I am losing faith in our representative democracy

[Confounding]

Can you not easily see the argument that the more that the world changes, the greater the imperative that we resist that change to our form of government?

Change is constant, necessary, and not necessarily a bad thing. What worked once doesn't work forever. The world is completely different than it was, and in another 200 years it will be completely transformed from how it is now. Do you honestly expect the guidelines set by people from the 1700s to stay unchanged forever?

 

[Oddball]

That it has been grown to vastly exceed its authority isn't the fault of the model, it's the fault of those who changed it for the expansion of their power,

agreed Odd one

yet everytime i mention we are loosing our liberties to such factions, i'm labeled a liberal, a leftie , etc etc

~S~

Perhaps liberalism is more associated with larger government with Repub help. With larger government comes less liberties.

I was never for the PA, HS, TSA, NSA, N.I.M.S.

and you'll find i'm actually in the majority, despite how you'll also find a majority of our representatives were for these tools of fascism

bit of a twist on it...but, by your definition, we've a governance that's more liberal than it's constituency

~S~

Actually not.

If the majority of the people indeed opposed the post 9/11 ‘security’ legislation, that legislation wouldn’t exist.

The post 9/11 ‘security’ legislation such as the PA exist because a majority of the people want it to exist, the consequence of the people’s fear, apathy, and ignorance.

Blaming politicians for the PA and other such legislation is pointless and naïve; the people are solely responsible for the bad government they get.

More victim blaming....You may now buzz off.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Compromise is far more popular among Democrats.

A striking thing in that Pew survey was the sharp decline in the percentage of Democrats who favored compromise, even though they had long been more supportive of compromise than had Republicans. This seemed like a predictable reaction to a unified Republican government, when compromise in the abstract would mean compromise with a president and congressional majority that most Democrats strongly oppose.


However, we found evidence of the same old partisan gap: 66 percent of Democrats favored compromise, compared with 36 percent of Republicans who did. This could reflect news surrounding the Democratic takeover of the House: To Democrats, compromise may sound a lot better now that they have some negotiating power.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oliticians-to-compromise-but-maybe-they-dont/

The absence of compromise and consensus is clearly part of the problem; indeed, the unwarranted hostility toward compromise and consensus.

 

[CWayne]

Can you not easily see the argument that the more that the world changes, the greater the imperative that we resist that change to our form of government?

Change is constant, necessary, and not necessarily a bad thing. What worked once doesn't work forever. The world is completely different than it was, and in another 200 years it will be completely transformed from how it is now. Do you honestly expect the guidelines set by people from the 1700s to stay unchanged forever?

I guess you can't.

 

[eagle1462010]

We have enough Laws already............Gridlock means no new laws............

Works for me.........Too many laws as it is.

 

[Anathema]

[The absence of compromise and consensus is clearly part of the problem; indeed, the unwarranted hostility toward compromise and consensus.

The absence of compromise and consensus is the only decent thing happening in American politics these days. Compromise is not possible when one understands that Right and Wrong have no compatibility.

 

[Oddball]

Can you not easily see the argument that the more that the world changes, the greater the imperative that we resist that change to our form of government?

Change is constant, necessary, and not necessarily a bad thing. What worked once doesn't work forever. The world is completely different than it was, and in another 200 years it will be completely transformed from how it is now. Do you honestly expect the guidelines set by people from the 1700s to stay unchanged forever?

A throwaway run-on platitude.

Change is constant, necessary, and not necessarily a bad thing.

"Change" is unquantifiable and subjective....The sentence itself means absolutely nothing.

What worked once doesn't work forever. The world is completely different than it was, and in another 200 years it will be completely transformed from how it is now.

Again, platitudes aren't reasoned arguments.

Do you honestly expect the guidelines set by people from the 1700s to stay unchanged forever?

Begging the question....Not an argument.

Beside that, the guidelines have been changed, bastardized, and straight-up ignored...How is it you can suppose that any new guidelines would be any better adhered to?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Could you manage to be just a wee bit more arrogant?

Could you manage two on tolic posts on a row, ever? He made a good point: it is absurd to deify the founding fathers, who were ignorant of both much of the knowledge we have today and of what the world would be like today. Try addressing that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you honestly expect the guidelines set by people from the 1700s to stay unchanged forever?

No, and the founding fathers didn't expect that, either. They very intentionally put into place processes to change and amend the constitution and to make new laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But we're sooooo much smarter today.

There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge/context/education, just as there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. I didn't claim to be smarter than anybody. I claimed to know more and have more relevant context with which to base my opinions on. People from centuries ago are ignorant compared to us. The world changes, and so too must our approach to government.

Can you not easily see the argument that the more that the world changes, the greater the imperative that we resist that change to our form of government?

That’s a failed argument.

The problem is an unwarranted fear of change, and the wrongheaded perception that change manifests as some sort of a ‘threat.’

And to welcome positive, beneficial change isn’t to advocate for ‘changing’ our form of government.

 

[CWayne]

But we're sooooo much smarter today.

There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge/context/education, just as there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. I didn't claim to be smarter than anybody. I claimed to know more and have more relevant context with which to base my opinions on. People from centuries ago are ignorant compared to us. The world changes, and so too must our approach to government.

Can you not easily see the argument that the more that the world changes, the greater the imperative that we resist that change to our form of government?

That’s a failed argument.

The problem is an unwarranted fear of change, and the wrongheaded perception that change manifests as some sort of a ‘threat.’

And to welcome positive, beneficial change isn’t to advocate for ‘changing’ our form of government.

Perhaps when you learn to read the context of a conversation, I'll think about addressing your naive notion.

The argument hasn't failed and is perfectly valid, but more than that, it is also sound.

 

[initforme]

You let a bunch of Uber wealthy elitists run the show this is what you get

 

[Oddball]

Perhaps when you learn to read the context of a conversation, I'll think about addressing your naive notion.

The argument hasn't failed and is perfectly valid, but more than that, it is also sound.

He doesn't converse, he condescendingly lectures.

 

[Votto]

There's too much gridlock; shit moves too slowly. All we do is trip and fall repeatedly as we try to walk in ten different directions shackled to each other. I know it's working as intended, but what was intended doesn't work well with a world that is becoming more and more fast-paced. I want a system that is capable of making big and bold decisions in a timely manner. I want to see the ball rolling. I am tired of the status quo, the same shit different day. Something needs to change.

Here is an idea, live you own life and leave the rest of us the hell alone!

Having said that, my faith does not reside in democracy or my representatives either. For you see, an amoral society will vote abysmally, as will politicians that come from such a society.

Put another way, place a moral society in a screwed up governmental system and they will fix it, but put a bunch of foul mouthed pin heads who shout you down and bully you by censoring you in a myriad of ways who refuse to abide by election results in a perfect form of government and they will screw it up!

 

[initforme]

I survived Carter, struggled through Reagan, made it thru bish 1 and 2, survived Clinton and Obama and am making it thru Trump. The two things that have helped more Americans than anything else are social security and Medicare... Despite what the president did.

 

[initforme]

End those and the nation tailspin's big time.

 

[Confounding]

The problem is an unwarranted fear of change

Fear of change is not unwarranted. Change can be disastrous. It's not something that's possible to avoid though. It's a necessary danger. We must stand up to and face our fear. That's called bravery, something old Republicans seem to be in short supply of.

 

[impuretrash]

The problem is an unwarranted fear of change

Fear of change is not unwarranted. Change can be disastrous. It's not something that's possible to avoid though. It's a necessary danger. We must stand up to and face our fear. That's called bravery, something old Republicans seem to be in short supply of.

 

[Confounding]

The problem is an unwarranted fear of change

Fear of change is not unwarranted. Change can be disastrous. It's not something that's possible to avoid though. It's a necessary danger. We must stand up to and face our fear. That's called bravery, something old Republicans seem to be in short supply of.

View attachment 292190

Brilliant...

 

[sparky]

The post 9/11 ‘security’ legislation such as the PA exist because a majority of the people want it to exist, the consequence of the people’s fear, apathy, and ignorance

let's not forget lack of respect Clay

America turned it's back on it's basic constitutional fundamentals after 9/11

All these jingo's quoting our FF's ,and telling me how were 'great gain' conveniently forget this

But thx for the sideways compliment , i'm sure if i were in 1937 Germany i'd be on a train to oblivion

You let a bunch of Uber wealthy elitists run the show this is what you get

and making quite the $$$$ from it

~S~