No. There's a difference between accepting that it's an unfortunate part of politics in this country and stating that it's "not hard to defend it" because the other side did it. That's absolutely a "Well he started it" argument. You didn't even show the actions, you merely alluded to them. We can go all the way back to Adams to find examples of Congress and the president butting heads on foreign policy to varying extent, but you didn't actually mention a single instance. Either way, if it's "not right", why would you find it so easy to defend? Acceptance is a very different matter.
I made it through the 2012 election by stumping for Gary Johnson. Like I said, I'm looking for someone to address the current state of politics. 3rd party candidates have long had an impact on the two major parties, just not in recent years. The system is due for a shakeup at a level we haven't seen for nearly 100 years.
And I don't believe politics are business as usual these days. The tone remains the same, but the tenor has changed. Whatever chaotic elegance once existed is gone. Defiant ignorance is embraced in a way I'm not sure we've seen since 1832 if ever. Given the broad and unprecedented access to information we have, it's particularly concerning.
I disagree with the bolded. The former argument was the one I was making, or thought I was anyway. This IS a part of politics, and as you said it's been happening since the days of Adams. I didn't think I needed to recount all of the instances of Democrats going against GOP Presidents in exactly the same way, when a simple google search can provide plenty of instances such as these;
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him.
In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy.
House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Ortega.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime.
Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975.
I couldn't agree more with your last two paragraphs. I also voted for Johnson.
OK, a failed foreign policy from the 80's that should have resulted in the president's impeachment, and democrats not agreeing with most of Bush's policies. You have to be kidding me about the former, as it has no bearing on discussion of recent history. The latter is how dissension is supposed to work. In neither case was the opposition overstepping their bounds.
Either way the presidents involved were on the wrong side of public sentiment, not that it means anything.
Sidestepping a sitting president on foreign policy goes against every rule that exists. They can debate all they want on the floor of congress, but what they did in both the cases I mentioned were at the very least 'borderline' treasonous actions.
Literally every one of these is a bullshit rationalization because your chosen President is under fire. According to you dissension is supposed to work by meeting with the opposition, BUT GOD FORBID YOU SEND THEM A LETTER. Why can't you just acknowledge that this is a practice that our government has been taking part in for years, for better or worse. Usually worse.
As far as Steven A's recent comments, I'm not going to pretend to be an authority on the black vote like so many of you, but IMHO I think this is his response to the absolute vitriol he sees whenever a black voice out of the crowd identifies with the Republican party. Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Carson, Tim Scott, Mia Love. All immediately branded by their own communities as traitors, uncle Tom's, "house negro." etc. Without even getting into whether there is justification for this, how is that healthy or beneficial? Juan Williams' son was attack by some idiot at Vibe for not being black, and then when it was proven conclusively through the wonders of photography that he was black, he wasn't "black enough." How is that line of thinking not completely stupid? How about having a conversation and debating issues before settling race and genetics.
Also, not for nothing but the starting point to this conversation for some of you was "Republicans are racist!" Not really an objective starting place.
On another topic, a former constitutional law professor is talking about how the mandatory vote would be a great idea. I mean it's easy to blur the lines sometimes when rights aren't enumerated, but unfortunately, I think LIBERTY happens to be spelled out pretty clearly. The right to vote or not vote is pretty central to that idea one would think.
