Red vs Blue

[Bruce1]

All over this and other boards I read are posters going at each other from their traditional Dem vs Rep views. When I was a kid I asked my Mom and Dad what the difference between the groups were. Dems are for the people and Reps are for business was the answer. When I see this bickering continue her whether it is gun control, immigration, etc. it is just stupid.

The FACTS ARE that neither party gives one crap about any of us!!! All they want is power and money,! Until we all wake up and demand changes to the electoral system, i.e. Term limits and campaign finance reform we can all continue to sit back and spend our time attacking each other on boards like these and watch our "representatives" take our money and our freedoms.

 

[qazplm]

All over this and other boards I read are posters going at each other from their traditional Dem vs Rep views. When I was a kid I asked my Mom and Dad what the difference between the groups were. Dems are for the people and Reps are for business was the answer. When I see this bickering continue her whether it is gun control, immigration, etc. it is just stupid.

The FACTS ARE that neither party gives one crap about any of us!!! All they want is power and money,! Until we all wake up and demand changes to the electoral system, i.e. Term limits and campaign finance reform we can all continue to sit back and spend our time attacking each other on boards like these and watch our "representatives" take our money and our freedoms.

1. Term Limits does what except make the same folks you say are in it for power and control fight even harder to get both (and the money that comes with both) while they can, while also making it more likely that unqualified or crazy folks get in with more frequency?

2. Democrats are on board with campaign finance reform. We passed bills about it (even with some Republican support). Your republican justices voted it down. But sure, both sides are the same.

There is nothing lazier than the whole both sides are equally to blame and they all suck folks. It's intellectually facile.

There are people, in both parties who are trying to do what they think is right. There are people, in both parties who, to varying degrees, have motives other than that. There are ideologues in both parties, and there are compromisers in both parties.

We had more compromise in earlier eras primarily because Republicans back then were better. Reagan was better. Bush Sr was better. The senators and republicans in the House were better. Better at what? Better at compromising. Better at trading this for that. Better at giving up in one area to gain in another.

Tip and Reagan made deals. Tip got domestic things he wanted, Reagan got the military/foreign policy stuff he wanted. Bush Sr. did the same thing...only right about then the Rush Effect started and instead of getting credit for compromising on taxes with a modest raise to address the economy, he ended up losing the election over it more or less.

From then on, one side has gotten more and more unwilling to compromise and more and more willing to label the other side not just as wrong, but evil, stupid, anti-American.

And yes, that certainly engender similar views from the other side.

I would love for conservatives to return to the mindset of Reagan and Bush Sr. I'd still disagree with their policies, but we'd have compromise, and we'd move forward on things like infrastructure, addressing a changing workplace, etc.

Instead, we get if Obama and the Dems are for it, then we are a'gin it, because Obama is stupid and evil and not American.

 

[Bruce1]

1. Term Limits does what except make the same folks you say are in it for power and control fight even harder to get both (and the money that comes with both) while they can, while also making it more likely that unqualified or crazy folks get in with more frequency?

2. Democrats are on board with campaign finance reform. We passed bills about it (even with some Republican support). Your republican justices voted it down. But sure, both sides are the same.

There is nothing lazier than the whole both sides are equally to blame and they all suck folks. It's intellectually facile.

There are people, in both parties who are trying to do what they think is right. There are people, in both parties who, to varying degrees, have motives other than that. There are ideologues in both parties, and there are compromisers in both parties.

We had more compromise in earlier eras primarily because Republicans back then were better. Reagan was better. Bush Sr was better. The senators and republicans in the House were better. Better at what? Better at compromising. Better at trading this for that. Better at giving up in one area to gain in another.

Tip and Reagan made deals. Tip got domestic things he wanted, Reagan got the military/foreign policy stuff he wanted. Bush Sr. did the same thing...only right about then the Rush Effect started and instead of getting credit for compromising on taxes with a modest raise to address the economy, he ended up losing the election over it more or less.

From then on, one side has gotten more and more unwilling to compromise and more and more willing to label the other side not just as wrong, but evil, stupid, anti-American.

And yes, that certainly engender similar views from the other side.

I would love for conservatives to return to the mindset of Reagan and Bush Sr. I'd still disagree with their policies, but we'd have compromise, and we'd move forward on things like infrastructure, addressing a changing workplace, etc.

Instead, we get if Obama and the Dems are for it, then we are a'gin it, because Obama is stupid and evil and not American.

Well spoken, I rest my case.

 

[qazplm]

Well spoken, I rest my case.

Your case is a loser because your case is as I've said above...intellectually facile and lazy.

Your proposed solutions would do nothing.

One side is worse than the other when it comes to compromise. Objectively so. Does that mean one side is perfect and with the angels? No, of course not...but if Reps were as willing as Dems to compromise, more stuff would get done.

Dems are willing to trade still. Dems are willing to give. At least a little bit.

And the problem really isn't in the Senate. I'll say this nice about some republicans, if it were just the Senate, and they weren't worried about TP revolts, then I think a lot more stuff would get done. I think Boehner, if he didn't have to deal with those revolts, would have gotten stuff done.

But there is an element in one party, that thinks the government itself is a waste. That element rules a large portion of that parties primaries, and scares the beejebus out of the reasonable folks in that party and they end up adopting and doing the worst of that element to keep their jobs.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Your proposed solutions would do nothing.

One side is worse than the other when it comes to compromise. Objectively so... Dems are willing to trade still. Dems are willing to give. At least a little bit.

And the problem really isn't in the Senate. I'll say this nice about some republicans, if it were just the Senate, and they weren't worried about TP revolts, then I think a lot more stuff would get done. I think Boehner, if he didn't have to deal with those revolts, would have gotten stuff done.

But there is an element in one party, that thinks the government itself is a waste. That element rules a large portion of that parties primaries, and scares the beejebus out of the reasonable folks in that party and they end up adopting and doing the worst of that element to keep their jobs.

I think this is a fair view. It's one that, even in my most conservative tirades against Obamacare, I was willing to acknowledge. The gov't shutdowns and sequestration were just mind-blowingly stupid political tactics that really turned me off from the Republican party as a whole, though I recognize that the element within the party that caused it wasn't the part of the party and conservatism with which I most identify. That was obviously proven true during the primary cycle where the candidates I found most appealing were summarily dismissed by populism and demagoguery.

Now, I don't know that Democrats were all that willing to play nice-nice under Bush in his second term (in some cases rightly so), and if Trump wins the election somehow, I doubt they will be again. I generally agree that the "both parties suck" argument is lazy, even though I've made it because I actually agree with it in some ways. I don't truly identify with either of the major political parties, and probably most identify with the Libertarians though I find their isolationist foreign policy views every bit as repulsive as most Republican views on social policies and most Democratic views on fiscal policies. No matter which lever I pull or box I check, I'm always giving something away, and that frustrates me.

I don't think I agree about term limits. On one hand, the money grab would be more concentrated over a four-year term. On the other, I think it might limit or (unlikely) ideally eliminate big-time politics from being a place where people go to enrich themselves. The window of earning power in that regard is much smaller, and it becomes more difficult for lobby groups to predict with whom they should establish relationships early on to earn votes. On the flip side, you'd have a whole bunch of first-term people in office and it might take them as long to figure out how to get things done as it takes them to actually do them, and maybe then you get career staffers who are on the take.

In any event, I would like to see term limits, even if it's not one-term limit, enacted if for nothing else than most elections are won and lost based on name recognition. There is such an inherent advantage for incumbents at pretty much every level, having two-term limits at all levels at least forces a little bit of opportunity for fresh ideas and change, and perhaps reduces the impact of career politicians on the take.

 

[qazplm]

I think this is a fair view. It's one that, even in my most conservative tirades against Obamacare, I was willing to acknowledge. The gov't shutdowns and sequestration were just mind-blowingly stupid political tactics that really turned me off from the Republican party as a whole, though I recognize that the element within the party that caused it wasn't the part of the party and conservatism with which I most identify. That was obviously proven true during the primary cycle where the candidates I found most appealing were summarily dismissed by populism and demagoguery.

Now, I don't know that Democrats were all that willing to play nice-nice under Bush in his second term (in some cases rightly so), and if Trump wins the election somehow, I doubt they will be again. I generally agree that the "both parties suck" argument is lazy, even though I've made it because I actually agree with it in some ways. I don't truly identify with either of the major political parties, and probably most identify with the Libertarians though I find their isolationist foreign policy views every bit as repulsive as most Republican views on social policies and most Democratic views on fiscal policies. No matter which lever I pull or box I check, I'm always giving something away, and that frustrates me.

I don't think I agree about term limits. On one hand, the money grab would be more concentrated over a four-year term. On the other, I think it might limit or (unlikely) ideally eliminate big-time politics from being a place where people go to enrich themselves. The window of earning power in that regard is much smaller, and it becomes more difficult for lobby groups to predict with whom they should establish relationships early on to earn votes. On the flip side, you'd have a whole bunch of first-term people in office and it might take them as long to figure out how to get things done as it takes them to actually do them, and maybe then you get career staffers who are on the take.

In any event, I would like to see term limits, even if it's not one-term limit, enacted if for nothing else than most elections are won and lost based on name recognition. There is such an inherent advantage for incumbents at pretty much every level, having two-term limits at all levels at least forces a little bit of opportunity for fresh ideas and change, and perhaps reduces the impact of career politicians on the take.

I just think that being on the take is more a function of the politician involved than of the length that politician is there. I think there is value in understanding exactly how things work and being able to operate and you only get that through experience. I don't propose to have a great solution, except perhaps a recognition that graft and pay for play is an unavoidable side effect of politics and minimizing it is all you can best hope for. To me the best thing we can do is return to a time when the other side was just wrong vice evil, and where getting a partial victory was good enough.

This is something the far left is getting worse and worse with Sanders STILL not endorsing Clinton even though she's given him about 80% of what he wants in the platform. She's better than I am because at this point Go and Yourself and a word in the middle that rhymes with Duck would be out of my mouth in dealing with Sander's "purity" at this point.

"Purity" is the real problem here IMO. On both sides to some extent, more recently on the left, more long-standing on the right.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

This is something the far left is getting worse and worse with Sanders STILL not endorsing Clinton even though she's given him about 80% of what he wants in the platform. She's better than I am because at this point Go and Yourself and a word in the middle that rhymes with Duck would be out of my mouth in dealing with Sander's "purity" at this point.

"Purity" is the real problem here IMO. On both sides to some extent, more recently on the left, more long-standing on the right.

I'm sure most will look at the other side and say "purity" is a problem there and has been for longer. I can certainly point to individuals on the left who have been "purists" for a long time just like there are many on the right as well. Overall, though, I agree and that's what's frustrated me as we've run off the reasonable Republican candidates in favor of Ted Cruz and another dude where we have no flippin' clue what he's actually going to do. Part of me would love to believe that he's actually fairly moderate, but that's certainly not how he's selling himself. As I've said before, Clinton is the devil I know, and while she's ceding platform talking points to Bernie, I generally know what she's going to do in office and I'm confident that it's not going to be so far to the left that it makes me want to vomit. I wish we had a balance on the Republican side, but... *sigh*.

 

[qazplm]

I'm sure most will look at the other side and say "purity" is a problem there and has been for longer. I can certainly point to individuals on the left who have been "purists" for a long time just like there are many on the right as well. Overall, though, I agree and that's what's frustrated me as we've run off the reasonable Republican candidates in favor of Ted Cruz and another dude where we have no flippin' clue what he's actually going to do. Part of me would love to believe that he's actually fairly moderate, but that's certainly not how he's selling himself. As I've said before, Clinton is the devil I know, and while she's ceding platform talking points to Bernie, I generally know what she's going to do in office and I'm confident that it's not going to be so far to the left that it makes me want to vomit. I wish we had a balance on the Republican side, but... *sigh*.

I think my point is that, until recently, the purists on the left were more or less kept at bay...and even now, it's left of center Hillary not the purist who won. Granted, Trump is far, far from a purist, but the purist elements certainly seem to be supporting him.

There are plenty of purists on the left, for whatever reason, they have not had the impact on their party that those on the right have.

 

[Bruce1]

The point of my post was that we need to forget partisanship, red, blue etc!! You guys immediately jump to taking shots from a partisan view. It is totally rediculous. Qaz immediately jumped into the fray saying it is all the fault of one side only. How stupid!! We need to get out of the box and start from a view that America is ours, not red, not blue, but red white AND blue.

Step back, take off the blinders and get real.

 

[qazplm]

The point of my post was that we need to forget partisanship, red, blue etc!! You guys immediately jump to taking shots from a partisan view. It is totally rediculous. Qaz immediately jumped into the fray saying it is all the fault of one side only. How stupid!! We need to get out of the box and start from a view that America is ours, not red, not blue, but red white AND blue.

Step back, take off the blinders and get real.

LMAO you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Your last line is the definition of vapid and hokey.

"Partisanship" simply recognizes that there are two main threads of thought that run through the American politic...one more or less captured by the term democrat, and one more or less captured by the term republican.

If you banned both parties, and started from scratch, you would still end up with roughly the same two collections of primary populations, as well as a third population that appreciated elements from both populations but that more or less would end up siding with one side or the other most of the time because few "independents" split right down the middle between the two...they lean one way or the other.

So you'd have the same issues if you changed the names, created new parties, or got rid of parties.

That issue being that there are faultlines that have nothing to do with "partisanship" and there are purity issues with folks who believe that you have to get 100 percent of the pie or bust and that the folks on the other side of an issue are evil.

"Partisanship" didn't stop Reagan and Tip from making deals, or Bush and the Dem counterpart from making deals, or LBJ and his republican counterpart from making deals, etc etc. It's only been in the last 20 or so years that this problem has arised and yes it's more in one side than the other.

Which is ******* not the same thing as saying it is all the fault of one side only.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

In any event, I would like to see term limits, even if it's not one-term limit, enacted if for nothing else than most elections are won and lost based on name recognition. There is such an inherent advantage for incumbents at pretty much every level, having two-term limits at all levels at least forces a little bit of opportunity for fresh ideas and change, and perhaps reduces the impact of career politicians on the take.

I would also like to see term limits. I think 15 year max would be good. Senators are averaging 13 year careers now! There are too many crooks protected on high from big money and too many old grudges. I would love to see them recycled. I firmly believe nothing good happens because we have the same old eyes on the same old problems. No new ideas. No new compromises. Just maximum corruption.

 

[Bruce1]

I would also like to see term limits. I think 15 year max would be good. Senators are averaging 13 year careers now! There are too many crooks protected on high from big money and too many old grudges. I would love to see them recycled. I firmly believe nothing good happens because we have the same old eyes on the same old problems. No new ideas. No new compromises. Just maximum corruption.

I would also propose that we create a system where once a candidate gets qualified to run for the House, Senate, or President/VP all campaign funding be provided by the Fed Government. There would be no fund raising of any kind needed or allowed. There would be no PAC's spending funds over and above the amount allowed by the government. Excess funds, if any, would be returned to the Gov. All expenditures would be audited to insure the integrity of the system. This sounds impossible but would eliminate the influence peddling and allow elected officials to serve the people.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I would also propose that we create a system where once a candidate gets qualified to run for the House, Senate, or President/VP all campaign funding be provided by the Fed Government. There would be no fund raising of any kind needed or allowed. There would be no PAC's spending funds over and above the amount allowed by the government. Excess funds, if any, would be returned to the Gov. All expenditures would be audited to insure the integrity of the system. This sounds impossible but would eliminate the influence peddling and allow elected officials to serve the people.

unfortunately overlord roberts has opened the flood gates and it's going to be some time before they can be closed.

 

[Bruce1]

unfortunately overlord roberts has opened the flood gates and it's going to be some time before they can be closed.

True, I am thinking that the American people simply have to stand up and demand major changes. I don't think either party would ever consider such a drastic change but until something similar to this can be done our country will continue to slide. All of the partisanship wrangling on boards like this are just a waste of time.

 

[qazplm]

True, I am thinking that the American people simply have to stand up and demand major changes. I don't think either party would ever consider such a drastic change but until something similar to this can be done our country will continue to slide. All of the partisanship wrangling on boards like this are just a waste of time.

Really? One party is actively campaigning on getting rid of Citizen's United. But in your "they all suck" cubby hole, you miss stuff like that.

 

[Bruce1]

Really? One party is actively campaigning on getting rid of Citizen's United. But in your "they all suck" cubby hole, you miss stuff like that.

Qaz, thanks, you continue to confirm exactly what I'm talking about. It appears to be absolutely impossible for you to do anything other than rave that Blue is great and Red is evil. To me that has become the downfall of our county.

Over the past 30 years we have had red governments and blue governments and what is the result? I found this article from the BBC f all places that sums up exactly the situation.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35653619

Try reading through clear glasses for a change.

 

[qazplm]

Qaz, thanks, you continue to confirm exactly what I'm talking about. It appears to be absolutely impossible for you to do anything other than rave that Blue is great and Red is evil. To me that has become the downfall of our county.

Over the past 30 years we have had red governments and blue governments and what is the result? I found this article from the BBC f all places that sums up exactly the situation.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35653619

Try reading through clear glasses for a change.

One party is actively campaigning to get rid of citizen's united yes or no?

 

[Bruce1]

One party is actively campaigning to get rid of citizen's united yes or no?

For once why don't you try discussing the original post. One time.

 

[qazplm]

For once why don't you try discussing the original post. One time.

Yes or no?

 

[Bruce1]

Yes or no?

Try reading. You might learn something.

 

[qazplm]

Try reading. You might learn something.

Yes or no? We both know it's yes which is why you are avoiding it.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

True, I am thinking that the American people simply have to stand up and demand major changes. I don't think either party would ever consider such a drastic change but until something similar to this can be done our country will continue to slide. All of the partisanship wrangling on boards like this are just a waste of time.

For what it is worth Bruce . . . I agree with your comments.

LOTS of changes are needed, if we are ever going to run our government "half-way" efficiently. Greed has completely taken over our politics and not what's best for the country. (Hence the reason I still believe we will eventually need a NEW & strong 3rd party with common sense. )

Term limits would help. I would prefer 8-10 years so that they understand this is NOT a career or money making opportunity, but a service-related position. When you have people stashing payoffs in their freezer, passing laws which allow them to legally trade on inside information from their committees and not having to live with the same health care, retirement, financial and legal conditions which they pass for us, you quickly understand how they can completely forget about the average American . . . until election time. (But . . even that, only applies to those who have not gerrymandered their districts to ensure no opposition.)

 

[qazplm]

For what it is worth Bruce . . . I agree with your comments.

LOTS of changes are needed, if we are ever going to run our government "half-way" efficiently. Greed has completely taken over our politics and not what's best for the country. (Hence the reason I still believe we will eventually need a NEW & strong 3rd party with common sense. )

Term limits would help. I would prefer 8-10 years so that they understand this is NOT a career or money making opportunity, but a service-related position. When you have people stashing payoffs in their freezer, passing laws which allow them to legally trade on inside information from their committees and not having to live with the same health care, retirement, financial and legal conditions which they pass for us, you quickly understand how they can completely forget about the average American . . . until election time. (But . . even that, only applies to those who have not gerrymandered their districts to ensure no opposition.)

Who is the "average American?"

 

[Bruce1]

For what it is worth Bruce . . . I agree with your comments.

LOTS of changes are needed, if we are ever going to run our government "half-way" efficiently. Greed has completely taken over our politics and not what's best for the country. (Hence the reason I still believe we will eventually need a NEW & strong 3rd party with common sense. )

Term limits would help. I would prefer 8-10 years so that they understand this is NOT a career or money making opportunity, but a service-related position. When you have people stashing payoffs in their freezer, passing laws which allow them to legally trade on inside information from their committees and not having to live with the same health care, retirement, financial and legal conditions which they pass for us, you quickly understand how they can completely forget about the average American . . . until election time. (But . . even that, only applies to those who have not gerrymandered their districts to ensure no opposition.)

Thanks, I am hoping that the focus on the Clintons, although a lot of it is bogus, will highlight the issue as it is clearly an issue across the board. Something has to be done more than just making changes to the current system. I am going to read up on what other countries do.

 

[lbodel]

All over this and other boards I read are posters going at each other from their traditional Dem vs Rep views. When I was a kid I asked my Mom and Dad what the difference between the groups were. Dems are for the people and Reps are for business was the answer. When I see this bickering continue her whether it is gun control, immigration, etc. it is just stupid.

The FACTS ARE that neither party gives one crap about any of us!!! All they want is power and money,! Until we all wake up and demand changes to the electoral system, i.e. Term limits and campaign finance reform we can all continue to sit back and spend our time attacking each other on boards like these and watch our "representatives" take our money and our freedoms.

Here's the problem - people say this but then don't like the results.

For example, the Senate today is VERY different than it was 10 years ago. There's been a lot of retirements and change. However, it's gotten less productive - even with the "Tea Party" rush in the House and Senate. These are fresh, "anti-Washington" people that people clamored for, yet the Congress was even less productive than with the "establishment" in charge.

One thing you didn't mention is congressional districts. They've been re-drawn to the tee to make it very hard to have competitive elections in many states.

 

[Bruce1]

Here's the problem - people say this but then don't like the results.

For example, the Senate today is VERY different than it was 10 years ago. There's been a lot of retirements and change. However, it's gotten less productive - even with the "Tea Party" rush in the House and Senate. These are fresh, "anti-Washington" people that people clamored for, yet the Congress was even less productive than with the "establishment" in charge.

One thing you didn't mention is congressional districts. They've been re-drawn to the tee to make it very hard to have competitive elections in many states.

Agree there are a lot of issues. I feel the biggest issue is the money involved. It would,be instructional to look at how some of the other countries handle these issues. I'm not saying we should just blindly follow the others but we should look at what they do. I think we can learn a lot. If we take the money out of the process I believe people would work together for the overall good of the voters. Gun Control, for example, if it wasn't for the NRA I believe the obvious common sense items would be resolved. I am a gun advocate, by the way but I feel there are some regulations that would really make sense. Would they eliminate mass shootings? No, but they should still be enacted.

Eliminating PACs, fund raising, and icy people using their own money to get elected would go a long way n improving the situation IMO.

 

[lbodel]

Agree there are a lot of issues. I feel the biggest issue is the money involved. It would,be instructional to look at how some of the other countries handle these issues. I'm not saying we should just blindly follow the others but we should look at what they do. I think we can learn a lot. If we take the money out of the process I believe people would work together for the overall good of the voters. Gun Control, for example, if it wasn't for the NRA I believe the obvious common sense items would be resolved. I am a gun advocate, by the way but I feel there are some regulations that would really make sense. Would they eliminate mass shootings? No, but they should still be enacted.

Eliminating PACs, fund raising, and icy people using their own money to get elected would go a long way n improving the situation IMO.

The NRA actually isn't powerful because of money. The aren't that well funded and don't put that much money into elections (they put some - but not really that much compared to other lobbying entities). The NRA is powerful because they operate heavily on fear towards their die-hard members. They don't have 40 million members - they have around 4 million, which is not that many given the overall population of this country. However, their 4 million members are rather die-hard and listen to the NRA like it is a religion and they are very politically active.

The NRA is not shy about stoking fear and use it to their advantage to get their members active and to then become active in their communities. This is why Republican politicians vote exactly how the NRA wants them to - they don't want the NRA to turn on them. You also see this with some Democrats - it depends on where they live. Obviously many Republicans are representing more heavily NRA influenced districts.

So you can take the money away - it would have a slight impact. But this is why I mention congressional districts. If they aren't drawn to basically elect someone from 1 specific party, then this matters less.

 

[BoilerMadness]

1. Term Limits does what except make the same folks you say are in it for power and control fight even harder to get both (and the money that comes with both) while they can, while also making it more likely that unqualified or crazy folks get in with more frequency?

2. Democrats are on board with campaign finance reform. We passed bills about it (even with some Republican support). Your republican justices voted it down. But sure, both sides are the same.

There is nothing lazier than the whole both sides are equally to blame and they all suck folks. It's intellectually facile.

There are people, in both parties who are trying to do what they think is right. There are people, in both parties who, to varying degrees, have motives other than that. There are ideologues in both parties, and there are compromisers in both parties.

We had more compromise in earlier eras primarily because Republicans back then were better. Reagan was better. Bush Sr was better. The senators and republicans in the House were better. Better at what? Better at compromising. Better at trading this for that. Better at giving up in one area to gain in another.

Tip and Reagan made deals. Tip got domestic things he wanted, Reagan got the military/foreign policy stuff he wanted. Bush Sr. did the same thing...only right about then the Rush Effect started and instead of getting credit for compromising on taxes with a modest raise to address the economy, he ended up losing the election over it more or less.

From then on, one side has gotten more and more unwilling to compromise and more and more willing to label the other side not just as wrong, but evil, stupid, anti-American.

And yes, that certainly engender similar views from the other side.

I would love for conservatives to return to the mindset of Reagan and Bush Sr. I'd still disagree with their policies, but we'd have compromise, and we'd move forward on things like infrastructure, addressing a changing workplace, etc.

Instead, we get if Obama and the Dems are for it, then we are a'gin it, because Obama is stupid and evil and not American.

Unfortunately, the Dems idea of compromise has become, "Let's do it our way or not at all". You're trying to sell the notion that the Republicans are combative and inflexible, but when have Obama, Reid or Pelosi negotiated anything. They are completely inflexible. When the Dems held the House and the Senate, Pelosi and Reid behaved like little dictators and the Republicans got pushed into the shadows. Wasn't it Obama, who said, "Elections have consequences", when he blew off anything the Republicans proposed? You need to learn to open your other eye. Viewing the world only through your left eye is warping your perspective.

 

[BoilerMadness]

I think this is a fair view. It's one that, even in my most conservative tirades against Obamacare, I was willing to acknowledge. The gov't shutdowns and sequestration were just mind-blowingly stupid political tactics that really turned me off from the Republican party as a whole, though I recognize that the element within the party that caused it wasn't the part of the party and conservatism with which I most identify. That was obviously proven true during the primary cycle where the candidates I found most appealing were summarily dismissed by populism and demagoguery.

Now, I don't know that Democrats were all that willing to play nice-nice under Bush in his second term (in some cases rightly so), and if Trump wins the election somehow, I doubt they will be again. I generally agree that the "both parties suck" argument is lazy, even though I've made it because I actually agree with it in some ways. I don't truly identify with either of the major political parties, and probably most identify with the Libertarians though I find their isolationist foreign policy views every bit as repulsive as most Republican views on social policies and most Democratic views on fiscal policies. No matter which lever I pull or box I check, I'm always giving something away, and that frustrates me.

I don't think I agree about term limits. On one hand, the money grab would be more concentrated over a four-year term. On the other, I think it might limit or (unlikely) ideally eliminate big-time politics from being a place where people go to enrich themselves. The window of earning power in that regard is much smaller, and it becomes more difficult for lobby groups to predict with whom they should establish relationships early on to earn votes. On the flip side, you'd have a whole bunch of first-term people in office and it might take them as long to figure out how to get things done as it takes them to actually do them, and maybe then you get career staffers who are on the take.

In any event, I would like to see term limits, even if it's not one-term limit, enacted if for nothing else than most elections are won and lost based on name recognition. There is such an inherent advantage for incumbents at pretty much every level, having two-term limits at all levels at least forces a little bit of opportunity for fresh ideas and change, and perhaps reduces the impact of career politicians on the take.

Don't blame the Republicans for sequestration. Obama was the one who came up with the concept

Here's the problem - people say this but then don't like the results.

For example, the Senate today is VERY different than it was 10 years ago. There's been a lot of retirements and change. However, it's gotten less productive - even with the "Tea Party" rush in the House and Senate. These are fresh, "anti-Washington" people that people clamored for, yet the Congress was even less productive than with the "establishment" in charge.

One thing you didn't mention is congressional districts. They've been re-drawn to the tee to make it very hard to have competitive elections in many states.

One of the big reasons, that Congress became less effective recently was Harry Reid. The Republican House would send legislation to the Senate and Harry would stack the bills on his desk and never bring them to the floor for a vote. Of course the media would blame the Republicans for never passing any laws, but Harry's desk gobbled up a lot of legislation. Sadly, McConnel is such a wimp, that he's not getting much done either.

Actually, instead of passing a lot of new laws, I wish Congress would take the time to review/replace/delete all the laws we have on the books now.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Don't blame the Republicans for sequestration. Obama was the one who came up with the concept.

Republicans were the ones that implemented it and cost the military billions in funding. They basically called Obama's bluff on actually implementing it because it cut military budgets while also cutting other discretionary spending. Essentially Obama never thought the Republicans would be stupid enough to actually do it, but they did it as a power play against the President. Yes, I blame them for it, and I think I'm right in doing so.

 

[qazplm]

Unfortunately, the Dems idea of compromise has become, "Let's do it our way or not at all". You're trying to sell the notion that the Republicans are combative and inflexible, but when have Obama, Reid or Pelosi negotiated anything. They are completely inflexible. When the Dems held the House and the Senate, Pelosi and Reid behaved like little dictators and the Republicans got pushed into the shadows. Wasn't it Obama, who said, "Elections have consequences", when he blew off anything the Republicans proposed? You need to learn to open your other eye. Viewing the world only through your left eye is warping your perspective.

Yawn. That last sentence is a giant black pot given all that preceded it.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Yawn. That last sentence is a giant black pot given all that preceded it.

When you can't refute it, then try to dismiss it. Your act gets so old after a while.

 

[db]

1. Term Limits does what except make the same folks you say are in it for power and control fight even harder to get both (and the money that comes with both) while they can, while also making it more likely that unqualified or crazy folks get in with more frequency?

2. Democrats are on board with campaign finance reform. We passed bills about it (even with some Republican support). Your republican justices voted it down. But sure, both sides are the same.

There is nothing lazier than the whole both sides are equally to blame and they all suck folks. It's intellectually facile.

There are people, in both parties who are trying to do what they think is right. There are people, in both parties who, to varying degrees, have motives other than that. There are ideologues in both parties, and there are compromisers in both parties.

We had more compromise in earlier eras primarily because Republicans back then were better. Reagan was better. Bush Sr was better. The senators and republicans in the House were better. Better at what? Better at compromising. Better at trading this for that. Better at giving up in one area to gain in another.

Tip and Reagan made deals. Tip got domestic things he wanted, Reagan got the military/foreign policy stuff he wanted. Bush Sr. did the same thing...only right about then the Rush Effect started and instead of getting credit for compromising on taxes with a modest raise to address the economy, he ended up losing the election over it more or less.

From then on, one side has gotten more and more unwilling to compromise and more and more willing to label the other side not just as wrong, but evil, stupid, anti-American.

And yes, that certainly engender similar views from the other side.

I would love for conservatives to return to the mindset of Reagan and Bush Sr. I'd still disagree with their policies, but we'd have compromise, and we'd move forward on things like infrastructure, addressing a changing workplace, etc.

Instead, we get if Obama and the Dems are for it, then we are a'gin it, because Obama is stupid and evil and not American.

I'm only back on this largely useless board today because of the recent tragedies, but I saw this post and have to say, qazplm, it's one of your better efforts. Well said.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Republicans were the ones that implemented it and cost the military billions in funding. They basically called Obama's bluff on actually implementing it because it cut military budgets while also cutting other discretionary spending. Essentially Obama never thought the Republicans would be stupid enough to actually do it, but they did it as a power play against the President. Yes, I blame them for it, and I think I'm right in doing so.

You're absolutely right, they called HIS bluff, yet you assign no blame to the guy who originated the idea. The point was to reign in our government's out of control spending and that was the only avenue available. Obama has added over 10 TRILLION dollars to our deficit already and the number would be substantially larger, if sequestration hadn't happened. It may not have been the best method, but it was the only option available at the time.

Unfortunately, our politicians use the Defense Budget as their own personal piggy bank. If they want to "bring home the bacon" invariably, they will add a line item to the DoD Budget, where a factory in their district gets a contract to produce something that the DoD neither wants, nor needs. There is a lot of bloat in the DoD budget, that could be removed, without affecting operational forces. Since Obama didn't like having his bluff called, he made sure that the operational budgets took a substantial hit, so there would be a backlash. The fact that Obama doesn't have a lot of love or respect for the military, just made it that much more satisfying for him. Congratulations, he has made you a useful pawn.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

I'm only back on this largely useless board today because of the recent tragedies, but I saw this post and have to say, qazplm, it's one of your better efforts. Well said.

If you think this board is largely useless, whattya think about OGFP Water Cooler, where 3 people who are all going to vote for Hillary Clinton still manage to argue incessantly...and you chime in every once in a while?

 

[qazplm]

If you think this board is largely useless, whattya think about OGFP Water Cooler, where 3 people who are all going to vote for Hillary Clinton still manage to argue incessantly...and you chime in every once in a while?

Crob had a goal for whatever reason to make that board useless and he's succeeded.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Crob had a goal for whatever reason to make that board useless and he's succeeded.

None of those knuckleheads are covering themselves in glory.

 

[qazplm]

None of those knuckleheads are covering themselves in glory.

It is a dead forum. It was useful for about two months and then crap. But I blame CRob. There were silly folks on both sides, but he was the one that side-tracked every attempt at meaningful conversation. He said at the start he thought the forum was stupid and his goal was to show that.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

...Congratulations, he has made you a useful pawn.

Yes, yes, I'm a pawn of Obama. I certainly just blindly agree with anything and everything He does. Long live the King!

The problem I have with what the Republicans have done under Obama is that they haven't really recognized that as the minority party, and then eventually under a Democratic president holding both houses of Congress, there is give and take that must happen. Instead, Republicans have engaged in breath-holding (government shutdown) and have been largely ineffective at putting legislation on the President's desk forcing his hand one way or the other. I guess I should be more direct and say I blame the Tea Party for that, but in truth I've been extremely disappointed with the Republican congress the last two years after being embarrassed by them as the minority party in the Senate before that.

The common argument is "well, they started it!" Right, got it, but be the bigger party that steps up to lead and play across the aisle. That whole "compromise" thing has gone out the window since about 2006.

 

[qazplm]

Yes, yes, I'm a pawn of Obama. I certainly just blindly agree with anything and everything He does. Long live the King!

I've seen you terrorist fist bumping around town...admit it.