I understand why you would think bringing awareness to the American people that a lot of people's votes do not carry the weight of some others would be complaining.
I mean if everyone knew all of the ramifications things might change. And then your side wouldn't be able to elect a president anymore.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I understand why you would think bringing awareness to the American people that a lot of people's votes do not carry the weight of some others would be complaining.
I mean if everyone knew all of the ramifications things might change. And then your side wouldn't be able to elect a president anymore.
Until those population centers are completely destroyed by the democrats that run them. Just like a dem to forget that this country is not, and I repeat, not a democracy. It's a representative republic. It was specifically done to prevent mob rule from taking over the government, and to make lesser populated states matter in the elections. I'm fairly sure those states will never vote to make themselves irrelevant in a presidential election.
But when the Republican senate ignored it in 2016 it doesn't count? Like I said before, I never expect honesty from you.
This goes back lon---nng before 2016, check the Clinton, and Grandpa Bush years, there is a long history of the democrats doing the same sort of thing tit for tat, so don't claim some moral high ground, it's just not accurate.
The republicans used to cave, some of the events of the last 30 years have soured that because look where it got them.
In 2016, Republicans didn't play the "Biden rule" card because they believed in the rule. They played the "Biden rule" card to hamstring Biden/Democrats in future elections if they complained since going against it would make Biden a hypocrite. All the quotes I've seen from the political Money Mitch include usage of the word "this" which references a specific instance rather than a general rule.
I don't like the way they play the games in politics, but that's the way both sides play it.
I'm all for getting rid of the two party system and making them all run as independents and setting maximums on campaign spending. We could perhaps even give all candidates that can gather more than a minimum amount of signatures the same amount of funding to cut out the ability of lobbyists and special interest groups to buy influence. Clear out all these old guard partisans.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
I'm all for getting rid of the two party system and making them all run as independents and setting maximums on campaign spending. We could perhaps even give all candidates that can gather more than a minimum amount of signatures the same amount of funding to cut out the ability of lobbyists and special interest groups to buy influence. Clear out all these old guard partisans.
There is a lot of research that shows that any presidential system will directly collapse into a two party system.
If you want to get rid of two parties you have to work with a parliamentary system. There is a reason that when the US (and other western countries) help install new democracies, they use parliamentary systems. They are more stable and multifaceted.
OTOH, presidential systems are very good at reacting fast - and potentially better at responding to multilateral problems so long as there is "backroom give and take" to make concessions from both sides. Unfortunately, we've totally lost the ability to have any give and take, which is why the system is so unstable.
There is a separate issue which concerns how off-tilt the current party dynamics are compared to the average citizen -- but the two party system will persist even if the parties moved closer together or farther apart.
I'm all for getting rid of the two party system and making them all run as independents and setting maximums on campaign spending. We could perhaps even give all candidates that can gather more than a minimum amount of signatures the same amount of funding to cut out the ability of lobbyists and special interest groups to buy influence. Clear out all these old guard partisans.
There is a lot of research that shows that any presidential system will directly collapse into a two party system.
If you want to get rid of two parties you have to work with a parliamentary system. There is a reason that when the US (and other western countries) help install new democracies, they use parliamentary systems. They are more stable and multifaceted.
OTOH, presidential systems are very good at reacting fast - and potentially better at responding to multilateral problems so long as there is "backroom give and take" to make concessions from both sides. Unfortunately, we've totally lost the ability to have any give and take, which is why the system is so unstable.
There is a separate issue which concerns how off-tilt the current party dynamics are compared to the average citizen -- but the two party system will persist even if the parties moved closer together or farther apart.
That research (your description of it at least) suggests, to me, that they haven't figured out the right presidential system yet, as far as one that won't fall into bickering sides.
I don't want a parliamentary system. I literally want no political parties (particularly on the funding side.) I'd probably also want to enact strict term limits (perhaps no consecutive terms along with a fixed maximum) to try to prevent de facto parties from forming over time. I want the focus to be on the issues; Not on which person is on which side and how voting against party will cut their ability to effectively campaign. Maybe do 6 year terms staggered every 2 years, so there is always some experience around (i.e, 2/3 not trying to figure out how things work on the job.)
I don't see the current people milking the system voting to change it, but as currently constructed/used in practice our system pretty much is awful.
Quote:
George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”
So, the republicans were wrong for holding it up in 2016....so they should be wrong again and hold this one up? Even RBG said it was the presidents duty to put forth a nominee. The term is 4 years, not 3.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
That research (your description of it at least) suggests, to me, that they haven't figured out the right presidential system yet, as far as one that won't fall into bickering sides.
I think it is more fundamental than that. At the end of the day you have to have up or down votes on what will happen. If you have three parties (on some continuum of viewpoints that, say, goes from 0 to 10) -- and those parties occupy positions 2,4, and 7. Then 7 will always win unless 2 and 4 basically merge to always work together. At this point, they are essentially 1 party, and they will formalize that relationship.
It is always in the best interest of any more minor party to combine with a major one (at least, if the goal is electoral power) -- you will get some minor parties like Greens or Libertarians, that are not particularly interested in gaining actual seats. But there will never be a serious 3rd party.
Originally Posted By: Bull_Dawg
I don't want a parliamentary system. I literally want no political parties (particularly on the funding side.) I'd probably also want to enact strict term limits (perhaps no consecutive terms along with a fixed maximum) to try to prevent de facto parties from forming over time. I want the focus to be on the issues; Not on which person is on which side and how voting against party will cut their ability to effectively campaign. Maybe do 6 year terms staggered every 2 years, so there is always some experience around (i.e, 2/3 not trying to figure out how things work on the job.)
I don't see the current people milking the system voting to change it, but as currently constructed/used in practice our system pretty much is awful.
I just don't think it's possible. Most people don't want to think about all the issues -- and will take the easiest way out. That is what parties do - they simplify complex decisions into a few fundamental decisions that voters can make.
Even when all the issues are on the table - the majority of people still vote party line. That is the strength of the parties.
There are a couple small things you can do, which might reduce hyper-partisanship. One that I really like, but is rarely mentioned, is to have the US presidency be a single 6-year term with no re-election. Potentially the president should also formally renounce their party membership (though it would be impossible to do this in any way but in name).
imma need people to explain to me how we got americans trying to justify trump not sending people into "a panic", yet don't say a word about trump trying to send people into a panic over mail in voting.
200k deaths needs to be played down, but creating panic by claiming the election is rigged, thus needing a SC judge to break the hypothetical tie in a case is A-ok?
you guys DO REALIZE that trump is ACTIVELY claiming the election is already rigged, correct?
not implying, not suggesting, not speculating, not hyperbole, none of that.
he is directly claiming our elections are already rigged, just like these right wing authoritarian losers in Russia/eastern bloc do all the time.
straight out the dictator playbook.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“They lost the election in 2016, they lost the White House," "So, listen, if they win back those things, they’ll be able to confirm and nominate their own justices in the future, but, to say because they lost elections that now that they will break all of our Constitutional norms and standards, they’ll pack courts, they’ll conduct impeachment hearings to stop a president from carrying forward his Constitutionally authorized privileges and responsibilities. That’s insane.”
-Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.
I think some are missing the mark here. The issue is not with the President's ability to nominate in accordance with the Constitution, because that also happened in 2016.
The epicenter of the issue is whether the Senate will undergo confirmation hearings.
The Democrats are crying foul because the Republicans are doing an about-face of what they said in 2016. Lindsey Graham is prima facie evidence of that.
I personally prefer constructionist/originalist justices because I feel their rationale is less volatile and whimsical. However, if we look at the facts for what they are, the Democrats' qualms in this case have merit. The ends don't justify the means, IMO. If the Senate Republicans establish the precedent of not confirming in an election year, then be consistent. I think that's a fair ask.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
imma need people to explain to me how we got americans trying to justify trump not sending people into "a panic", yet don't say a word about trump trying to send people into a panic over mail in voting.
200k deaths needs to be played down, but creating panic by claiming the election is rigged, thus needing a SC judge to break the hypothetical tie in a case is A-ok?
you guys DO REALIZE that trump is ACTIVELY claiming the election is already rigged, correct?
not implying, not suggesting, not speculating, not hyperbole, none of that.
he is directly claiming our elections are already rigged, just like these right wing authoritarian losers in Russia/eastern bloc do all the time.
Here's the bottom line: Trump could nominate Jesus to the SCOTUS, and dems would be against it. Bank it.
Jesus could announce his return, but the republicans would deport him.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I've said this before about Trump, and he deserves credit for this:
The republican party needs him, not the other way around. for better or worse, he succeeded in completely grabbing the republican establishment by the balls. Trump has guys like Lindsey graham shoved so far up his ass, graham is digesting the mcdonald's he eats.
i don't think we've ever seen that in US history. the GOP just completely caved.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So, the republicans were wrong for holding it up in 2016....so they should be wrong again and hold this one up? Even RBG said it was the presidents duty to put forth a nominee. The term is 4 years, not 3.
No, the Republicans were within their constitutional rights to not confirm. They should have voted him down.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg)
