PDA

View Full Version : "Most Americans these days are simply ignoring Republicans. And they should"



Ravi
09-23-2013, 11:07 AM
Good op ed.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/judd-gregg/323853-opinion-defunders-play-russian-roulette-with-gop-a-former-senator-writes

Common
09-23-2013, 11:24 AM
Quoted from the op: The two paragraphs below sum it up, the gop pushback against the far right is gaining strength.


Most Americans do not seek purity; they seek answers to the everyday problems they confront. They expect their government to be of assistance in addressing those problems, not to aggravate them through artificial and self-inflicted economic mismanagement, such as having a default crisis that could easily be avoided.

If the Republican Party ignores this concern and constantly speaks to an ever-narrower segment of the population, it is not going to be viable for long, no matter how vocal that small band of people may be.

Chris
09-23-2013, 11:42 AM
I agree, Reps should be ignored, along with Dems. As O'Rourke titled a book, Don't Vote It Just Encourages the Bastards.

Ravi
09-23-2013, 11:48 AM
Quoted from the op: The two paragraphs below sum it up, the gop pushback against the far right is gaining strength.


Most Americans do not seek purity; they seek answers to the everyday problems they confront. They expect their government to be of assistance in addressing those problems, not to aggravate them through artificial and self-inflicted economic mismanagement, such as having a default crisis that could easily be avoided.

If the Republican Party ignores this concern and constantly speaks to an ever-narrower segment of the population, it is not going to be viable for long, no matter how vocal that small band of people may be.





Maybe one day the GOP will be a rational party. That would be a good outcome of this recent, long death spiral they've been in.

Mainecoons
09-23-2013, 12:04 PM
Maybe one day the GOP will be a rational party.

Translated: They'll start "compromising" with the left again and return as full partners in growing government.

OK

Ravi
09-23-2013, 12:07 PM
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Translated: They'll start "compromising" with the left again and return as full partners in growing government.

OKA better translation is that maybe one day they'll start being rational.

BB-35
09-23-2013, 12:07 PM
Maybe one day the GOP will be a rational party. That would be a good outcome of this recent, long death spiral they've been in.

And the democrats are 'rational'?

nic34
09-23-2013, 12:08 PM
Translated: They'll start "compromising" with the left again and return as full partners in growing government.



Only to persons with the myopic mindset of Government = Bad, Private = Good.

AmazonTania
09-23-2013, 12:10 PM
Only to persons with the myopic mindset of Government = Bad, Private = Good.

Even Ayn Rand knew she was wrong in the end.......

And yet, everything she wrote about has come to fruition. Investors and Businesses are taking flight left and right and America's capital account & financial account is a disaster.

Mainecoons
09-23-2013, 12:12 PM
And then there's the mindset that prevents some folks from observing and learning from reality and mistakes.

Ravi
09-23-2013, 12:12 PM
And the democrats are 'rational'?

Deflection noted. Feel free to start your own thread.

Chris
09-23-2013, 12:16 PM
Only to persons with the myopic mindset of Government = Bad, Private = Good.


And the democrats are 'rational'?



Only to persons with the myopic mindset of Government = Good, Private = Bad.

BB-35
09-23-2013, 12:39 PM
Deflection noted. Feel free to start your own thread.

No 'deflection',it was a question,and you should answer it,honestly...

Codename Section
09-23-2013, 12:42 PM
I can write a poll question or a research protocol in such a way that I'll get the answers I want. I think forums and social media is what people should look to for a pulse on America.

Cigar
09-23-2013, 12:44 PM
Good op ed.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/judd-gregg/323853-opinion-defunders-play-russian-roulette-with-gop-a-former-senator-writes

Come-on ... they're entertaining.

I can't wait for the next Debating Opportunity on National Television :laugh:

Adelaide
09-23-2013, 05:24 PM
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Translated: They'll start "compromising" with the left again and return as full partners in growing government.

OK

Both sides need to compromise. That's kind of the point of government; balance through a mixture of positions and legislation. One party being entirely in control and not having to be balanced by an opposing party would be/is very bad.

jillian
09-23-2013, 05:25 PM
Both sides need to compromise. That's kind of the point of government; balance through a mixture of positions and legislation. One party being entirely in control and not having to be balanced by an opposing party would be/is very bad.

you're correct, of course. that is how it should work.

unfortunately we have this group of extremists in the house who think compromise is evil and whose "base" has been brainwashed to think it is, too.

Codename Section
09-23-2013, 05:27 PM
you're correct, of course. that is how it should work.

unfortunately we have this group of extremists in the house who think compromise is evil and whose "base" has been brainwashed to think it is, too.

There are times to compromise and times where compromise is evil. Compromise gave us the Patriot Act and assassination lists.

Mainecoons
09-23-2013, 05:28 PM
Compromise to a liberal: You help me enact my agenda.

:grin:

Mainecoons
09-23-2013, 05:29 PM
BTW, how much compromising went on when ObamaCare was written and enacted by ONE party?

None.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Codename Section
09-23-2013, 05:31 PM
BTW, how much compromising went on when ObamaCare was written and enacted by ONE party?

None.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.


Good point.

Adelaide
09-23-2013, 05:32 PM
Compromise to a liberal: You help me enact my agenda.

:grin:

No. At least not to this liberal.

Agravan
09-23-2013, 05:32 PM
you're correct, of course. that is how it should work.

unfortunately we have this group of extremists in the house who think compromise is evil and whose "base" has been brainwashed to think it is, too.
You mean the Democrats or President "I will not Compromise with Republicans" Obama?

Adelaide
09-23-2013, 05:32 PM
BTW, how much compromising went on when ObamaCare was written and enacted by ONE party?

None.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Yes, that was a problem that falls under what I described. Obamacare is ridiculous.

jillian
09-23-2013, 05:34 PM
You mean the Democrats or President "I will not Compromise with Republicans" Obama?

only after the right went full tilt bozo.

but keep pretending.

Mainecoons
09-23-2013, 05:34 PM
No. At least not to this liberal.

Sorry, but you are not an American liberal. Really, you Canadians generally have more sense.

GrassrootsConservative
09-23-2013, 05:35 PM
only after the right went full tilt bozo.

but keep pretending.

Bozo is a nickname for Obama.

But keep being dishonest.

Mainecoons
09-23-2013, 05:40 PM
Definition Full Tilt Bozo: No longer helping us liberals grow government, spy on you and waste more money.

:grin:

Kabuki Joe
09-23-2013, 05:56 PM
Both sides need to compromise. That's kind of the point of government; balance through a mixture of positions and legislation. One party being entirely in control and not having to be balanced by an opposing party would be/is very bad.


...compromise on things that go against your morals?...really?...when you compromise on your morals, you don't have any...

AmazonTania
09-23-2013, 05:58 PM
Yes, that was a problem that falls under what I described. Obamacare is ridiculous.

It's more important to block bad bills than it is to pass good bills...

Ravi
09-23-2013, 06:00 PM
It's more important to block bad bills than it is to pass good bills...

That's like saying it is more important to lock up innocent people than it is to lock up criminals.

AmazonTania
09-23-2013, 06:03 PM
That's like saying it is more important to let innocent people go free than it is to lock up criminals.

There you go. I fixed that for you...

Chris
09-23-2013, 06:06 PM
Both sides need to compromise. That's kind of the point of government; balance through a mixture of positions and legislation. One party being entirely in control and not having to be balanced by an opposing party would be/is very bad.



Actually, no, it's not the point of government. Our government was designed for contention and disagreement and dispute, not only in the division of House and Senate, but the three branches. The point was opposition in order to limit the power of government.


CCritics argue that Congress has become the “broken branch” of government, marked by extreme partisanship and few achievements. They prescribe nostrums ranging from campaign finance regulation to redistricting reform to foster compromise rather than conflict on Capitol Hill. Yet the American founders, especially James Madison, believed “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” as a way to limit the power of government. The Constitution itself favors broad consent to laws over an efficient implementation of the will of a majority. William F. Connelly, Jr., the John K. Boardman Professor of Politics at Washington and Lee University and author of James Madison Rules America: The Constitutional Origins of Congressional Partisanship, and W. Lee Rawls, a longtime Senate chief of staff and author of In Praise of Deadlock: How Partisan Struggle Makes Better Laws, discussed Connelly’s book, as well as the benefits and burdens of partisanship, at a Cato Book Forum in October....

@ James Madison and the Origins of Partisanship (http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2011/james-madison-origins-partisanship)

Or pick a podcast:

6 minutes: http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/35300486/what-s-wrong-with-gridlock.htm
14 minutes: http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/34822251/james-madison-rules-america.htm
1 hour 22 minutes: http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/37383887/james-madison-rules-america-the-constitutional-origins-of-congressional-partisanship.htm

Agravan
09-23-2013, 06:10 PM
only after the right went full tilt bozo.

but keep pretending.
Pretending what? That this president is serious about compromise? He has never been serious about compromise. In his own words "I won".
Nope, you're the one that's pretending, jilly-girl.

Adelaide
09-23-2013, 06:25 PM
Actually, no, it's not the point of government. Our government was designed for contention and disagreement and dispute, not only in the division of House and Senate, but the three branches. The point was opposition in order to limit the power of government.



@ James Madison and the Origins of Partisanship (http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2011/james-madison-origins-partisanship)

Or pick a podcast:

6 minutes: http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/35300486/what-s-wrong-with-gridlock.htm
14 minutes: http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/34822251/james-madison-rules-america.htm
1 hour 22 minutes: http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/37383887/james-madison-rules-america-the-constitutional-origins-of-congressional-partisanship.htm

Great - then nothing will ever get done. Without compromise, that's what you get unless one party runs the house, senate and has a president.

Codename Section
09-23-2013, 06:31 PM
Great - then nothing will ever get done. Without compromise, that's what you get unless one party runs the house, senate and has a president.

Honestly they shouldn't spend every waking moment legislating anyway. I'm glad for deadlock. Deadlock means they can't harm us.

Agravan
09-23-2013, 06:33 PM
Great - then nothing will ever get done. Without compromise, that's what you get unless one party runs the house, senate and has a president.

Like 2009-2010? obamacare?

AmazonTania
09-23-2013, 06:39 PM
Great - then nothing will ever get done. Without compromise, that's what you get unless one party runs the house, senate and has a president.

Maybe it's just me, but I could have sworn that the way the American Government was set up was to make it difficult for laws to get passed on merely a whim...

Peter1469
09-23-2013, 06:55 PM
Yes, the US political system was made to make it hard to increase government power in people's lives.

Chris
09-23-2013, 06:56 PM
Great - then nothing will ever get done. Without compromise, that's what you get unless one party runs the house, senate and has a president.



No, the idea is to let society work out what it wants, through perhaps experiment and evolution in a federalist system, to the point their is consensus: "The Constitution itself favors broad consent to laws over an efficient implementation of the will of a majority."

zelmo1234
09-23-2013, 07:10 PM
No. At least not to this liberal.

However we have 2 parties that will not compromise, That is how the sequester came into being, the democrats could not find one thing in government that could be cut, not even the funding for Nevada's Cowboy poetry festival, they only want more taxes.

Republicans now refuse to look at any closing of loopholes because the Democrats lied about spending cuts.

t really is a mess, and the people are the ones suffering

zelmo1234
09-23-2013, 07:13 PM
Great - then nothing will ever get done. Without compromise, that's what you get unless one party runs the house, senate and has a president.

That's how we got obamacare??

But it is better for our government to do nothing, Like Peter said, They will find a way to fund the government, because if they don't the people will find out that they are not missing anything

Chris
09-23-2013, 07:15 PM
No. At least not to this liberal.


Yes, that was a problem that falls under what I described. Obamacare is ridiculous.



The problem here is the conflation of liberal and Democrat--something nic today tried to get people to distinguish. The lack of compromise that resulted in Obamacare was not driven by liberals but Democrats. A liberal, obviously by your opinion, will criticize Obamacare while a Democrats likely will not. A liberal can be disappointed in Obama, a Democrat likely not, it's all about winning! Liberals can argue from principles, Democrats from partisanship. --Yes, similar could be said for Cons and Reps.