What kind of government do you want?

[Muhammed]

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 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?

You are bitching about nothing.

Of course the Republicans did what they could to stop the evil Democrats from further damaging the USA against the will of the people. A prime example of this is when the Republicans blocked the Democrats from making our electricity bills skyrocket. I even took a poll here at USPOL and none of you LWNJs voted that you wanted your electricity bills to skyrocket.

The Republicans saved your collective asses AGAIN! If you had any fucking common sense whatsoever you would boycott the Democratic party and vote them into the dustbin of US history.

Haha, yeah right. You're definitely part of the problem. The saine voices will drown out the kind of blister you are spewing out, you can't honestly think that rational people take you seriously

Everything I said is the truth and you know it. That is why you couldn't make a rational argument and resorted to an ad hominem attack.

Pathetic.

 

[SeaGal]

I kinda like the idea of a Constitutional Democratic Republic...for all the mess of its sausage making.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
Daniel Webster

Some of our most damaging (in retrospect) legislation was enacted under the guise of good intentions with broad congressional support and compromise - (ACA is one of the few that compromise was neither sought nor requested)

Our system of government is beautifully designed - and though messy, it works. Partisanship, squabbling, division - that is more the historical norm than not. Samuel Adams once told folks who didn't want to be part of an independent country - If we love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Harsh words from the beginning.

The first thing to have is to have choice with political parties. How many times do people come on here and say "the right are for choice" and then demand to keep the political system with only two parties and no real choice?

All of that is at our fingertips...and not mandated by law. Want a third, fourth or fifth party?...organize a new one, or join an existing one. Want to 'vote the bums out'.?...start by voting your own 'bum' out. So many times that phrase simply means 'my guy is good but you need to vote your guy out'.

That said - in this age of instant social media and communication - there is no longer a valid reason for months long, and in some cases greater than a year, campaign seasons. I think we can reduce the influence of money and constant campaigning without enacting new laws....by exerting popular pressure - but we all have to agree to engage, not just expect the 'other guy' to do it.

 

[dblack]

I want a government that is the referee for society, and not the coach.

 

[NightFox]

What kind of government do you want?

One that can fit inside a building the size of your average 7/11 store and runs on a budget slightly less than that of the yearly cost of operating a 100 watt light bulb.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I kinda like the idea of a Constitutional Democratic Republic...for all the mess of its sausage making.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
Daniel Webster

Some of our most damaging (in retrospect) legislation was enacted under the guise of good intentions with broad congressional support and compromise - (ACA is one of the few that compromise was neither sought nor requested)

Our system of government is beautifully designed - and though messy, it works. Partisanship, squabbling, division - that is more the historical norm than not. Samuel Adams once told folks who didn't want to be part of an independent country - If we love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Harsh words from the beginning.

The first thing to have is to have choice with political parties. How many times do people come on here and say "the right are for choice" and then demand to keep the political system with only two parties and no real choice?

All of that is at our fingertips...and not mandated by law. Want a third, fourth or fifth party?...organize a new one, or join an existing one. Want to 'vote the bums out'.?...start by voting your own 'bum' out. So many times that phrase simply means 'my guy is good but you need to vote your guy out'.

That said - in this age of instant social media and communication - there is no longer a valid reason for months long, and in some cases greater than a year, campaign seasons. I think we can reduce the influence of money and constant campaigning without enacting new laws....by exerting popular pressure - but we all have to agree to engage, not just expect the 'other guy' to do it.

Beautifully designed for the rich to control the poor. Fine, if you like being told you're free, while not being free, then good for you. I, on the other hand, don't like that.

 

[NightFox]

Beautifully designed for the rich to control the poor. Fine, if you like being told you're free, while not being free, then good for you. I, on the other hand, don't like that.

Er..umm the "rich" already control the poor (along with everyone else) NOW and most of those "rich" either work in Washington or are the puppet masters of Washington, the more powerful and centralized that you make the state the more control the "rich" will have over you. It's just their tool to acquire, increase, maintain and exercise power over you pursuant to fleecing you of the fruits of your labor, thus has it always been and thus will it always be.

You can tinker with the system all you want but eventually the state grows into an organism that serves its own interests above all else and that is what we have now.

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose." -- Albert J. Nock

 

[SeaGal]

Beautifully designed for the rich to control the poor. Fine, if you like being told you're free, while not being free, then good for you. I, on the other hand, don't like that.

What are you not free to do?

Like it or not, there will be governments. To deny that is to deny all of human history. The best of governments are designed with the knowledge that a 'least restrictive environment' is filled with opportunity and choices. As ours is. Though I think we have become over-regulated at the federal level, it's a good bet that you and I would disagree on which regulations/policies are unnecessary, unfair or heavy handed.

It is not the rich and powerful who make or enforce law - that some may have undue influence over elected officials who do make and enforce law is the fault of our elected officials and those who elect them...you and me. It is my opinion that the 'rich' are scapegoats used to take our eye off the real perpetrators...a sleight of hand designed to keep us involved in an eternal shell game.

A working definition of a good government may possibly be one with which no one is entirely happy.

 

[task0778]

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 think we're mistaken to take the current political divide in the US as a serious indication of underlying social discord. It's the two parties vying for control of our government who are bitterly opposed. Their opposition spills over into society - more so in this last election than any I've seen - but I think we have it backward if we think a social dispute is driving the politics. It's the other way around.

I also think it's important to recognize how much the partisan divide is driven by the rules we use for elections and lawmaking. With plurality, winner-take-all voting, there's simply no incentive for leaders to build broad consensus. Arguably, it's a waste of political capital to do so. This is why Democrats voted for a health care law with slim majority support. They didn't need more than a slim majority to pass the bill and had no incentive to write a law that would appeal to more voters. Now that the Republicans are in power, they're likely to do the same thing. They'll squeeze in the most radical changes they can manage, as long as they can eek out a win. And the pendulum will swing back after they push it too far, as they almost certainly will.

My point here is that the more or less even split between the left and right our country isn't a reflection of a real split in our values. It's an artifact or the two-party system, which is itself an artifact of our election systems. If we want to unite the country we have to address the root cause and fix the system. And fixing the system means changing the voting system so that it reflects the real values of voters and encourages broad consensus rather than narrow majorities.

I cannot imagine how the voting system could be changed to accomplish the goals you stated in your last sentence.

I did watch the video. Seems like at least an improvement, but I think we'd need at least one more serious party out there with some support behind it. Otherwise all you're doing is bleeding one major candidate at the expense of the other. Having more than 2 major parties could be big step in the right direction though.

 

[blackhawk]

I want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.

 

[task0778]

Beautifully designed for the rich to control the poor. Fine, if you like being told you're free, while not being free, then good for you. I, on the other hand, don't like that.

What are you not free to do?

Like it or not, there will be governments. To deny that is to deny all of human history. The best of governments are designed with the knowledge that a 'least restrictive environment' is filled with opportunity and choices. As ours is. Though I think we have become over-regulated at the federal level, it's a good bet that you and I would disagree on which regulations/policies are unnecessary, unfair or heavy handed.

It is not the rich and powerful who make or enforce law - that some may have undue influence over elected officials who do make and enforce law is the fault of our elected officials and those who elect them...you and me. It is my opinion that the 'rich' are scapegoats used to take our eye off the real perpetrators...a sleight of hand designed to keep us involved in an eternal shell game.

A working definition of a good government may possibly be one with which no one is entirely happy.

And most of us are not entirely unhappy either.

 

[dblack]

I did watch the video. Seems like at least an improvement, but I think we'd need at least one more serious party out there with some support behind it. Otherwise all you're doing is bleeding one major candidate at the expense of the other. Having more than 2 major parties could be big step in the right direction though.

Agreed, that's one of the reasons changing the voting system would help. There are many barriers, built into our system, preventing third parties from gaining traction.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Beautifully designed for the rich to control the poor. Fine, if you like being told you're free, while not being free, then good for you. I, on the other hand, don't like that.

What are you not free to do?

Like it or not, there will be governments. To deny that is to deny all of human history. The best of governments are designed with the knowledge that a 'least restrictive environment' is filled with opportunity and choices. As ours is. Though I think we have become over-regulated at the federal level, it's a good bet that you and I would disagree on which regulations/policies are unnecessary, unfair or heavy handed.

It is not the rich and powerful who make or enforce law - that some may have undue influence over elected officials who do make and enforce law is the fault of our elected officials and those who elect them...you and me. It is my opinion that the 'rich' are scapegoats used to take our eye off the real perpetrators...a sleight of hand designed to keep us involved in an eternal shell game.

A working definition of a good government may possibly be one with which no one is entirely happy.

Well, the problem isn't necessarily what you're not allowed to do, it's the fact that it's set up to screw you over. How much do you pay for a military to do the bidding of the rich? How many freedoms are going because of this? How much do you have to pay for healthcare? You could get health insurance for like $120 a month that would get you full health coverage in any country in the world except the US and Canada. Oh, great. But in the US it'll cost you 5 times or more than that to get the same thing.

Is that "least restrictive environment"?

 

[task0778]

I did watch the video. Seems like at least an improvement, but I think we'd need at least one more serious party out there with some support behind it. Otherwise all you're doing is bleeding one major candidate at the expense of the other. Having more than 2 major parties could be big step in the right direction though.

Agreed, that's one of the reasons changing the voting system would help. There are many barriers, built into our system, preventing third parties from gaining traction.

One might think that with the right agenda and enough dissatisfaction with the status quo that a 3rd party might be viable. Enough to gain some seats in congress and affect happens enough to make themselves a needed voting bloc.

 

[Preacher]

Racial Socialism. A government with single party rule based upon simple concept,what is best for white race is the greatest thing what is bad for white race is worst evil.

 

[Pete7469]

None.

 

[SeaGal]

Agreed, that's one of the reasons changing the voting system would help. There are many barriers, built into our system, preventing third parties from gaining traction.

A national primary for presidential elections would open the door for third party viability...or go a long way toward eliminating fear of voting for a spoiler. I think there's a good chance the election of '92 would have had a very different outcome if the top two vote-getters had a run-off in the general.

I also believe we'd be better served by closed primaries in the states...but that's an issue for the people of each state to decide.

 

[SeaGal]

Well, the problem isn't necessarily what you're not allowed to do, it's the fact that it's set up to screw you over. How much do you pay for a military to do the bidding of the rich? How many freedoms are going because of this? How much do you have to pay for healthcare? You could get health insurance for like $120 a month that would get you full health coverage in any country in the world except the US and Canada. Oh, great. But in the US it'll cost you 5 times or more than that to get the same thing.

Is that "least restrictive environment"?

Yes, it is. Because there is no government-imposed penalty for being misled about the function and purpose of our federal government.

Again - since you brought up the issue of 'being free'...what do you desire to do that are you not free to do?

 

[Slade3200]

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 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?

You are bitching about nothing.

Of course the Republicans did what they could to stop the evil Democrats from further damaging the USA against the will of the people. A prime example of this is when the Republicans blocked the Democrats from making our electricity bills skyrocket. I even took a poll here at USPOL and none of you LWNJs voted that you wanted your electricity bills to skyrocket.

The Republicans saved your collective asses AGAIN! If you had any fucking common sense whatsoever you would boycott the Democratic party and vote them into the dustbin of US history.

Haha, yeah right. You're definitely part of the problem. The saine voices will drown out the kind of blister you are spewing out, you can't honestly think that rational people take you seriously

Everything I said is the truth and you know it. That is why you couldn't make a rational argument and resorted to an ad hominem attack.

Pathetic.

There is no point in engaging with such stupidity. If you are incapable of understanding the value that liberalism brings to our country then you are just as clueless as those who dismiss the value of conservative thought. All y'all do is make noise.

 

[Slade3200]

Beautifully designed for the rich to control the poor. Fine, if you like being told you're free, while not being free, then good for you. I, on the other hand, don't like that.

What are you not free to do?

Like it or not, there will be governments. To deny that is to deny all of human history. The best of governments are designed with the knowledge that a 'least restrictive environment' is filled with opportunity and choices. As ours is. Though I think we have become over-regulated at the federal level, it's a good bet that you and I would disagree on which regulations/policies are unnecessary, unfair or heavy handed.

It is not the rich and powerful who make or enforce law - that some may have undue influence over elected officials who do make and enforce law is the fault of our elected officials and those who elect them...you and me. It is my opinion that the 'rich' are scapegoats used to take our eye off the real perpetrators...a sleight of hand designed to keep us involved in an eternal shell game.

A working definition of a good government may possibly be one with which no one is entirely happy.

The rich control the price of our goods, the quality of these goods, the jobs that are available, the wages we make, the quality of our environment, and the conditions in which we live. If left unchecked, as we've seen from history, we have discrimination and mistreatment of our most vulnerable groups. There is an essential element that our government plays, which is to stand up to the rich/powerful and provide voice and opportunity for the "little guy"

With that said... Our current system has too much money in politics and too much corruption in our government which needs to be addressed

 

[TNHarley]

I want a federal government that only does what it is supposed to do. That would stop a lot of the bullshit.