17
   

Sarah Palin resigns as Governor of Alaska.

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:19 pm
@roger,
yeah true enough, I also disagree with the 22nd.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:23 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Huh? I don't pretend to be an expert on the Constitution but where in the Constitution do you see that the original founders envisioned a two-party system?


It is my contention that the only way to organize the legislature that the constitution created is by two party politics. Had the founders created a parliament then coalition politics would have been the system created, even if coalitions were never mentioned in the text.

As evidence I point out that the founders hated party politics, and yet went to it almost immediately.
Quote:
The United States Constitution is silent on the subject of political organizations, mainly because most of the founding fathers disliked them. Yet, major and minor political parties and groups soon arose.

In partisan elections, candidates are nominated by a political party or seek public office as an independent. Each state has significant discretion in deciding how candidates are nominated, and thus eligible to appear on the election ballot. Typically, major party candidates are formally chosen in a party primary or convention, whereas minor party and Independents are required to complete a petitioning process.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:24 pm
@edgarblythe,
Dissent is one thing. Activism is another.

Politics is necessarily a dirty business. All of the theoretical discussion about how to make politics more elegant, clean or virtuous is amusing because it assumes that politics will ever be elegant, clean or virtuous.

This is meaningless chatter.

The real discussion is how to move forward with the system we have. Sure if there are specific and realistic ways to make the political system better-- than fine. Personally I think the ideas here; open primaries and term limits for examples are bad ideas that will make the system worse.

My interest is how do we get to a decent health care system, civil rights, social justice, marriage equality, better schools and a sane foreign policy.

The answer is obvious. First elect more Democrats.

Then we can work within the Democratic party to move them in more progressive directions as well as growing grass roots support for progressive programs.

Politics is about pragmatism. Let's move forward.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

It is my contention that the only way to organize the legislature that the constitution created is by two party politics.


Purporting your limitations on seeing alternative outcomes as intended perceptions of the founders is arrogant in the extreme.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:42 pm
@roger,
Quote:
And the alternative is "public servants" who have 100% of their pay tied to reelection, combined with an incumbant's ability to bribe the voters?


Being an elected official pays very poorly, these guys and gals make their money after they get out of office, by becoming lobbyists (usually undocumented...they go on corporate payrolls with a cover job but their real job is to bend government to the corporate class will).

Career politicians stay politicians wither because they want to give, they like the lifestyle, or they like power. I think any of these reasons are fine. If they don't deserve to stay then they need to be removed. The American people can' be allowed to get away with the claim that they are victims, that thy have been abused by the politicians or by the system. The citizens have by and large not done their duty to vote for good people, to work to get good people to serve. The broken political process is their own fault, and they are the only ones who can fix it. The fix is to become good citizens.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:49 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Purporting your limitations on seeing alternative outcomes as intended perceptions of the founders is arrogant in the extreme.


You can read right? The founders did not intend to create a two party system, but they did, and they realized after the fact that they had. If you want to claim that other options are available then by all means have at it, but realize that my first move will be to demand that you account for why viable third parties have never been able to be formed, and we have tried a few times recently. The two parties that we have are crap, the voters are pissed off , but do you hear any talk of a third party? No you do not.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
I wouldn't advocate a viable third party any more than I advocate two parties. My opinion is that the parties themselves are the problem. To quote Washington's farewell address:

Quote:
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:09 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
I wouldn't advocate a viable third party any more than I advocate two parties. My opinion is that the parties themselves are the problem. To quote Washington's farewell address:


well now, aren't you naive. Projects such as the governance of a democratic nation REQUIRES organization. Subgroups must be formed so that the overall effort of the group (nation) can have success. There is zero evidence for your position that subgroup organization is not required. Your way is the road to anarchy, the break-down of the primary group (nation).
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:20 pm
@JPB,
Washington was wrong.

The fact is there is no difference between a "no-party" system and a one-party system.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 09:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The two parties that we have are crap, the voters are pissed off , but do you hear any talk of a third party? No you do not.


That's because they have y'all so well trained, just like dogs salivating at the sound of a bell.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 09:51 pm
@ebrown p,
You have to hold their feet to the fire, Republican or Democrat. They rarely do anything from the goodness of their heart. I don't consider congress sufficiently motivated to accomplish all you are stating they are working on. Instead of cheerleading, as you appear to be willing to do, I prefer the role of gadfly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 09:04:25