This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have a post rolling around in my head around that, but it basically comes down to Trump not really liking to do legislation since it's harder than doing EO's, and the party and especially the base broadly respecting that. Trump absolutely could pass sweeping immigration reform if he wanted to, but he doesn't really want to.
I think legislative efforts could be made without really compromising EOs - theres more than enough people "on board" now. Theres even all sorts of MAGA congresscritters who are presumably doing *something * with their time/staffers. And thinktanks willing to assist. What youre saying makes sense if Trump actively dislikes legislation (why?), but not if he just puts lower priority on it.
I mean sure, he could do both EOs and legislation. But he treats EOs as an end unto themselves, and the MAGA base broadly goes along with it, then goes SuprisedPickachuFace.png when Dems revoke them with a stroke of a pen. Then MAGA rewrites history so that EO's are the only thing that matter, implying things like legislation is fake and winning the Presidency is the only thing that ever matters. This thread has responses that motion towards those ideas a lot.
Trump doesn't actually like making deals that much, he likes having done deals, and announcing that he's a great dealmaker, etc. Biden was far more involved in getting deals across the finish line even in his diminished state than Trump was during either of his two terms. Trump has told a few House obstinate R reps to essentially fuck off and has broadly mentioned he doesn't want huge Medicaid cuts, but he's really not pushing on a day-to-day basis to get legislation done.
Putting a "lower priority" on legislation often means the legislation just doesn't happen, since political capital has an expiration date. There's no reason Trump couldn't have done an immigration deal in his first term when he had a trifecta, but he just... never did it.
I dont think this really addresses what I asked. Its just repeating "Trump doesnt focus on it", when I said I dont think he needs to. The closest thing to a limited resource youve mentioned is political deals, since theres only so many important considerations someone can be given - but the EOs havent involved any concessions. If its about the negotiations themselves, they could be done by someone other than Trump with him approving the result.
Basically, if Trump isnt actively against legislation, and there isnt a real obstacle to it, then any one of many MAGA politicians could do it, but they apparently dont. Wanderers comment is a more serious explanation than what youre doing here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link