Poll: How do you feel about divided government at this point?

[Craig234]

LOL @ Craig, you're always amusing. Olberman and Maddow not radical... bwahahaha. They are the left equivalent of the right wing lunatic fringe, except not smart enough to be as successful. They all suck. Gridlock is the only solution when there are only two parties to choose from and they both suck and have been overtaken by the nutty elements within the party.

I didn't bother to read this, I just glanced to see it appreared not to have the facts I asked for before:

Where are your FACTS to support your attack against Olbermann or Maddow? They each had hour long shows the last week - show 3 'radical' things from their shows.

You can't. So will you admit you lack the evidence for your biased opinion, or will you just spew it over and over without any evidence?

 

[Craig234]

Is that because the extremes are in safer districts, and thus get seniority and power to control their party? Think of all the swing states / districts and how many 30+ year incumbents are sitting pretty in those. Not many, as the pendulum's swing clears them out.

Damn... I just made an argument for term limits...:|

Yes, gerrymandering concentrates as many voters from one party in a district as they can, creating closer to one-party districts with less 'middle' politicians.

But term limits neither fix this, nor do anything much but cause disaster, as has been explained many times.

 

[BurnItDwn]

If you can't fix the Democrat and Republicans, you are in no position to put something better in place. You would simply throw out the good and bad and put in worse.

The parties as a whole are rotted.
You don't fix a rotted floorboard, you replace it.

Throw out the corrupt officials.
You bring in now officials, ones who aren't driven by greed.

And, if they prove to be dishonest, you recall them as soon as possible!

 

[Craig234]

The parties as a whole are rotted.
You don't fix a rotted floorboard, you replace it.

Throw out the corrupt officials.
You bring in now officials, ones who aren't driven by greed.

And, if they prove to be dishonest, you recall them as soon as possible!

You show the problem when the wrong metaphor is used.

The problem is that special interests are able to dominate the voters' opinions by selecting people who represent their interests, making donations needed to win that only they give.

Destroy the parties, throw out the incumbents, get new people - and you have done nothing to fix that, in fact you made it far worse.

Now elections are filled with new faces the public doens't know - who are beholden to the special interests to get selected, to get funding to be 'serious candidates' at all.

And when they screw the public, they're quickly out and it's on to the next special interest-selected and funded candidate who does the same thing.

If you can fix it for 'new' candidates, you can fix it for the current parties easier.

The effort to build a new and viable party is so hard that you are likely to do no more than a tiny effort that splits the votes with those you agree with most and elects opposition.

That's why the only party to get much attention at all winning primaries is backed (quietly) by corporate interests, Fox, the Koch brothers etc.

It's really more an extension of the Republicans presented as 'new' to get the votes of those fed up with Republicans.

You say 'bring in new ones not motivated by greed'. Greed is a very simplistic comment - they're usually more either 'for the people', or 'hired hands' for ideology/interests.

It's basically about competing interests behind the candidates - which interests can get 'their person' elected, using money, marketing, etc.?

What's to stop your 'new' faces from the same things as the old faces?

 

[BurnItDwn]

You show the problem when the wrong metaphor is used.

The problem is that special interests are able to dominate the voters' opinions by selecting people who represent their interests, making donations needed to win that only they give.

Destroy the parties, throw out the incumbents, get new people - and you have done nothing to fix that, in fact you made it far worse.

Now elections are filled with new faces the public doens't know - who are beholden to the special interests to get selected, to get funding to be 'serious candidates' at all.

And when they screw the public, they're quickly out and it's on to the next special interest-selected and funded candidate who does the same thing.

If you can fix it for 'new' candidates, you can fix it for the current parties easier.

The effort to build a new and viable party is so hard that you are likely to do no more than a tiny effort that splits the votes with those you agree with most and elects opposition.

That's why the only party to get much attention at all winning primaries is backed (quietly) by corporate interests, Fox, the Koch brothers etc.

It's really more an extension of the Republicans presented as 'new' to get the votes of those fed up with Republicans.

You say 'bring in new ones not motivated by greed'. Greed is a very simplistic comment - they're usually more either 'for the people', or 'hired hands' for ideology/interests.

It's basically about competing interests behind the candidates - which interests can get 'their person' elected, using money, marketing, etc.?

What's to stop your 'new' faces from the same things as the old faces?

I'm not suggesting we create new parties. I'm suggesting we elect alternate parties. the 2 party system has been failing us for ages.
I dunno, maybe I am just too filled with hatred after living through the bush regime, and then seeing Obama come in and pretty much act like bush 2.0.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not suggesting we create new parties. I'm suggesting we elect alternate parties. the 2 party system has been failing us for ages.
I dunno, maybe I am just too filled with hatred after living through the bush regime, and then seeing Obama come in and pretty much act like bush 2.0.

I can sure understand those emotions.

The thing is, until the underlying systemic causes are changed, you will keep getting the same problems.

I've said for a long time, IMO the only practical fix is to elect a majority of progressive democrats (not the corporatist dems).

But the way to fix things is to reduce the power of concentrated money.

That's tricky, especially after the recent Supreme Court "General Electric is a person, too" ruling. We may really need a constitutional amendment reversing that.

 

[BoberFett]

I've said for a long time, IMO the only practical fix is to elect a majority of progressive democrats (not the corporatist dems).

And the only way to fix Germany was to elect Hitler.

Get over yourself Craig.

 

[Infohawk]

When you are stuck in deep sh!t, gridlock is the best, so you can be stuck in it longer. Gives you time to take in the smell. Gridlock is doing wonders for Cali government.

Says the person who wants all Democrats...

Who's to say California wouldn't be in worse shape if either party had complete control? Democrats would just keep taxing and spending and Republicans would gut all social services. What's happening now is a compromise.

 

[zsdersw]

Except Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are not 'extremists' by any means. It takes a simpleton to equate them to Limbaugh and Coulter.

If you let the radicals define the 'middle' as a 'radical side', you let them win at misrepresenting the facts.

What's next, those who say Muslims are not an 'extremist cult' are one side of the radicals, and those who say they all want to nuke the world are the other side of radicals, while the truth is that their religion is clearly inferior, and nearly all of them hate America and freedom, but would not nuke the world?

Where are your FACTS to support your attack against Olbermann or Maddow? They each had hour long shows the last week - show 3 'radical' things from their shows.

You can't. So will you admit you lack the evidence for your biased opinion, or will you just spew it over and over without any evidence?

It's all a matter of perspective. Our opinions of where others reside on the ideological spectrum is invariably colored by our own position.

 

[Double Trouble]

When you are stuck in deep sh!t, gridlock is the best, so you can be stuck in it longer. Gives you time to take in the smell. Gridlock is doing wonders for Cali government.

If the alternative to "do nothing" is "do stuff that's even worse", then yes, gridlock is the best of the crappy alternatives. Neither party has shown that they have any intention to fix anything or any ideas on how to do it.

California is not such a mess because of gridlock, it's a mess because the idiots in legislature can't stop spending, and people can't stop voting for more things to be paid for. Apparently the people in CA are just as stupid as those they put in legislature, as they keep voting for more expenditures rather than voting for fiscal restraint.

 

[Double Trouble]

I didn't bother to read this, I just glanced to see it appreared not to have the facts I asked for before:

You ask for facts when you have not provided any to support your position? Brilliant! And no, don't bother posting the usual wall-o-text with links to the usual left wing drivel. Nobody takes that stuff (or you) seriously. Keep the entertainment coming though