Regarding your other point "red meat". Elections have always turned on "red meat" going back 200 years. Check out the rherotic of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman as well as the Republicans who opposed them such as ALf Landon and Wendell Wilkie. The difference is that we are now in a permanent campaign. There seems to me that there is no point in time in which the people in the government whether Congress or the White House sit down and say "well the election's over. Let's get down to it." I think the last president who at least attempted to operate in that atmosphere was Bush I. Reagan clearly did and he accomplished a lot, all of it on a bi-partisan basis since at no point did his party have total control of Congress. Carter tried to and he was opposed fromt he left and the right but that opposition seemed to have been based on genuine beliefs.
The permanent campaign is what has caused this. If we want to move forwward we need to break that mind set and both parties are guilty of it. Equally.
I disagree with a lot of what you say, but you hit the nail on the head here. In fact, possibly the biggest problem with America today is the permanent campaign. The 24 hour talking heads on cable TV as well as social media have certainly made things worse. The fact that people choose what news to watch based on their political affiliation is the ultimate example of this problem. Unfortunately, I don't see this going away. As much as politicians like to campaign that they are going to reach across the aisle, once the other side slaps that hand away the first time to try to win points with their "base," then it's back to politics as usual.
Alloak you are the one who keeps bringing up gridlock as proof that our political system is working not the liberals posting here. You seem to be the on obsessed with gridlock my friend.
Not on this thread. Scroll back through and see who starts hammering on it before I even brought it up. And it's not me that's always whining about gridlock.
Another common fallacy is people claiming that I think gridlock is "good." Aside from saying that it's good for the stock market (plenty of proof to back that up), I've never claimed that gridlock is "good." Fact is, I don't feel that gridlock is good, bad, or anywhere in between. Gridlock is merely part of the system, and if pointing that out upsets some folks I apologize.
[Edited on 7/23/2015 by alloak41]
quote:
Regarding your other point "red meat". Elections have always turned on "red meat" going back 200 years. Check out the rherotic of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman as well as the Republicans who opposed them such as ALf Landon and Wendell Wilkie. The difference is that we are now in a permanent campaign. There seems to me that there is no point in time in which the people in the government whether Congress or the White House sit down and say "well the election's over. Let's get down to it." I think the last president who at least attempted to operate in that atmosphere was Bush I. Reagan clearly did and he accomplished a lot, all of it on a bi-partisan basis since at no point did his party have total control of Congress. Carter tried to and he was opposed fromt he left and the right but that opposition seemed to have been based on genuine beliefs.The permanent campaign is what has caused this. If we want to move forwward we need to break that mind set and both parties are guilty of it. Equally.
I disagree with a lot of what you say, but you hit the nail on the head here. In fact, possibly the biggest problem with America today is the permanent campaign. The 24 hour talking heads on cable TV as well as social media have certainly made things worse. The fact that people choose what news to watch based on their political affiliation is the ultimate example of this problem. Unfortunately, I don't see this going away. As much as politicians like to campaign that they are going to reach across the aisle, once the other side slaps that hand away the first time to try to win points with their "base," then it's back to politics as usual.
I agree that the permanent campaign is one of the root causes of this country's disfunction. I really think we should change the term of the Presidency to one 6 year term. As it stands now the President only governs two years before they begin campaigning. So if they get another term the most they are really committed to the job is 6 years.
The media isn't going to help change the system. They make tons of money off the never ending Presidential race. I can't stand to look at Chris Matthews as he quivers and quakes with the next bull $hit story.
I sure don't see the People amending the Constitution to change term limits but I absolutely believe term limits would help right our sinking ship.
I agree that the permanent campaign is one of the root causes of this country's disfunction. I really think we should change the term of the Presidency to one 6 year term. As it stands now the President only governs two years before they begin campaigning. So if they get another term the most they are really committed to the job is 6 years.
The media isn't going to help change the system. They make tons of money off the never ending Presidential race. I can't stand to look at Chris Matthews as he quivers and quakes with the next bull $hit story.
I sure don't see the People amending the Constitution to change term limits but I absolutely believe term limits would help right our sinking ship.
x2
Businesses are NOT doing just fine. Economic growth has been anemic. Businesses live to grow. Growth is the lifeblood of our entire economic model and is the reason for our extraordinary high standard of living. Businesses are not putting their profits back into the business as they traditionally do during times of growth.
Growth has always come at a cost. Steady growth over time is one thing, growth created by boom and bust cycles is quite another. As to which businesses are doing just fine, I'm guessing you are talking about small businesses? Because my original statement was "Wall Street and the wealthy are doing just fine." Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
There is no reason to separate the growth and success of business from the the success of American society itself. The idea that it is a zero sum game where either the rich prosper or the poor is the very essence of socialism, not whether government provides a social safety net for the misfortunate.
I guess I don't see that in action as much as you do. I hear the rhetoric, sure, but don't see the action.
Regarding your other point "red meat". Elections have always turned on "red meat" going back 200 years. Check out the rherotic of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman as well as the Republicans who opposed them such as ALf Landon and Wendell Wilkie.
Yes, I know. It was a part of the point I was making. 
The difference is that we are now in a permanent campaign. There seems to me that there is no point in time in which the people in the government whether Congress or the White House sit down and say "well the election's over. Let's get down to it." I think the last president who at least attempted to operate in that atmosphere was Bush I. Reagan clearly did and he accomplished a lot, all of it on a bi-partisan basis since at no point did his party have total control of Congress. Carter tried to and he was opposed fromt he left and the right but that opposition seemed to have been based on genuine beliefs.
The permanent campaign is what has caused this. If we want to move forward we need to break that mind set and both parties are guilty of it. Equally.
I agree, most certainly. Wish I could see a change ahead, though.
I sure don't see the People amending the Constitution to change term limits but I absolutely believe term limits would help right our sinking ship.
IMO, term limits need to start in Congress, in particular the Senate.
I sure don't see the People amending the Constitution to change term limits but I absolutely believe term limits would help right our sinking ship.
IMO, term limits need to start in Congress, in particular the Senate.
Definitely.
I sure don't see the People amending the Constitution to change term limits but I absolutely believe term limits would help right our sinking ship.
IMO, term limits need to start in Congress, in particular the Senate.
Definitely.
1. Term limits for Congress so that the same entrenched politicians cannot stay in office forever. get fresh blood in and avoid any one person in Congress accumulating too much power.
2. Campaign funding reform. As long as we allow rich individuals to contribute large sums of money to politicians there is going too be issues with the politician doing their bidding.
3. Cap how much a politicians can spend on campaigning to level the playing field
4. Stronger regulations regarding lobbyists. Probably not feasible but I would love to see lobbyists outlawed all together.
5. Make it easier for more political parties to run for office. if you tie this with campaign fund limits and campaign funding reform maybe we will actually get more choices to vote for and people like Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders might actually have a chance to run for office.
6. Outlaw gerrymandering
I sure don't see the People amending the Constitution to change term limits but I absolutely believe term limits would help right our sinking ship.
IMO, term limits need to start in Congress, in particular the Senate.
Definitely.
1. Term limits for Congress so that the same entrenched politicians cannot stay in office forever. get fresh blood in and avoid any one person in Congress accumulating too much power.
2. Campaign funding reform. As long as we allow rich individuals to contribute large sums of money to politicians there is going too be issues with the politician doing their bidding.
3. Cap how much a politicians can spend on campaigning to level the playing field
4. Stronger regulations regarding lobbyists. Probably not feasible but I would love to see lobbyists outlawed all together.
5. Make it easier for more political parties to run for office. if you tie this with campaign fund limits and campaign funding reform maybe we will actually get more choices to vote for and people like Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders might actually have a chance to run for office.
6. Outlaw gerrymandering
Great plan. The power elite would never go for it, but its a great start.
IMO, term limits need to start in Congress, in particular the Senate.
Since the term limits for all three branches of government are dictated by the Constitution I figure do them all at the same time.
The trouble is that will never get done without a really charismatic leader. It would have to be a wildly popular third party type. The folks who run our government are entrenched and are not about to give the People the opportunity to mess up their good thing.
IMO, term limits need to start in Congress, in particular the Senate.
Since the term limits for all three branches of government are dictated by the Constitution I figure do them all at the same time.
The trouble is that will never get done without a really charismatic leader. It would have to be a wildly popular third party type. The folks who run our government are entrenched and are not about to give the People the opportunity to mess up their good thing.
I focus a lot on the Senate because IMO that's the concept that has grown the most wildly outdated. You win two elections you are in Congress 12 years, three elections, 18 years. Plus the numbers are just so skewed. Over 84.3 million people alone live in California, Texas and New York and they are all represented by six people in the Senate. Six. By percentage of population of just those three states, that's 0.000007%.
Bump for Bernie, showing the pseudo- candidate some love today which the liberal media refuses to afford him as he narrows the gap on Hillary.
[Edited on 8/31/2015 by OriginalGoober]
I'm seeing Bernie all over the place. Opening story on the Today Show this morning. Never know what that liberal media is up to.
IMO, term limits need to start in Congress, in particular the Senate.
Since the term limits for all three branches of government are dictated by the Constitution I figure do them all at the same time.
The trouble is that will never get done without a really charismatic leader. It would have to be a wildly popular third party type. The folks who run our government are entrenched and are not about to give the People the opportunity to mess up their good thing.
I focus a lot on the Senate because IMO that's the concept that has grown the most wildly outdated. You win two elections you are in Congress 12 years, three elections, 18 years. Plus the numbers are just so skewed. Over 84.3 million people alone live in California, Texas and New York and they are all represented by six people in the Senate. Six. By percentage of population of just those three states, that's 0.000007%.
they can have Reed and Whitehouse. I'll pay the fare...
Bernie Sanders is, as far as we know, a law abiding citizen
Hillary Clinton is a criminal.
