What would that public pressure look like? An increasing majority blames Trump for the wall, and he doesn't care. Most MAGA types support the shutdown because they either don't think it affects them, or don't care because it hurts the right people. Hannity will keep telling Trump that capitulating is weak.
Like, which public is going to put pressure on who to make this stop?
I think some people are going to cave and start yelling at the Dems, "UGH JUST GIVE HIM THE FUCKING WALL MONEY ALREADY."
What would that public pressure look like? An increasing majority blames Trump for the wall, and he doesn't care. Most MAGA types support the shutdown because they either don't think it affects them, or don't care because it hurts the right people. Hannity will keep telling Trump that capitulating is weak.
Like, which public is going to put pressure on who to make this stop?
I think some people are going to cave and start yelling at the Dems, "UGH JUST GIVE HIM THE FUCKING WALL MONEY ALREADY."
What would that public pressure look like? An increasing majority blames Trump for the wall, and he doesn't care. Most MAGA types support the shutdown because they either don't think it affects them, or don't care because it hurts the right people. Hannity will keep telling Trump that capitulating is weak.
Like, which public is going to put pressure on who to make this stop?
I think some people are going to cave and start yelling at the Dems, "UGH JUST GIVE HIM THE FUCKING WALL MONEY ALREADY."
We call those people journalists.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm sure some will, and I hope they don't. I hate that we're in a situation where people's livelihoods (and possibly lives) are caught in a game of chicken, but if they give into this then it'll only get worse. Cave now and Trump/the Administration will have merely spent the last month establishing how far they have to push things to get their way.
Don't get me wrong with my last post, that was a musing aloud about at what point the pressure becomes impossible, and I really hope the GOP blinks first. I think some of the cracking at the foundations we've seen in the house indicates the way that might go, not in a way I'd put money on, but I really hope that this ends soon and without creating a precedent problem that will come up again sooner rather than later.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I'm kinda worried here, because I don't see a viable exit anymore. Mitch McConnell will not cave, because he's scared of being primaried. Trump will not cave, because he doesn't care about anything but winning his toy.
Dems shouldn't cave, because it just means this will keep happening every time Trump wants something, but this puts them in the position of being the guy in the action movie whose wife is being tortured until he gives up the launch codes that let the terrorists nuke the eastern seaboard, and that guy always frickin caves.
I could maybe see a legislative coup over McConnell. Unfortunately the Senate doesn't have a Discharge Petition, but I think enough Senators can force the issue where either the vote occurs or a new Majority Leader vote occurs.
Additionally, the economy at large lurching into the already forewarned recession would put considerable pressure on the administration.
Maybe not on the administration, since Trump's a loon who doesn't listen to things outside of his echo chamber. I think he has fully embraced the fantasy that everybody in the country actually loves him. But I think it would put considerable pressure on Senators, who are much more forward thinking. Why put the big banks at risk when they rely on them to fund their campaigns?
There’s also a State of the Union on the horizon. Whether that’s an ill omen for our democracy or another source of pressure to end this thing is questionable.
Polling is overwhelmingly blaming Trump and the Republicans right now, no? Trump in particular keeps tossing out easy soundbites while Pelosi and Schumer are holding strong.
I don't see people (outside of the usual suspects) blaming Democrats any time soon.
There’s also a State of the Union on the horizon. Whether that’s an ill omen for our democracy or another source of pressure to end this thing is questionable.
It would be mighty hilarious, in a you gotta laugh at the darkness kind of way, to have a totally fucked federal government while the president went out to say the state of the union is strong.
+21
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I think there's another path out: Distraction.
We all know Trump can't stay focused on anything. He prefers if others take care of his problems. He likes to delegate. That was the subtext in his "I'll own the shutdown" line - he, as the boss, is used to taking on that stuff but he still expects his subordinates to hammer out the deal. So far, he sees the Legislature as his employees - and the Republicans are fine with this.
If something were to come along to distract Trump enough for him to spend, like, a day or two not thinking about the shutdown, he'd signal indifference enough that Mitch could vote through the clean CR.
Now, this won't happen as long as Fox News and other pundits continue screaming about the shutdown. But if it becomes the status quo where it isn't the top news story, or if something even bigger/more drastic comes along, then we'll see a shift.
Things I can think of that would be that big:
1) Anything with the Mueller investigation coming out.
2) Something happening in the Middle East, especially if it involves the Syria withdrawl
3) Some kind of natural disaster that the gov't can't respond to on shutdown.
4) Some kind of political pressure from our allies or from China.
Now, the consequences of any of these would be dire. But it would give juuuust a bit of wiggle room that they could slip out something to release the hostages.
There’s also a State of the Union on the horizon. Whether that’s an ill omen for our democracy or another source of pressure to end this thing is questionable.
didn't last year's shutdown (ugh, what a phrase) also push back the SotU?
What would that public pressure look like? An increasing majority blames Trump for the wall, and he doesn't care. Most MAGA types support the shutdown because they either don't think it affects them, or don't care because it hurts the right people. Hannity will keep telling Trump that capitulating is weak.
Like, which public is going to put pressure on who to make this stop?
I think some people are going to cave and start yelling at the Dems, "UGH JUST GIVE HIM THE FUCKING WALL MONEY ALREADY."
We call those people journalists.
I just call it most of the people I went to highschool and college with and most of my family.
The bill, called the End Government Shutdowns Act, was introduced Friday by U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Steve Daines (R-MT), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Barrasso (R-WY), Jim Risch (R-ID), and Mike Lee (R-UT).
According to them, the bill will "permanently prevent the federal government from shutting down, ensuring that essential government services aren’t disrupted and protecting taxpayers who must bear the resulting cost."
The End Government Shutdowns Act will create an automatic continuing resolution (CR) for any regular appropriations bill not completed by the October 1 deadline, according to to the Senate news release.
From there, after the first 120 days, CR funding will be "reduced by one percent and would be reduced by one percent again every 90 days thereafter until Congress does its job and completes the annual appropriations process."
So close and yet so far.
This would just mean that Republicans refuse to pass any budget legislation under a Democratic President, since 4 years would only be a 14% reduction in budget.
There’s also a State of the Union on the horizon. Whether that’s an ill omen for our democracy or another source of pressure to end this thing is questionable.
It would be mighty hilarious, in a you gotta laugh at the darkness kind of way, to have a totally fucked federal government while the president went out to say the state of the union is strong.
I would hope Dems should boycott en-mass. You know the state of the union, it doesn't currently exist.
What would that public pressure look like? An increasing majority blames Trump for the wall, and he doesn't care. Most MAGA types support the shutdown because they either don't think it affects them, or don't care because it hurts the right people. Hannity will keep telling Trump that capitulating is weak.
Like, which public is going to put pressure on who to make this stop?
I think some people are going to cave and start yelling at the Dems, "UGH JUST GIVE HIM THE FUCKING WALL MONEY ALREADY."
No.
That's not a very inspired retort. You can disagree with it, and I do too, but eventually at least some the federal employees essentially getting financially tortured will lash out.
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
I mean, we can make it so that Government Shutdowns don't happen and this sort of hostage-taking showmanship can't be attempted again
Can you do that outside of a Constitutional amendment?
Yes...ish.
Congress sets the budget or doesn't causing a funding gap. Congress passed the law that causes shutdowns to happen during a funding gap.
Congress can change what happens when a budget isn't passed so gaps don't happen (such as continuing previous budget), or how funding gaps impact operation (such as returning to the Carter-era handling where operations continue while departments have money on hand so shutdowns aren't all at once)
The -ish comes in because a future Congress can say bother that noise and undo it and plunge us into another shutdown anyway.
I think they could structure the law in such a way to discourage that, though. Currently, inaction leads to a shutdown, so everyone can just say, "Oh, I don't want a shutdown, but what can we doooooo" and then sit on their hands and a shutdown occurs.
If there was a law that said that, in the event of inaction, government keeps trucking along at current funding levels (or whatever), a shutdown would still be possible, but only if Congress specifically passed a bill to shut the government down and the president signed it. Which is exceptionally unlikely to ever occur.
But that's an event that already happened. It was the antidefficiency act, and to an extent the Civiletti Opinion on it.
I don't know what happened before the ADA, but during the Ford administration, we went from not having funding gaps and shutdowns to having funding gaps and shutdowns.
Edit: that was done without the hindsight the last seven administrations have given us, but you cannot look at our political parties today and say neither of them would ever play chicken with the government ever again if we just go ahead and set the parking brake now.
What would that public pressure look like? An increasing majority blames Trump for the wall, and he doesn't care. Most MAGA types support the shutdown because they either don't think it affects them, or don't care because it hurts the right people. Hannity will keep telling Trump that capitulating is weak.
Like, which public is going to put pressure on who to make this stop?
Public pressure can work on Republican congresspeople, who in turn can pressure either Trump or McConnell to fold. Several GOP Senators and House members are already calling for an end to the shutdown. Hopefully enough GOP members turn to force an end to the shutdown.
The bill, called the End Government Shutdowns Act, was introduced Friday by U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Steve Daines (R-MT), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Barrasso (R-WY), Jim Risch (R-ID), and Mike Lee (R-UT).
According to them, the bill will "permanently prevent the federal government from shutting down, ensuring that essential government services aren’t disrupted and protecting taxpayers who must bear the resulting cost."
The End Government Shutdowns Act will create an automatic continuing resolution (CR) for any regular appropriations bill not completed by the October 1 deadline, according to to the Senate news release.
From there, after the first 120 days, CR funding will be "reduced by one percent and would be reduced by one percent again every 90 days thereafter until Congress does its job and completes the annual appropriations process."
So close and yet so far.
This would just mean that Republicans refuse to pass any budget legislation under a Democratic President, since 4 years would only be a 14% reduction in budget.
As Bobby Kogan, chief mathematician for the Senate Budget Committee, explains, this is actually a giant trap of a bill to allow the GOP to cut funding for popular social welfare programs without having direct connection to voting to defund them:
The bill, called the End Government Shutdowns Act, was introduced Friday by U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Steve Daines (R-MT), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Barrasso (R-WY), Jim Risch (R-ID), and Mike Lee (R-UT).
According to them, the bill will "permanently prevent the federal government from shutting down, ensuring that essential government services aren’t disrupted and protecting taxpayers who must bear the resulting cost."
The End Government Shutdowns Act will create an automatic continuing resolution (CR) for any regular appropriations bill not completed by the October 1 deadline, according to to the Senate news release.
From there, after the first 120 days, CR funding will be "reduced by one percent and would be reduced by one percent again every 90 days thereafter until Congress does its job and completes the annual appropriations process."
So close and yet so far.
This would just mean that Republicans refuse to pass any budget legislation under a Democratic President, since 4 years would only be a 14% reduction in budget.
That's almost a pretty good bill.
If we could get that along with getting rid of the pork spending ban, it might even work itself out, since GOP congresscritters love them some pork, and would have to vote through new budgets to get it.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
In things you probably didn't realize were being affected.
Scientists were set to release a new World Magnetic Model after accelerating changes in earth's magnetic field, but the US government shutdown stopped them from for now. Navigation as we know it could be in jeopardy.
Trump's "friends" and the party's donors will become inconvenienced and annoyed at some level of deterioration.
Shrugging Atlases will tend to cave if they need to fend for themselves. Even the people who make rich people look poor want to live in countries with government-provided services, because people-money is barely spare change to nation-money.
They could leave, of course, if airtravel hasn't ceased to exist by the time they notice that they aren't supermen.
Oh, also, a reminder that McConnell is entirely full of shit. The President doesn't have to sign legislation for it to become law. If the Senate passes the House Bill and Trump does nothing it comes into force 10 days (not counting Sundays) later.
What would that public pressure look like? An increasing majority blames Trump for the wall, and he doesn't care. Most MAGA types support the shutdown because they either don't think it affects them, or don't care because it hurts the right people. Hannity will keep telling Trump that capitulating is weak.
Like, which public is going to put pressure on who to make this stop?
I think some people are going to cave and start yelling at the Dems, "UGH JUST GIVE HIM THE FUCKING WALL MONEY ALREADY."
No.
That's not a very inspired retort. You can disagree with it, and I do too, but eventually at least some the federal employees essentially getting financially tortured will lash out.
At Trump, quite likely. Especially since he's now on record rejecting compromises.
The two YouGov polls found a 4-point increase in those blaming Trump. There was a 4-point increase among registered voters who most blamed Trump in the two Morning Consult polls. And surveys from Reuters/Ipsos also found a 4-point increase.
As for where Democrats stand in the blame-game, Morning Consult found a 2-point increase in those who blame them the most between their two polls, while Ipsos/Reuters found a 1-point drop and YouGov found a 3-point drop.
Collins said Pence explained why Trump rejected the deal.
"He said that the president felt that he would lose leverage if government were reopened," Collins said.
Collins said she would support any of the funding bills that have passed in the House. She said she would vote to override a presidential veto if doing so meant ending the shutdown.
Collins said she would support any of the funding bills that have passed in the House. She said she would vote to override a presidential veto if doing so meant ending the shutdown.
So pressure McConnell to take a vote, and if he won't do it, then elect a new majority leader.
+24
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited January 2019
I fear that, however much people blame Trump and the GOP for this godawful mess, they're still going to put pressure on the Democrats to cave.
Not because they feel that it's the right thing, or that the shutdown is the Democrat's fault. But instead because they know the Democrats can DO something to end this, as opposed to Trump and the GOP who never will. And that's becoming increasingly obvious that they NEVER will.
At a certain point those who are impacted are going to not care for the nature of the solution, so long as they get pay. They need to eat, and make rent.
TetraNitroCubane on
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I dunno, I'm not sure how many of you have tasted desperation and looked back on the crazy shit it made you do, including lashing out at the wrong people.
What would that public pressure look like? An increasing majority blames Trump for the wall, and he doesn't care. Most MAGA types support the shutdown because they either don't think it affects them, or don't care because it hurts the right people. Hannity will keep telling Trump that capitulating is weak.
Like, which public is going to put pressure on who to make this stop?
I think some people are going to cave and start yelling at the Dems, "UGH JUST GIVE HIM THE FUCKING WALL MONEY ALREADY."
No.
That's not a very inspired retort. You can disagree with it, and I do too, but eventually at least some the federal employees essentially getting financially tortured will lash out.
At Trump, quite likely. Especially since he's now on record rejecting compromises.
The two YouGov polls found a 4-point increase in those blaming Trump. There was a 4-point increase among registered voters who most blamed Trump in the two Morning Consult polls. And surveys from Reuters/Ipsos also found a 4-point increase.
As for where Democrats stand in the blame-game, Morning Consult found a 2-point increase in those who blame them the most between their two polls, while Ipsos/Reuters found a 1-point drop and YouGov found a 3-point drop.
Collins said Pence explained why Trump rejected the deal.
"He said that the president felt that he would lose leverage if government were reopened," Collins said.
Collins said she would support any of the funding bills that have passed in the House. She said she would vote to override a presidential veto if doing so meant ending the shutdown.
3 more Republican Senators make a majority. Not sure what they can wield procedurally, but Schumer does.
I dunno, I'm not sure how many of you have tasted desperation and looked back on the crazy shit it made you do, including lashing out at the wrong people.
That's even more the reason Democrats can't cave on this. The next shutdown will be worse. I know I say this from a position of privilege, but we're looking at the end of the republic. This absolutely a hill to die on, because otherwise we're dead anyway.
If you cave when all the headwinds are against your opposition, there is never a time when they won't be able to pull this strategy. It will become one-party rule regardless of who is in office.
Hopefully elected dems will keep that in mind regardless of what their constituents clamor for.
In Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Maine and North Carolina, voters disagree with Trump by double-digit margins that “government should be kept closed until he gets funding for the wall.” Voters also oppose spending billions to construct a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in all seven states, though those numbers are a bit closer. And voters in all seven states say by double-digit margins that their Republican senator’s support of Trump on this issue is making them less, not more, likely to vote for their reelection.
Trump’s job approval rating is also upside down in all seven states. Voters say they disapprove than approve of the job Trump is doing as president by 16-point margins in Colorado and Maine, and voters disapprove of Trump’s job performance by narrower three- to seven-point margins in the other five states.
That’s not good news for Sens. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Martha McSally (R-AZ), Cory Gardner (R-CO), David Perdue (R-GA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), all of whom are up for election next year. It also shows where the political pressure is likely to build the most in the Senate as the shutdown continues.
Does (your Republican Senator’s) support of President Trump’s plan to keep the government closed if he doesn’t get funding for a border wall make you more or less likely to support her/him in his next election, or does it not make a difference?
Alaska (Sullivan): 41% more likely; 50% less likely
Arizona (McSally): 37% more likely; 50% less likely
Colorado (Gardner): 37% more likely; 49% less likely
Georgia (Perdue): 41% more likely; 51% less likely
Iowa (Ernst): 37% more likely; 49% less likely
Maine (Collins): 32% more likely; 53% less likely
North Carolina (Tillis): 42% more likely; 48% less likely
If you live in those states start calling your Senators offices and demand that they strike a deal with Democrats to end the shutdown. Kick Mitch McConnell out of leadership and a bill can be voted on. If Trump vetos it, we can worry about that bridge when we get there.
So Trump sees peoples pain as leverage. Fuck you you god damn monster.
So do somewhere between a third and half of Americans, too. Something to remember.
I’m not entirely sure how you meant this, but that fact doesn’t really lead me closer to sympathy and kindness or a desire to compromise with those people.
Posts
This is probably where we are going
No.
We call those people journalists.
McConnell went home for the weekend already.
I wonder if I can get #DitchMcConnell trending on twitter
Don't get me wrong with my last post, that was a musing aloud about at what point the pressure becomes impossible, and I really hope the GOP blinks first. I think some of the cracking at the foundations we've seen in the house indicates the way that might go, not in a way I'd put money on, but I really hope that this ends soon and without creating a precedent problem that will come up again sooner rather than later.
I could maybe see a legislative coup over McConnell. Unfortunately the Senate doesn't have a Discharge Petition, but I think enough Senators can force the issue where either the vote occurs or a new Majority Leader vote occurs.
Maybe not on the administration, since Trump's a loon who doesn't listen to things outside of his echo chamber. I think he has fully embraced the fantasy that everybody in the country actually loves him. But I think it would put considerable pressure on Senators, who are much more forward thinking. Why put the big banks at risk when they rely on them to fund their campaigns?
I don't see people (outside of the usual suspects) blaming Democrats any time soon.
It would be mighty hilarious, in a you gotta laugh at the darkness kind of way, to have a totally fucked federal government while the president went out to say the state of the union is strong.
We all know Trump can't stay focused on anything. He prefers if others take care of his problems. He likes to delegate. That was the subtext in his "I'll own the shutdown" line - he, as the boss, is used to taking on that stuff but he still expects his subordinates to hammer out the deal. So far, he sees the Legislature as his employees - and the Republicans are fine with this.
If something were to come along to distract Trump enough for him to spend, like, a day or two not thinking about the shutdown, he'd signal indifference enough that Mitch could vote through the clean CR.
Now, this won't happen as long as Fox News and other pundits continue screaming about the shutdown. But if it becomes the status quo where it isn't the top news story, or if something even bigger/more drastic comes along, then we'll see a shift.
Things I can think of that would be that big:
1) Anything with the Mueller investigation coming out.
2) Something happening in the Middle East, especially if it involves the Syria withdrawl
3) Some kind of natural disaster that the gov't can't respond to on shutdown.
4) Some kind of political pressure from our allies or from China.
Now, the consequences of any of these would be dire. But it would give juuuust a bit of wiggle room that they could slip out something to release the hostages.
didn't last year's shutdown (ugh, what a phrase) also push back the SotU?
I just call it most of the people I went to highschool and college with and most of my family.
So close and yet so far.
This would just mean that Republicans refuse to pass any budget legislation under a Democratic President, since 4 years would only be a 14% reduction in budget.
I would hope Dems should boycott en-mass. You know the state of the union, it doesn't currently exist.
But that's an event that already happened. It was the antidefficiency act, and to an extent the Civiletti Opinion on it.
I don't know what happened before the ADA, but during the Ford administration, we went from not having funding gaps and shutdowns to having funding gaps and shutdowns.
Edit: that was done without the hindsight the last seven administrations have given us, but you cannot look at our political parties today and say neither of them would ever play chicken with the government ever again if we just go ahead and set the parking brake now.
I mean #DitchMitch is hanging out right there
Public pressure can work on Republican congresspeople, who in turn can pressure either Trump or McConnell to fold. Several GOP Senators and House members are already calling for an end to the shutdown. Hopefully enough GOP members turn to force an end to the shutdown.
As Bobby Kogan, chief mathematician for the Senate Budget Committee, explains, this is actually a giant trap of a bill to allow the GOP to cut funding for popular social welfare programs without having direct connection to voting to defund them:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's almost a pretty good bill.
If we could get that along with getting rid of the pork spending ban, it might even work itself out, since GOP congresscritters love them some pork, and would have to vote through new budgets to get it.
https://www.dw.com/en/magnetic-north-pole-is-changing-faster-than-forecast/a-47043665
Shrugging Atlases will tend to cave if they need to fend for themselves. Even the people who make rich people look poor want to live in countries with government-provided services, because people-money is barely spare change to nation-money.
They could leave, of course, if airtravel hasn't ceased to exist by the time they notice that they aren't supermen.
At Trump, quite likely. Especially since he's now on record rejecting compromises.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-has-lost-ground-in-the-shutdown-blame-game/
Edit:
https://www.wmtw.com/article/president-trump-rejected-compromise-to-reopen-government-sen-collins-says/25861387
So pressure McConnell to take a vote, and if he won't do it, then elect a new majority leader.
Not because they feel that it's the right thing, or that the shutdown is the Democrat's fault. But instead because they know the Democrats can DO something to end this, as opposed to Trump and the GOP who never will. And that's becoming increasingly obvious that they NEVER will.
At a certain point those who are impacted are going to not care for the nature of the solution, so long as they get pay. They need to eat, and make rent.
3 more Republican Senators make a majority. Not sure what they can wield procedurally, but Schumer does.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Could Dems team up with a small number of Republicans to elect a new Republican majority leader?
Heck, the Republicans could just immediately re-elect McConnell after the government is open again.
That's even more the reason Democrats can't cave on this. The next shutdown will be worse. I know I say this from a position of privilege, but we're looking at the end of the republic. This absolutely a hill to die on, because otherwise we're dead anyway.
Hopefully elected dems will keep that in mind regardless of what their constituents clamor for.
So do somewhere between a third and half of Americans, too. Something to remember.
If you live in those states start calling your Senators offices and demand that they strike a deal with Democrats to end the shutdown. Kick Mitch McConnell out of leadership and a bill can be voted on. If Trump vetos it, we can worry about that bridge when we get there.
I’m not entirely sure how you meant this, but that fact doesn’t really lead me closer to sympathy and kindness or a desire to compromise with those people.