A Waste of Political Capital

[Marion Morrison]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

 

[candycorn]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

I disagree about term limits. I think you'd just get a lower caliber of politician; the influence machine will just find a different way to sweeten the pot for lawmakers, and there would be zero ways for voters to hold a term-limited lawmaker accountable. Instead of campaign contributions from Halliburton, you'd see Halliburton offering a seat on the board to Senator Smith or hiring the brother-in-law of the Senator. If the story did break on the 6PM news tomorrow for example; what would Senator Smith lose by having his approval numbers in the lower single digits...he can't run again anyway?

You want to change the game, change the rules. Get money out of politics so party bosses no longer can control the fortunes (pun not intended) of their junior members with national money. Get rid of the committee system that rewards party patronage and replace it with open format committees where any member of, lets say the House, can join the committee; interrogate witnesses, give testimony, introduce evidence....

 

[Marion Morrison]

I disagree about term limits. I think you'd just get a lower caliber of politician; the influence machine will just find a different way to sweeten the pot for lawmakers, and there would be zero ways for voters to hold a term-limited lawmaker accountable. Instead of campaign contributions from Halliburton, you'd see Halliburton offering a seat on the board to Senator Smith or hiring the brother-in-law of the Senator. If the story did break on the 6PM news tomorrow for example; what would Senator Smith lose by having his approval numbers in the lower single digits...he can't run again anyway?

You want to change the game, change the rules. Get money out of politics so party bosses no longer can control the fortunes (pun not intended) of their junior members with national money. Get rid of the committee system that rewards party patronage and replace it with open format committees where any member of, lets say the House, can join the committee; interrogate witnesses, give testimony, introduce evidence....

You're derp anyways.
I do agree with the bolded.

 

[candycorn]

I disagree about term limits. I think you'd just get a lower caliber of politician; the influence machine will just find a different way to sweeten the pot for lawmakers, and there would be zero ways for voters to hold a term-limited lawmaker accountable. Instead of campaign contributions from Halliburton, you'd see Halliburton offering a seat on the board to Senator Smith or hiring the brother-in-law of the Senator. If the story did break on the 6PM news tomorrow for example; what would Senator Smith lose by having his approval numbers in the lower single digits...he can't run again anyway?

You want to change the game, change the rules. Get money out of politics so party bosses no longer can control the fortunes (pun not intended) of their junior members with national money. Get rid of the committee system that rewards party patronage and replace it with open format committees where any member of, lets say the House, can join the committee; interrogate witnesses, give testimony, introduce evidence....

You're derp anyways.
I do agree with the bolded.

Not sure what that means.

 

[flacaltenn]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

Trump was a confirming experiment that WAY too much money gets wasted in Politics. All those massive expenditures are out the window. You need to make "noise". You need "entertainment value" --- THOSE things buy you all the coverage you need (and some that you don't) for an election cycle. You can do it by being a pompous ass as Trump did to SLAY 16 competitors and a Dem candidate. OR you can do it by "not playing safe" but playing smart. DISCUSS the undiscussable. Say the "unspoken" truths that most people keep to themselves. BE controversial and able to DEFEND your statements. Much like we're doing here calling attention to the 2 party hijacking of the mechanisms of Congress. That doesn't benefit EITHER "name brand" party so no institutional politician is even FREE to bring it up. You can do the same on Foreign Policy, the debt, entitlements and all the OTHER un-mentionables.

The Tea Party was NEVER a party. But the Tea Party was a Republican caucus. They never organized in opposition to the Repubs. They organized to reform the GOP. And the RNC establishment sought to neutralize their influence every chance they got. AT LEAST -- they had a caucus where they were free to oppose the mainstream party leadership. They've had an effect on steering the GOP. But hardly any effect on structural reforms.


We ARE on the same page with Congressional reforms. The 2 parties have INVENTED a Congress that does not exist in the Constitution. I don't however support amending the Constitution to evict them. Only required that we knock them back from the powers that they've acquired that are NOT spelled out in the Constitution to the detriment of EVERY representative and constituent of that body..

 

[flacaltenn]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

I disagree about term limits. I think you'd just get a lower caliber of politician; the influence machine will just find a different way to sweeten the pot for lawmakers, and there would be zero ways for voters to hold a term-limited lawmaker accountable. Instead of campaign contributions from Halliburton, you'd see Halliburton offering a seat on the board to Senator Smith or hiring the brother-in-law of the Senator. If the story did break on the 6PM news tomorrow for example; what would Senator Smith lose by having his approval numbers in the lower single digits...he can't run again anyway?

You want to change the game, change the rules. Get money out of politics so party bosses no longer can control the fortunes (pun not intended) of their junior members with national money. Get rid of the committee system that rewards party patronage and replace it with open format committees where any member of, lets say the House, can join the committee; interrogate witnesses, give testimony, introduce evidence....

Tongue in cheek -- I PREFER "Voter limits".. If you're stupid enough to have voted for Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell for more than 3 elections, you should be "term limited" until the problem is fixed...

 

[Disir]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

Term limits and kill that revolving door

 

[Disir]

He wouldn't receive attention from the media. They decide the questions and control the responses.

That would true of the initial election cycle, because the media will slant attention to party candidates. That's why you need folks with a bankfull of good will and political capital like a Phil Bredensen. He GOVERNED as Blue Dog Democrat. That's a GOOD thing in the New South. He doesn't have an extremist bone in him. And he SHOULD be Independent.

But once elected, that non-aligned representative will upstage everyone in Congress because that person is the swing vote, the true and honest voice and the media will be all over them on every showdown for "their view".

Because the "view" of someone who CAN speak their mind without fear of retribution from their party is FAR more interesting and valuable than interviewing dozens of party droids all mumbling the same party crapfest.

The media is made up of conglomerates. The people that sit on the board over here sit on the board over there. If any candidate is saying something the board doesn't profit from then it doesn't get heard. If it disagrees with or in someway impacts their finances then the correct narrative is issued.

WE have to force them to pay attention.

Also, 3rd rum and coke....

Are you saying you're starting the "rum and coke" 3rd party?

I don't agree on the media blockade. Fact is -- they have the attention of squirrels and dont have the knowledge or persistence to cover issues and problem solving. All you have to do to GET coverage is to be bombastic and outrageous. Trump PROVED that.

They cover politics like a sporting match-up. I passed a memo in the Libertarian party after watching Trump get HUNDREDS of hours of free press for being an egotistical ass. I suggested that Gary Johnson -- known for his Triathlons and mountain climbing and extreme sports to HANG GLIDE into a series of scheduled events. Everyone LOVED the idea. After 2 or 3 circus events like that -- we'd have full press coverage for nothing. There were concerns about "accidents" that could end the campaign tho. Like having fire dept. pulling him out of a tree or off of a roof.

You're gonna see campaigns look more like sideshows now. All competing for the 5 minutes on the evening news tho..

Yes. That is exactly what I will call it. Andrew Sisters playing in the background.

Slogan: Take a shot

 

[candycorn]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

Trump was a confirming experiment that WAY too much money gets wasted in Politics. All those massive expenditures are out the window. You need to make "noise". You need "entertainment value" --- THOSE things buy you all the coverage you need (and some that you don't) for an election cycle. You can do it by being a pompous ass as Trump did to SLAY 16 competitors and a Dem candidate.

We’ll see how the course of history plays out. Obama won with quiet confidence and a message of hope. It wasn’t that long ago.

Much like we're doing here calling attention to the 2 party hijacking of the mechanisms of Congress. That doesn't benefit EITHER "name brand" party so no institutional politician is even FREE to bring it up. You can do the same on Foreign Policy, the debt, entitlements and all the OTHER un-mentionables.

If you increase the number of parties, you just have more people with their hand out and a more top-down management that keeps junior members in check.

The Tea Party was NEVER a party. But the Tea Party was a Republican caucus. They never organized in opposition to the Repubs. They organized to reform the GOP. And the RNC establishment sought to neutralize their influence every chance they got. AT LEAST -- they had a caucus where they were free to oppose the mainstream party leadership. They've had an effect on steering the GOP. But hardly any effect on structural reforms.

My point was that just as a blowhard a-hole like trump is a novelty, the TEA party was. It came and went by the wayside. Nobody is branding themselves as a TEA partier any longer. Currently, we have candidates in the Republican primaries trying to “out trump” one another. Will we see that in the post-trump future? We will see.

We ARE on the same page with Congressional reforms. The 2 parties have INVENTED a Congress that does not exist in the Constitution. I don't however support amending the Constitution to evict them. Only required that we knock them back from the powers that they've acquired that are NOT spelled out in the Constitution to the detriment of EVERY representative and constituent of that body..

The only thing the politicians remotely respect is our Constitution. It is what delivered a victory to Bush II and Trump who didn’t get the most votes; it is what shut down the gay marriage debate; it is what stops mob rule.
Giving voice to the Constitution where it is silent and where it is demonstrated to be needed is paramount. I personally think that the winning position is to have regular intervals to consider amendments to the Constitution by rule of law. Every 50 years or so.

You’re 100% right. The committee system is set up to reward party patronage. I think were we differ is that you seem to think that more parties will solve it. You just have a guy in a yellow blazer telling the yellow junior members what to do instead of a blue jacket telling a blue junior member….

 

[candycorn]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

Term limits and kill that revolving door

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

 

[flacaltenn]

Funding is a HIGHLY over-rated excuse. Money is literally ABUSED AND BURNED by the 2 brand name parties in THEIR model of running for office. You don't NEED an army of image consultants, media consultants, polling and focus testing every slogan and phrase. You don't NEED to pay legions of key pushers to "Like You" on Facebook or hire snarky wizards who can DATA MINE a constituency and "mailing list" from spying on you on the Web. It's an EXTRAORDINARY inefficient and STUPID way to "win".

Again -- Trump PROVED that. He spent virtually nothing other to buy bigger and more expensive for the rallies he put together. It's part "telling it like it is" and snake oil saleman entertainment. It's the stuff that ENTREPRENEURS excel at. Like Bezos, and Musk. THAT's the future of American politics. Not the massive ARMIES of operatives and experts that the Dem/Rep have stuck themselves with. That's TOO bureaucratic and slow moving --- just like their candidates when they GET elected.

You need guerrilla tactics, agility, speed, and SOME TYPE of charisma. Better than money...

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.

One way is to get rid of the bastardized committee system that both houses have adopted; much to the determent of the citizens as well as the idealist who do manage to get elected. I don't think we should have standing committees except on national defense and the budget. Every other committee needs to be ad-hoc and membership should be open to anyone who wants to join. So if, for example, there is to be a congressional hearing on the opioid crisis, instead of it being "assigned" to a committee, there should be a hearing placed on the chamber's calendar and whatever member of that chamber that wants to question witnesses, that wants to invite witnesses, that wants to put something on the record, can do so. No more sandbagging members who are not "good" blues or reds or yellows or greens. There may be blowback at the national convention (that nobody watches anyway) but who cares as long as the once-coveted funding is out of the hands of the Party elders?

That part is critical. The parties have become the tyranny the Founders warned about in the way they've molded Congress into an exclusive duopoly.. Just to restore democracy to Congress -- you COULD organize around "interest caucuses" or "speciality caucuses" instead of LITERALLY having the 2 parties CONTROL the process and the power. Even the SEATING is an affront to Independent voices and problem solving.

If anyone thinks I'm being dramatic here about the loss of Democracy in Congress due to the parties HIJACKING the rules and process -- please read what the FOUNDERS said back in the 1700s...

I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

Trump was a confirming experiment that WAY too much money gets wasted in Politics. All those massive expenditures are out the window. You need to make "noise". You need "entertainment value" --- THOSE things buy you all the coverage you need (and some that you don't) for an election cycle. You can do it by being a pompous ass as Trump did to SLAY 16 competitors and a Dem candidate.

We’ll see how the course of history plays out. Obama won with quiet confidence and a message of hope. It wasn’t that long ago.

Much like we're doing here calling attention to the 2 party hijacking of the mechanisms of Congress. That doesn't benefit EITHER "name brand" party so no institutional politician is even FREE to bring it up. You can do the same on Foreign Policy, the debt, entitlements and all the OTHER un-mentionables.

If you increase the number of parties, you just have more people with their hand out and a more top-down management that keeps junior members in check.

The Tea Party was NEVER a party. But the Tea Party was a Republican caucus. They never organized in opposition to the Repubs. They organized to reform the GOP. And the RNC establishment sought to neutralize their influence every chance they got. AT LEAST -- they had a caucus where they were free to oppose the mainstream party leadership. They've had an effect on steering the GOP. But hardly any effect on structural reforms.

My point was that just as a blowhard a-hole like trump is a novelty, the TEA party was. It came and went by the wayside. Nobody is branding themselves as a TEA partier any longer. Currently, we have candidates in the Republican primaries trying to “out trump” one another. Will we see that in the post-trump future? We will see.

We ARE on the same page with Congressional reforms. The 2 parties have INVENTED a Congress that does not exist in the Constitution. I don't however support amending the Constitution to evict them. Only required that we knock them back from the powers that they've acquired that are NOT spelled out in the Constitution to the detriment of EVERY representative and constituent of that body..

The only thing the politicians remotely respect is our Constitution. It is what delivered a victory to Bush II and Trump who didn’t get the most votes; it is what shut down the gay marriage debate; it is what stops mob rule.
Giving voice to the Constitution where it is silent and where it is demonstrated to be needed is paramount. I personally think that the winning position is to have regular intervals to consider amendments to the Constitution by rule of law. Every 50 years or so.

You’re 100% right. The committee system is set up to reward party patronage. I think were we differ is that you seem to think that more parties will solve it. You just have a guy in a yellow blazer telling the yellow junior
members what to do instead of a blue jacket telling a blue junior member….

I'm VERY confident that the VACCINE for ending the rot in Congress is just SIMPLY -- getting a small handful of INDEPENDENT voices into that infected body. Even SIX of them would PROFOUNDLY cause changes in the way that the parties have customized that place to THEIR needs -- not the needs of the people. And the Party Bosses will bitch and moan about how much attention and momentum these Independents would be getting. And how they are "screwing up the messaging and Sunday morn spin cycle"...

Wouldn't MATTER if you had a committee seat. It's just a means to get airtime and hot quotes on the news. Indies could DO that WITHOUT a seat by exposing the problems and suggesting alternatives that EVERY OTHER party animal in Congress dare not do..

Like a miracle antibiotic, you'd see the healing immediately. There would rushes to elect MORE Indies. BECAUSE they are free to opine and have principles.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..

They have committees to keep people like him from ever getting selected to be elected.

How do keep a popular guy like him from being elected with "a committee"? Didn't work for Trump -- did it?

As far as assignments go -- the Indie can wheel and deal for committee assignments by signing on to legislation, aiding each party as THEY see fit. They WILL be the key votes and center of attention. The "rules" will change to accommodate these Indies.

Sooner or later, the parties will figure out how to make them choose sides.

Bernie Sanders is an Independent......my ass.

 

[flacaltenn]

Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..

They have committees to keep people like him from ever getting selected to be elected.

How do keep a popular guy like him from being elected with "a committee"? Didn't work for Trump -- did it?

As far as assignments go -- the Indie can wheel and deal for committee assignments by signing on to legislation, aiding each party as THEY see fit. They WILL be the key votes and center of attention. The "rules" will change to accommodate these Indies.

Sooner or later, the parties will figure out how to make them choose sides.

Bernie Sanders is an Independent......my ass.

That's the thing. The PARTIES have no control over them. In FACT -- with a Congress split in half like it is -- BOTH parties will need those six landmark voices MORE then the Indies need ANYTHING from the parties.

An Indie speaking honestly and openly will sound like a fucking GENIUS compared to any of the droids toeing the party lines and sticking to the talking points.

You can't deny it. It's the vaccine for what ails Congress.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Until civil libertarians sit down and work out a true party you will have this. You need someone like Alan Dershawitz to write the charter.

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..

They have committees to keep people like him from ever getting selected to be elected.

How do keep a popular guy like him from being elected with "a committee"? Didn't work for Trump -- did it?

As far as assignments go -- the Indie can wheel and deal for committee assignments by signing on to legislation, aiding each party as THEY see fit. They WILL be the key votes and center of attention. The "rules" will change to accommodate these Indies.

Sooner or later, the parties will figure out how to make them choose sides.

Bernie Sanders is an Independent......my ass.

That's the thing. The PARTIES have no control over them. In FACT -- with a Congress split in half like it is -- BOTH parties will need those six landmark voices MORE then the Indies need ANYTHING from the parties.

An Indie speaking honestly and openly will sound like a fucking GENIUS compared to any of the droids toeing the party lines and sticking to the talking points.

You can't deny it. It's the vaccine for what ails Congress.

Only as long as you need them. One party gets enough seats to not need them and they will fuck them over with no remorse whatsoever.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why can't the Constitution accommodate ANYONE that declares as Independent? That's all invented "rules and procedures" that the 2 parties invented. Don't TELL US you're gonna be an Independent when we know you're lying. BE an Independent and sit there that way..

They have committees to keep people like him from ever getting selected to be elected.

How do keep a popular guy like him from being elected with "a committee"? Didn't work for Trump -- did it?

As far as assignments go -- the Indie can wheel and deal for committee assignments by signing on to legislation, aiding each party as THEY see fit. They WILL be the key votes and center of attention. The "rules" will change to accommodate these Indies.

Sooner or later, the parties will figure out how to make them choose sides.

Bernie Sanders is an Independent......my ass.

That's the thing. The PARTIES have no control over them. In FACT -- with a Congress split in half like it is -- BOTH parties will need those six landmark voices MORE then the Indies need ANYTHING from the parties.

An Indie speaking honestly and openly will sound like a fucking GENIUS compared to any of the droids toeing the party lines and sticking to the talking points.

You can't deny it. It's the vaccine for what ails Congress.

Only as long as you need them. One party gets enough seats to not need them and they will fuck them over with no remorse whatsoever.

Doesn't mean that Indies would not be a MORE EFFECTIVE opposition under those "big majority" scenarios than the "minority" parties have been. Look at how squimish and stupid the Repubs are SQUANDERING their current position of holding ALL 3 branches.

As a real uncommitted Indie you can STILL point out the stupidity in those "outnumbered" situations better than a "minority" leader can. The Minority leaders either go full gonzo retard mode like Schumer and Pelosi are doing.. Or if it's a Repub minority situation -- they becomes possums and play dead.

 

[Disir]

Okay, if you don't mind, I will take issue with the above.

Trump is a singular figure currently. Prior to him, as I recall, Obama and Romney spent record amounts on their campaigns. As I recall, Obama reneged on his pledge to take public funding when he saw that he could raise $750M on his own in 2008. I don't have stats but I would assume elections for Congressional seats face the same type of competition between the party nominees.

Trump's free media was a result of no brilliance on his part outside of his brilliant capacity for being outrageous, rude, and outside the norms of civility. Much like a car wreck...everyone showed up to watch and sold them, as you called it...snake oil. This may be the future. It may not.

I disagree with you that this is the future. Here is why. How often do you hear the words "Tea Party" any more? Not much. See the graph below showing how often the term is searched on Google....

View attachment 198192

I forget the Democrat's buzzword that Bill Clinton and Al Gore brought in with them but I suspect you'd see the same embrace/disavowence cycle at play there too. It is not as if the Tea Party lost it's way and became liberals or free spenders. Their cache and clout just got, well, trumped. The party used to be about (at least in name) fiscal responsibility, family values, and personal accountablility Today, there is no fiscal responsibility, family values are out the window, and personal accountability is laughed at because if anyone questions you about your actions, you just deny you did whatever it is you're accused of, say that they have ulterior motives for bringing it up, call it fake news, and of course question the questioner and draw every false equivalence at your disposal.

We'll know in 2024 or 2028 if Trump is an outlier or trend. I tend to think he is an outlier because I think you can see his act wearing thin as it gets more and more vivid that the America that the current incarnation of the right wing embraces is a meaner, darker existence not worthy of this nation. We are now stripping kids from their parents as a matter of policy and saying that it is the parent's fault for our unimaginable cruelty. Secondly, he barely won the election...by less than 100,000 votes across 3 states where HRC didn't campaign very much. The next nominee will definitely not make that mistake. Which leads me to the candidate that the Democrats will field. I doubt they will reach for (nor do I think they would run to start with) George Clooney or Tom Hanks although I think the latter would make a very interesting choice for President. Unlike Trump, he would know his shortcomings and surround himself with experts and actually listen to them. Our allies would likely not be surprised when he makes a deal with a foreign dictator, for example. If the Dems do pick a celebrity just because she or he is a celeb, all bets are off. But just as quickly as the "tea party" trend fell by the wayside, this too will pass. A full blown crisis hasn't took place yet on Trump's watch. When it does, the stock and trade of double talk will wear thin in a hurry. You have seen it starting. One of the mothers of the victims of the Santa Fe HS massacre (in Texas--Trump territory) said that talking to Trump was "like talking to a toddler." I doubt she was a member of the "deep state"

If it does turn out that Trump is just a harbinger of things to come where Don Rickles is taken seriously because he's funny, is that a good thing? I don't think so. It's a bad sign for the U.S. if that turns out to be the case.


I cut the quotes from the framers for the sake of space saving.

I agree that a congressional overhaul is needed. However, if you don't get rid of the infrastructure that rewards party patronage--be it red, blue, green, yellow...pink, brown, gray or black....does anything else matter? I think maybe you implied that you were "on board" with the idea of getting rid of the committee system. I'm all for that. We need to amend Article I to give voice to the document where it is silent on the workings of the Senate or the House or take some similar step to get rid of this system that elevates party over purpose. Having nearly every committee be ad hoc would be a good first start. Some committees would have 80 members, some would have 14, some 16....whatever. There are a lot more steps than just that that need to be taken.

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

Term limits and kill that revolving door

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I wrote this as the beginning of an journal article. So many popular political figures that want to go Congress CLAIM they are going to be Independent voices. That they will support opposing party legislation when it's the right thing to do. But then --- they run as either Democrat or Republican. That's a huge missed opportunity for a new kind of leader that is not beholding to the Party machinery that runs our Congress.

Phil Bredesen is a popular two term Democrat Governor of the very Red State of Tennessee who now wants to serve the people in the US Senate. He has a full account of good will and political capital to spend and a reputation for working issues from a very accommodating bi-partisan prospective. He wants to go to Washington to be an Independent voice. This is the leading selling point in his Senate Campaign statements to the people of Tennessee.


He will be in very different environment at the Federal Capitol. It’s a place that is closely controlled by the two party elite. The Hill is a place where only four people – the Party leadership - control virtually every action, every assignment, and the terms of every debate. The other 531 members of this body are tightly leashed and muzzled – or at least discouraged from independent speech and their actions subject to loyalty fees that the parties extract in terms of votes and partisan solidarity.


Cross the party leadership, and you will be working out of a service closet and be faced with the prospect of “primaried out” at your next re-election. You are not free to speak clearly or vote your conscience. All of those ideals you rode in with become “part of the deal”. This frustrating situation has likely been a reason for the recent large wave of resignations and retirements of a large number of members of Congress.


Phil Bredesen WANTS us to believe he will somehow re-chart and navigate the partisan blockade that is the norm for Democrat – Republican process in the halls of Congress. He is missing a spectacular opportunity to be a true reformer and hero to the growing segment of the “Big Middle” in America. The Big Middle is the large fraction of folks who have sworn off allegiance to either party. This group now outnumbers the declared affiliations of EITHER major party. They largely vote for honesty, humility, issues and not just for the “party win”.


Bredesen COULD have been one of the FIRST truly independent voices in Congress. All he had to do was RUN as Independent. A TRUE independent not aligned with either of the parties that have hijacked the process and the power in Congress. . It’s hard for folks paying attention to the dysfunction and stand-off in Congress to believe Phil when he claims he will support either side when they are correct and right.


Imagine the attention that an Independent would get from the people and media and the other members at every key vote. They would be the “go-to” interview on virtually every piece of work that comes forward. Their vote and voice would the focus of every debate. As an example, just remember how much increased media attention Bob Corker or Jeff Flake received after their announcement to retire. Their “lame duck” ability to criticize their own party and speak clearly increased. An Independent is just a lame duck with the fight still in them.


But Phil didn’t capture that opportunity. The numbers are there. I could do the math for him. He would lose a percentage of the Democrat party vote but GAIN more than that loss from the Big Middle. This is an opportunity for OTHER popular candidates with lots of political capital to spend. And hopefully, with a half dozen independent or 3rd party voices in Congress – the people will see that you don’t NEED a majority to change the process and tone in Congress. You only need a handful to be the swing votes and the honest, humble brokers of all the deals.

/----/ Bernie Sanders fit that bill as an Indie and look what the democRAT power brokers did to him. Donald Trump is the first private citizen elected president and look what both parties and the media do to him on a daily basis.

 

[candycorn]

I seem to recall Obama promised complete transparency in government. After about a year, I was done with his lying ass.
It may be time for the citizens to take back the country via Article V.

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

Term limits and kill that revolving door

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

 

[JoeB131]

/----/ Bernie Sanders fit that bill as an Indie and look what the democRAT power brokers did to him.

Okay. They let him run in their primaries and stand on the same stage as long standing members of their party... and he didn't get enough votes to win.

Donald Trump is the first private citizen elected president and look what both parties and the media do to him on a daily basis.

Pointed out he was a crazy person who has no business being president? Um, yeah, I'm glad someone is pointing that out.

I'm more worried about the people who KNOW Trump is crazy, but think they are going to get something out of it, so that makes it okay.

 

[Disir]

I doubt it will happen but maybe it will. I believe the entire "article V" thing was one of those instances where it was ratified by State legislatures who, in the back of their mind, saw it as a good thing to do only on the condition that it never be done.

The Senate is so corrupt, and has voted themselves the keys to this country though.

It started under Carter. He vetoed it, and then they overrode him. He did all he could do. Yeah, he had some bad ideas, but IMO, he is a good American.

It continued under Reagan's 2nd term Congress.

Term limits would go far to fix things.

Term limits and kill that revolving door

Your vote ensures your interests are addressed. If they are not responsive, vote for someone else.
When you lose the ability to shape behavior, don’t be surprised when they act in their own best interest exclusively.

That isn't happening. Issues aren't addressed.

And is that the fault of any one Senator or Congressman? Limiting their terms will not solve that issue. Why? If you subscribe to the somewhat true conventional wisdom that in the not-too-distant-past, Congress was more responsive, there was a reason for that. Pork. You could make a deal with a colleague to support a bill that you may otherwise not and, in return, they would support your initiative. You limit their terms and any such deal making is gone because they are going to be out of office in the near future. It would be possible, I suppose to implement 10 year caps or 12 year caps so that would be 5 terms for Congressman and two terms for a Senator. That makes the process just that much more difficult to execute. Which I think is good; it should be hard to pass bills.

Additionally, the costs of doing business are going to really take off. Pensions for these characters are lopsided enough already. Why you would want to create a larger population of ex pols living off of the taxpayers is beyond me.

They don't read the bills. 2 terms and out the door.