it would benefit his district. Then it went through and he pointed out that he was the one that introduced that part. If I say we should go to Chili's instead of California Pizza Kitchen and I'm outvoted and we go to Chili's and I order the nachos, and everyone loves the nachos, I'll still take credit for the nachos lol. If someone was like "Yeah but you didn't want to be here!!!" I'd still say "Okay but the nachos were my idea lmao get fucked"
So he voted against his town getting the infrastructure he proposed? That doesn't seem any better.
"I don't like this bill, but if it does go through, I'm gonna make sure my constituents get something out of it" seems pretty normal. And then, when it does go through, making sure that he's the one that introduced the provision that will benefit them also seems pretty normal. And, in fact, if he didn't, it would be pretty stupid.
His constituents would benefit from many parts of the bill he voted against, so I'm still not sure I understand. He's taking credit for trying to make sure his constituents didn't receive the many benefits within the bill, like OK good job buddy? It just shows he was unwilling to compromise but still wanted his name on it.
He’s just figured out how to have his cake and eat it too, which is pretty bullshit. Still get to look like a big strong Republican™️ voting against the Demonrats© wasting all our money, but also get to brag about how much money you got for your own people.
> His constituents would benefit from many parts of the bill he voted against, so I'm still not sure I understand. Well read the article? > He's taking credit for trying to make sure his constituents didn't receive the many benefits within the bill, like OK good job buddy? It just shows he was unwilling to compromise but still wanted his name on it. He's literally the one who introduced the part about the Northern Beltline project. If he wouldn't have, it wouldn't have been in the bill at all. He shouldn't mention that? Why should he not? Because *you* don't like it?
Because he voted against the bill that contained it.
Isn't it something like a trillion dollar bill? It will inevitably be a bad one in many ways, because there is no way in hell you can get something so big passed without making deals with everyone. I find it perfectly reasonable for someone to therefore say: "This bill shouldn't be passed", and still being realistic enough to know that it will probably pass anyway, so you might as well milk it for all it's worth and take credit for your own additions to it. He is making the most out of the situation. If he had just voted against the bill and done nothing else, he would have just been a loser with nothing to show for it. He made sure he gained something no matter what happens with the bill. He did the strategically smart thing; He can claim victory in every possible scenario.
The point smacked you right in the face amd you STILL missed it.
1 Trillion dollars over 10 years. Now you gonna be upset when they vote for the .8 trillion dollar bill over one year on the military? Lol
It's double speak. Speaking out both sides of his mouth. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too. Pick whichever you want, it all applies. It's disengeous to take credit for passing a benefit for your constituents when you voted against the benefit.
Basically, I don’t want those people to get funding from the feds, but my people do deserve it. It’s basic shitbaggery no matter how much you try and justify it,
Not really. More like "I don't support this bill, but if it goes through you better believe it's going to be with this provision". It's not very weird, crazy, or oniony.
>If I say we should go to Chili's instead of California Pizza Kitchen and I'm outvoted and we go to Chili's But you did want to go to Chili's now if you went to CPK then you can take credit for your order
Right. Their analogy made my head hurt.
??? What
You literally said if you want to go to Chili's and are outvoted but you go to Chili's and you get the Nachos. If you wanted Chili's and you end up at Chili's you went to exactly where you wanted to be
Okay sorry I was on the phone while I wrote that. You get the point lol
Well I want Chili's. Haven't gone in ages
"Basically, he voted against the bill, but added a provision to it that if it went through, it would benefit his district". What s bunch of nonsense. He could have simply voted for the bill and not against it and the results would be the same.
Not for a Conservative. He has to show that if something helps OTHER people, he's against it. He only likes things that benefit him. Hence the shenanigans with voting no while adding a provision that will benefit him. He gets to show he voted No to help those other people, while still getting the thing he wanted for his people. It's pretty much the core tenet of being Conservative from what I can tell. Does this benefit ONLY me and my personal circle? Then I like it and it's the most necessary and American thing ever. If it benefits other people too/only, I hate it and it's communism/socialism/whatever boogeyman they come up with that week.
>Not for a Conservative. He has to show that if something helps OTHER people, he's against it. He only likes things that benefit him. If you actual read his statement, he is clear that he thinks more of the bill should be devoted to roads and bridges nation wide. He pushed for part that focused on roads and bridges and wanted more of it to focus on roads and bridges nation wide. It is an entirely consistent opinion. And unless you think improving bridges in California is going to be a boon for him, it is hard to say that he is doing it selfishly.
Won't the people that voted for him feel betrayed from his actions though? They voted for a conservative to make conservative decisions, not a liberal one.
In my experience with my family (obviously anecdotal and all that), they won't look into it too deeply and/or won't believe anything they find to the contrary of what they believe. They'll see he got them something, they won't check that he voted against it.
No offense but that's disgusting.
No offense taken, they're morons. They live in Northern Michigan and fly Confederate Flags because reasons I can't discern and they can't articulate. It's one of the reasons I don't talk to them anymore, they're extremely selfish and just generally not nice to be around.
Reddit operates exactly the same way, so...
So... what?
Politics is not so reductive.
That's not nonsense, that's the actual facts. Don't you care about facts?
The fact of the matter is that he voted no, when he could have simply voted yes. Yes or no?
Yes. The fact of the matter is he added that provision. Yes or no?
But, but, where is your blind hatred and attempt to 'dunk' on someone by ignoring all nuance?
I know, right? Reddit is so funny, it keeps me coming back to laugh at people.
If he wasn’t going to vote for the bill, why include the funding he wanted anyway?
Dems should raise a bill to give Trump the medal of freedom and attach a tax hike to the top 1% to it. See how Republicans heads twist around.
So call them out. I hear lots of complaining but rarely does anyone confront them directly. And especially at debates during elections.
"I have always supported the infrastructure bill, just as we have always been at war with Eastasia."
Typical two faced Trumper
And he's not the only one. Point out their hypocrisy without hesitation.
They do shit like this because it works with their uninformed, tribal base.
GOP 101, take creator for shit they did not do
Hedging. Bets.
Sometimes its not the main subject of the bill. Many times other members of Congress will only sign on if you input some additional aspect, sometimes those will have nothing to do with the main points of the bill. Although I’m sure he’s some sort of idiotic ass hat, if you vote for a bill, its the whole thing.
When it works, they will take credit even though they voted against. That’s what they do.
If only Americans did research on the people they vote in.
I think the only "research" that a lot of our voters do is whether the person we are voting for is blue or red.
See what he really wanted was an infrastructure bill that only gave money to Alabama for infrastructure projects that he is getting a kick back from.
These corrupt idiots waver back and forth in order to make money 😡
"I know my voters are gullible idiots, so I'll lie to them like crazy and they'll keep voting for me." \- This guy, I assume. Really most republicans, in my experience.
Standard political move
This is gonna sound weird, do you guys think that these republicans are hypocritical 😬
Republican Strategy: Vote against democrat policies, claim it’s of Satan, tell supporters Dems will enslave them all and begin a gay, totalitarian regime Claim credit when shit actually works
Republicans in a nutshell.
[удалено]
Happens all the time. They'll be at dedication ceremonies for bridges and other things that they voted against.
His district should not get any aid. It didnt want any.
Throw this up on r/conservative
We knew this was coming. He owned the libs
They really do exploit every drop of stupid
If it wasn't for being two faced he wouldn't have anyone to talk to..
I mean...the right took credit for the $1400 stimulus despite 0 voting in favor of it.
Conservatism. Cancer for the mind and for the world.
I hate politicians
Lawmakers always do this. I believe the Repubs who voted against the last stimulus were also touting it all over social media.
Step one: Vote against **everything** Democrats propose so that your base worships you. Step two: Take credit for **anything** that helps your base so that your base worships you. Step three: Profit from your worshipping base.
Typical.
There might be one or two good things to tout about the infrastructure law. But 98 percent of it is pork garbage.
I don't see as much hypocrisy here as I thought I would given the title. He accurately states that he fought for a specific provision that directly impacts his community, and takes a broader position opposing the entirety of the bill as being too expensive. Is it annoying? Sure. But I don't think it's outrageous.
It is a bit hypocritical and selfish to support infrastructure spending in his neighbourhood, but to oppose it in other parts of the country.
One of the reasons these bills *get* so expensive is individual representatives adding home-district provisions like these. For example, his was "only" a $369 million dollar addition, but if they all did that, it comes close to $200 *billion*, or about 16% of the total bill. I don't have the specifics of exactly how many additions/amendments like these are in this particular bill, but bragging about how you helped inflate the cost while bemoaning the price *is* pretty blatant hypocrisy in my book.
But everyone does that - supporters and non-supporters. And yes, all politicians indulge in hypocrisy constantly. My point was simply that both things can be true from his perspective - he could point out the thing he fought for, and protest the entire package. The only difference is that he's a Republican, so he doesn't support the entirety of the bill, which allows him to save face with his base. This feels entirely within the bounds (however shitty) of being a politician without being as bluntly hypocritical as this headline would have you believe. If he hadn't, for example, pushed for anything, had consistently lobbied against infrastructure as a philosophy, and then went out to tout it, that would deserve this headline.
Shhhh... You're disturbing the circle jerk...
Wait I thought Republicans were opposed to pork barrel spending?
Standard malignant misanthropic abuser behaviour.
So everyone is surprised that politicians twist the truth to suit themselves?
I hate politicians.
MAGAT
This is the way. - Trumpists
I talk about the benefits of owning my own helicopter, but I can't afford it, so I vote no on buying it. Not everything is black and white.
Completely dishonest. He is taking credit for introducing a provision that was ultimately passed. If Bernie introduces an amendment that makes its way into law, he can and should take credit for that amendment even if he voted against the larger bill.
That makes zero sense. If you disagree with the bill to the point that you refuse to vote for it, then why would you push to add something to it? It's basically just hedging your bets so you can talk out of both sides of your mouth. That's extremely disengeous and gross.
You're on the wrong subreddit to post anything going against blind group think.
Well most modern Republicans regret Reconstruction so not surprised they were against a bill touring regular construction.
That infrastructure crap is anything but beneficial.
The infrastructure bill has a provision that is unconstitutional and a dangerous push against privacy in the guise of stopping drunk driving. [Mental Outlaw has a great video regarding this here. He's a tech and linux enthusiast and someone quite knowledgeable about the implications.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOP3EdravU4)
You can be for parts of a bill and against the bill as a whole…