What kind of government do you want?

[task0778]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I want dead islamic terrorists.
I want totally secure borders.
I want lower taxes.
I want to deport illegals.
I don't want mandated healthcare.

Sounds like North Korea....

 

[BluesLegend]

Some in this country want government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, paid for by someone else of course.

 

[Slade3200]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.

Thats a good question. I think we have a great system that is littered with corruption. The beauty of our system is our ability to evolve policy to help best represent the interest of the people. So to answer your question, I think our system is in need of changes that will help increase accountability, transparency, bipartisan cooperation, productive legislation, and reduce the power/influence that special interests have in our politics.

 

[DarkFury]

I want dead islamic terrorists.
I want totally secure borders.
I want lower taxes.
I want to deport illegals.
I don't want mandated healthcare.

Those are policies. This thread is about how our government operates to get the things you want in place.

Those are things I want and if that means stepping on the lesser party? So be it.
Given a full option I would eliminate the Democrat party.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.

Thats a good question. I think we have a great system that is littered with corruption. The beauty of our system is our ability to evolve policy to help best represent the interest of the people. So to answer your question, I think our system is in need of changes that will help increase accountability, transparency, bipartisan cooperation, productive legislation, and reduce the power/influence that special interests have in our politics.

I agree...What we need is a more "defined" constitution that says outright in clear bold letters that our government can invest in infrastructure, science and work for the people....Yes, it already has this power but the loserterians are too stupid.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

If Clinton was elected, she still would have a Republican Congress which meant she couldn't even get lukewarm , much less nuclear. Her picks would have likely never made it out of committee. We would have had 8 justices forever.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

I would like one that all of this DC bullshit doesn't really effect me much. Shove your healthcare "solutions" up your ass and let me decide what insurance I want. I will pay into my local school as I deem necessary. We will locally decide if men get to use women's bathrooms.

I want a federal government that does it's job. Keep us safe through a strong military, the best in the world. Keep illegals out. Make the trade among the states equal. Make our money linked to the gold standard and then leave it alone. And that is pretty much all I want from the Feds. All of this other bullshit can go away.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.

Thats a good question. I think we have a great system that is littered with corruption. The beauty of our system is our ability to evolve policy to help best represent the interest of the people. So to answer your question, I think our system is in need of changes that will help increase accountability, transparency, bipartisan cooperation, productive legislation, and reduce the power/influence that special interests have in our politics.

I agree...What we need is a more "defined" constitution that says outright in clear bold letters that our government can invest in infrastructure, science and work for the people....Yes, it already has this power but the loserterians are too stupid.

So you admit being a socialist in that you want government determining the winners and losers in business. How refreshing for a lib to come out of the closet as a full blown Communist.

 

[Slade3200]

Some in this country want government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, paid for by someone else of course.

Perhaps a small insignificant fraction. No point in putting all your energy focusing on that though. Most people are looking for a healthy balance

 

[12icer]

(Matthew posted: >> I agree...What we need is a more "defined" constitution that says outright in clear bold letters that our government can invest in infrastructure, science and work for the people....Yes, it already has this power but the loserterians are too stupid. <<<<

Talk about stupid, HAHAHAHAHAHA look in the mirror. The Constitution RESTRICTS the GOVERNMENTS POWER. only stupid liberals communist think it gives them power, Their favorite American Communist party (dimshits) always expands it by unconstitutional means and redefining the vernacular within.

 

[Slade3200]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

If Clinton was elected, she still would have a Republican Congress which meant she couldn't even get lukewarm , much less nuclear. Her picks would have likely never made it out of committee. We would have had 8 justices forever.

You miss the point... the balance of power always shifts

 

[BluesLegend]

Some in this country want government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, paid for by someone else of course.

Perhaps a small insignificant fraction. No point in putting all your energy focusing on that though. Most people are looking for a healthy balance

I'm not going to work overtime to pay the bills of able bodied lazy lard asses or people who choose to abuse drugs, alcohol, have 8 kids, or make other poor life choices. They can pay their own damn bills.

 

[task0778]

Some in this country want government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, paid for by someone else of course.

Perhaps a small insignificant fraction. No point in putting all your energy focusing on that though. Most people are looking for a healthy balance

For being a small insignificant fraction they can make a helluva lot of noise anytime somebody talks about entitlement reform. And they definitely have the Democratic Party by the balls.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

If Clinton was elected, she still would have a Republican Congress which meant she couldn't even get lukewarm , much less nuclear. Her picks would have likely never made it out of committee. We would have had 8 justices forever.

You miss the point... the balance of power always shifts

The only point I see is the one of the top of your head!

 

[ScienceRocks]

(Matthew posted: >> I agree...What we need is a more "defined" constitution that says outright in clear bold letters that our government can invest in infrastructure, science and work for the people....Yes, it already has this power but the loserterians are too stupid. <<<<

Talk about stupid, HAHAHAHAHAHA look in the mirror. The Constitution RESTRICTS the GOVERNMENTS POWER. only stupid liberals communist think it gives them power, Their favorite American Communist party (dimshits) always expands it by unconstitutional means and redefining the vernacular within.

Fucking functional retarded...The constitution doesn't restrict the governments ability to invest in its own fucking country.

Goddamn, sign off the internet and go fuck yourself...

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Some in this country want government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, paid for by someone else of course.

Perhaps a small insignificant fraction. No point in putting all your energy focusing on that though. Most people are looking for a healthy balance

22% are on the government dole. That's a lot.

 

[Thinker101]

Some in this country want government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, paid for by someone else of course.

Perhaps a small insignificant fraction. No point in putting all your energy focusing on that though. Most people are looking for a healthy balance

Most people are looking for a healthy balance???? Sure sounds like the folks on the left want the people on the right to pay for them...is that your idea of a balance?

 

[DarkFury]

Some in this country want government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, paid for by someone else of course.

Perhaps a small insignificant fraction. No point in putting all your energy focusing on that though. Most people are looking for a healthy balance

I'm not going to work overtime to pay the bills of able bodied lazy lard asses or people who choose to abuse drugs, alcohol, have 8 kids, or make other poor life choices. They can pay their own damn bills.

Guess that means you start voting Republican now?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing.


Telling your age are you not?