PFnVA - Couldn't include your quotes in my reply....I guess I got too wordy
Hope this is follow-able...
Whether or not it was truly a “minority controlling the majority” is up for discussion because was that actually the case?
What I mean is for a period of time, Ds had the so called Super Majority correct? If you (as a party) have a super majority and are still being controlled by the minority…then what does that say about the majority? Wouldn’t raise questions to a, their policy ideas, or b, their ability to work amongst themselves?
As for the last 17 months or so with the R house, yes I would agree with you. They have generally rooted for failure (and conducted themselves accordingly) of our country rather than work to make it better. As I said in another thread, I have never personally rooted for the failure of one of my countrymen…and to do so is beyond my idea of what being American is.
I think most voters who don’t affiliate themselves to one party or the other (in this case straight party ticket pub voters) realize that the members of the house (specifically Rs) have done a crap job…isn’t the approval rate in the low 20s?
I lump Snowe in with Lugar – examples of Rs who realize they were elected to work for constituents to get things done. As I said to Mrs, I wish we had more like them. I may not agree with their POV on specific issues, but our government is supposed to work together to solve problems. Those two, and probably many others on both sides, see that as “their job”. Unfortunately there are more, on both sides of the aisle, who see their loyalty to party first.
“Beating Obama” is sadly more akin to a HS class president campaign slogan than it should be the highest level of government in the greatest country on Earth. You get no argument from me there.
Vote for Pedro
And negotiating is partyX moving toward partyY and vise versa. Sadly we have two groups who dig in and won’t move – they would rather do nothing then break a party belief….and we have citizens who vote for reps/Senators to do just that.
At least you are willing to admit that neither side is faultless and I give you credit for that, many others here are either unwilling or unable to do so.
Didn’t watch any of the primaries, but did catch the vibe you are speaking to. Outside of Huntsman I had no interest in any of them. Romney is a joke (although my level of distaste for him isn’t at say Darryl’s level) but I won’t vote for him. I am just “happy” that Ricky rode off into the sunset. I may not have love in all the policy and beliefs of the left, but the idea of having a government lead and set law based on Christian beliefs, which you know, who impact everyone, even those who don’t share those beliefs, isn’t what America is about. The irony of it all to me is the biggest proponents of that style of government are also seemingly the biggest of proponents of getting Iran….which is the same style of government, just with a different superhero central figure.
I think we need more than 10% cuts…
And there are heaps of dumb people.
Well Perot was before my time….but for those who lived through (in a voting sense) was the population as unhappy with the 2 establishment parties as they are now?
I mean one could make the argument that outside of the diehard Ds and the diehard Rs, the rest of us would say fu(k all of em. I don’t get the impression that in Perot’s day there was an overwhelming sense of that…but I admit I wasn’t paying attention to politics….G.I. Joe was king for all I cared.
I just don’t remember a period in my life where the general population has been as unhappy and our politics as polarized as they are now (and have been since ’01 – this isn’t an Obama phenomenon)…so while the 3rd party in the past hasn’t done well, I get the impression that comparing the early 90s to now, politically and socially, is apples and bananas.
Ya forgive me…my intent wasn’t to pigeon hole as one or the other….just more of an observation of your “talking points” in your posts.
I agree with the Ds being the party which is dealing with reality, but even they really aren’t; meaning If you compare them to the current GOP, then yes, they are. A group trying to do anything over nothing is playing in the real world.
It is a "lesser of two" for me...neither really are, but the Ds are more than the Rs by contrast.
However, they are also ignoring vast realities with many of their ideas just the same. The bones of our system are good, and honestly they have been for 236, the fact that this experiment in humanity is still going, while others have set out and failed is proof of that. But there are things that are broken. I find it hard to move forward with policies for a “21st century” America if we don’t fix the obvious breakpoints in what said policies would be built from.
Take Healthcare for example. “We” want a more universal system of it…ok. But how can we enact a system of government based insurance where the only thing we really have to compare it to is the existing government offerings, which any nonpartisan would admit are rife with abuse and waste?
How would we sustain a bigger government system when the relatively small systems we currently have aren’t sustainable?
How do we “Raise Taxes” to ensure the rich and powerful in this country pay their way….when it would in some cases simply be an increase to the rates which already exist….in a tax policy that has holes left, right and center for them to continue to take advantage of?
How do we continue to spend what we do on Education, yet still lag many places in testing? There comes a point in any situation, where if what you are doing (in this case continually throwing money at an issue) isn’t working, you must take a step back and review.
How do 3rd world countries, with next to no infrastructure to speak of, have the ability to control people coming and going from their country…..yet one of the most advanced places in the history of mankind cant…or wont?
Fix…then enhance. Don’t enhance something that is broken….otherwise we’ll be back here debating the same situations 30 years from now….cuz it’s still broken.