Bipartisanship!

[Lemon law]

I will plead totally guilty to the Perknose point of "Sometimes, your apparently near-complete lack of a sense of humor hampers your posts, LL."

After all, why should I have a wondrous sense of gallows humor as I watch my own country's future get flushed down the toilet.

But then again, maybe Perknose is right, there is always something humorous to be found in a collective swirly. But then again, there is no more excitement to found in a flushing toilet compared to the excitement to be found in the fascination of paint drying?

 

[Xonoahbin]

The ridiculous thing about American politics is that people on both sides of the aisle will blindly say "no." The ones that still get me are Republicans with START and the 9/11 benefits bill..

 

[Fear No Evil]

The ridiculous thing about American politics is that people on both sides of the aisle will blindly say "no." The ones that still get me are Republicans with START and the 9/11 benefits bill..

The ridiculous thing about American politics is that people will blindly say "yes". The one that still gets me is a community organizer from Chicago.

 

[Xonoahbin]

The ridiculous thing about American politics is that people will blindly say "yes". The one that still gets me is a community organizer from Chicago.

Meh, true enough I suppose. I liked him better than McCain either way--I was pretty fervent about Ron Paul, but that went nowhere.

 

[Craig234]

Our democracy was designed under the assumption that power corrupts. That's why we have checks, balances, and essentially a framework that make it in a politician's interest to do what the people want.

So far, so good, but you get it way wrong after:

Therefore the politicians' interests are roughly aligned with the people's interests via playing politics and winning elections. A good chunk of Democrats refuse to do said, and this is partly responsible for the current status-quo.

That's just delusional.

The main story of American politics is how much the rich get policies for their benefit more than democracy would allow if working.

How do they do that? By making the political system a slave to their money.

So the only candidates you can usually elect are those who have the 'filters' that allow them to get the big bucks to be a viable candidate.

The marketing from big money campaigns to buy name recognition and image, to buy party loyalty, and more importantly, to buy public opinion, corrupt democracy.

How do they buy opinion? There's a huge machine - an industry of an army of mostly right-wing content creators - writers, pundits, etc. - created for spreading the ideology.

It includes enough media to get its message into the 'mainstream media'.

Since we do have a democracy, it's about fooling enough people, having them fall for bad ideology for the rich, so the rich get policies good for them and only them.

It's working great for the rich. All time high of wealth concentration, again.

It demonizes policies good for the public - and that's gone well also. Say 'socialism' and it's a way to get the public to oppose a policy. See Reagan and the speeches against 'socialized medicine' to oppose John Kennedy's plans to expand medicare, as a hired hand of the AMA who would not make as high of profits while the public got more healthcare.

I'm just waiting for Frank Lutz to come up with 'Socialized Security' to get the public to turn on that program.

The Democrats' flaw is mostly that our system is corrupt enough that many of them compromise too much with the corrupt interests.

The Republicans, though, are almost hired hands of these interests - hence every single Republican Senator putting all bills on hold until bigger tax cuts for the top 2%.

Your post is just delusional and absurd that it's the Democrats who are not doing as the founders intended for the public.

They pointed out, even then when America had less concentration of wealth than it has ever had since, that concentrated wealth and democracy are incompatible.

You are just an example of how the public is fooled, condemning those who represent the public and favoring the hired hands of the wealthy.

 

[Craig234]

The ridiculous thing about American politics is that people on both sides of the aisle will blindly say "no." The ones that still get me are Republicans with START and the 9/11 benefits bill..

I'm curious what your list would be of Democrats 'blindly saying no'.

 

[ShawnD1]

I'm curious what your list would be of Democrats 'blindly saying no'.

I think he means ideas like
-abolish medicare and medicaid
-abolish welfare
-privatize the army
-privatize the police
-privatize social security
-change back to the gold standard
-abolish the student loans program
-make porn illegal
-require prayer in public schools


Democrats and their bipartisan bullshit always take a no-negotiation approach when these reasonable ideas are brought to the table

 

[Jhhnn]

Our democracy was designed under the assumption that power corrupts. That's why we have checks, balances, and essentially a framework that make it in a politician's interest to do what the people want. Therefore the politicians' interests are roughly aligned with the people's interests via playing politics and winning elections. A good chunk of Democrats refuse to do said, and this is partly responsible for the current status-quo.

Our system was designed in an age where information flowed at a snail's pace and where newspapers were scarce and expensive, due to the cost of paper at the time. There were no news conglomerates, and disparities of wealth and power didn't even approach those of today. The art of propaganda was in its infancy. There were 13 small cononies on the eastern seaboard, and the frontier was wide open, affecting the thinking in no small way.

The notion that men of the time could have foreseen the world of today is absurd, and the fact that their safeguards have proved inadequate is no surprise, particularly to the monied interests exploiting that lack.

 

[PeshakJang]

I'm curious what your list would be of Democrats 'blindly saying no'.

If more Democrats said "No" 8 years ago, maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess. Instead they blindly went along with popular opinion instead of standing on any convictions that they (don't) have.

Thank God Republicans in the last few years have done what the Democrats didn't have the constitution to do.

 

[matt0611]

I think he means ideas like
-abolish medicare and medicaid
-abolish welfare
-privatize the army
-privatize the police
-privatize social security
-change back to the gold standard
-abolish the student loans program
-make porn illegal
-require prayer in public schools


Democrats and their bipartisan bullshit always take a no-negotiation approach when these reasonable ideas are brought to the table

LMAO your brain fear center must be so damn big.

 

[thraashman]

I think he means ideas like
-abolish medicare and medicaid
-abolish welfare
-privatize the army
-privatize the police
-privatize social security
-change back to the gold standard
-abolish the student loans program
-make porn illegal
-require prayer in public schools


Democrats and their bipartisan bullshit always take a no-negotiation approach when these reasonable ideas are brought to the table

Don't forget the 'No' Democrats say to letting private corporations purchase elections. The 'No' they say to abolishing the protections of freedom of press and religion and separation of church and state.

I'd trying to figure out what things Republicans have said 'Yes' to. But other than adding to the deficit to give money to the rich despite there being no economic proof, or even anecdotal proof that it will help the economy ... I'm not sure that Republicans have said 'Yes' to anything else.

 

[matt0611]

Don't forget the 'No' Democrats say to letting private corporations purchase elections. The 'No' they say to abolishing the protections of freedom of press and religion and separation of church and state.

I'd trying to figure out what things Republicans have said 'Yes' to. But other than adding to the deficit to give money to the rich despite there being no economic proof, or even anecdotal proof that it will help the economy ... I'm not sure that Republicans have said 'Yes' to anything else.

Yeah, not raising taxes on people is a fucking gift. Gotta love the mind of a modern liberal

I'll just turn all this shit around. The 'No' Democrats say to free speech, the 'No' to letting people keep the money they earn etc etc

 

[lothar]

I think there's a potential upside to the lack of bipartisan cooperation. The rampant polarization of both parties will allow moderate independents and/or 3rd party candidates to be competitive... assuming the public will abandon the concept that a vote for a non-R or non-D is a thrown-away vote.

During the past 3 elections(2006, 2008, and 2010), Americans have shown they don't want moderates, independents, or bipartisanship.

 

[alkemyst]

The only thing the biparitzan approach does today is create old boy's clubs for internal agendas and present a forward-facing machine that people will blindly follow because they are part of the team.

Personally I say open up the vote online. Single issue voting and only vote on what you want to.

 

[theeedude]

We have seen the Republican party demonstrate how it "governs" as a majority party, and how it obstructs and sabotages governance as a minority party. There is no room for bipartisanship or compromise with those people, they have to be thrown out and destroyed as a political movement for this country to prosper.

 

[piasabird]

I prefer gridlock. At least with gridlock the government cant invent more ways to spend money they dont have and write more legislation to slow down progress in the United States of America.

The people do best when the government does nothing.

 

[thraashman]

I prefer gridlock. At least with gridlock the government cant invent more ways to spend money they dont have and write more legislation to slow down progress in the United States of America.

The people do best when the government does nothing.

The problem is that some legislation doesn't halt progress but creates it. Imagine if the legislation to end slavery, allow women to vote, or civil rights hadn't been written? The government can do good when it has the interests other than it's own re-election in mind. I think we lost the last small remnants in the Republican party other than self-interest with the end of the Clinton years. The Democratic party is falling towards that as well but still has a small amount of interest in the well being of the nation left, real small.

 

[Phokus]

Actually, it's not very funny at all, true or not.

The reality is that the dems have made it abundantly clear that they have no desire for any bipartisanship at all, and the republicans have gone into "no to everything" mode. Predictable. Now that the repubs have the house, the dems will be forced to work with them or no legislation will get passed. We all win.

LOL - Obama basically pushed forth the 1993 GOP healthcare plan and also caved in on tax cuts for the rich and you think they 'didn't compromise'. Conservatives are literally scum of the earth and live in another reality.

 

[irishScott]

Our system was designed in an age where information flowed at a snail's pace and where newspapers were scarce and expensive, due to the cost of paper at the time. There were no news conglomerates, and disparities of wealth and power didn't even approach those of today. The art of propaganda was in its infancy. There were 13 small cononies on the eastern seaboard, and the frontier was wide open, affecting the thinking in no small way.

The notion that men of the time could have foreseen the world of today is absurd, and the fact that their safeguards have proved inadequate is no surprise, particularly to the monied interests exploiting that lack.

So the Constitution is obsolete? Lol.

 

[Craig234]

I think he means ideas like
-abolish medicare and medicaid
-abolish welfare
-privatize the army
-privatize the police
-privatize social security
-change back to the gold standard
-abolish the student loans program
-make porn illegal
-require prayer in public schools


Democrats and their bipartisan bullshit always take a no-negotiation approach when these reasonable ideas are brought to the table

In other words, Democrats 'say no to saying no'.

Democrats want to help people have healthcare, Republicans say no, Democrats say 'no' to their 'no'.

Democrats want to reduce elder poverty with a retirement program, Republicans say no, Democrats say 'no' to their 'no'.

Sorry, that's not what 'no' means.

Privatize the army and police!? Besides those being 'yes' to provide those services, those are bad and nutty ideas not even Republicans push much.

Switch to the gold standard? More a 'choose which system' than a no, but again, just a radical libertarian idea few economists support - a Republican took us off of it.

'Make porn illegal' - Republicans saying 'no' to porn - another saying 'no' to 'no'.

So you really have one item - prayer in public schools - something decided by the Supreme Court, not a party, but which is unconstitutional.

So your one item, is 'Democrats say no to pushing religion on children, to pander to the Christians and violate constitutional rights'.

No to wasting public school time on something that belongs in the home and church when children are legally forced to attend school.

Thanks for providing the list, which confirms there are no real issues for Democrats as the 'no' party, nothing to back up the 'both parties do it' line.

 

[Craig234]

So the Constitution is obsolete? Lol.

Why do you post idiocy like this?

Do you need to be mocked, clearly the constitution doesn't apply to anything invented after it was written - not to radio or television, machine guns, automobiles, anything?

You ignore the valid point Jhhnn makes about how our society has changed and how that means the original protections were inadequate, and post this idiocy. Why?

You are bound and determined not only to be a serf, but to force it on everyone else.

If you had a clue about our founding fathers' views on democracy - a country founded 'for the people' against corrupt concentrated wealth and power - you would have a clue that the founding fathers would be appalled by the situation today with the democracy they made so undermined for the powerful. They'd add rules to correct the problems. And that's just their opinion, nevermind the one that matters, people today.

 

[Craig234]

I prefer gridlock. At least with gridlock the government cant invent more ways to spend money they dont have and write more legislation to slow down progress in the United States of America.

The people do best when the government does nothing.

Gridlock: a condition in which only the worst things government does, the things both sides are bribed to do, get done and any 'good' Democratic programs are blocked.

That's the problem with your simplistic 'more and less' idea of government - you can't understand the idea of 'good and bad'.

The best programs the government has done in the last century have almost all been passed with Democratic super-majorities - and by the way, a lot 'smaller' government.

 

[alkemyst]

So the Constitution is obsolete? Lol.

No, but it's been amended quite a few times so the original wording historically becomes lacking (for better or for worse).

Much of the way voting is done and the electoral college should be depreciated.

 

[Craig234]

The problem is that some legislation doesn't halt progress but creates it. Imagine if the legislation to end slavery, allow women to vote, or civil rights hadn't been written? The government can do good when it has the interests other than it's own re-election in mind. I think we lost the last small remnants in the Republican party other than self-interest with the end of the Clinton years. The Democratic party is falling towards that as well but still has a small amount of interest in the well being of the nation left, real small.

Too small, but not 'real small' - see the progressive caucus for an idea. Look at the last Congress' Houses hundreds of bills passed blocked in the Senate for an idea.

They passed a healthcare public option, much better reforms for Wall Street, and many other things in the public interest. The Senate had majority support for a lot of it.

 

[ShawnD1]

No, but it's been amended quite a few times so the original wording historically becomes lacking (for better or for worse).

Much of the way voting is done and the electoral college should be depreciated.

I think you mean deprecated, but you're right.

The constitution isn't some useless piece of paper, but it does need to be changed every once in a while. To think that things don't change over the years is absolutely insane. Have any of you guys read the bible? At one time it was perfectly acceptable to have slaves. That's just the way it was. Now when we look at a book that old we think "man wtf is wrong with these people? they have slaves, they cut their penises for no reason, they advocate genocide, they don't eat lobster"