• Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    1 year ago

    Both sides didn’t dig their heels in and refuse to compromise. One side compromised plenty to the annoyance of their voters (dems giving concessions to republicans)

    The other side never compromised, then said “fuck you”, claimed dems are at fault, stormed the capitol and acted like those “maga extremists” were the normal ones.

    This isn’t a both sides thing when one side is fucking committing insurrection while shutting down the gov, that’s not on democrats.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      I didn’t say Democrats were wrong for refusing to compromise in this situation. If I were a member of the House, I’d sit back and watch them eat themselves too.

      Both sides are refusing to compromise. Just for completely different reasons. Democrats are refusing to compromise because the GOP policies are untenable, they repeatedly go back on their word, and it’s not their responsibility to save the GOP from themselves (again). Republicans are refusing to compromise because they have the collective mentality of a 7 year old, their own (now former) speaker just went on record yesterday saying that they know they’re supposed to compromise but just don’t want to because they’re the majority party and fuck you that’s why.

      My statement about neither side being willing to compromise wasn’t a “both sides” attack. It was merely an acknowledgement of the current situation. The reasons why they refuse to compromise are what separates the two sides.

      • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you. It’s critically important to recognize that each party does do similar things sometimes, but it’s also crucial to recognize the difference in motivation behind those similar actions, and to acknowledge that the motivation is sometimes just as important as the action that results from the motivation.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s just a fundamentally flawed system since it’s always easier to campaign AGAINST something instead of FOR something since the moment you make a constructive offer you’re making yourself attachable while being destructive works without being open for attacks of any kind

      Normally this can be resolved by there being too many parties and too many different viewpoints to oppose all of them without being crazy - but with just two parties it gets too easy to see every of those two as a single entity as and just oppose whatever they are doing