• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress prepares to punt, spend the fall campaigning

here we go again, more condescension, more insulting of the electorate, more "testiness"

John Kerry: Democrats’ woes stem from uninformed voters - BostonHerald.com

it looks like the laughs provided by mr colbert aren't lasting

this party is turning all pissy

oh well

Of course they are. Just like Republicians were with Obama and Democrats the last two elections crying that they were only getting votes because of lack of education on the issues and having to rely solely on campaign spin.

Political ignorance of voters is what effects every election. This is exactly why the majority power switches parties every other election. If voters were educated on political issue we would see a more consistant percentage control year over year ( I would assume something like 60% R and 40% D) instead of the drastic power flip flops.
 
It's easy to manipulate people without those things though, before the advent of tv and radio, appeals to emotion were still used widely.

Just look at the propaganda posters from WW2, all sides used it heavily.

People are rationally ignorant, they have no need to research policy, other than the short bites and quips they are fed.
It's one of the problems with democratic elections and majority representation.

I would say that before the internet this was true. Now, however, it's MUCH easier to keep track of politicians' voting records and opinions. I think that the generations after us will be less affected by those things.
 
But the reason why the bastards are corrupt and enact corrupt schemes is because of all the lobbies that throw money at them.


So what is your answer to that? Do away with lobbying? You can't!


j-mac
 
So what is your answer to that? Do away with lobbying? You can't!

You're right. You can't get rid of lobbying.

But what can be done is take away some of the legislative power from the few. And the best way to do that is to implement reforms that enable popular initiatives on the federal level.

It doesn't matter how many Congressmen and Senators are in a company's pocket when the people themselves can make decisions regarding legislation.
 
You're right. You can't get rid of lobbying.

But what can be done is take away some of the legislative power from the few. And the best way to do that is to implement reforms that enable popular initiatives on the federal level.

It doesn't matter how many Congressmen and Senators are in a company's pocket when the people themselves can make decisions regarding legislation.

What would the reforms you envision look like? I mean we had one go of it trying to reform campaign finance that is a disaster in free speech rights.

j-mac
 
What would the reforms you envision look like? I mean we had one go of it trying to reform campaign finance that is a disaster in free speech rights.

I would want popular initiatives on a federal level.

How I envision such an initiative would work is that the people can pass federal laws. In order for a federal law to get passed via referendum, the proposal would have to

1) get a 50%+1 majority of votes nationwide
2) get a 50%+1 majority within a number of states equal to 50%+1 in the Union (currently 26 states).

So with this "double majority" system, proposed laws can get passed by the people directly and bypass Congress.
 
I would want popular initiatives on a federal level.

How I envision such an initiative would work is that the people can pass federal laws. In order for a federal law to get passed via referendum, the proposal would have to

1) get a 50%+1 majority of votes nationwide
2) get a 50%+1 majority within a number of states equal to 50%+1 in the Union (currently 26 states).

So with this "double majority" system, proposed laws can get passed by the people directly and bypass Congress.

so you want a direct democracy?


j-mac
 
so you want a direct democracy?

Not solely a direct democracy but rather a check that involves direct democracy. After all, the 10th Amendment says that powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. In my view, that's a Constitutional justification for it.
 
Am I reading this right? Some on the far right are complaining that now congress isn't doing enough? Not long ago they were complaining they were doing too much. I guess they just can't be satsified.
 
Of course they are. Just like Republicians were with Obama and Democrats the last two elections crying that they were only getting votes because of lack of education on the issues and having to rely solely on campaign spin.

Political ignorance of voters is what effects every election. This is exactly why the majority power switches parties every other election. If voters were educated on political issue we would see a more consistant percentage control year over year ( I would assume something like 60% R and 40% D) instead of the drastic power flip flops.

no, insulting voters is a LOSER

obama was all about hope and change, he was sposed to be post partisan

he promised no red america, no blue, only a united america

now, all that remains to him and his is SMEAR---the mean, old gop won't play

once more, why is it that leadership can't say whether it will or won't do the bush cuts, whether the cuts will be extended to the middle class or all, whether this congress will act or the next...

leadership needs to own up, it will be held accountable for its comprehensive failures 5 weeks from tomorrow

obama has it backwards---washington knows least
 
I would want popular initiatives on a federal level.

How I envision such an initiative would work is that the people can pass federal laws. In order for a federal law to get passed via referendum, the proposal would have to

1) get a 50%+1 majority of votes nationwide
2) get a 50%+1 majority within a number of states equal to 50%+1 in the Union (currently 26 states).

So with this "double majority" system, proposed laws can get passed by the people directly and bypass Congress.

that's actually a really good idea, but it's worthless, there's no movement anywhere (except in our imaginations)

after the republicans thoroughly wasted the democrats in the civil war, 1861-65, the federal govt, characterized by a very strong congress and a relatively weak chief exec (the presidency would not rise near its modern condition till teddy) was all but OWNED by the gop

between lincoln and woodrow wilson, 52 years, there is ONE blue prez, grover cleveland, gov of ny, who did, it is true, win the white house twice

the point is---under one party rule the gop did get kinda grimy (the grant cabinet comes to mind)

but worse, the backroom nature of unchecked power, the control of the party over the people---that'd be best personified by james g blaine, speaker of the house from maine

the point, here, is---opposition to gop machinery came not from the dems, wedged in in the still racist and extremely resentful south

no, principled opposition to the corruption that accompanies one party rule came from within the party of lincoln itself

reformist republicans, historically they're known by several rather obscure names, but the best is mugwump

indeed, mugwump disgust with blaine's insider-ism led to the election of cleveland in 84

teddy was a mugwump, tho he backed blaine in 84, teddy only became president by accident when mckinley was assassinated in buffalo in 1901

as chief police commissioner in nyc teddy cleaned up corruption in a filthy dept and became immensely, dangerously popular

as superstar gub of ny he went after the party, broke the machine, ended the spoils system that dominated empire state politics

the party tried to pidgeon hole him in the bucket of spit which is the vice presidency, but a communist's bullet intervened

as prez teddy was trust buster, he went after the barons in this gilded age, he championed food inspection, child labor laws, defense of our environment

in the famous umw strike of 02 teddy applied presidential pressure to win the miners a higher wage and shorter work day

teddy honored the tradition established by the greatest american, washington, and did not run for a third term in 08

his veep taft, a company man, assumed and worked to negate the roosevelt reforms

this is why teddy returned from safari in 12 and ran bull moose, the most successful third party bid in modern american history (he actually beat the gop)

but he only ensured that the filthy anti black racist wilson would become the second dem to win the white house since honest abe

the reformist, refreshing mugwump wing of the gop persisted after teddy

fighting bob lafollette of always progressive, experimental wisconsin is the most famous of these outsider republicans

hiram johnson in california and burton wheeler in montana were other notables

their platform---workman's comp, collective bargaining, direct election of senators (many still chosen by state legislatures), primaries to allow the people to pick candidates instead of the hannah's and blaine's, and the POPULAR PLEBISCITE---the subject of your post

the PROPOSITION process is very, very important here in california, the direct and extremely powerful and influential, unambiguous disposition of the voters

reagan, incidentally, comes from the outsider wing of his gop

he had to KICK IN THE DOOR to get where he got, he was NOT welcome by the northeast establishment, led by nelson rockefeller of ny

everyone knows the significance of goldwater-rockefeller, 1964

and where you were in the 1976 primary STILL defines you as a republican, if you're old enough

fyi, for what it's worth
 
Last edited:
Am I reading this right? Some on the far right are complaining that now congress isn't doing enough? Not long ago they were complaining they were doing too much. I guess they just can't be satsified.

it's all about TAX CUTS, aristotle
 
Obama doesn't control procedures in the House nor in the Senate.

as HEAD of his party he had UP TIL RECENTLY an awful lot of INFLUENCE

stop arguing, discuss what's really happening
 
so the party of pelosi is gonna have to head into these midterms thus---we just COULDN'T GET AROUND to extending the bush cuts

for ANYONE

obama is all on record---no one CAN AFFORD to raise taxes on the vast middle class in times like these

and yet his party is PARALYZED

now, he suddenly must MORPH into the DEFICIT HAWK

after all THIS PARTY has done

under his DIRECTION

it's absurd

it's just like all these democrat candidates for house, senate, gub, running around the nation trying to convince folks who own tv's that altho they voted FOR the stimulus (why can't the president say that name), FOR obamacare (why aren't any of the dems campaigning on that), FOR cap and trade (in the house), FOR bailouts and bonuses for fannie and fred and aig and federal workers and public unions and wall street lobbyists...

suddenly, today, they're all INDEPENDENTS

LOL!

it's just too phony

americans are NOT stupid, the leaders of this party demonstrably ARE

STILL not embarrassed?

you will be

party on, rapidly
 
as HEAD of his party he had UP TIL RECENTLY an awful lot of INFLUENCE

stop arguing, discuss what's really happening

Yes he has influence. But not outright control. That's why we have separation of powers and checks and balances.

So if you want to get pissed at anyone, it shouldn't be Obama. Rather, get pissed at Pelosi and Rheid.

I'm getting really ****ing tired of our executive getting **** for what our legislature does.
 
what tv are you watching

HE's the one who demanded health care, crammed it, deemed it, dumped the po

his own chief of staff leaked to dana milbank at the post at least 3 times that we'd all be better off had obama listened to him and been PRAGMATIC

it's rahm who's most disgusted with the professional left who need drug testing, and they're not real happy with him

the president is de facto leader of his party and this one rode his hard

he is 100% responsible

these continued efforts to duck accountability are just part of his many problems

frankly, you surprise me
 
I would say that before the internet this was true. Now, however, it's MUCH easier to keep track of politicians' voting records and opinions. I think that the generations after us will be less affected by those things.

It may be easier but there is no reason for most people to do so.

People are rationally ignorant, for a person to be motivated enough to research all that stuff, they have to have a direct impact on their lives.
Of course, there are the masochists like us who do this as a hobby.

If your individual vote is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, there is no reason for you to do a whole lot of research but instead go with the herd.
It's instinctive.
 
what tv are you watching

HE's the one who demanded health care, crammed it, deemed it, dumped the po

his own chief of staff leaked to dana milbank at the post at least 3 times that we'd all be better off had obama listened to him and been PRAGMATIC

it's rahm who's most disgusted with the professional left who need drug testing, and they're not real happy with him

the president is de facto leader of his party and this one rode his hard

he is 100% responsible

these continued efforts to duck accountability are just part of his many problems

frankly, you surprise me

So are you saying that it's Obama's fault that the GOP obstructed all legislation that would have created a public option for health insurance?
 
Spineless, Weak, Lying, Shiftless, Thieves. These are but a few of the adjectives I would use to describe those in charge of congress today. And I have stronger terms in mind, but I wouldn't want to offend.

What say you all, is this the Hope, and Change thing you all expected?

j-mac

The punt will morph into nothing more than a time out and become a punt fake about the time of the Lame Duck session when all the dead locks will be pushed aside along with the Senate rules and they will once again ignore the will of "WE THE PEOPLE" before the Lefties lose control of possibly both Houses of Congress.
 
Last edited:
it is the president's problem that he picked as his prime piece to cram an obamacare that is so profoundly unpopular any who oppose it must perforce profit at the polls

and that's exactly what the caucus is complaining about

sorry
 
The punt will morph into nothing more than a time out and become a punt fake about the time of the Lame Duck session when all the dead locks will be pushed aside along with the Senate rules and they will once again ignore the will of "WE THE PEOPLE" before the Lefties lose control of possibly both Houses of Congress.

that is quite possible, but if it goes down thus the reaction coast to coast will be RAGE

he mucked up another one, every little move he makes

and, before we can even get there, they're painted in their corner---they WILL head into this midterm election with the inept explanation to the american taxpayer, "hey, we just couldn't get around to extending the cuts"

we were too busy NOT laughing at stephen colbert
 
it is the president's problem that he picked as his prime piece to cram an obamacare that is so profoundly unpopular any who oppose it must perforce profit at the polls

and that's exactly what the caucus is complaining about

sorry

Not quite.

Conservative voters are against the health care reform because they see it as too much government intrusion in people's lives.

Liberal voters are against the health care reform because it is not the full public option they hoped they could get through Congress.

And it's pretty disingenuous to call it "Obamacare" when it's not even what Obama wanted to pass.
 
So are you saying that it's Obama's fault that the GOP obstructed all legislation that would have created a public option for health insurance?


That's an awfully liberal line you tow about Obamacare there sam. The people don't want cradle to grave entitlements, they don't want big government to take care of them. The people understood that the so called "public option" was really nothing more than a take over and nationalization of their health care.

But I am astonished that with such big majorities in the congress, liberals continue to whine about how the big bad repubs won't let them legislate. You want checks? There you go buddy. Only its a bad thing when the check blocks what you want to see happen.

It's all such BS really. Liberals love to claim that repubs are obstructing, or blocking their pet projects when in reality the people are flooding the switchboards and letting their reps know that they don't want what the liberals are peddling. Liberals can't claim that the repubs are blocking anything when they refuse to allow repub amendments to bills, lock them out of the process, and pass 2800 page bills into law without reading a single page in the middle of the night.


j-mac
 
Not quite.

Conservative voters are against the health care reform because they see it as too much government intrusion in people's lives.

Liberal voters are against the health care reform because it is not the full public option they hoped they could get through Congress.

And it's pretty disingenuous to call it "Obamacare" when it's not even what Obama wanted to pass.


Ah, but Obama himself said that they would get it there didn't he? See the dirty little secret about liberals is that they pass things through even if it isn't the entirety of what they want, because they are very adept at the camel nose under the tent theory. Problem is that they rarely listen to the people because in their arrogance they think they know better.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom