finally, politicians take the gloves off re: idiot town hall goers

[tragicallyunhip]

Yep. The in-fighting in the democratic party is pathetic. The GOP is even more pathetic. We need a viable third party.

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by DataBass

Obama's just "staying the course".

Which course?

The 2003, 2007, or 2009 course?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tragicallyunhip

Yep. The in-fighting in the democratic party is pathetic. The GOP is even more pathetic. We need a viable third party.

Lol - the GOP is not more pathetic... just powerless. When the party with such overwhelming majorities can't get legislation passed... that's pathetic.

Third parties are a great way to get the guys you like least in office. Clinton has Perot to thank for defeating GHWB. The Libertarians, Independence party etc etc have seen declining numbers each election since 1992.

A third party would make Congress even more divisive requiring odd bed fellows to pass legislation... meaning it'd be even less effective than it is today.

Frustration with political impotence is one thing but it isn't solved by reinventing the wheel... want change? Do it from inside a party.

[david austin]

Originally Posted by PETA

Frustration with political impotence is one thing but it isn't solved by reinventing the wheel... want change? Do it from inside a party.

And this CANNOT be done by the continued demonizing and polarization of the different sides of the party system.

[name change request]

Originally Posted by david austin

Politicians are less and less interested in what WE want and more and more interested in what THEY want. When you poll a sample population and find under 50% approval in Obamas plan do you get concerned when reports come out saying Dems are going to push it through regardless... because they can?

show me these reports because i think they're full of shit. i don't see Obama saying that he plans to push it through without any republican support. i dont think there is a snowballs chance in hell that he does that.

[david austin]

Originally Posted by name change request

show me these reports because i think they're full of shit. i don't see Obama saying that he plans to push it through without any republican support. i dont think there is a snowballs chance in hell that he does that.

I didnt say it came from Obamas mouth. Im saying there are reports of Dems looking at ways to avoid any need for Repub support. Obama would be smart to NOT say that. Do you think if the Dems banded together and signed a bill he would say, 'Now wait a minute guys... do we have some Repub support?' I dont think so.

Hell theres a thread about that just below this one

[name change request]

well Dems can do that without Rep support right now, they have all the votes they need.

and yet Obama hasn't said he would do that a single time. Obama continues to try to get support. Obama doesn't have to do that. Dems could go do whatever the hell they wanted to and they don't have to do town hall meetings and they don't have to worry about the Republicans want.

the fact is that Obama, the Dems, AND the Reps ALL want to further their agenda and they want to do it like all politicians do which is to protect themselves. the Dems want to do it in a way that if there are problems they can blame the other side and vice versa for the Reps.

[david austin]

Originally Posted by name change request

well Dems can do that without Rep support right now, they have all the votes they need.

the fact is that Obama, the Dems, AND the Reps ALL want to further their agenda and they want to do it like all politicians do which is to protect themselves. the Dems want to do it in a way that if there are problems they can blame the other side and vice versa for the Reps.

So you really think that the Dems are stalling because they want a patsy in case it all goes wrong?

[tragicallyunhip]

I diagree with approximately 100% of what you just said here. I could dissect it, but I think I'll just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by PETA

Lol - the GOP is not more pathetic... just powerless. When the party with such overwhelming majorities can't get legislation passed... that's pathetic.

Third parties are a great way to get the guys you like least in office. Clinton has Perot to thank for defeating GHWB. The Libertarians, Independence party etc etc have seen declining numbers each election since 1992.

A third party would make Congress even more divisive requiring odd bed fellows to pass legislation... meaning it'd be even less effective than it is today.

Frustration with political impotence is one thing but it isn't solved by reinventing the wheel... want change? Do it from inside a party.

[name change request]

Originally Posted by david austin

So you really think that the Dems are stalling because they want a patsy in case it all goes wrong?

no. but that's part of it.

the main reason they're stalling is because not all Dems support the plan currently on the table which is why they can't push it through on their own without Rep support. healthcare is a complicated and serious issues and i don't blame them one bit for not wanting to rush it through. the debate needs to continue because it'd be nice if we can get this right.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by david austin

And this CANNOT be done by the continued demonizing and polarization of the different sides of the party system.

mweh... people claim that they hate polarization and partisanship but most people who say that are full of shit. Most people love partisanship, they want their guy to make the rules, to be able to say, "fuck you" to the other guy and ignore his perspective.

Originally Posted by tragicallyunhip

I diagree with approximately 100% of what you just said here. I could dissect it, but I think I'll just leave it at that.

lol - feel free to disagree but the poll numbers of third parties are a matter of fact not of opinion

If you want to see how legislatures with more than two parties work we've got examples all over the world... they require coalitions to govern. Also a matter of fact not of opinion.

How effective those coalitions are is a mixture of fact and opinion.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by PETA

mweh... people claim that they hate polarization and partisanship but most people who say that are full of shit. Most people love partisanship, they want their guy to make the rules, to be able to say, "fuck you" to the other guy and ignore his perspective.

For sure. That's your modus operandi.

Now we're in power and they're nothing more that I and the rest of the progressives out there would love to do than bend you over and shove single payer healthcare down your ass.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

For sure. That's your modus operandi.

Now we're in power and they're nothing more that I and the rest of the progressives out there would love to do than bend you over and shove single payer healthcare down your ass.

That's how most people respond to politics... they are not interested in compromise as much as they are interested in getting their way. One compromises when when must. Let's say you came up with your ideal healthcare plan and you think its great stuff, you'd compromise that plan only as far as necessary to keep as much of it as possible and get it passed. You wouldn't simply give away elements of your plan and accept elements you did not support just to be bi-partisan. That's not a left thing or a right thing. Your comments demonstrate it in ironic and hyperbolic fashion.

[david austin]

Originally Posted by PETA

mweh... people claim that they hate polarization and partisanship but most people who say that are full of shit. Most people love partisanship, they want their guy to make the rules, to be able to say, "fuck you" to the other guy and ignore his perspective.

Well yes... to an extent.

I dont think extreme pendulum swings are good for anyone.

Im not advocating a one party think tank... just two parties that spend more time sharing ideas and less time slinging crap filled mortar rounds to the other side.

This...

That's how most people respond to politics... they are not interested in compromise as much as they are interested in getting their way. One compromises when when must. Let's say you came up with your ideal healthcare plan and you think its great stuff, you'd compromise that plan only as far as necessary to keep as much of it as possible and get it passed. You wouldn't simply give away elements of your plan and accept elements you did not support just to be bi-partisan. That's not a left thing or a right thing.

[name change request]

Originally Posted by david austin

Im not advocating a one party think tank... just two parties that spend more time sharing ideas and less time slinging crap filled mortar rounds to the other side.

exactly.