"Has the G.O.P. Gone Off the Deep End?"

[kallend 2,180]

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/has-the-g-o-p-gone-off-the-deep-end/?src=me&ref=general

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NorrinRadd 0]

kallend

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/has-the-g-o-p-gone-off-the-deep-end/?src=me&ref=general

I would say the whole two party system has gone off the deep end. There is no longer ANY effort on either side to create consensus. It is all just one group forcing their agendas on the other group, and both sides trying to block everything they can. The government is broken. Right down the middle, more or less. It doesn't matter who you choose to blame, because blaming doesn't fix the problem.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[Bolas 5]

NorrinRadd

***opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/has-the-g-o-p-gone-off-the-deep-end/?src=me&ref=general

I would say the whole two party system has gone off the deep end. There is no longer ANY effort on either side to create consensus. It is all just one group forcing their agendas on the other group, and both sides trying to block everything they can. The government is broken. Right down the middle, more or less. It doesn't matter who you choose to blame, because blaming doesn't fix the problem.

Yep. The two party system gives you the choice between the party that stands for larger government with more control because they know what's best for you or the the party that does the same to save your soul, but also protects your gun rights.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[rushmc 23]

Not at all
Just lost another RINO

good riddance

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Looking at it from the outside, you've got two parties who are polar opposites, that do nothing much but fight each other. I get the feeling that most people just want something in the middle. Most people are not right-wing nut jobs or left-wing socialists. Most people are fairly 'normal'.

All that ends up happening is each party scuppers any attempt by the other to do anything. All the big topics just end up with, at best (worst?), watered down legislation that doesn't really achieve anything or nothing happens at all.

Over here we've seen exactly the opposite, with a race to the centre ground as, over the past 20 years, the political parties have realised that most people are pretty moderate in their views and just want things to work. Labour (left leaning) got elected in '97 by taking a big leap to the right and taking up the middle ground. They dropped a lot of their most extreme leftist ideals and held power for more than a decade. They lost power in part because the left leaning part of the party took over from within.

The Conservative party (right leaning) came to power in a coalition which sits fairly centrally, especially as they're being moderated by a leftist party. They're now under a lot of pressure from their party old core because they're no where near as right wing as the older iterations of the party were... but then they wouldn't be in power at all if they adopted those policies.

In the US though, all I see is divisiveness and a race to the polar opposites. Pretty odd behaviour from both parties frankly as if they want to hold power, surely the middle ground is where the most votes are? Why don't they adopt such a policy then? Because the party leaderships are governed by people hanging on to relatively extremist views who want the country to go down either a left or right wing path and will do anything they can to achieve that.

Over here, whilst there's just as much bickering between the parties and party politics as in the US, (just watch PMQT for example - you would be shocked at the jeering and cat calling) at least both parties are striving to adopt the middle ground - where the voters are - and shake off the worst of their old party ties.

US political parties, it seems, have forgotten how democracy works. You get elected by the people for the people. Parties were set up to serve particular interest groups, fine. But if that's all you do at the expense of serving the majority of the population, you're going to have a hell of a time getting elected. If that's all anyone is doing, the very system is going to start falling apart at the seams.

[dmcoco84 5]

Yet another steaming pile of dog shit...

The nonsensical arguments of Progressive vs Progressive.

Thank God John McCain lost.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Looking at it from the outside, you've got two parties who are polar opposites

Uh, No, you need to take a closer look...

Quote

that do nothing much but fight each other.

... For Power, to control any and everything; which Federally is unconstitutional.

Quote

I get the feeling that most people just want something in the middle. Most people are not right-wing nut jobs or left-wing socialists. Most people are fairly 'normal'.

With the U.S. Constitution as a basis... that makes no sense.

Quote

In the US though, all I see is divisiveness and a race to the polar opposites. Pretty odd behaviour from both parties frankly as if they want to hold power, surely the middle ground is where the most votes are? Why don't they adopt such a policy then? Because the party leaderships are governed by people hanging on to relatively extremist views who want the country to go down either a left or right wing path and will do anything they can to achieve that.

Again: With the U.S. Constitution as a basis... that makes no sense.

Quote

US political parties, it seems, have forgotten how democracy works.

We are not a democracy... and the Federal Government has "forgotten" how Federalism works.

Quote

Parties were set up to serve particular interest groups, fine.

Read Washington's thoughts on parties...

Quote

But if that's all you do at the expense of serving the majority of the population, you're going to have a hell of a time getting elected. If that's all anyone is doing, the very system is going to start falling apart at the seams.

Read what Franklin said (WHILE IN EUROPE) about making public office an honor and never allowing it to become a position of profit.

[mr2mk1g 10]

The Constitution though is not inviolable. If the vast majority of people want, say, blacks, 18 year olds or women to vote, the Constitution gets to change. Even with a Constitution, it's the people who have the say - even the Constitution can be changed if enough people want it to.

And no, you're not a democracy, you're a federal republic which is a specific type of representative democracy ie it operates through representatives that come to power by through a democratic process. If that democratic process breaks down, the system itself is at risk of collapse.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

The Constitution though is not inviolable. If the vast majority of people want, say, blacks, 18 year olds or women to vote, the Constitution gets to change.

This makes no sense...

Quote

Even with a Constitution, it's the people who have the say - even the Constitution can be changed if enough people want it to.

Yeeeeah, its call the amendment process.

Quote

And no, you're not a democracy, you're a federal republic which is a specific type of representative democracy

Sigh...

Federalist 39.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]f the vast majority of people want, say, blacks, 18 year olds or women to vote, the Constitution gets to change. Even with a Constitution, it's the people who have the say - even the Constitution can be changed if enough people want it to.

[billvon 3,132]

>Looking at it from the outside, you've got two parties who are polar opposites

Well, but they're really not. They pick a few issues (gun control, abortion) that they're really not all that much different on anyway, despite what their rhetoric says. If the GOP had a chance to ban all abortions with nothing stopping them, they'd hem and haw and then do something mealy-mouthed so as not to lose the vote of most of the women in the country. If the democrats had a chance to ban every gun they wouldn't take it either - they'd realize that it was impossible anyway and instead pass the "wonderful gun control act of the new millenium" that would ban black automatic shotguns or something. Thus giving something to their base but not reaping the fallout of an all-out gun ban.

On most things they are pretty much the same. They both want more spending, just on their pet projects. (Ask a GOPer if you should keep cutting defense spending for example.) They both want more taxes, again just on the people they don't like. Democrats want to tax the rich because "they have it so good anyway" and the GOP wants to tax the poor so "they have skin in the game" and they won't just be "parasites." They both want more government control of your life - dems in many public arenas, republicans in the bedroom. Same demands, just different in details.

There are some other political parties out there - the Green party, the Libertarians, the Constitution party - that actually do have differing ideas on government, but the dems/repubs have gotten so good at portraying themselves as "all the choice anyone could ever need" that the other parties don't get much airtime. That's partly due to their efforts but also partly due to the American psyche; we have a culture that is generally centered around two teams playing against each other. Even in game shows and sports contests with multiple teams you get most viewership when it's down to just two. That's what we're comfortable with.

[dmcoco84 5]

billvon

>Looking at it from the outside, you've got two parties who are polar opposites

Well, but they're really not. They pick a few issues (gun control, abortion) that they're really not all that much different on anyway, despite what their rhetoric says. If the GOP had a chance to ban all abortions with nothing stopping them, they'd hem and haw and then do something mealy-mouthed so as not to lose the vote of most of the women in the country. If the democrats had a chance to ban every gun they wouldn't take it either - they'd realize that it was impossible anyway and instead pass the "wonderful gun control act of the new millenium" that would ban black automatic shotguns or something. Thus giving something to their base but not reaping the fallout of an all-out gun ban.

On most things they are pretty much the same. They both want more spending, just on their pet projects. (Ask a GOPer if you should keep cutting defense spending for example.) They both want more taxes, again just on the people they don't like. Democrats want to tax the rich because "they have it so good anyway" and the GOP wants to tax the poor so "they have skin in the game" and they won't just be "parasites." They both want more government control of your life - dems in many public arenas, republicans in the bedroom. Same demands, just different in details.

There are some other political parties out there - the Green party, the Libertarians, the Constitution party - that actually do have differing ideas on government, but the dems/repubs have gotten so good at portraying themselves as "all the choice anyone could ever need" that the other parties don't get much airtime. That's partly due to their efforts but also partly due to the American psyche; we have a culture that is generally centered around two teams playing against each other. Even in game shows and sports contests with multiple teams you get most viewership when it's down to just two. That's what we're comfortable with.

So where do Progressives fit in this explanation?

You say you disagree with "my definition", but you don't give "your understanding" of what a progressive is; where it is neither abortion nor firearms that distinguish a member of either party as being, a progressive.

[billvon 3,132]

>So where do Progressives fit in this explanation?

They're generally absorbed on the democratic side, just as libertarians are generally absorbed by the republican side. Doesn't mean they are the same or even that they share the same goals, they are just close enough that the party can claim some alignment to them.

And new ones are forming all the time. The Tea Party on the right and the OWS on the left, for example. Those two are basically factions of the respective parties, though, and not really political entities in their own right.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

If the GOP had a chance to ban all abortions with nothing stopping them, they'd hem and haw and then do something mealy-mouthed so as not to lose the vote of most of the women in the country.

They would lose my vote as well.

Quote

If the democrats had a chance to ban every gun they wouldn't take it either

BS.

[dmcoco84 5]

billvon

>So where do Progressives fit in this explanation?

They're generally absorbed on the democratic side, just as libertarians are generally absorbed by the republican side. Doesn't mean they are the same or even that they share the same goals, they are just close enough that the party can claim some alignment to them.

And new ones are forming all the time. The Tea Party on the right and the OWS on the left, for example. Those two are basically factions of the respective parties, though, and not really political entities in their own right.

What you just wrote is utterly ridiculous bull shit.

Quote

You say you disagree with "my definition", but you don't give "your understanding" of what a progressive is; where it is neither abortion nor firearms that distinguish a member of either party as being, a progressive.

"The Almighty says, don't change the subject, just answer the fuckin' question."

[dmcoco84 5]

And yet again... all is quiet on the Californian front.

[OHCHUTE 0]

mr2mk1g

Looking at it from the outside, you've got two parties who are polar opposites, that do nothing much but fight each other. I get the feeling that most people just want something in the middle. Most people are not right-wing nut jobs or left-wing socialists. Most people are fairly 'normal'.

All that ends up happening is each party scuppers any attempt by the other to do anything. All the big topics just end up with, at best (worst?), watered down legislation that doesn't really achieve anything or nothing happens at all.

Over here we've seen exactly the opposite, with a race to the centre ground as, over the past 20 years, the political parties have realised that most people are pretty moderate in their views and just want things to work. Labour (left leaning) got elected in '97 by taking a big leap to the right and taking up the middle ground. They dropped a lot of their most extreme leftist ideals and held power for more than a decade. They lost power in part because the left leaning part of the party took over from within.

The Conservative party (right leaning) came to power in a coalition which sits fairly centrally, especially as they're being moderated by a leftist party. They're now under a lot of pressure from their party old core because they're no where near as right wing as the older iterations of the party were... but then they wouldn't be in power at all if they adopted those policies.

In the US though, all I see is divisiveness and a race to the polar opposites. Pretty odd behaviour from both parties frankly as if they want to hold power, surely the middle ground is where the most votes are? Why don't they adopt such a policy then? Because the party leaderships are governed by people hanging on to relatively extremist views who want the country to go down either a left or right wing path and will do anything they can to achieve that.

Over here, whilst there's just as much bickering between the parties and party politics as in the US, (just watch PMQT for example - you would be shocked at the jeering and cat calling) at least both parties are striving to adopt the middle ground - where the voters are - and shake off the worst of their old party ties.

US political parties, it seems, have forgotten how democracy works. You get elected by the people for the people. Parties were set up to serve particular interest groups, fine. But if that's all you do at the expense of serving the majority of the population, you're going to have a hell of a time getting elected. If that's all anyone is doing, the very system is going to start falling apart at the seams.

They want the country divided. This way it keeps the country together enough so that the financial guys can make all the money the want. They just stole trillions from our treasury in commissions and bonuses via the bank ponzi and are now driving the middle class, moderates in the ground through excessive college tuition debt. The parties are both controlled by interest groups tied to wall street. Congressional members are basically insider traders.

[kallend 2,180]

dmcoco84

And yet again... all is quiet on the Californian front.

He's probably out rioting.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Southern_Man 0]

billvon

, just as libertarians are generally absorbed by the republican side.

I think this used to be true, but I'm not sure it is any longer. I consider myself libertarian leaning and identify about zero with the republican party. It is the worst of all worlds for a libertarian--they are big tax and spenders and also want to meddle in personal liberties (civil rights, anyone?) I know a lot of other libertarian leaning people who feel the same way.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"