Idea - political content. Enter at your own risk.

"PartyPooper2012" (PartyPooper2012) 07/12/2017 at 10:12 • Filed to: None

1

56

I am getting really tired of the deadlock in DC. I don’t even care whose fault it is anymore.

Here is an idea - President is elected. This should trigger an election for representatives and senators in each state. If state voted for president from one party, they are likely to vote for a representative and senator from same party. Not guaranteed but likely.

Existing representatives and senators should be able to run in elections, but terms should apply. I am not sure what the term should be, but seems to make sense that it be same term as terms for president. So president can be in office for two terms (8 years total). Representatives and senators should also be there for that long.

In the event a president departs his term early due to impeachment or death, senators and representatives should not be required to re-run elections. They will serve under vice president until next president is elected.

How can any president get anything accomplished if same politicians have been in offices for several previous presidents?

Milky > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:17

15

I believe the Republican Party has control over all 3 branches of the government.

The deadlock is because of the shit policies.

PartyPooper2012 > Milky 07/12/2017 at 10:20

1

exactly. They control all 3 branches and still can’t get anything done.

Seems to be checks and balances system is broken.

If it was up to me, I’d kick all of them out. Ban them from DC and have states elect new reps and sens.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:22

1

Definitely agree that term limits for senators and representatives should absolutely be a thing. “Politician” should not be a life long career

Future next gen S2000 owner > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:23

3

As long as people view the opposite party as evil, term lengths and limits won’t matter.

itschrome > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:25

2

Sooo.. revolution?

To arms, to arms!!

PartyPooper2012 > itschrome 07/12/2017 at 10:27

0

sigh... if we must... but I think it’s too soon. Maybe just a change in rules to start with?

itschrome > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:28

0

Isnt it the constant change of rules that politicianstake up as their duty these days that resulted in our current situation?

PartyPooper2012 > Future next gen S2000 owner 07/12/2017 at 10:30

0

But they shouldn’t be viewed as evil. They are elected to negotiate better deals and laws that make the country better. Not play war between the two parties.

If people of American wanted them to war with one another, I am sure we could elect Army/Navy/Marines etc that car war much better than politicians.

Ash78, voting early and often > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:30

2

The problem is you have a few different groups of Republicans, so I guess we ’ re getting that “ multi - party ” system a lot of us always wanted. Trump is crazy, so a lot of Republicans will critique him publicly, but then they fall right into line with legislation. This is bullshit — they need to act like a different faction entirely, much like a third party. I ’ ll be honest, if anyone falls in line with Trump 100%, they ’ re either psychotic or sycophantic. Both dangerous.

The ultimate arbiter on whether this is a wise move is whether tethering yourself to Trump will pay off in the midterms, or whether you bank on his continued downward spiral and start to distance yourself from him right now, with the hopes that his electorate grows increasingly fed up with him. Honestly, I know very insightful and educated Trump supporters who still manage to defend (or at least rationalize) his insanity.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > Milky 07/12/2017 at 10:30

0

Milky > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:32

0

So drain the swamp?

IMHO the more local congress/senators more closely represent the people that voted for them. If you like and trust your local politician why change that person out every 8 years?

Out, but with a W - has found the answer > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:32

1

Just adopt our (Belgian) system, then you can go 589 days without a true government without any real repercussions on daily life.

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:34

4

Isn’t the whole idea is that its supposed to be inefficient? The whole checks and balances thing? It just means that its working to stop insane policies from getting out. If only it didnt also stop perfectly reasonable bi-partisan policies because one side is certifiably insane.

facw > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:36

0

Sometimes it is better to do nothing. The Tyranny of the Majority is a real problem.

Though there are similarities to what you propose in many parliamentary systems, I don’t think it would have the effect you’d like. It might break gridlock, but it would just allow for easy implementation of extreme policies, which is likely to be bad (especially when people throw the bums out every four years, so you get wild policy swings).

A better approach is to decrease partisanship (elected representatives tend to be outside the mainstream, more so in the GOP, but it’s a problem on both sides). To do this using preference ballots instead of primaries, and things like mandatory voting (or an election day holiday) have been proposed, the idea being that the main issue is that candidates are selected by primaries where only the party true believers come out, which tilts candidate selection.  

Milky > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 07/12/2017 at 10:36

1

Come learn more about the inner “workings” of the United States government.

PartyPooper2012 > Milky 07/12/2017 at 10:38

0

well, because 8 years is a long time. Times, technology and ideas change in that time. Person who served under your parents might not have same ideas as person who might serve in your time.

I am not saying all old people are dazed and confused, but based on my parents and my wifes parents, there are certain things they need explained in more detail....several times. I wouldn’t want my parents or her parents making decisions on modern technology like autonomous driving, cyber-security, internet bullying etc.

I would want someone who is little more with it (in tune with modern times) in office.  

jariten1781 > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:44

1

The federal government was specifically designed to make major changes incredibly difficult. The founders specifically did not want the winds of public opinions to drive block-shift changes to national policy on a 2, 4, 6, 8 year basis due to election shifts. Only when there is overwhelming support did they desire top-down planning and policy and only in the most limited fashion that could be implemented. States and localities are where the rapid changes are expected to occur and ostensibly, if something works out so well there, there would be little to no opposition to implementing it federally after a period of time.

DC is ‘working’ (ie not working) the way it was intended.

PartyPooper2012 > Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) 07/12/2017 at 10:44

0

I guess. So instead of wild policy changes, we get no policy changes.

we get politicians working for 4 years on passing one bill. Then working another 4 years to repeal it. Then next president comes in with his ideas and we’re back to passing and repealing old laws we could not decide on last 8 years.

If you had a job where you worked on a project for 4 years, it failed, and now you needed another 5 years to dismantle it, you would be out of a job long before that.

Milky > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:48

1

It took me 6 years of school and about 2 years of working to be good at my job. I’m not trying to get fired tomorrow.

duurtlang > Ash78, voting early and often 07/12/2017 at 10:49

1

What always surprises me about the US is its lack of representation. It’s like winner takes all. I’m more used to a party getting 20% of votes = 20% of voting power for the party, 40% of votes = 40% of voting power, and so on. Let them form coalitions to form majorities. The US system has resulted in what functions as a 2-party system, something binary. It’s a step above a 1-party system, but it’s still not what you’d want. In my uneducated opinion this has created the “the other party is evil” deadlock and the flight to the fringes, especially on the Republican side.

I guess it’ll be hard to do while still allowing the individual states to represent themselves on a national level. Still though, there are other countries in a similar situation that do this representative democracy thing (imho!) better. Like Germany.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:49

5

Some stability/continuity is good. If we have to start from scratch with entirely new people every 4 years we won’t get anything done. The 6yr/4yr stagger is a good setup.

Also, yes to term limits.

PartyPooper2012 > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 07/12/2017 at 10:53

1

Yeah. I am not sure when is best to elect new sens and congs but I know its needs doing. Term lengths can also be adjusted, but we do need to get rid of career politicians. Its not a job. Its a service to the country. Do it for a while, and go on about your life as a working stiff the rest of us are.

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 10:53

2

Then they just need policies that everyone can agree upon. It needs to be something other than “This is right, that is wrong”. The stupid Red vs Blue, 2 party system is the problem. Everyone has to latch onto one side or the other rather than just supporting things they believe in. If everyone worked together as one team, things could get done with actually bipartisan input. I agree that its stupid how things just see saw back and forth and that both sides are wrong and right at times.

Ash78, voting early and often > duurtlang 07/12/2017 at 10:54

1

Totally agree. Political Science experts have argued about why this wouldn’t work, but I still disagree — The “Democratic” party really needs to be made up of more discrete components, like the Bernie Sanders people and the Hillary Clinton people. The Republicans could easily be 3 different groups, then you could have Libertarians and Greens (assuming they’re not rolled into the other two main groups above). Instead they have all of these political games within the parties where people have to balance their true beliefs with their public impression and political reputation.

PartyPooper2012 > Milky 07/12/2017 at 10:57

0

It seems what you do requires some training and skill.

What politicians do is negotiate. Anyone can negotiate.

As a kid, you negotiate with your parents about toys you want.

As a teen you negotiate with that cutie what you might get for helping with math homework.

As an adult you negotiate your salary, You look for a better deal for your vacation.

Haggling is not so common in this country, but it is still possible to find it. house price, car price, etc.

Anyone can negotiate. Politicians need real world experience is all.

Should a brick layer wear a hard hat? If you don’t know what that involves, you might say nah. As a brick layer who has been hit with a brick, you might say yup.

PartyPooper2012 > Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) 07/12/2017 at 11:00

0

Yeah.

I think these huge bills and ideas they try to pass contain so many moving pieces in them, no right person could agree on everything.

Honey, we gonna build a house with red roof and blue carpet and a double sink in kitchen and 4 car garage.

Well, I like the double sink, but I can’t get behind blue carpet, so fuck your idea. I am going on recess. See you in court.

Instead, they should just part it out idea at a time. Honey what color roof should we get, black or red? boom. decision is made. Moving on.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) 07/12/2017 at 11:03

3

Then what is the problem with being nice to other people who aren’t like you (being politically correct, LBGTQ rights, equality in general), the government providing healthcare for its citizens, ensuring everyone eligible has a say in how our government works for them (voting rights), and generally trying to make a society where as many people as possible are able to benefit from our successes?

Because the way I see it, we have one party who is trying to do all the above (with varying levels of success, and imperfect implementation) and another party who are doing their level best to move us in the opposite direction.

It is one thing to argue about how to fund healthcare; the argument then is not that people should have it, only how do we pay for it. It is another thing entirely to have one party determined to take it away from those they deem unworthy simply because they are different from those in charge.

Milky > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:04

1

Well I consider healthcare for millions kind of important and complicated.

Anyone can negotiate, but if you don’t know what you’re talking about its not going to do you any good.

duurtlang > Ash78, voting early and often 07/12/2017 at 11:05

1

That’ll result in 7 parties, none of which with a real chance of an individual majority. And lots of real and nuanced differences between the parties. People would have something to choose (not just the ‘lesser evil’) and parties will have to work together to form a majority. Exactly what you’d want in a democracy, imho.

That it wouldn’t work is silly, there are multiple examples of countries where something similar works just fine. The US doesn’t exist in a vacuum, you can learn from the failures and successes of others. The only question one needs to ask is if it’s preferable to the current situation.

PartyPooper2012 > Milky 07/12/2017 at 11:05

0

exactly why one would need world experience.

Textured Soy Protein > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:12

6

What you’re describing is sorta kinda how the UK ends up with a Prime Minister. Everybody in the UK votes for a local Member of Parliament, and whichever party ends up with the most MPs gets to pick a Prime Minister. But the voters don’t directly vote for a Prime Minister.

As for your idea about stopping deadlock, while to some extent that is due to the two parties not wanting to work with each other enough, a lot of that has to do with the ideological divide within the GOP right now. They’re in control. If they agreed, they have a rubber stamp president who will sign any bill that he can declare a “victory.” But the party as a whole has shifted far to the right of even where they were when George W was president.

The GOP has 3 main wings:

Extreme far-right, or just straight up “we don’t want the government to do anything” type politicians. There’s a lot more of them in the house than the senate. Tea Party, House Freedom Caucus, Ted Motherfucking Cruz, etc.

Solidly conservative types who are somewhere along the spectrum from Reagan to Dubya.

A select few moderates.

Let’s use the GOP’s shitty awful excuse for a healthcare bill as an example. This is a bill that mostly consists of taking away $700 billion in Medicaid funding for poor and elderly to give $700 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy, in the name of supposedly lowering people’s health insurance premiums, but according to the Congressional Budget Office will result in 20+ million people losing healthcare coverage.

In the house, which is much more full of group #1, Obamacare is one of the main reasons they got elected. The Tea Party rose up from people who would very much stand to benefit from the ACA but are so fervently against the government doing stuff that they held angry rallies about not wanting the government to do stuff or charge more taxes.

Nevermind that these people were mostly working class and old and exactly who the ACA would benefit, and the taxes it would impose were on rich people, the ACA was evil Muslim socialism and that’s bad! So a bunch of politicians sprung up to address these voters and got elected (mostly) to the house. Also, long-time GOP politicians shifted to the fake populist right to appeal to their constituencies.

They spent the past 8 years ranting about how they were going to repeal Obamacare, but they never came up with a plan. They passed several symbolic Obamacare repeal bills that they knew Obama would veto.

When they finally got control of all 3 branches of government, their “repeal” turned out to 1) leave most of the structure of Obamacare in place, but with a bunch of various things that would make everyone’s coverage worse and 2) cut a bunch of Medicaid funding and taxes even though that’s not repealing Obamacare, it’s just a big tax cut in the name of getting government to do less stuff.

In the house, this BS barely passed and it took some last-minute amendment that made it worse , which snagged a few more votes from the “we don’t want government to do stuff” crowd.

Trump held a celebration in at the white house to crow about this “achievement,” then decided actually the bill was too mean and the senate should write a more moderate version. So the senate wrote its own bill that does basically the exact same thing, with some numbers shifted around.

But in the Senate, the GOP isn’t necessarily less conservative, it’s just less dominated by the ideological purists who won’t vote for anything that increases any kind of government spending. There are also several moderate senators who have stepped up and said, “hey wait a minute, this bill royally fucks over a whole lot of people in my state, and even the republican governor of my state doesn’t like it, maybe we shouldn’t pass this?”

With any luck, they’ll vote it down soon enough, and we’ll all be saved from the GOP’s no-good very awful healthcare bill.

So that’s the modern GOP, in a nutshell.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:18

3

That’s not how politics works though. It is never simple. There are always compromises.

But that c-word isn’t used anymore; both ‘sides’ are guilty, one is much more so. So yet again, we have one group of lawmakers trying to make our country better for a larger group of people, and the other party simply refuses to do anything unless they get their way; they shut down the entire government during Obama’s term just because they didn’t like the idea that we should provide healthcare for our citizens. (And also because Obama was black; but they’ll never admit to that even though we can all see it. If he was so ineffectual, why do they need to undo so many things?)

The ACA was debated on the open floor for well over 100 hours, and passed with widespread bipartisan input and support. The AHCA has been kept behind closed doors as much as possible, has zero input or support from the Dems- who have not been invited to participate in the rule-making process at all, and isn’t even supported by the people who voted these clowns into office.

I agree that something needs to change. But that something is that the current rCons need to be removed from office. The Dems are by no means perfect; but they also aren’t in charge right now. Those who are in charge aren’t working for their voters. We need more moderates- from both sides; but much more so from the so called ‘conservatives’. Because right now they aren’t doing anything they espouse to support.

PartyPooper2012 > Textured Soy Protein 07/12/2017 at 11:19

0

I wasn’t intending to bash on any one party. I am simply trying to think of a way to stop the deadlock. I don’t care what party is being stubborn.

In countries like ukraine and egypt, and few others, there is a way to dissolve government and vote a new one in if the existing gov’t is ineffective or can’t decide.

I don’t know the specific details on how that is done. I am simply saying something needs to be done to stop deadlocks from happening. We need a working government. We need politicians who can successfully negotiate and come to a decision and pass bills and make them laws.

They spent years workng on obamacare law. Finally passed it. Now it is deemed as failure and they need more years to repeal it. Then they will spend years on working on trumpcare. Then they will spend years or repealing it and instituting a AtlasMcare and then spend years repealing it.

It never ends. If you did that at your job, you’d get kicked out. You can’t spend years on project. Have it failed. Dismantle it and try again.

If you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re out in real life.

PartyPooper2012 > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 07/12/2017 at 11:25

0

my point exactly is that they need to be able to negotiate for the better of American people. Instead they are fighting opposite party. They are fighting in party.

I know tradition and everything, but I was dumbfounded when i heard they were playing baseball the other day. I was shocked. Country is trillions in debt, and they have time to play fucking baseball. On a wednesday.

All I know is that when there is a problem at my job, I get to work as early as I can to work it out. To figure out a solution. I negotiate. I come up with a plan. I don’t say fuck it. Ima go play baseball on Wednesday morning. Fuck all the people who voted for us.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:27

3

I do not disagree.

Neither ‘side’ is perfect. However, one party is far more guilty of being locked into an ideology rather than doing what is actually best for us as citizens.

PartyPooper2012 > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 07/12/2017 at 11:30

0

eh. maybe one party is worse than other right now, but both have been that way at some point in time and I think people are getting fed up with it. From both ends.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:31

1

You need more parties. Plain and simple. The election is determined every single time by a handful of flip flop people who hate the old guy so they vote the other way to try to make it better without really thinking too much about it. There needs to be more reasonable choices. Leader debates are much more interesting when there’s more than two people up there calling each other names.

Also, having the entirety of the electoral college of a state support whoever gets the most candidates? Total BS. Quit doing that. A couple states have already seen the light and quit, but the rest need to follow suit.

And also. Seriously. Make sure your voters are educated. You can’t have people voting for candidates just because their granddaddy’s granddaddy voted for that party, and you can’t have them lapping up everything their candidate says without properly evaluating it. That’s just asking for a country to fall apart.

Textured Soy Protein > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:31

2

Honestly, hypothetical discussions about changing the structure of American government are pointless. It ain’t changing.

As for what you’re saying about healthcare, the reason I bash the GOP is because they’re the ones screwing it up over and over again. The ACA has not failed, the GOP claims it has failed because they have a moral objection to the government being in the healthcare business.

The overall framework the ACA established works. Its instability is largely a result of the GOP blocking certain parts of it from being implemented. What it needs to work better is for those blocks to be undone, and other refinements put in place to shore up other issues.

The only way we’ll benefit, and the only way deadlock will end, is if enough folks in the GOP admit that the government is very much in the healthcare business, and instead of trying undermine it in the name of a moral objection to government being in the healthcare business, it’s better to come up with real solutions.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:36

4

It’s hard to compromise and find a middle ground when one party wants to make sure that the largest possible collective of citizens has the opportunity to participate in society; and the other side does everything they can to limit society to wealthy white males.

Decry ideology all you wish, but I agree vehemently that this nation was founded on the principle that everyone has the same chance at success.

PartyPooper2012 > Textured Soy Protein 07/12/2017 at 11:38

0

Again, both sides are guilty of same behavior. Maybe not at same time, but at some point they both were.

I don’t care what the issue is - Obamacare, taxes, budget, debt ceiling, who’s getting gatorade for the baseball game... I don’t care. They suck. Everyone in US will agree they suck at compromise.

DipodomysDeserti > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:50

2

Isn’t the presidency, the house and the senate all controlled by the Republicans right now?

I don’t think the way we schedule elections is the problem here. Although the Trump fanbois are probably reaching for any and all wxcises at this point (I’m not inferring you’re a Trump fanboi).

Maybe it’s Obama’s fault?

DipodomysDeserti > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:51

5

Yeah, let’s do it like Ukraine and Egypt!

-said no one ever until just now.

Ukraine and Egypt have effectively been dictatorships for the last few decades (half a century for Egypt). Dictorships love the ability to dissolve government when it isn’t going certain people’s way.

Deadlock isn’t always a bad thing. Ask the Republicans circa 2008-2009

PartyPooper2012 > DipodomysDeserti 07/12/2017 at 11:56

0

There has got to be a way to get rid of ineffective people in government.

People don’t show up to vote. People refuse to negotiate with people from other parties.

What good does it do for the better of the country?

DipodomysDeserti > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 11:59

4

Eh, they’re mostly all shitheads. Let them be deadlocked less they start another war.

PartyPooper2012 > DipodomysDeserti 07/12/2017 at 12:08

0

If one party controls all branches of government and still can’t figure shit out, government is useless.

Textured Soy Protein > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 12:08

1

Yes, both sides do suck at compromise but to leave it at that when there are longstanding problems with certain sides on certain issues is to ignore the nuance of the situation.

TheJMan92 > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 12:25

2

I think AtlasM was getting to a lot of the current issue. It’s not always party vs party, a lot of infighting has sprung up lately. The GOP healthcare bill is an easy way to demonstrate the different ways of thinking within the GOP and is currently the most visible. The democrats are going through something similar but it isn’t (currently) playing out in such a visible way as it isn’t over something like a bill that will kill people if it’s passed.

During the election we had all sorts of Bernie vs Hillary infighting going on within what was essentially the democrat camp. They wanted more or less the same thing but could figure out a way to work together to achieve what they wanted. That’s largely a part of how we got our current administration (Russian meddling notwithstanding).

Another part of this is that I honestly don’t think most of the people in our current administration bet on suddenly having complete control over our government. The President will do whatever they want to do if they could just figure out what that is and how to play nice.

I do like the idea of an entire administration/government reset when a new president is elected and I absolutely think there should be term limits when it comes to senators. Dissolving the government is maybe not such a great idea, as mentioned it’s an easy way to get a dictatorship started and given our current administrations penchant for blatantly breaking rules... it’s not something I’d want to explore.

Deadlock is frustrating, I’ve been following this administration closely (haven’t we all!) and it’s impossible not to just throw your hands up in frustration and all the stuff going on. Unfortunately just nuking the whole thing and starting over likely won’t solve the issues. You have some good ideas that would help though, especially getting all the super old dudes out so we can try to move forward with our country.

Berang > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 12:52

2

You eventually realize it’s not really the politicians. It’s the people who vote and lobby. You’re surrounded by idiots who can’t tell their ass from a hole in the ground, and they’re the ones deciding who gets to ruin everything in your life.

PartyPooper2012 > Berang 07/12/2017 at 13:09

0

People who vote for politicians rely on what the politicians are saying to be true. We all know politicians lie. Yet we still wanting to believe.

I think best way to get rid of this whole thing is for everyone to stop voting. If no one in US voted for any politician, sooner or later, votes would appear out of thin air. Then we go to torches and pitchforks.

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 07/12/2017 at 13:16

1

See I agree with you since I am as liberal as can be. Bernie Sanders is my lord and savior. But thats just not a realistic solution. Those republican representatives were voted there by their home states. Sure, gerymandering has skewed things a bit, but they do represent the will of the dumb people. And we have to find a way to work with them one way or the other. The whole “you go low, we go high” thing is very much something I believe in. Although I have my doubts at this point in our dystopian future.

RallyWrench > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 13:33

4

If that majority party is fighting with itself and pushing an agenda that has turned out to be deeply unpopular, government is useless. If the other party is also fighting with itself and is in the minority, government is useless. I would infer from that that the two party system is a problem, because if the only options we’re given are two ideological extremes and money can buy them, there will be no progress.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) 07/12/2017 at 14:52

2

Since the right-wing cult won’t listen to reason, I am hopeful we can simply bypass them entirely. If we can finally get enough progressives to run for office and elect them, we can just ignore the crazies. Once we can finally shape policy that not only helps everyone else, but them as well, they might shut up a little bit.

Sadly, this won’t happen quickly. I have my doubts for 2018; the gerrymander is real. But maybe eventually we can have nice things again.

Or we’ll start a war in Asia and all die fighting the Chinese again.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 22:08

0

190octane > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 22:27

0

No, that party and the people in it are useless.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > PartyPooper2012 07/12/2017 at 22:54

0

“they need to be able to negotiate for the better of American people.’ For the long periods of the history of this county the people and thus representatives have had diametrically opposed idea of what that solution is.

In the gridlock surrounding the health care debate the only thing stopping the bill is A) the GOP has to deliver pledge to kill the ACA and cut access for millions of americans. They’ve been able to rile up their supporters and now have no opposition to do so.

B) the most prominant figure in their party has promised to do the exact opposite.

Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever > Textured Soy Protein 07/25/2017 at 14:34

0

I disagree with your reasoning on why the GOP thinks Obamacare has failed.

The most vocal members of the GOP hate that it was championed by a black president, and that it actually works (albeit not that great).

The most vile hatred of any Democrat presidency seemed to come online with Obama, and I can think of no other reason than because he is brown.