My assessment of the sequester

[cwjerome]

Except that that is exactly what you said.

Sorry, if you can't comprehend my words then we can't have a discussion, can we? Let me re-phrase my "thesis" for you... again.

Reps and Dems are both corrupt and the central focus of assigning blame will not serve a useful purpose. Yes, they both suck, but the point is to make them unsuck, we have to make fundamental, systemic changes. We should do that, instead of taking the superficial and non-productive approach of blaming, which will lead nowhere. Under our broken system, blame only serves to fuel the fire of petty, failed politics. It will not get us close to where we need to be. We ought to be addressing the real reasons the Reps (and Dems) do the dumb shit they do (and get away with it). Once we begin to make real changes to the system, holding people and groups accountable will actually work.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I've never seen Maddow's show in my life. I don't get my news from tv. Using assumptions to attack me doesn't strengthen your argument.

It wasn't an attack; it was a request that you reflect on how emotional you're getting.

I thought this forum was supposed to be more about addressing facts and less using assumptions to attack posters...

I asked for facts to back up your emotionally charged argumentation: what's the problem with providing evidence of in support of your facts when asked? instead you got angry that I might dare to question you. There's a big old world outside of your cranium, and not everyone has exactly the same kinds of knowledge that you have, nor should they.

If it does then correctly assigning blame is absolutely vital to moving forward.

Voters voted more against them this time than last election...

An appeal to the majority is not an argument in favor of 'correctly assigning blame'; though it is an implicit argument that blame has recently been assigned correctly.

It is very Christian in a sense though, rejecting the worldly to focus on the afterlife

This is a false representation of the Christian world view. For further details, please start a thread in support of this line of argumentation and I'll see you there.

I'm just going to have to disagree with you and the others here that think blaming Reps for this (or Dems in any different issue) fulfills an important purpose that will lead to fundamental change in how the system operates.

There is a budget cut that is inevitable; the battle of public opinion will sway which direction those cuts go. It won't change the fundamentals of Washington, but it may make a difference in the existing political zeitgeist.

Notice, I'm not saying there should be no such thing as blame, I'm saying that blame in our current situation is a function of part of the problem and that blaming cannot lead to better government because the system is broke and blame does not serve it's normally useful purpose.

I think this reveals the problem with politics. While the theoretical ideal state is never reached, it is often never even reached toward as the devil in the details bogs down either side in pandering to public opinion and pragmatic short term solutions.

Once we begin to make real changes to the system, holding people and groups accountable will actually work.

what are 'real changes', in specific.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm just going to have to disagree with you and the others here that think blaming Reps for this (or Dems in any different issue) fulfills an important purpose that will lead to fundamental change in how the system operates. I'm just going to have to disagree with you that tackling the tougher, larger problems that define our damaged political landscape is "short sighted and destructive."

I have clearly stated that I think assigning blame is mainly the function of predictable, petty, partisan squabbling and overrides any authentic, sincere move towards changing a deeply flawed system. I have clearly stated that real fixes and solutions cannot happen in our current operational environment and for genuine, long-term changes for the better to actually occur we need to address the great, primary issues that have propped our highly dysfunctional political-civic structure.

I just can't believe anyone thinks that blaming Reps in this issue will cause massive introspection on everyone's part and those Reps will say "oh snap, sorry about that" then we will have a great flourish of good government with all of our systemic, core issues that currently warp our system getting fixed as a result. Yeah, No. Actually it's just the same continuation of blame, no accountability, no progress, and shitty policy. That is what's short-sighted and destructive. When the social-political framework is perverse, the people are perverse. You will not make angels out of Reps and Dems until that framework is addressed correctly.

Notice, I'm not saying there should be no such thing as blame, I'm saying that blame in our current situation is a function of part of the problem and that blaming cannot lead to better government because the system is broke and blame does not serve it's normally useful purpose.

You are entitled to your opinion but what we are talking about is reality. Show me evidence that a third party/independent thinking group gained enough power or infłuence to make positive changes or fixed a broken system.
There very well may be a ton of examples but I'm just not aware of any.


Believe me I wish things were the way you described them, I wish there was a viable third party, or hell even just a rational voice, but there isn't and I don't see it happening.

History has a way of repeating itself, so show us some history and not how things "should" be.

 

[shadow9d9]

It wasn't an attack; it was a request that you reflect on how emotional you're getting.

I asked for facts to back up your emotionally charged argumentation: what's the problem with providing evidence of in support of your facts when asked? instead you got angry that I might dare to question you. There's a big old world outside of your cranium, and not everyone has exactly the same kinds of knowledge that you have, nor should they.


An appeal to the majority is not an argument in favor of 'correctly assigning blame'; though it is an implicit argument that blame has recently been assigned correctly.

This is a false representation of the Christian world view. For further details, please start a thread in support of this line of argumentation and I'll see you there.

There is a budget cut that is inevitable; the battle of public opinion will sway which direction those cuts go. It won't change the fundamentals of Washington, but it may make a difference in the existing political zeitgeist.

I think this reveals the problem with politics. While the theoretical ideal state is never reached, it is often never even reached toward as the devil in the details bogs down either side in pandering to public opinion and pragmatic short term solutions.

what are 'real changes', in specific.

Show your evidence of anything I said being emotionally charged. Quite a feat to make an assessment like that over the internet.

You want facts to back up the facts that fillibusters have gone through the roof and that republicans fillibustered no brainers like 9/11 first responders and violence against women? Huh? Thos ARE the facts...

All you've offered is internet psychology and assumptions...

 

[shadow9d9]

Sorry, if you can't comprehend my words then we can't have a discussion, can we? Let me re-phrase my "thesis" for you... again.

Reps and Dems are both corrupt and the central focus of assigning blame will not serve a useful purpose. Yes, they both suck, but the point is to make them unsuck, we have to make fundamental, systemic changes. We should do that, instead of taking the superficial and non-productive approach of blaming, which will lead nowhere. Under our broken system, blame only serves to fuel the fire of petty, failed politics. It will not get us close to where we need to be. We ought to be addressing the real reasons the Reps (and Dems) do the dumb shit they do (and get away with it). Once we begin to make real changes to the system, holding people and groups accountable will actually work.

You are repeating yourself. My statement was true.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Thos ARE the facts...

"Santa clause is a fat man that kills gremlins; gnomes take my under pants at night; Iraq had WMDs" All of 'thos ARE the facts...' too.

A fact is, unlike an opinion, something that is verifiable: in the case of the previous 3 statements, my factual statements are verifiable false. I asked for verification/evidence/sources and you got defensive; you remain in a mode of yelling about things being facts instead of providing evidence. It's not like the world revolves around your 'facts' and they are always right until proven wrong; providing support for your 'facts' is essential to advancing a dialog. And based on 'facts' or not, your rhetoric was presented in a biasing manner; so given your argumentation is presented in a clearly bias manner and uses a constant appeal to emotion, requesting evidence in support of 'facts' is not unreasonable.

If you are arguing that something is demonstrably true the burden is on you to demonstr when asked

Show me evidence that a third party/independent thinking group gained enough power or infłuence to make positive changes or fixed a broken system.
There very well may be a ton of examples but I'm just not aware of any.

A historical example of success is not a necessary criteria for an idea to be valid; That said, without more than simple generic appeals to "real changes to the system, holding people and groups accountable" There's no way to assess the argument being advanced, as it is simply a rhetorical restatement of belief, not a position that can be confronted.

It's no more 'true' or 'false' than if I were to argue:

"I think everyone should be kind to each-other and do the right thing!"

Right... well, how do you propose we implement this principle?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Easy, all.

Question: If there are no consequences for bad behavior, what incentive does anyone have to not partake in it?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Easy, all.

Question: If there are no consequences for bad behavior, what incentive does anyone have to not partake in it?

Even if there are no utilitarian negative consequences; we would hope that ethical answer-ability and respect for persons would be incentive to be virtuous, virtue is it's own reward.

 

[cwjerome]

You are entitled to your opinion but what we are talking about is reality. Show me evidence that a third party/independent thinking group gained enough power or infłuence to make positive changes or fixed a broken system.
There very well may be a ton of examples but I'm just not aware of any.


Believe me I wish things were the way you described them, I wish there was a viable third party, or hell even just a rational voice, but there isn't and I don't see it happening.

History has a way of repeating itself, so show us some history and not how things "should" be.

Well that takes a load off my mind knowing I'm entitled to my own opinion

There is plenty of evidence that 3rd party/Independent candidates and movements can have an impact. More importantly, there is plenty of evidence to suggest there has never been a better time than now for this to happen.

One example I might use would be Ross Perot in 1992. He was extremely concerned about the super high deficits and debt, and understandably his number one central focus was to tackle this problem. He gave all kinds of reasons why they were high. He gave all kinds of ideas as to how we can get them under control. Well next thing you know Clinton wins and actually heeds much of his suggestions, and remarkably Congress warms to many of those ideas as well. Suddenly the deficit shrinks to zero!

I have simplified it somewhat, but not the essence. One of the main reason it works is because the political leaders seek out and attempt to gain those "independents" afterward by trying to push at least some of what they stand for. That is why in post #99 I said they don't necessarily have to win to make a difference. When Reps and Dems are basically in bed together to deny reality, a third chair at the table can at least challenge the disgraceful diversions and evasions and change the conversation in a way to move it forward better.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Except they didn't use record breaking amounts of fillibusters and didn't refuse to play ball on EVERY bill, including a bill that passed with flying colors twice before dealing with violence and women... and they certainly didn't fillibuster their own bill for the first time in Senate history...

Why should they have to play ball? Their job is to represent what they feel is the best interests of the country or at least their district. The people decided that they wanted that person, with certain ideals to stand up for them.

It is to not be a lemming!

While you may feel that they should, unless you have them as a representative, your opinion on the subject applies only to your representative, Senators and the President.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

While you may feel that they should, unless you have them as a representative, your opinion on the subject applies only to your representative, Senators and the President.

There's a moral obligation to do what's right for the country; and it's demonstrably wrong to suggest that defaulting on our debts is what's best for the country.

One example I might use would be Ross Perot in 1992. He was extremely concerned about the super high deficits and debt, and understandably his number one central focus was to tackle this problem. He gave all kinds of reasons why they were high. He gave all kinds of ideas as to how we can get them under control. Well next thing you know Clinton wins and actually heeds much of his suggestions, and remarkably Congress warms to many of those ideas as well. Suddenly the deficit shrinks to zero!

Makes sense to me.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Show your evidence of anything I said being emotionally charged. Quite a feat to make an assessment like that over the internet.

You want facts to back up the facts that fillibusters have gone through the roof and that republicans fillibustered no brainers like 9/11 first responders and violence against women? Huh? Thos ARE the facts...

All you've offered is internet psychology and assumptions...

You are making opinions and claiming them as facts.

Filibusters are fact. What they are actually filibustering may be a legit grievance.

You may not think so, that is your opinion. I do not have to agree with your assessment. That is my choice. It does not make either opinion better than the other.

Many bills have riders attached that are snuck in on top of a popular item because on their own, the rider item is a piece of crap.

Such dies not get reported.

 

[cwjerome]

Easy, all.

Question: If there are no consequences for bad behavior, what incentive does anyone have to not partake in it?

None. That's why we need to think beyond the obvious concretes in front of our face and tackle the deeper issues behind the curtains. Right now there are practically no consequences. Blame is cheap and means hardly anything. Big business or Big government, it's the same: out of control, little accountability, and no way to fix it without dismantling our current SOP.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Sorry, if you can't comprehend my words then we can't have a discussion, can we? Let me re-phrase my "thesis" for you... again.

Reps and Dems are both corrupt and the central focus of assigning blame will not serve a useful purpose. Yes, they both suck, but the point is to make them unsuck, we have to make fundamental, systemic changes. We should do that, instead of taking the superficial and non-productive approach of blaming, which will lead nowhere. Under our broken system, blame only serves to fuel the fire of petty, failed politics. It will not get us close to where we need to be. We ought to be addressing the real reasons the Reps (and Dems) do the dumb shit they do (and get away with it). Once we begin to make real changes to the system, holding people and groups accountable will actually work.

Assigning blame allows the avoidance of responsibility. This way when more damage is done, they can feel better.

It becomes easier to justify doing nothing because the other is felt to be at fault.

 

[chucky2]

None. That's why we need to think beyond the obvious concretes in front of our face and tackle the deeper issues behind the curtains. Right now there are practically no consequences. Blame is cheap and means hardly anything. Big business or Big government, it's the same: out of control, little accountability, and no way to fix it without dismantling our current SOP.

The only way for you to get what you want is for basically the entirety of Congress to be killed; I went with killed only because of the total impossibility of them being voted out. We need a small neutron bomb to go off in DC. That is inevitably the only hope long term for the US.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

I'm just going to have to disagree with you and the others here that think blaming Reps for this (or Dems in any different issue) fulfills an important purpose that will lead to fundamental change in how the system operates. I'm just going to have to disagree with you that tackling the tougher, larger problems that define our damaged political landscape is "short sighted and destructive."

I have clearly stated that I think assigning blame is mainly the function of predictable, petty, partisan squabbling and overrides any authentic, sincere move towards changing a deeply flawed system. I have clearly stated that real fixes and solutions cannot happen in our current operational environment and for genuine, long-term changes for the better to actually occur we need to address the great, primary issues that have propped our highly dysfunctional political-civic structure.

I just can't believe anyone thinks that blaming Reps in this issue will cause massive introspection on everyone's part and those Reps will say "oh snap, sorry about that" then we will have a great flourish of good government with all of our systemic, core issues that currently warp our system getting fixed as a result. Yeah, No. Actually it's just the same continuation of blame, no accountability, no progress, and shitty policy. That is what's short-sighted and destructive. When the social-political framework is perverse, the people are perverse. You will not make angels out of Reps and Dems until that framework is addressed correctly.

Notice, I'm not saying there should be no such thing as blame, I'm saying that blame in our current situation is a function of part of the problem and that blaming cannot lead to better government because the system is broke and blame does not serve it's normally useful purpose.

You are now creating a straw man in saying that I somehow believe that tackling the larger problems is 'short sighted and destructive'. Please do not do that again.

I have seen nothing out of you that attempts to tackle those long term problems in any way. If you have a credible plan for doing so I'm glad to hear it, but all I've seen is a vague wish for independent minded people to somehow arise and band together and change things. I find that to be naive.

Being someone that studied politics for quite a long time and has worked in politics for a number of years I feel like I have quite a good handle on what is and is not likely to change in our system and what I can do to improve things. Political parties in America generally operate on turnout and in the margins, a change of a few percent either way yields real electoral consequences. In light of this I find that correctly reporting on the actions and consequences of their policies only stands likely to affect a small percentage of the population, but it only NEEDS to affect a small percentage to bring results. Throwing your hands up plays right into the ideas of those who think they can act without consequences.

So again, if you're going to remake the system provide a specific, credible plan for doing so. If you can't do this then you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

[cwjerome]

The only way for you to get what you want is for basically the entirety of Congress to be killed; I went with killed only because of the total impossibility of them being voted out. We need a small neutron bomb to go off in DC. That is inevitably the only hope long term for the US.

Chuck

No, we just need to disconnect ourselves from the day to day partisan games of Reps and Dems that have suckered so many people and dragged us down. If we want a workable government and good policy then we need to be independent thinkers and voters, fix the districting in states, field viable 3rd party candidates for Congress and President, and rediscover some of our values, priorities, and practices that have served us well in the past. This won't be easy and it won't be overnight, but even modest improvement in these areas would lead to less polarization, less gridlock, better discourse and more responsive, smarter governance. I also think this plan for better government would be greatly assisted if people generally studied more, saved more, and worked harder.

The paralysis of our political system and the erosion of key values have made it nearly impossible for us to carry out the policies the country needs, but it's fixable. I'm approaching this from a big picture perspective to try and set the agenda and steer the direction. If we give up on that and try to "fix" the thousand "little" problems that results from the structural failure, then we'll just end up with a motley conglomeration of individual patches, quiltwork of half-measures that don't provide a coherent whole and basically keeps the flawed structure in place.

 

[ivwshane]

Well that takes a load off my mind knowing I'm entitled to my own opinion

There is plenty of evidence that 3rd party/Independent candidates and movements can have an impact. More importantly, there is plenty of evidence to suggest there has never been a better time than now for this to happen.

One example I might use would be Ross Perot in 1992. He was extremely concerned about the super high deficits and debt, and understandably his number one central focus was to tackle this problem. He gave all kinds of reasons why they were high. He gave all kinds of ideas as to how we can get them under control. Well next thing you know Clinton wins and actually heeds much of his suggestions, and remarkably Congress warms to many of those ideas as well. Suddenly the deficit shrinks to zero!

I have simplified it somewhat, but not the essence. One of the main reason it works is because the political leaders seek out and attempt to gain those "independents" afterward by trying to push at least some of what they stand for. That is why in post #99 I said they don't necessarily have to win to make a difference. When Reps and Dems are basically in bed together to deny reality, a third chair at the table can at least challenge the disgraceful diversions and evasions and change the conversation in a way to move it forward better.

That examples doesn't prove anything other than my point. You claiming Perot was Clinton's inspiration for reducing the debt is a stretch.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-07-29/news/1993210024_1_perot-balance-the-budget-budget-plan

Sorry you will have to come up with better evidence than that to make me a believer, your whole argument centers around the fact you think third parties change things in a positive way. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying you haven't provided enough evidence to back up your claim.

Part of the issue of proving your claim could be due to the length of time any influence might take to have an impact.

 

[cwjerome]

That examples doesn't prove anything other than my point. You claiming Perot was Clinton's inspiration for reducing the debt is a stretch.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-07-29/news/1993210024_1_perot-balance-the-budget-budget-plan

Sorry you will have to come up with better evidence than that to make me a believer, your whole argument centers around the fact you think third parties change things in a positive way. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying you haven't provided enough evidence to back up your claim.

Part of the issue of proving your claim could be due to the length of time any influence might take to have an impact.

I am not trying to "prove" a claim or make you a believer, I am providing evidence and reasoning to back up a position. I also wouldn't call Perot his "inspiration," more like a catalyst or influence, and it wasn't just on Clinton it was an influence on all the voters and politicians. Finally, I wouldn't say 3rd parties change things in a positive way, I'm saying they have a considerable impact and can change things in a positive way.

The article you linked supports my idea that Perot's obsession with the deficit/debt influenced the government to take bolder action to deal with the issue. Serious talk of the deficit crisis only took off after Perot's fanaticism over the issue during the campaign. After the election it continued to stir political will in that direction. Of course Clinton's plan wouldn't be enough, nobody's but Perot's would be enough to him, but his doggedness on the issue before and after the election encouraged those involved to make it an issue and take up the mantle to some extent.

This happened in 1912 when Roosevelt's platform helped shape the agenda and pushed Wilson into action on things Roosevelt thought were important. It happened in 1968 with Nixon taking up some of Wallace's positions and constituents. It's happened in just about every significant 3rd party election, where the 3rd parties' positions have an impact on the discourse and direction and their voters get pursued. Not only is it basic historical fact, it's basic common sense.

In the end, if you think 3rd parties are impossible then I believe you are going to be very limited in the types and quality of solutions and policies available, and the direction we are headed will not change. That is extraordinarily depressing.

 

[chucky2]

No, we just need to disconnect ourselves from the day to day partisan games of Reps and Dems that have suckered so many people and dragged us down. If we want a workable government and good policy then we need to be independent thinkers and voters, fix the districting in states, field viable 3rd party candidates for Congress and President, and rediscover some of our values, priorities, and practices that have served us well in the past. This won't be easy and it won't be overnight, but even modest improvement in these areas would lead to less polarization, less gridlock, better discourse and more responsive, smarter governance. I also think this plan for better government would be greatly assisted if people generally studied more, saved more, and worked harder.

The paralysis of our political system and the erosion of key values have made it nearly impossible for us to carry out the policies the country needs, but it's fixable. I'm approaching this from a big picture perspective to try and set the agenda and steer the direction. If we give up on that and try to "fix" the thousand "little" problems that results from the structural failure, then we'll just end up with a motley conglomeration of individual patches, quiltwork of half-measures that don't provide a coherent whole and basically keeps the flawed structure in place.

Yes, that would be great. But, it will never happen. 1/2 of the country doesn't pay Fed taxes after tax season is over and done with. Massive amounts suck at the teat of Gov and are happy doing it. Their parents before them were happy doing it. Their kids will be happy doing it. We let illegals into the country by the millions (perhaps 10's of millions by now?). We have school admins so scared of doing something non-PC and/or being sued they let the kids and the kids parents run roughshod over the teachers and admin.

Where are you going to get the people in the numbers necessary to elect Politicians who will actually do the right thing* for the country.

*: not right thing to keep the "freebies" rolling and the illegals coming in as fast as they can run on in and never get Fed and State spending reigned in, but, you know, to do the things necessary to ensure the long term welfare of the US.

Good luck with that. As I've been saying...laissez les bons temps rouler!

Chuck

 

[ivwshane]

Double post

 

[ivwshane]

I am not trying to "prove" a claim or make you a believer, I am providing evidence and reasoning to back up a position. I also wouldn't call Perot his "inspiration," more like a catalyst or influence, and it wasn't just on Clinton it was an influence on all the voters and politicians. Finally, I wouldn't say 3rd parties change things in a positive way, I'm saying they have a considerable impact and can change things in a positive way.

The article you linked supports my idea that Perot's obsession with the deficit/debt influenced the government to take bolder action to deal with the issue. Serious talk of the deficit crisis only took off after Perot's fanaticism over the issue during the campaign. After the election it continued to stir political will in that direction. Of course Clinton's plan wouldn't be enough, nobody's but Perot's would be enough to him, but his doggedness on the issue before and after the election encouraged those involved to make it an issue and take up the mantle to some extent.

This happened in 1912 when Roosevelt's platform helped shape the agenda and pushed Wilson into action on things Roosevelt thought were important. It happened in 1968 with Nixon taking up some of Wallace's positions and constituents. It's happened in just about every significant 3rd party election, where the 3rd parties' positions have an impact on the discourse and direction and their voters get pursued. Not only is it basic historical fact, it's basic common sense.

In the end, if you think 3rd parties are impossible then I believe you are going to be very limited in the types and quality of solutions and policies available, and the direction we are headed will not change. That is extraordinarily depressing.

We are getting warmer. My memory of history isn't as good as yours, your examples are too vague for me to even research them myself. Can you be more specific? Can you provide some sources?

It may seem like I'm asking a lot but this isn't the normal forum and in here people not only want to educate others but they want to be educated.
I can't research what I don't know I don't know.

 

[Craig234]

cwjerome is right, that Ross Perot definitely 'raised awareness' of the deficit issue and it created pressure to reduce it.

But there's definitely a question how much a role that played in policy. Presidents who talked loudly against debt were the same ones who added a lot of it - like Reagan.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, that would be great. But, it will never happen. 1/2 of the country doesn't pay Fed taxes after tax season is over and done with. Massive amounts suck at the teat of Gov and are happy doing it. Their parents before them were happy doing it. Their kids will be happy doing it. We let illegals into the country by the millions (perhaps 10's of millions by now?). We have school admins so scared of doing something non-PC and/or being sued they let the kids and the kids parents run roughshod over the teachers and admin.

Where are you going to get the people in the numbers necessary to elect Politicians who will actually do the right thing* for the country.

*: not right thing to keep the "freebies" rolling and the illegals coming in as fast as they can run on in and never get Fed and State spending reigned in, but, you know, to do the things necessary to ensure the long term welfare of the US.

Good luck with that. As I've been saying...laissez les bons temps rouler!

Chuck

This is a typical rant not really suited for decent discussion - filled with hateful rhetoric like 'sucking at the teat' to express disgust while light on any facts.

Rants like that have a lot of hate, but rarely if ever any actual solutions - they always end implicitly supporting policies that would do nothing but hurt the economy and cause misery.

Studies show illegal immigrants contribute a lot more to the economy than they take, as a group. We do a pretty crappy job with that policy. Recognizing that doesn't mean we have to say we need to have open borders - but it means also that we're not very honest or humane about our need for labor, and prefer to look the other way about a new 'slave labor' instead of allowing people to do it and get paid and treated respectfully. Keep our costs down with abused labor.

So those rants might like to sound like they're from such victims, but hardly.

 

[Craig234]

The only way for you to get what you want is for basically the entirety of Congress to be killed; I went with killed only because of the total impossibility of them being voted out. We need a small neutron bomb to go off in DC. That is inevitably the only hope long term for the US.

Chuck

Showing you have no idea where the problems are. Congress is the symptom, not the problem.

With the same interests, the same extreme concentrations of wealth, the same media consolidation and so on, the only thing your 'action' would bring is recreating the exact same situation again, with different faces who have the same issues. For more of a solution bigger changes are needed - less conventration of wealth, money out of politics, and more.

If the people of Kentucky would elect a Mitch McConnell and a Rand Paul now, why wouldn't they elect the same types again?