The Death of Discussion in American Politics
By Perrie Berlin-Halpern
As a moderator of an internet political forum, I find it hard not to notice that over the 10+ years that I have been involved in political discussion, that I have actually been watching the death of discussion. It seeped in slowly. There has always been a divide in ideologies between the two parties and the partisans who align with these parties, but years ago when I first entered the political arena of discussion, these two groups would engage in vigorous debate and actually entertain the opposition's point of view. Yes, often this lead to a heated debate, with some name calling, but for the most part, I saw rational discussion that actually swayed my own points of view, when presented with a good solid argument was made.
As an independent, these discussions had a huge impact on me. But as the years went on, the divide between right and the left in pulled further and further apart. As this happened slowly discussions ended and were replaced with ideologies that were presented as fact. And if something is a fact, then the other side must be wrong. And once something was wrong, it was an easy to make the slip into the other side being the enemy. Once that was the mindset set it, we became a nation of us and them. I found the articles painful to read and dismissed most of what I read as political hackery. I know many other independents who feel the same way.
This is a systemic problem. All you have to do is watch our congress locked up in a bipartisan standstill. There is no discussion between the two parties, just political rhetoric meant to feed their particular constituents. The losers of course are the rest of us who actually would like to see our government function for the people. And those in government who try to compromise, get labeled RINO and DINO to diminish their position and mark them as traitors to the party. Ironically, it is those people that most independents are listening to. Even if we don't agree, at least we respect the idea of not being part of a pack mentality.
Add to that, the constant dose of poison fed to us by the press and social media. The media is bias in both directions and the partisans chose the media outlet that feeds their ideology. The concept of going out of your comfort zone to at least read the opposing views is gone. We can't even be friendly with people who are from the opposing party. Facebook used to be a place to go to check in with your friends. Now it has become a battleground that often ends friendships.
There used to be a time when both Republicans and Democrats could engage in debate and even arrive at compromise, both in our government and between the average individual. But as our nation polarized, so did our terms. Republican became the right, then the far right, then the alt right, then fascists and racists. The democrats became the progressives, the far left, the alt left, socialists, communists, then fascists and racists. These terms were are thrown around in online journalism and their followers eat it up with the net result being that they have defined the enemy, and now it's kill or be killed metaphorically.
In 2016, the Pew put out a report on the American independents. Independents outnumber either Democrats or Republicans. A Pew Research Center analysis found that, 39% of the public identified as independents, which was larger than the shares calling themselves Democrats (32%) or Republicans (23%). Yet somehow, the voices of independents are drowned out by the partisans. It's easy to understand why. When was the last time anyone saw a publication that advocated for compromise? When was the last time you read a headline that didn't make the opposing party sound anything less than just wrong? How often do you read just down right insulting headlines?
In this environment, it's easy to see how every political discussion devolves into name calling, insults, ideological attacks and slogans. How could it not? The other side is always wrong. And as ironic as that sentence reads, this is the mindset of most partisans. How can we get back to talking to one another, if the person you are talking to you deem as just plain wrong and destructive to your American way of life?
I am not sure how to get the America back to where were once at. All I know is that I am tired of reading headlines that make it impossible to have a civil discussion. Maybe we should start from there.
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
I know I don't often say something political on this site, but the headlines over the last couple of weeks have gotten me very depressed. I would like to get back to fixing our country, and part of that is being able to work with one another, yet that doesn't seem possible in this environment.
How do we get back on track?
Please no insults or violations. I am only interested in a discussion. And for the record, I like to play "Devil's Advocate" so don't take that as anything more than trying to make you think out of your comfort zone. Let's see who actually will discuss this.
I don't think it's a matter of left or right, Republicans or Democrats as whole, I think it's the extremists on both sides. Yes I think there has been a growth in political extremism, but I don't think they represent the majority on either side. They're simply far more vocal.
I watched the seeming decline in the standard of debate on NV. When I first joined by and large it was the extremists on the right the posted the crazy stuff, this began to changed in the run up to the elections. I began to see triumphalist seeds and posts from the extremists on the left, then came the shock Trump victory, and the real crazy began.
Did the Trump win send the extremists on the left over the edge?
I suspect no more than the extremists on the right when Obama won.
I suspect the extremists on both sides have always been the same, only moderated by their side being in power.
As for getting back on track I don't think you can, we're dealing with extremists.
AFM,
OK let's look at your hypothesis. Obama did seem to bring out the extremist. I don't ever recall images of a president so disgusting. I am not sure if the Tea Party had a lasting effect on the Republican party though. They seem to be pretty fractured now.
I am not sure what was worse for the Democrats... the disbelief that they had lost, or that Trump won or both. But at the present moment they also seem to be fractured.
Maybe it's this facturing that has occurred in each party that has given the extremes a voice. The rest are too busy either trying to fix things or are shellshocked. I do see reasonable people in both parties, but the extreme do try to discredit them.
As for not being able to get back on track, I think that Ender brought up a good idea; mandatory voting. Get some skin in the game and see how well you sleep at night.
As for not being able to get back on track, I think that Ender brought up a good idea; mandatory voting.
Which would accomplish what in a two party state?
Couldn't the extremists on both sides still control the primaries?
The 2016 voter turnout was almost a record high, 14.4 & 14.8 percent, and you still got Trump and Clinton.
Why would mandatory voting cause a two party state? And for that matter shouldn't we have more than two parties?
Maybe having only 29.2% of the population vote in the primaries is HOW we got Trump and Clinton.
You already have effectively a two party state, forcing people to vote will not necessarily alter this. You would need to change your entire system. Removing the President as the executive power, coupled with some sort of proportional representation that would help break up the stranglehold the two main parties have.
I'm sorry but it's either radical change, or simply more of the same.
Which would you prefer?
AFM......I am a firm believer that nothing is 100% impossible if those involved really want to make the effort to work together. The problem seems to be two fold....those who really don't care what anyone else thinks and anyone who does not agree with them are wrong. Second, there are those who are like a fire starter, who derive some sort of personal pleasure out of creating hostilities among people by posting articles that will create a fire storm and then sit back and get their 'high' on how others throw flames around at each other that only increase the flames.
There is a way to deal with both kind....a way that they hate the most.....ignore them. Every adult has the capacity to do that. And concentrate on the articles and discussions that are conducive to civil and respectful dialog and debate. Nothing is gained in any way by throwing flames at one another other than feeding those who are only interested in creating a hostile environment and the divisive pleasure seekers.
There will always be those who have no real interest in a learning and civil atmosphere or have any skin in the game as to what America is about or its people, but, when they are ignored long enough they will find another place that is more willing to participate in their destructive games.
Just my take on it.
That and the Democrats did not have a field of candidates to select from.
I am a firm believer that nothing is 100% impossible if those involved really want to make the effort to work together.
Yes, when you're dealing with reasonable people
The problem seems to be two fold....those who really don't care what anyone else thinks and anyone who does not agree with them are wrong.
You missed out the sense of moral superiority which often accompanies their delusions.
It is not up to me to judge the morals of others, only the Creator has that right.
And...I firmly believe that there are a lot more reasonable people in this world than the opposite. It just seems that the lessor crowd yells louder and longer, yet, they still have nothing to say that makes a difference or helps the situation. Just a lot of noise to hear their own voices.
I'm pointing out that thinking you're right, and thinking you're better than others can go hand in hand. Recognizing this isn't passing judgement, it more passing comment.
Yes I agree with you, there are more reasonable people in the world, but this begs the question. Are all internet sites representative of the general population?
Are you not reasonable?
My pleasure. Really. (smile)
Not all, no, but, a good many of them. NT is but one of the many. However, some are representative of not only the American populace, but, many other countries as well who have an interest in American politics. I think that most forums represent a wide spectrum of the American population and their various views.
I suspect the above is an accurate summation.
I have to agree with that, the extremists always have their taking points handy and they can't wait to blast everybody else with what talking points and buzz words they think PROVE their position. The "normal" (I'm not sure what that is) I mean the more moderate take time to organize their thoughts and sources.
By then, everybody else has had their nerves rubbed raw by the extremists and even if a moderate has a good point and good sources to back it up there's too much adrenalin already pumping.
Ignoring (as a group act) is another way of silencing
That's part of the problem. Not "stupid" people voting, but thinking that only certain people have the right to vote. Everyone has the right to vote, no matter their IQ level
Could that be one of the reasons that we have a government that represents our interest in the Kardashians?
Our society is more interested in discussing other people's lifestyles than it is actually knowing how legislation harms or helps us.
When was the last time that anyone actually spoke to their representative and was treated like a valued person who deserved representation in government?
Stupidity is still not illegal....no matter how much we may wish it were.
But our stupid (yours and mine) is probably not the same definition as somebody else would be
Yes but I hear they have a test for that.😉
True enough... but the Republicans did... a huge field.. and Trump was the person they picked. My only conclusion is they wanted an outsider which would imply that people are frustrated with our two party system.
Yuppers!
Maybe.
What I believe is that Trump outRepublicaned the Republicans.
Trump ran on the Republican agenda and promised to actually do what the Republican candidates have only promised in order to get elected.
This is why Trump supporters are not mad at Trump because Republican bills are not being passed. The GOP voters are rightly placing the blame on their elected reps who say one thing and then backpedal when they actually have the power to enact the legislation that they have long promised. The Republicans can no longer play the blame game by saying that it is the Democrats fault for blocking legislation.
Trump promised to support legislation that would create jobs in the US. Clinton has a history of supporting legislation that exported US jobs in favor of Wall Street profits.
This is why I say we have two parties representing Wall Street. The only difference between the parties is on social issues. One represents theocrats and the other represents the majority of citizens on social issues. When people need jobs, social issues take a back burner - even Biden and other Democratic leaders admitted this after Clinton's defeat.
It was the economy.
The Internet, social media, blog sites and so on have given people a voice they never had before. Or should I say, a means to voice their thoughts to lots of people. For the most part, years ago, extremists on either end of the spectrum were ridiculed by the more traditional parties, and the center. Now they have pretty much become the spokespersons, because no one is willing to speak out against them, except the extreme other direction. These folks have taken over the dialogue, and not for the better.
I noticed years ago on newsvine that if you were a Republican, you were suddenly labeled a conservative and if you were a democrat, you were suddenly labeled a liberal. There are 4 separate parties here some align with their closest ideological companion, but diverge on other issues-but the current state of dialog is that there are only 2 parties and no middle ground-which is a blatant untruth.
And the same is true of being elected to higher office...like, for example,..President!
I've thought that the reason Trump was elected because he opted to play the 'un-politician'. Every time he had the opportunity to speak the 'status quo' he chose not to. Inflaming some for failing to be PC, but attracted others because they are tired of the status quo and want a government to do things instead of talking about things they had no intention to do, which has been going on a while. Both the Dems and the Pubs reap what they sow-neither of them like to claim Trump as their own, though the Pubs are kinda forced to-he's still not one of the Good Ole' Boys.
Harken's back to Perrie's article (groundbreaking article) on Newsvine, Here I am, Stuck in the Middle with you. I would respectfully ask Perrie to post the text of that article here. For those with an open mind, it is well written and concise and talks to where we are right now. No one in either of the two major parties really want the vast middle to get 'involved' in politics.....job security would be a thing of the past and we could go back to the concept of the 'gentleman politician'.
All of the ones that got real support in the GOP Primaries were outsiders. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina.
unfortunately
Gary, I never saw that article, so I too, would like to see it.
I would have to agree with that.
I totally agree with that.
Considering that only 34% support Trump at this time, I think you may have something here.
It's not that they are stupid, it is their willful ignorance, they refuse to accept that they voted for an idiot, misogynistic, racist, asshole who is hell bent on destroying this country as fast as he can.
A lot of states have open primaries. Clinton encouraged her voters to cross party lines and vote for Trump in states she was sure she had won; as the Dems wanted what they considered the worst candidate to win. McCain lobbied for Democratic voters to cross party lines to vote for him over Romney. How do you stop that?
The only way I would ever agree to a mandatory vote is if there were a none of the above box. If none of the above wins; then all candidates are rejected and cannot run again until next election cycle. That might stop candidates like HRC and Trump from winning nominations- but I wouldn't count on it.
They refused to vote for a corrupt lying arrogant reminder of scandals past.
Vote for the arrogant politician you have known for decades or the arrogant wannabe politician and find out if he can deliver.
Someday I hope to get to vote for my first choice instead of getting stuck with last choices.
Do you want someone to take away your voting rights because they think you are stupid? Like I told mocowgirl....my definition of stupid is probably different than your definition.
Stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think that anybody that willfully voted for trump is stupid. Just as I'm sure some think I'm stupid because I voted for Hillary
At least some people could vote for one or the other.
I just looked at the printed choices and thought "Oh, HELL NO!" and wrote in Bernie Sanders.
I later found out that, according to the way some people tally votes, I had voted for Trump and cost Clinton the election.
oh well. At least you could write in a candidate. I couldn't
As a person who was raised in Arkansas, I could say many things that probably aren't appropriate about Arkansas and choices, plus the possible inability to write or spell...damn!
In my experience of NV you'd be lucky if the labeling stopped at Republican & Democrat. You are however correct, we were all labeled and placed in pigeonholes. In my personal experience the primary driver of this was disagreement. Disagree with the prevailing group think, and you'd find yourself labeled. This aggressive labeling seemed to be a vehicle to dismiss your opinion, without the need to actually challenging it.
Agreed.
I suspect politically more people occupy the middle ground than either of the poles, yet we often seemed to be drowned out.
The joy of Social Media, blog sites, etc. Gives everyone a voice. Some choose to use it to scream loud enough to drown others out.
As long as the majority are financially stable, that is probably true.
Research history for what happens when the majority live in poverty or slightly above.
In financially difficult times, some people have a tendency to turn to religion for comfort and others turn to guns.
When the minority is in financial straits, the majority can handle the god and guns portion of the population.
However, when the majority are in financial straits, then guns (violence) have a tendency to seek real world solutions.
The more wealth is spread in the hands of the many, the less civil unrest. People have a work/life balance that allows them a measure of opportunity to pursue activities that give them pleasure. They are healthier and happier.
Morning Perrie, I am a bit late in reading your words, and have not had a chance to read comments ...
Wish I had answers and words of wisdom, but alas I do not ... you have a great site here, and work hard to keep it that way, you have my respect!
Just an observation, but it appears that discussion breaks down quickly when opinion is 'sold' as fact that involves 'my dog is bigger than your dog', 'We' all desire to be heard, yet none of our individual thoughts can be heard over partisan talking points. It is very frustrating, as well as hard to navigate through - so the shouting begins?
I thank you for allowing 'us' to be a part of your world, and I will do my best to keep the conversation going - perhaps bi partisan discussion will follow. (?)
Peace!
Hi Colour Me!
I agree that discussions do break down when opinions are sold as facts.. especially in politics where very few things are facts. It does encourage yelling.
My pleasure having you here. Btw.. the site belongs to the members here. I just administer to the site. So if you see something that you don't like, please feel free to contact me.
I have pondered this statement, causing me to go and take a look at other sites available for comments [thus reading said comments] and my conclusion is NOPE! there is nothing I do not like about this site!
I do not use social media, Twitter is banned from my home - I conceded on Snapchat : ) I have to say that the live chat is a very nice feature...
I give this site you administer/moderate 2 thumbs up!
20 minutes have gone by and not a single comment... kind of proving my point people.
455 comments and still counting. Most are pretty good ones as well. Way to go!
Thanks!
I was commenting on A Mac's article about healthcare and was reading about healthcare in Australia. The last part of the article I actually quoted on his article.
Even though the article was primarily about healthcare, this really stuck out to me. Maybe if everyone had to vote, we would have a lot of different outcomes. It points to showing that when everyone has skin in the game the pandering to the extremes gets lessened as they need to appeal to a wider variety of the public. As it is now, we have a pitiful percentage of people that actually take the time to vote. It makes pandering to one's base easier if they know who is going to go to the polls and that most people won't.
I think election days, especially for the office of the President should be treated like a national holiday and every one has the day off. We need less excuses and more reason for everyone to participate.
I actually like the idea of making everyone vote yet the powers that be and their base would never let that happen. They might lose control.
If people can't be bothered to register to vote and then some who do don't bother to study the candidates and issues, what would be the point of coercing the uncaring and willfully politically illiterate to vote on what they know nothing about? I'm all for more compromise on all the key issues but that's not the key.
Well, voter registration should be mandatory, like the draft used to be. As for the "willfully politically illiterate", I think we have plenty of those already voting, so I can't see how this would make it worse.
Then what is?
Maybe they would learn a little more than they do now. In my pretty progressive for the time elementary school in MD we had a mock presidential election for about a week. It coincided with the real presidential election. We chose a candidate, learned about what they were for, even campaigned around and has speeches pro and con for each candidate.
If a bunch of elementary school kids can at least learn the basics, so can most of the public at large. I have had people tell me that they do not care because it has no impact on them. I think it is mainly indifference.
By the way, Ford won in our grade.
Well as a student and a teacher we used to do elections, too. In NYS government is also a mandatory class and is taught at several levels so that the kids really understand how we function and what our DoI and Constitution says and means.
Btw.. I remember who won in NYS class elections. Nixon, Nixon, and Carter.
I was watching c-span in the last two years of the Bush administration and there was a bill that gave democrats 90% of what they wanted for their constituents but came out of committee with one single GOP economic priority in it. The democrat leadership was so angered that the GOP got anything that they pushed against their own bill knowing it was a compromise Bush would sign. They stopped it. They due to being at the end of a session or a veto got nothing and cost their constituents a lot. That kind of crap poisoned the well for compromise since.
I used to sponsor the Republican club and a friend sponsored the Democrat club. We would have a big debate in the auditorium then afterward both clubs would meet in my room for pizza.
I remember description of the Tip and Reagan meetings from Michael Deaver's book. Two Irishmen making deals without the cameras and posturing for them.
I don't see anything in today's political climate changing until both parties implode and start fresh.
Just curious - what bill was that?
I could go for that.
Civics, history and government should be compulsory in our schools along with basic life skills, we are churning out college graduates that can't change a car tire. it is a bit of madness.
I think that's a horrendous idea. For starters its totally undemocratic. Freedom to vote also means the freedom to not cast a vote. To communicate your opinion however you choose--- and that includes boycotting an election.
Like freedom of religion-- true religious freedom means not only the freedom to choose which religion you want to follow-- but also the freedom to follow no religion (i.e. to be an Atheist).
How would you feel about the governmen making it mandatory to practice a religion (even if you got to choose which one...but still had to follow it because the government said you must?)
.
I agree
Totally disagree. You can have a write in ballot if you don't like who is running. Voting is the meaning of democracy. It's a gift and it is the opposite of religion (although there are those who would disagree).
In fact, it would encourage 3rd parties to grow. Let's look at the last election. Those people who were unhappy with either Hillary or Trump could have picked Bernie or Johnson or some other dark horse. I think the election would have been an even bigger surprise then...
Are people truly free if they sit back and let others decide their fate?
Having a vote equals a voice. I don't think having people actually decide on who is going to represent them is taking away freedom. IMO it would be forcing it. People want, need and expect their freedoms, they could at least participate in their own protections and governance.
Third parties need to begin at the local level. At the most, statewide. Thinking a third party could win the presidency and govern effectively without influence over Congress is just silly.
You said there are 39% independents in the country. The third party candidates got less than 10% of the votes last November. Thus millions of independents voted Democrat or Republican, and they always do. We would be better off strengthening and expanding the ideological elements and wings of the existing parties than insisting on 3rd , 4th, and 5th parties.
Just my two cents but I think the reason that millions of independents vote republican or democrat goes to the old adage of picking the lesser of two evils. I mean come on, the Green party or Libertarians don't really represent the more moderate, centrist views of the majority of independents.
At this point in time I would be happy if they would just make an iq test be part of the process.
Well, I'm an independent and I have voted in many different ways. I have voted the lesser of two evils. I have actually voted twice for someone I liked and then I have voted for any third party person in protest.
IQ really has nothing to do with who and how we vote. It is the values we are brought up or he person we grow due to personal experiences into is the net results of how we vote. I know some really smart people who I disagree with politically (and I am sure they feel the same way as me). I know some people who are independents and vote like me, but I am not impressed.
I'm sorry that was a little bit of snark(not directed at anyone in particular). In the past I've had the discussion with others about mandatory voting and even compulsory service to be able to vote aka Starship Troopers style. I just don't think either one is viable for America.
As have I. As John pointed out, in the last election, less than 10% of the vote went to third parties and in my opinion that's because the other parties don't come any closer to representing the growing number of independents views than the mainstreams do.
Greg,
I think that there is a big difference between compulsory service and voting. Voting is a privilege and one that many would die for. Yet we Americans are so disengaged and part of the reason is the party system does that.
That's making the assumption that all people who chose not to vote do so because they don't like whose running. But that's not true!
Many people who choose not to vote really don't care much about politics. (I personally know several people-- very intelligent people-- who feel that way)
And in a democracy,they have the right to their views-- including the right to not vote!!!
Well, a lot of people used their voice in the last election to express their view-- they voted for Jill Stein or the retard (I forget his name) on the Libertarian ticket. Now if instead of expressing their views by voting for these minor party candidates they had stayed home-- how would that have changed things?
"Yet we Americans are so disengaged and part of the reason is the party system does that."
Why do you think that is? As to the parties role in that disengagement.
Me.
That is true. The third parties that are on the board now, are really nothing more than special interest groups. People want viable alternatives.
You got me. I do it every election, LOL!
Because 2 parties really means no choice. There is no way right now that a true third party could come along and be a full part of the process. So people feel why bother? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Krish,
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were not viable choices. Hence you said why bother? You are actually proving my point.
How would you feel about the governmen making it mandatory to practice a religion (even if you got to choose which one...but still had to follow it because the government said you must?)
I believe that is literally how it works in Indonesia.
The Indonesian constitution provides for freedom of religion. The government generally respects religious freedom for the six officially recognized religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. However, ongoing restrictions, particularly on religions not sanctioned by the government and sects of the recognized religions considered deviant, are exceptions.[1][2] Questioning any of the six above can lead to five years in prison for "insulting a major religion" and six more years if the Internet is used.
Or a 'None of the Above' capability? That would be funny-no one would get elected.....
Need a centrist party, those 'Independents' are not likely to vote for extremes.
Right, kinda a do-over. We don't like none of these people, try again.
I think it's inevitable.
True. Most third parties are more left than democrats or more right than Republicans. Then there are the libertarians who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal with an isolationist foreign policy.
"isolationist foreign policy."
I don't think that's viable in the 21st century.
Vote third party and throw your vote away. That is the way it is!
I think they prosecute atheists, too
So whose fault is that?
I'm not sure which line you're asking about but the answer would be the parties. If you mean why was there such a low voter turnout for the current third party candidates it would be because they are too fringe or special interest to attract voters to them. If you mean why don't the mainstream parties attract indies it's probably because both have apparently decided the best way to expand their base is to pander to the extremist.
Our problem is too many people vote. If you want to turn America into the dystopian version portrayed in Idiocracy even quicker, force everyone to vote.
Voting should be restricted to citizens who can pass a basic civics test.
How about candidates having to pass a basic civics test instead?
I would rather have that option (candidates passing a basic civics class). And they have to pass it with not less than a 90% score
There you go. I bet half would fail.
Sean,
Have you read our Constitution or the writings of our founding fathers? Everyone has the right to vote, and our founders believed in public education to make sure that the electorate was could vote.
Personally, I would prefer to see it become mandatory for candidates to not even mention their opponents. Force them to focus on what they themselves would bring to the table. Let the voters opt for which platform they prefer. Making candidates pay punitive damages for releasing proven false or misleading information would do wonders for inserting an element of truth back into the campaign process as well.
True but in their wisdom they did not compel anyone to vote. I want a smaller government closer to the founders original intent, not a nanny state compelling me to do this or that. I personally have never missed an election I was eligible to vote in. I have no interest in seeing the power of the state used to coerce others to do likewise
We all have to do things we don't like. Paying taxes comes to mind. We all contribute to the greater good (subjective). IMO voting is no different.
Every time I read somebody complaining about too many people voting or wanting to limit somebody's right to vote, I think of what our founding fathers did to the vote. Only landowners got the right to vote. I know people today who think that way.
Scary
Well presented article Perrie.
Thanks.
i agree. I think compromise can be found on health care, immigration, spending, tax rates, and many other issues. Sometimes courts step in and make compromise impossible by becoming a defacto legislature. Where they have ruled strongly for one side against the other making amending the constitution the only solution, the side ruled in favor of has no reason to compromise. The side ruled against never accepts the legitimacy of the decision.
Ender,
I just learned something. I had no idea that it was mandatory to vote in Australia. Good for them. You are right about having skin in the game. First of all, living in a democracy is a gift. There are people around the world that don't have the freedom to vote, and we in America take it for granted.
I agree that it should be mandatory to vote. You have to have some skin in the game, rather than B&C after the fact. I would also like to see more than 2 parties, an end to gerrymandering and term limits, so that our politicians know that being a politician isn't a profession but rather an honor.
I think if participation was mandatory, there would be a lot more room and voting blocks for more viable parties as a lot of people would not vote for the two we have now.
Agreed!
There are more than two parties:
I think what you might be trying to say is that since several parties do in fact exist, you would like to see people vote differently than they do-- you'd like to see more people voting for parties other than the two biggest ones.
But that's a problem that's inherent in a democracy-- people don't always vote for the parties we want them to! (Perhaps in addition to the government that they should forbid us the right to abstain from voti9ng, we should be forced to vote for one of the other parties. Or maybe even that the government should create a new party other than the 5 listed (and of course the policy of the new party should be only one you and I approve of!
)
They are not true third parties. Let me explain to you why.
First of all, independents are not allowed to vote in many states in primaries. This disenfranchises them from the big presidential vote, since they had no skin in the game right from the beginning.
Many of those third parties don't show up in the primaries, so they don't get enough votes to get the funding for an election. Also:
So what you have is a catch 22. Until independents can vote in all 50 states in primaries and those candidates can get government funding to get momentum, nothing will change.
Now this is a much better suggestion than compulsory voting. Might I also suggest capping the amount parties are legally allowed to spend in elections.
Absolutely. Elections should not be bought.
How does limiting political speech promote political debate, particularly in proximity to elections? Count me in as a supporter of the citizens united ruling.
Of course.
The primaries are not to pick the president.
They are to pick the nominee of each party.
So why should a non-Democrat be allowed to vote to pick that parties nominee?
Ditto the republicans.
The primaries are not of a government organization-- rather they are the primaries of a private organization.
P,S: Some states allow a voter to vote in the primary of a party they're not a member of. Dems can vote in Republican primaries. IMO that's stupid.
Now this is a much better suggestion than compulsory voting.
But it won't change anything.
Absolutely. In fact, to be fair, people should not be allowed to contribute any money to any party. (Contributions are unfair-- that party who has more supporters would have more contributers-- all parties and candidates should get the same amount of money!)
A political debate connotes that there is a give and take and is only worthwhile if the voters can digest BOTH sides of the argument. If on the morning of the election, a false ad is put out, without the opposite side being able to answer those false accusations, that isn't a debate.
The primaries are not to pick the president.
They are to pick the nominee of each party.
One of the two main parties nominees will become the President, it's basically rigged from the beginning.
That is the point of a primary. For members of a party to choose who they want to represent them as a candidate in the general election. Everyone from every party or non stated votes in the general election for the candidates who won the various primaries and independents. Primaries should be closed. They are for members of a party to make decisions and decline to states and registered independents have no business participating in any political party primary or having any influence whatsoever in who they nominate. Open primaries are simply fodder for mischief when the other party has an unchallenged incumbent.
Well that is true.
Because these two parties dominate the whole political scene and like it that way. They set the rules on how to get a third party a proper ballot and they have made it so it is almost impossible for a third party to exist. To put it mildly, they just don't want the competition. And so the majority of the voters are disenfranchised independents and two small segments of our society make the decisions for the rest of us.
Do you think that sounds fair or right? These were not the rules of engagement when our nation first started.
How can you cap it? There are so many other PACs and other entities that can be supported other than the DNC and GOP who determine how much publicity and money aimed at electing their candidates.
Some want to stop corporations as being people, but what about Unions, like Teacher's Unions or any number of other Unions? They collect money from their employees and if it is a government job, the citizens pay the employees salaries and what do they get for it? In a lot of cases the citizens are paying for their own demise and poor service.
Exactly, and mandatory voting is just one more government intervention and another agency set up to keep records, collect fines and all that sort of crap. People who think they want smaller government are often completely unaware they are promoting bigger government.
The biggest problem this country has as far as I'm concerned can go back to when Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". The society we live in today has this to say, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you".
Today many people are voting for what they can get, not what is best for the country and the candidates are running with this idea, because winning is the only thing that is important. No loser makes policy, only winners do.
And to expand on this even more, one party has honed in on this idea to the extent they actually want to make this country a one party country instead of two or more by running on giving everyone who votes for them ICE CREAM.
They know if they get enough people under control and dependent on the government they will rule the country, because too many people in this country have forgotten what it is like to be self reliant and take responsibility for themselves.
Legislation, we already have it in Britain.
How many people would have starved to death without FDR's New Deal?
How many people have been harmed by government policies that favored Wall Street over Main Street?
Do you really believe that the working class is on a level playing field with the 1%?
I just googled quickly for parties in 2016 election and that's the first thing I came up with. I realize that there have been many other parties. A few have been on the ballot in only one stae (or one area)> Some have been in existence for some periods but no longer are.
I remember when George Wallace ran on the American Independent Party line. He won 5 states:
How many people would have starved to death without FDR's New Deal?
How many people have been harmed by government policies that favored Wall Street over Main Street?
Do you really believe that the working class is on a level playing field with the 1%?
First, FDR's New Deal has nothing to do with what I've said. If FDR had his way we would have a Totalitarian Government today. I'm not saying we don't help the people when the need arises Mocowgirl. It's no different than some seeing an half empty glass and others seeing a half full glass. When society loses its motivation and desire to be self reliant and take responsibility of themselves and wants the government to take care of them, it's like having an ocean where the temperature is the same on the surface as it is at the bottom, there is no motivation for the movement of the water and there is no motivation to try and make oneself better.
We're not all equal. We don't start out equal and we don't end up equal, but everyone has the opportunity to become more than they are. No one is rushing to get out of this country, but many are doing their best to get in this country and become citizens. And today that means to a large extent, receiving free stuff, not as it was in the past to be allowed to take advantage of the opportunities this country offers even the poorest of the people to become wealthy and a member of the 1% or at least have a very satisfying life.
If Wall Street is doing good, then the people are doing good unless Wall Street is built on Crony Capitalism. The economic climate today is higher than it has been in 17 years from what I've read. To me, that doesn't mean we won't suffer somewhere down the road, but the confidence in this economy is extraordinarily good at this time. People who work for companies who have retirement programs with those companies are benefiting from all of this. I don't think we should base everything on Wall Street, but it is a certainty that when Wall Street is doing bad, the people are also doing suffering.
How many people have been harmed by government policies that favored Wall Street over Main Street?
You tell me with examples, please.
Actually the real reason there are no significant parties besides the 2 major ones is simple-- there isn't enough support for them!
Its as simple as that. This is a democracy-- people can vote for whatever party they wish. And if there are no parties they like, they can start one.
If more people voted for minor parties they would be larger-- but few people do. (Of course if we forced people to vote against their will, perhaps the next step would be to force people to vote for minor parties...? Then there would be viable alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans. Democracy would be ended-- but I suppose some people feel that's a small price to pay...)
People arguing that we should have more parties often strike me as implying that there's some sort of conspiracy to stop them. But there have been many. The reason they are more powerful is that people don't support them!
Minor political parties
This listing of minor parties does not include independents .
Workers (Communist) Party of America
Union for Democratic Socialism
Socialistic Labor Party (1877–1880s)
(LINK)
The S&L bailout.
and of course there was the bank bailout of 2008. Google for more info on the hows, whys and costs.
Then the government has been privatizing government services such as education, prisons, social services since the late 80s/early 90s to companies that trade on Wall Street.
I pretty much agree with all of this.
Which is why political libertarianism will never work....
It reeks of corporate egalitarianism and governmental monarchism.
Politically, I am as Jefferson would have put it, a Whig.
Government should NOT be subsidizing any private businesses. from prisons to banks....
NONE OF IT AT ALL!
NO government insured profits.
Soon, if not already, we will have government approved businesses, and we will be back to the King of England and his royal charters. And the forced corporate taxes that imposed.
Exactly what we fought the revolution to get out from under.....
What was the point?
I can tell you right now, that isn't going to happen, but take it beyond the first sentence of my comment.
Even if they do legislate how much the Party can spend, what about all the others involved in elections in this country. Elections are big business.
There's a start to the fix...enable independents to vote in primaries
Corporations are not people. Neither are unions. I don't feel either should be making contributions to an election since it takes away the people's voice.
There you go!
There you go Trout!
Krish,
Of course there have been third parties, but none of them are viable. First of all, they don't get gov funding since they are not in the primaries. They are not in the primaries because the other two parties have made sure that indies can't vote in primaries in most states. Without Fed money there is no matching funds.. So no matter how many emerge, there is no way right now that they will be allowed to flourish since the 2 party system won't let them, unless you get a billionaire who can fund his own campaign like Ross Perot.
Corporations and unions are associations of people pooling resources together for a common cause so of course they are people. Corporations can be their board, their employees, their shareholders. I invest in an exchange traded fund that invests in companies that do donate to/ support GOP candidates and issues. It’s called political investing as a term.
If corporations were interested in promoting the welfare of their employees then we would not have laws protecting the rights of employees.
Never. Primaries belong to the political party so that its members can pick their candidates to represent them as their candidate in the general election from President down to the most local partisan offices. Independents and decline to states have no place or any business influencing any party’s internal decisions. I know that if my state imposed an open primary on the parties here, that our GOP would drop out of it and go to a caucus instead.
The Republican Party started in the early 1850’s as a 3rd party.
So what is your solution?
Maybe we all just need a little patience and it will happen
Which I suspect is part of the problem.
All I can say is restricting spending works in Britain. A British general election campaign (This is for a party fighting all, or most seats) costs would be around 15-16 million pounds.
Yes there are additional costs which the State covers, for example free mailing, which I believe costs the State around 28 million. There is also party political broadcasts paid for by the State. You should note we also ban political advertising on TV and radio outside of these.
Please note to avoid confusion, by State I mean the Nation State.
Have independents or DTS’s join any political party existing or one they create and let them then pick a candidate within the framework. No way that independents not wanting to be a part of or associated with a party should have any influence within one when it comes to choosing its candidates or making its rules. Unaffiliated DTS’s and registered independents should have no franchise within any party during any primary. They can still vote on non partisan elections and ballot initiatives that occur on a primary Election Day.
This dissonance in public comments from people on forums stems mostly from the evolution of social media. You mention "10 years" Perrie, that is the appx length of time since social media has started evolving. And I Phones.
This has far more to do with it all than people think, imo. Twitter is about 7 years old , and less than that as a tool for political antagonizing. Same more or less for Facebook.
I believe in compromise from Congress, but not so much in forums. Forums are an advocacy medium.
And I certainly don't agree with the omnipresent "both sides do it" themes we see from some "independents".
Right wing media, first popularized by Rush Limbaugh in 1992, is the single biggest reason we cant have nice discussions on forums. Right wing media has poisoned the thinking of a couple generations of "conservatives".
I agree that social media has had a play in this, but it only part of the picture. Our regular media has, too. Whether it's subtle or smack you over the head kind of news, it's still feeding the fire.
I'm gonna disagree with you. Sometimes along with advocacy should be compromise. We should be able to have an "AH HA" moment, even if you are from different sides of the political fence. Most things in life are not black and white, and so there is value in something that each side says, so long as it's presented well.
I think I know that already. I don't think you understand what I mean..
You can't blame this all on Rush although his firebrand of Radio probably did have an effect. I think his day has come and gone now.
I agree-- there definitely should be.
(How do other people here feel about that-- should there be compromise?)
So now that at least you and I are agreement on that, the next question becomes-- how can we make that happen?
I dont blame it all on Rush, but he started the big ball of crap rolling and it hasnt stopped since.
So which media would you if you had the power muzzle and trample upon the free speech of both it and its readers/listeners/viewers.
Who said anything about trampling on free speech?
It was a question directed at John in response to his blaming conservative media for all our problems.
I see your comment as a perfect example of the problem. You just misrepresented what John said. It would be great if everyone, including you, at least tried to have a discussion in good faith...
So please, reread John's post and see if you can view it through a different lens.
You think so, huh? LOL!!! At 14 million weekly listeners Limbaugh is king of radio. Even Liberal radio stations leave that 12pm slot open for Limbaugh, because he may be the only one who makes them any money, losing money most of the time with their other programs.
Please do tell me any other radio personalities who compare to Rush Limbaugh. Alan Colmes has about 1.75 million listeners. Thom Hartmann has about 2 million and even Al Sharpton has 1 million.
Too many think they have all the answers, think they have a much better understanding of things as they are in this country, when in reality they are no different than anyone else. They are in their little cocoon of experiences and beliefs just like everyone else is.
An Independent in NYC is completely different than an Independent in Texas, but some Independents don't seem to understand that. They think being an Independent is actually a concrete exact term for all those who aren't Republicans or Democrats. Or for that matter any other party, they are a party in themselves, but they have a wide range of beliefs and would have disagreements just like the Republicans and Democrats have within each of their groups of people.
Actually the government was set up to have conflicts in agreement. That's the only way we stay free as much as we think we are, at least. The fact is we are nowhere as free as we would like to think we are. When your candidates have to run on what they can give the people, we all lose and then they do exactly opposite of what they ran on in the first while in office.
Being an Independent is nothing special. In fact if you lean one way or the other and everyone does, then choosing a side and registering so can be beneficial in the primaries. At least you have some bearing during the primaries in states you can't vote in either party as an Independent. You see, I could have voted for Bernie during the primaries because I didn't want Hillary and I think Bernie would have had a lot more difficult time in the General Election. An Independent in NY couldn't do anything.
That's bad news for Trump!
RUSH LIMBAUGH SUGGESTS TRUMP IS ACTING LIKE A DICTATOR AND IS MAKING HIM 'NERVOUS'
Donald Trump’s comments about the NFL are starting to make Rush Limbaugh feel nervous, the conservative radio host said on his show Wednesday.
Limbaugh, who has previously expressed his concern about Trump’s tweets, made his feelings on the president’s interference in the ongoing NFL protestsclear on his show.
"There’s a part of this story that’s starting to make me nervous, and it’s this: I am very uncomfortable with the president of the United States being able to dictate the behavior and power of anybody. That’s not where this should be coming from," he said.
(LINK)
Well, there were certainly other conservatives in America before Rush Limbaugh.
Remember when Goldwater ran for president?
In 1961, a group of twenty-two conservatives including Congressman John M. Ashbrook of Ohio, lawyer William A. Rusher and scholar F. Clifton White met privately in Chicago to discuss the formation of a grassroots organization to secure the nomination of a conservative at the 1964 Republican National Convention .
They decided to wait until after the 1962 mid-term elections to choose a favored candidate. Following the election, they formally backed Goldwater.
One of the main things I remember about that election was that Goldwater claimed that the main reason Republicans weren't winning enough elections was because the Republican Party wasn't conservative enough (he felt most Republican voters were more conservative than the party-- so he'd run as a true conservative and get more votes.).
I'm not an expert on American history, but I imagine that conservative parties and politicians go back a long, long way. Certainly before Rush Limbaugh!
I think that's an important point. "Independent" is not a political philosophy like liberal or conservative or libertarian, socialist, etc.. And its not a political party. It merely means someone who isn't a perpetual supporter of either major party.
In fact, in the past I've know independents who were that because they were to the right of the Republican Party-- others who were to the left of the Democratic Party-- so they were "independent"-- they felt no major party represented their views.
"Who said anything about trampling on free speech?"
LOL
I'm sure that this isn't the first time you've encountered a shinning example of why it's hard to have peaceful discussions, but the timing of "Single Out 3"s post was just perfect.
No problem. Was there before, during and after this came out and Trump doesn't have anything to worry about from Limbaugh. Of course none of us are supporting everything anyone does, but the basic support is there as Limbaugh discussed on his program the day after he made the comments.
How to have good faith per se when one says that the media we like and those of us who use it elsewhere and view/listen/read it instead of the msm are the source of all their problems on line in fora like this. I saw all the stuff in 27 below where liberals said all would be fine as long as conservatives could be muzzled from using mainstream conservative media sites and how they had no need to moderate their comments whenever they saw conservatives seed from conservative sites.
John when you place blame on conservative media you are begging to end the discussion. There is no basis that giving expression to a large portion of the population that previously had no electronic media ended dialogue when there was none before Rush and Fox News.
Can someone translate?
Naw-- he's just trying to start an argument!
And in fact when anyone claims that their side is blameless and its all the fault of the other side-- that actually creates more discussion rather than less. . . well, what passes for "discussion" much of the time on the Internet. its usually just extremely stupid arguing and name calling. But some people like that...
(I wonder, perhaps the people that perpetrate the blaming and accusations that the "other side" is always wrong & and their side is pure as the driven snow*...perhaps those folks dont' actually know what an intelligent discussion is like????)
_________________________________________
* Pure as Ivory Snow!
you blame conservative media for the collapse of dialogue and compromise in America and I said there is no basis in that and there isn't an iota of it.
John didn't blame conservative media.. he said that Rush started it. Can you name a contemporary of Rush but on the flip side of the coin?
And honestly, I think that Rush had an listenership like Howard Stern does. Those same people would have listened anyway.
Now, now John.
And he hasn't stop. Look what he just said:
RUSH LIMBAUGH SUGGESTS TRUMP IS ACTING LIKE A DICTATOR AND IS MAKING HIM 'NERVOUS'
Limbaugh, who has previously expressed his concern about Trump’s tweets, made his feelings on the president’s interference in the ongoing NFL protests clear on his show .
"There’s a part of this story that’s starting to make me nervous, and it’s this: I am very uncomfortable with the president of the United States being able to dictate the behavior and power of anybody.
That’s not where this should be coming from," he said.
(LINK)
Neither side is ever blameless, but one side has DEFINITELY been MUCH more to blame than the other for the last 3 or 4 decades. How many times do we have to repeat the cycle of Republicans destroying everything and the Democrats fixing it before we all start to get it?
Actually at the end of his blame Rush post he did in fact add in right wing media to his charge. I went back and looked.
Rush is unique. He is also a man I got to know well when I worked with him.
Ivory Snow: Isn't that the brand that put Marilyn Chambers' photo on the box?
Buzz-- You didn't follow the link I put in comment # 7.2.2 .(After the asterisk).
(How is everyone ever gonna get smarter here if they don't click on the educational yet interesting links I put in my comments? C'mon folks--be the first on your block to click on the links I supply!
Sorry Krishna. I DID try to open the link and it didn't open for me then, but now that I tried it again it worked. I've seen Behnd the Green Door. She was pretty "competent" in that movie, but not EXACTLY pure.
It's not like they didn't try. Remember "Air America" with the like of Al Franken, Rachel Maddow, Tom Hartman, Ron Reagan Jr, etc, etc. It just didn't take like conservative radio.
I think that's because the media is already flooded with liberal leaning sources. Guys like Rush took off because he was pretty much the only conservative game in town at the time.
Its true.
Often I want to express myself on NT but can't, because Rush is stopping me from having a nice discussion
LOCK HIM UP!!!
Not true at all. Please explain how telling the truth about liberals has "poisoned the thinking" of anyone. I have listened to him for several years now and he is pretty much spot on, and he and his staff have done the necessary research to support their views
I don't think he's been so spot on. In fact, sometimes I think he's full of hot air. That doesn't mean he doesn't get it right some of the time, but then again, who doesn't?
I honestly can't think of a single person who is out there in the media that I have a ton of respect for. The last person was Tim Russert, and that was because no one knew what his politics were about. He did his job and kept his feelings out of the arena, had class, was smart, wasn't afraid to ask the hard questions to everyone, and dogged them till they answered. Now that was journalism..
Walter Cronkite?
(Have you ever watched Judge Jeanine go into one of her political rants on Fox News? Good grief! May not be a good source of news, but its always good for a chuckle or two!)
I miss him every Sunday morning, when we're stuck with Chuck Todd instead. Tim was one of the best.
IMO Robert Siegel is the best of the best.
I'm curious here. How did you feel about David Gregory? Better or worse than Todd?
Neither were Russett. He was in a class of his own.
I have tuned in to Siegel's show. He is very good and quite enjoyable to listen to.
LMAO, I can't believe you found that video. I can't stand watching myself.
You were NOT there with me. Stop telling people that.
Hers is an editorial/opinion show, not a hard objective news program. Her opening statement is obviously opinion. Strongly stated.
Gregory and Todd are partisan political hacks.
I really didn't watch him enough to form much of an opinion. The few times I did, I got the impression that his guests steamrolled him a bit, but I might have caught him on a bad day, or I might have been looking for him to fill Russert's shoes.
I'll give Chuck Todd credit - I think he's improved over the last year or so, but it seemed he had to be goaded into it. He let too many of his interview subjects either evade questions or lie outright without calling them out. Once popular opinion turned against, for example, Kellyanne Conway, he seemed to develop the courage to call them out.
Ditto. In fact, I don't think there's a journalist on NPR whom I don't like - they all come across as intelligent and balanced in their reporting.
Great article, Perrie, and very true!
It's become a free-for-all, here, there, and everywhere-- he who shouts the loudest "wins". All that does is stifle dialogue, not promote a sharing of ideas.
Personally, I would like to see NT become a place where ideas are shared and compromises worked out-- not this "winner-take-all" snark.
I have to agree with you there, Dowser. Some of our headlines are just awful but just like most "shock jocks" they get more than their fair share of attention.
There's an old saying in the newspaper business:
If it bleeds it leads!
True. Doesn't mean I have to like it and Morrow never did it.
And the ganging up of those who support one another on those they disagree with is another way used to try to silence their opponents. It is their way of trying to control the board so that only their own ideas, beliefs, opinions and political or religious views are heard.
All voices deserve to be heard if a forum is to be balanced and fair. Otherwise, it is merely an echo chamber with little merit.
My opinion.
And excellent opinion Raven.
You're a smart girl, Perrie, do you really not understand what has happened in this country?
The political spectrum in this country has been moving steadily right since the corporate puppet Reagan got in office. The deregulation, and trickle down economics bullshit has turned America into nothing more than a banana republic. The Clintons are somewhat moderate conservatives, Obama is a moderate conservative too. Obama governed slightly to the RIGHT of Nixon. Bush LOWERING taxes while fighting two expensive wars was OUTRAGEOUS. The conservatives totally caused the crash, they are INSANELY irresponsible. Then, with the election of the centrist Obama, the Republicans were determined to strongly oppose him all the way. The only way you can strongly oppose a centrist is by going to the fringe which is what they did, as evidenced by the rise of the Tea Party.
The Republican party has degenerated into nothing more than a gang of corporate thugs. "Both sides are to blame,' my eye! America needs to wake up and kick the Republicans to the curb PERMANENTLY. The 'pledge' they signed to corporate attack dog Norquist was flat out treason. It was a betrayal of trust with the American people. The 47 who tried to undermine the nuclear deal with Iran by sending that letter should all be in JAIL. Trump needs to be impeached. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
That's really going to promote dialogue here...
I'm just trying to promote reality, SO, and do what I can to fight against the gang of corporate thugs that used to be the Republican party.
lol.
You can start with Goldman Sachs, but wait a minute weren't they the bank of Bush/Obama bailouts?
You start by cleaning out your own corporate/political cesspool....
Yup-- Obama was alt-right-- no doubt about it!
And "everyone knows" Bernie Sanders is a member of the Nazi Party.
And here's some thing people don't know-- Martin Luther King was secretly a Klansman.
George Bush was behind 911. (Or was it "The Zionists"?)
And "everyone knows" the Lunar Landing was a hoax!!!
Of course.
Very astute observations there...
And don't worry...we all totally believe you!
One question though-- where can I get some of the stuff that you are smokin'?
I stocked up on the free Obamaweed, when that liberal hippie Barack was in office, along with a few Obamaphones!
Exactly-- don't believe anything the government tries to tell you! Its all a nefarious conspiracy by the reactionary, neo-colonialist Zionist poodles and their counter-revolutionary reactionary running dogs!
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda
Lenny,
I think we kind of strayed from the topic.. or at least the way I see it. I guess I don't see the Clintons or Obama as being right.
Don't worry, you aren't the only one who doesn't get it. That's why our income disparity now rivals or beats that of the most backward banana republics on earth. I see talking about the political spectrum in this country as being totally on topic.
I think it's much more complicated than who was in the who was in the white house... and for the very reason that during all those administrations, various economic tactics were applied.
It is.. but you were being very specific in who you were addressing.. and the discussion will go astray I fear.
It didn't matter who was in the White House because The Democrats now govern like the old school conservatives and the Republicans have gone right off the deep end. The moderate conservatives Clinton and Obama merely slowed down the damage by not making it much worse, the Republicans have been doing everything they can possibly do to bleed the American people dry. Put Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the White House and we will finally have a president who will fight for the good of the country and everyone in it.
Trickle down is a lie, trickle UP is how it really works. Pay the middle class good wages and they buy big ticket items, like cars and TVs. Boost the lower class and they buy more food and clothing. Everyone ends up benefiting, including those at the top. The number one best way to stimulate the economy is food stamps, most bang for the buck, better than tax cuts, better than anything
If you have the time please read the article linked below. It lists how Clinton and every president since Reagan has gone gangbuster privatizing government services and handing taxpayer money to corporations and Wall Street.
Nixon was too liberal to have secured the Democratic nomination in 2016.
I pointed out all of the fiscal reasons why I did not and would not support Clinton or Trump for POTUS. The responses from partisan folks were not even in the neighborhood of civil. I was even personally blamed on discussion after discussion for Clinton losing the election - even after I pointed out that Clinton lost Missouri by over a half million votes.
The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties which is what we have now. Both govern for Wall Street and have a record of doing so since Reagan left office. The only political divide between R and D is on social issues. That is where the words bigot, racist, homophobe, etc., are hurled on political discussions while the Rs and Ds are happily picking the taxpayers' pockets.
Maplight.org used to track bills and who was paying to sponsor the bills and our elected reps. I used to post info from the site and try to discuss government from a bribery perspective, but found out that it is far easier for most people to just pick a side and defend it.
Not if the party has the same fiscal policies and uses the same media playbook...
You know, I have to think about your post Mocowgirl. it's very cogent and not something I expected given what I have read here since you joined. I even giggled over the idea of Nixon being a liberal by today's standards, since I have often said that myself. Heck without him, we might not have any relations with China even now. How progressive of him.. for a die hard republican. And so we can see how these words we use everyday, can begin to mean nothing after a while.
Funny things those words, liberals and conservatives. They become very malleable as the years pass.
So true.. and let's face it, no one really knows what's in the heart of another person. People often say the right thing have ugly hearts and vice versa. I always love it when people say that they are colorblind. No one is colorblind and that's OK. To dislike or hate someone over their color isn't. So the word bigot, while there are bigots out there, is too freely used as political tools. That is why both sides of the political fence are calling each other by these names.
Nixon created the EPA, expanded social services, promoted racial and gender equality (despite being racist and a misogynist), and increased education spending.
an alternet article comparing Obama's policies to Nixon's policies.
I interact with many people and read conflicting media. There is no one size fits all in any given situation because although we all have the same basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, we are also a product of the lottery of birth. We are largely programmed by the herd that we are born into and straying from the herd mentality has consequences that few people that I personally know can tolerate. I had to leave the herd that I was adopted into before it destroyed me and then leapt into the fire when I met my birth family. I left the herd a long, long time ago.
I seek to understand.
Sunday mornings I like to watch Richard Dawkins or Neil Degrasse Tyson videos on youtube. It is a great way for me to unwind.
People like you are the reason we have Donald Trump, the most dishonorable person ever to seek high office as a major party nominee in the history of this nation, in the office of president today.
I agree 100% even though I'm certainly one of the worst offenders for calling people out on civil rights issues.
While it was a very deliberate strategy of the GOP to embrace southern white racists and Christian extremists (even a conservative like Goldwater warned his party about the latter) I think there are many structural reasons for why we now have two corporate parties which are right of center, not the least of which is the death of labor unions and our inability to reform campaign financing.
To some extent Nixon's policies were a product of the era, not of Nixon per se. But he definitely wasn't sufficiently right wing to win the nomination in today's GOP.
that we had 2 terms of Barrack Obama because at least we found him inspirational.
Bill Clinton eked out a victory by running as the lessor of two evils in 1992 with around 43% of the vote. His wife tried running with the same strategy and lost. This is not 1992.
Wow someone who at least has studied the same things I did, learned the same, has the same ideals on politics.....
Hell Reagan couldn't be elected as a republican today wouldn't even get the nomination, not because the party has shifted right, it has shifted left. Clinton couldn't get elected today cause the democrats have shifted way left....
But this isn't 1980 nor 1992 The political landscape was way different back then......
Nixon? wouldn't even be a politician today.
Right now there is a huge gap in the middle of the electorate searching for a leader. our future depends on finding a good one....
They are statist in nature, that makes them tories (according to Jefferson's dichotomy on politics) and prefer a monarchy, (overriding federal power)
Oh, that also puts them on the left side of the political spectrum. Yes
BOTH OF THEM!
Socially, not fiscally.
The Rs and Ds support bailing out Wall Street and making Main Street pick up the tab.
Monarchies are not leftist. Whatever gave you the idea that they are?
Me either. They were clearly wrong. 🐀🐁
Ah, History? Having actually learned some.
Absolutely!
WHY?
Cause the corporatists couldn't care less about politics in any manner except in how they can gain leverage by bribing the politicians with money.....
They get what they want no matter who is in power..... You think the corporatists give one damn about political ideology? The only politics they know or care about is how to separate a citizen from their money, a government of politicians needing pittance amounts of money to remain in power just makes it easier for them....
Sorry to burst your bubble.....
Only as an effective tool to keep the masses distracted and fighting one another.
WOW!!!
The political spectrum has moved right?
I wonder what planet you've been living on the last 40 years or so?
in '67/68 the democrat party kicked out all the conservative/moderate elements of their party. they languished around for almost a decade before a Democrat turned Republican invited them to join the Republican party.
That democrat/republican was Ronald Reagan.
And those democrat moderates are the evangelicals that the current masters of democratic disaster spew their hate about every day right here on this board and all over the interwebs..
These are FACTS. that cannot be denied.
A bunch of moderate leftists joined the conservatives and you say the nation moved to the right politically?
So absolutely mind boggling idiocy is what dictates politics today......
This is why there is no open honest communication between the two sides......
Both sides want it all their own way.....
I was one of those moderate democrats who accepted Reagans invitation to become a Republican.
As was I...
Uhhh, No.
The conservatives left the Dems over civil rights. Strom Thurmond walking out...remember?
The rest of your comment is opinion, not fact.
And where did that come from? [Perrie looks around the room]
Really? I was AT the '68 convention my friend....
You going to tell me what they were doing?
Were you there?
The hard left wing of the party took the fuck over, basically said either you go along with what we want or say your good byes...
we said our goodbyes....
Only a hard leftist needs to spin that..... (but then again hard leftists have a serious need to not be recognized for what they really are either)
So yeah, I left the democrat party, I've said that all along, why cause the party became something I COULD NOT SUPPORT!
I euphemistically say it is because the party left me.... (but in reality by shifting hard leftist they did leave me)
I started out as a door knocker for Jack Kennedy my friend.... Ain't a whole lot your going to tell me about the '60's especially about politics.
This comment above is a good example of the left wing "extremist" point of view that defies reason, logic, intelligence, and common sense.
And in that same breath, do you think that is applicable to everyone who is a democrat, or just "left wing extremist"? Are those interchangeable words in your opinion?
No, just the far left fools who have lost their minds. But moderate and even tempered Democrats seem to be in short supply. The left can't seem to accept the reality that they are out of favor right now with the voters.
Part of the blame for the current problem lies with the seeder. I used to seed on economics, the environment, taxes, defense, and other issues. I also seeded articles that were pro GOP or pro Trump on some issue or another. I still do, but now in the groups. I have several non political groups on a variety of topics and a light hearted clone of moderate and balanced for centrists and conservatives. I have a political group that is open to all that is modeled after 1. public Discussion where all seeds are automatic Redbox stay polite and on topic as well as Enoch's 4B's no matter who seeds them or what the topic. I only get three front page seeds a day compared to 5 everyone else gets so , I have to get the most out of the three shots I have left. As it is I wasted the 2nd of my three today on a compromise seed that has virtually no comments.
I believe from what we've learned from Bruces's article that Red Box rules must be specific Enoch's would be disqualified because they are not specific. They are just the opposite.
And you are off topic. Only warning.
I think that it was the Obamacare vote that hardened my heart. Singled Out talked about 'the uncaring and willfully politically illiterate' and that is how I see everyone who states that Obamacare was 'shoved down our throats'.
It is a complete LIE.
I watched C-Span, watched GOP Senators going in and out of meetings, watched hours of Senate and House committee hearings, watched the markups, watched the meeting Obama had with all of the main players in Congress and hours of debate on the floor. After 18 months and hundreds of GOP Amendments being accepted as part of the bill, not ONE GOP Senator voted for the ACA.
That is when I knew that the line had been drawn. That's when I knew that the GOP had no intention of acting in good faith to govern the country. Add to that the Tea Party BS with town halls and their disgusting and overtly racist attacks on President Obama. I was disgusted and disappointed in my fellow citizens and then I just got pissed off.
We had people who were connected on social media showing up at town hall who were given talking points, which they chanted like parrots. The vast majority of them were 'willfully politically illiterate' and in many ways were being used by the moneyed far right oligarchy. Many of them still are.
These same oligarchs are the ones that set up the political purity test for the GOP and we lost some excellent legislators, many of them primaried by Tea Party incompetents. Many of the Tea Party candidates that won then are the ones reeking havoc in the GOP today. They enabled the self fulfilling prophecy, government doesn't work for the people and they intend to prove it by failing to govern.
There are few on the GOP side that I would trust as far as I can spit. GOP Senators like Richard Lugar are as rare as hens teeth. Corker seems cogent and thoughtful to me, I like Governor Kasich too. Probably most of the GOP legislators I would name would be considered RINOs by the right but IMHO, THEY are the kind of people that we NEED in government.
Can we ever 'get back' to comity? I doubt it. Could mandatory voting have a positive effect on our electorate and our representatives? Probably. It sure as hell would make them scramble to at least slightly less RED or BLUE. But until we fix the gerrymandering issue, it won't have the effect it could. I say that computers should be used to draw districts and party affiliation shouldn't be part of the metrics.
Gerrymandering? No one cared about it on the left from 1940-2000 when democrats controlled it. Now that the democrats had a blow out loss in an election just before the census in 2010 it's suddenly a problem. It only took us 40 years to overcome democrat gerrymanders finally in 1994.
You do realize that we had many Republican presidents during that period, so what are you talking about? And Gerrymandering has always been an issue for both sides when they lost.
Gerrymandering has been around since the creator of the tactic started using it.....
He went by the name of one Elbridge Gerry, a democrat. Something to note, he was also a signer of the Constitution, that makes him a founding father....
But that is where Gerrymandering gets it's name from the guy who created it.
ou do realize that we had many Republican presidents during that period, so what are you talking about?
You do realize gerrymandering has nothing to do with the election of Presidents and that Presidents have no control over how each state arranges its Congressional districts?
Gerrymandering effects the House. That's it.
The Presidency is not in any way affected by gerrymandering. You win a state you win all its electoral votes regardless how it's districts are drawn up. US Senate races are also statewide and cannot be gerrymandered. Gerrymandering only applies to state legislative and other instate districts and the US house which the state legislature and governor participate in. The legislature acts and the governor can sign or veto. If of differing parties they compromise. Liberal states can have a GOP senate or a conservative state could have a democrat governor which compells compromise. There are about 20 such states though Maryland and Massachusetts legislatures are so one party controlled they could do what they want and override a veto.
Not every state is "Winner take all" for instance, if Maine was "winner take all" trump would have lost Maine.
Right because none of our Presidents have gained experience by being in their state legislatures then serving in the House and then becoming a Senator or a Governor. Ya, that's the ticket...
Actually, that's not quite true...
And the house helps the president, so it matters, Sean. Remember Schoolhouse Rock?
And that is true, too!
Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions. Obama won a Nebraska district in 2012 and it’s EV and Trump won a Maine district in 2016 and it’s EV . My preference would be that all states go by that format.
Dulay,
I am trying not to get partisan about the article so please forgive me if I don't address part of your comment.
I agree. I also think that there are partisan hacks on the Dems side and some that really care about bipartisanship. They are not loved by their party either.
Well I think the very nature of politics takes away comity. But I don't think that is the same thing as being able to compromise. I do like the idea of mandatory voting (never thought about it till today), and totally have to get rid of gerrymandering. I'm even fine with putting the country on a grid system.
I don't follow the House that closely but I really cannot think of one Democratic Senator that is a partisan hack. One of my Senators is Donnelly, who the far left call a DINO [on some things I agree] but who is actually quite bipartisan.
I would have to differ with you Dulay, but then again, if it makes you feel any better, I think they exist on both sides of the political fence.
You would have to differ with whether I can think 'of one Democratic Senator that is a partisan hack'?
It hardened mine too the other way. We protested it opposed it got every single one of our representatives and senators to vote against it and they used anti democratic means to create a bill after Obama told republicans elections matter, we won. So, I will not be happy until Obamacare dies the death it so richly deserves. None the less, I'm willing to permit some aspects of it to continue on in exchange for certain free market ideas we advocated then. Trump took the first step toward forcing a compromise by cutting off unconstitutional subsidies to health insurance companies. Democrats don't now feel the need to compromise on the ACA but as Trump applies pressure and it collapses with out more federal support not forthcoming, they will come to the table or watch Obamacare collapse.
That's some horseshit there Singled. Obama said 'I won' in a meeting with GOP leadership in JANUARY of 2009. I don't know about you but FACTS matter to me. I prefer not to base my opinion on BS...
test... 123.. this is really a test #1
Indeed it is!
Reading some of the comments here is indeed a test ...
Test A OK but do not attempt Booting!
Indeed.
To do so may elicit The Blue Screen of Death!
This is an excellent example as to why true " Democracy " can not exist, and Media never be truly " free "
Exactly.
We in America are all doomed!
This is not a true democracy and hopefully never will be. That other than a monarchy dictatorship was the last thing the founders wanted. They instead gave us a republic if we can keep it. They gave us representative democracy with a system of checks and balances and a bill of rights while leaving all powers not given in writing to the federal government to the states and to the people. We have an awesome and good system of government. It is we the people and who we elect who are failing it, not the other way around.
E.A That is an excellent example of why " Democracy " can not function!
Instead of asking How? Why? Where? an absolute statement is made. a Partisan without any ability to move/make changes/Improve, thank You!
Probably cause it is the same absolute statement our founders made.....
After reviewing every democracy that existed before..... (and where it went)
I'm surprised EA that you would prefer pure democracy....
E.A I be Surprised if you know what " Pure Democracy " is or IF it can exist!
Pure Democracy as defined by Webster is thus....
They tried it in France after the revolution, (the most recent attempt to implement it) Thomas Jefferson was a direct witness to it's implementation and application to a national society.
He called it the most horrific thing he ever saw, also, that it validated the founders dislike of the practice.... (they called it the tyranny of the majority)
Let me ask, you have a different definition?
I want to stick with what the founding fathers gave us. It is the model of government and as modified with its 27 amendments I'm satisfied with it. There are two early 20th century amendments I wish weren't there and some proposed amendments I wish were but overall, there's nothing better out there on this planet. I'm not interested in compromising away our constitutional republic. To me pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch, or mob rule.
that is EXACTLY what it is.
E.A In Part Let me explain::
Demo = People Cracy = Voice
To have a Pure Choice of the People, then the " People need to be equally educated and Informed "
Do You agree so far?
The Voice of the People Must not be Muted or Misused? That does not disallow " Representative " But what it does it means that the representative is " Sworn to Death to be a true to the Voice of the people "
Do we have agreement?
How Equally Informed has many negatives, not in the " Spirit " But in the Implementation, IE: Education and what the educators Perceive as true:
IE: Village where they have Only Apples Vs A Village that they only have Oranges, where was the Teacher educated? How wide knowledge base is present? What is " Truth/real/Fact ?
Let me know if I should Continue
E.A Hence the original Problem. fear of the Unknown and what in part can be better, because " What we Know is good enough " where would that lead us?
It wasn't unknown. The founding fathers considered it. They looked at Ancient Greece and others and believed it to be what nowhere man and I said and they themselves believed, mob rule. The founders said that our republic would work only for a religious, moral, and upright people and no other. We may be in the no other category now, but I'm not compromising the quality of the constitution or the republic so that it can be diluted by a less moral or upright people.
You lost me way back in your rationalizing....
And I don't get lost very easy....
Go on all you want, but unfortunately, philosophical theory does not equate to the politics of the street....
To be effective politics has to be practical.... not esoteric.
It IS a wonderful system, a genius political design. But it seems a certain segment of our population seem determined to change, bypass or just eliminate those safeguards to ram whatever they want through the Government process as fast as possible.
Yo, Eagle!
What is that bizarre animal in your avatar? It looks like some sort of Sloth-- or maybe even some sort of weird exploding sea creature?
E.A Common Name " Water Bear " Indestructible like Me :-)
(Tardigrade )
E.A Common Name " Water Bear " Indestructible like Me
(Tardigrade )
????
Found 'em on YouTube:
I get my two cents. I don't base my opinions on the media. I read what happened and, then, tune into a news station. I listen and, then, form my own opinion. It is then over. I don't listen to a crew of teeny boppers! My opinion is just as valid. I believe that Pres. Obama divided us. I believe that Mrs. Obama's words....All of this for Flag? and Pres. Obama looking over at her with a nothing look said it all. I will never forget that!
There will be many years before our wonderful Country is one, again.
Trump's family is hardly a group of teeny-boppers!
Egads.. off topic again.
Not to worry-- it was intentional.
The right always gets hung up on something a Democrat said, rather than how they govern. So what if Obama made the 'get in the back seat' comment to please his base, when he got in office he bent over backwards trying to reach out to the other side.
'Obamacare' started with Obama completely capitulating and proposing a CONSERVATIVE health plan. He then allowed the corporate thugs to make 150 changes to it over several months to make it even MORE conservative. The Republicans now go around claiming the Democrats rammed it through without any input from them which is a total, blatant LIE. The republicans got together and decided to oppose Obama no matter what, and they did. They even voted against their own ideas if Obama agreed to them.
We don't have two viable parties anymore, my friend, things have changed. We now have one viable, centrist party and a gang of corporate thugs
And just like the previous post, based on something not actually heard or said, but based on someone's idea of reading lips....so, no research, no confirmation...she said it.
Just like these "The Clinton's hate each other" "The Obama's will be getting divorced after he is out of office" "Hillary literally smells bad"....that was actually stated as fact but the poster disappeared when asked how to confirm that.
No, he never did, and Obama never let the Republicans put anything into ACA.
Obama got his hand slapped away many times while reaching out to the Republicans, and they called him "weak" for trying to do so.
As far as the ACA? What do you call just under 190 Republican amendments in the ACA?
And of course he put Chuck Hagel in his cabinet for what?
This is why you can't have discussions. People make up facts, like "Obama had his hand slapped away many times while reaching out to the Republicans" and ignore reality. Obama, in fact, told the Republicans leaders when they came to discuss the stimulus "elections have consequences, and I won," and then preceded to freeze republicans out from the negotiations from the stimulus boondoggle.
That initial meeting set the tone for Obama's failure. Instead of leveraging his sky high popularity to get dispirited Republicans to support the stimulus by throwing them a few significant bones, he shut them out and went full partisan from the get go. Since he didn't want any Republican buy in, he essentially forced the Republicans into unified opposition. That blunder at the outset defined his failed partisan Presidency.
None of the amendments had any substance. They were technical fixes. The Republicans wanted a nationwide Swiss style marketplace but that didn't happen.
Perrie points out the flaws in the process. My way or the highway or as Obama said "I won". So instead of the Swiss universal system we end up with Obamacare that was failing before Trump began driving stakes into it.
Here's your "Reality"
In January, 2009: Obama is inaugurated and immediately seeks out Republican lawmakers willing to work with his new agenda. He makes it a point to maintain Robert Gates (previously appointed by Republican President George W. Bush) as his Secretary of Defense. Some Republicans on the Hill even whisper that Obama was working with them more than Bush ever did.
Republican response in January, 2009: Rush Limbaugh welcomes the president with a hearty “I hope he fails."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May, 2009: Obama begins the first of several sessions meeting with pro-choice advocates and their detractors in order to help design legislation that protects both the lives of women and the unborn.
Republican response in September, 2009: South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at the president during Obama’s speech to Congress wherein he intended to reach out to Republicans and voice his concerns with our failing healthcare system and his plans to fix it. To make matters worse, fact checkers have disproved Wilson’s claim, saying that the healthcare proposal explicitly does not provide for illegal immigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January, 2010: Obama holds a meeting with Republicans in Baltimore, where he allows for a candid question-and-answer session in order to hear directly from the opposition and allow them to express their skepticism. A month later, he speaks with Republicans in what will be dubbed the “Healthcare Summit.” Obama compromised his initial plan for a single-payer system, instead seeking a Republican-promoted individual mandate mirroring the one Mitt Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.
Republican response in October, 2010: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell states that the most important objective of the Republican Party is to make Obama a one-term president, not fixing our budget/debt issues, our broken healthcare, education or immigration systems, and certainly not protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December, 2010: Obama compromises on his previously-stated goal of not prolonging the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy by agreeing to a budget deal . By doing so, Obama provides for the continuation of unemployment benefits to the needy, establishes a payroll tax holiday, renews the inheritance tax, and ensures that the government continues paying its debts.
Republican response by Spring of 2012: Senate Republicans have blocked Obama’s judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate, delaying their being placed on the bench by greater than four times more than Democrats ever did to Bush judicial nominees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 1st, 2013: Obama once-again compromises on a “fiscal cliff” deal by raising the threshold of the income level for whom taxes would rise from $250,000 to $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families and pushing back sequestration of funds allocated to the military. His deal-making resulted in the Federal government receiving even less revenues than Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner had previously offered to allow.
Thanks to over 50 sessions of Republicans sabotaging it.
Obamacare began failing the moment it passed. The proof is found in the EO's Obama had to do just to make it hobble along. It was designed to fail so there would be incentive for a single payer plan. Were he, the dems and reps not so obstinate we could have had the Swiss Universal system that was supported by political opposites Forbes and Krugman.
Never!
Not really but the fact remains....Amendments were allowed to the ACA by Obama.
Facts just got in your way....again.
So since they got no substantive amendments why the bogus claim that the reps were involved in crafting the bill?
There was a model out there that had support from both sides of the political spectrum but it would work and not fail. The dems wanted single payer so they were not interested in anything that would be a long term solution. They wanted the plan to fail so when they could get rid of some of the conservative dems that were opposing Obamacare they could get single payer. 2010 changed that plan!
So the GOP didn't offer 'substantive amendments' but that's the Democrats and Obama's fault. Got
Could you post the bill number on that please?
OK so all of that was off topic but civil.. well done!
Reality, in other words "Facts" correct? really you saying reality? or did you mean liberal fantasy posing as reality....
12 links, 12 opinions, 12 liberal efforts as opinionating.
Now before you go all of on what would appear to you to attacking the sources, ACtually I'm not.
What I'm doing is easily understood by the claim of the OP himself.
REALITY!, meaning presented as FACTS.
Which makes the sources cited as factual, all fair game....
and it looks like every single one fails the factual check. reason?
They are all opinion writers offering opinions......
There's your actual reality.
OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS!
Someday, people will get that through their thick skulls.
It was when they offered interstate sales. The Swiss system has an open nationwide marketplace. Had the ACA had that in it there would have been rep votes. None of the substantive amendments they offered passed the dem controlled house and senate.
This points out the topic Perrie brings up. It was the death of discussion that doomed the ACA. Dems had the filibuster veto proof majority until Kennedy died. They were in no mood to compromise.
Obama had no say in Amendments in the house and senate. That's not how the system works.
What happened to, 'if you like your plan, you can keep it'?
The Swiss have a population equivalent to the State of Virginia.
Evidence?
Again, evidence?
Again, that is a LIE. There are videos on C-Span of HOURS of discussion on the ACA. What does is say about your argument when you have to re-write history to bolster you posit.
Ted Kennedy's voting record.
2008 Oct-Dec 83.5% votes missed
2009 Jan-Mar 95.8% votes missed
2009 Apr-Jun 95.8% votes missed
2009 Jul-Sep 100.0% votes missed
So it's October and 45 has done diddly even though his 'lions' are still in the Senate...
And your post is a LIE as well!
Interstate sales is one thing that the Swiss has that the reps wanted but the dems refused. That open marketplace was one of the substantial goals the reps wanted. There are no substantial parts of the ACA that are Republican.
Well at least you admit that your comment was a LIE. Now prove mine was.
Again, post a link to the proposed Amendment.
In truth, the Swiss system isn't about 'interstate sales', it is a NATIONAL system in which ALL policies have minimum coverage and a mandatory package of benefits. There are NO differences in insurance mandates from one region of Switzerland and another.
In short, you are making a false equivalency.
In what way are the ACA marketplaces closed? Oh and please do make sure that the Swiss system has a MORE open market before you cite anything...
You keep making proclamations without posting one iota of evidence to support them. There were months of 'closed door' talks before the bill even went to committee.
Secondly, the Swiss system, which you insist the GOP want to codify, centers around a mandate to purchase insurance and a VERY harsh penalty if one fails to comply. NONE of the GOP proposals have included ANYTHING like the Swiss mandate and penalty. In FACT, they eliminate the mandate all together.
So judging from what the GOP has put on paper, they have NO desire to come anywhere close to the Swiss system.
And a national system is what we need here. That is what the interstate sales would create. I found a silver plan in CA that would closely match the private plan I had at a better price. I couldn't buy it even though it was the same plan at a higher cost in my state. Interstate sales would have allowed me to get better coverage at a better price. Had the reps plan to allow those sales been included I would have been better off.
BTW, using the word Lie is an easy flag and deletion by the mods. Don't use it again in a post to me.
Totally false. A national system offers the SAME coverage at the SAME cost NATIONALLY. Sheesh...
So YOU can use the word Lie but I can't? Ridiculous...
My post is NOT a CoC violation so stop with your idle threats.
You used it first and my response was an attempt to get you to recognize how inappropriate it was. You missed that. BTW they are not idle threats. I have no problem flagging anyone. I have been too tolerant of newbies but that will change.
As to the nationwide availability of insurance. That was a rep goal and the dems tanked it. Any policy that met the ACA coverage requirement should be available to all Americans and not just some. All Americans should be treated equally and not based on their zip.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep them"?????
Forgot that one Gary
Be back after dinner.
I have a whole bunch of blame for the American consumer.
We have become very lazy as a society, and many in the media already know this. Hence now we see the likes of Politicus USA, Daily Caller, and so many more...They aren't bringing news or even an honest perspective They take news, cherry pick it to a perspective and message and then put it on a plate and hope nobody actually researches their line of bullshit.
I see it all the time from Lefty sources like Politicus, because someone DIDN'T say something they make a conclusion based on what was NOT there. Unfortunately, we are conditioned for "on the go" information and run with the conclusion fed to us. I could point out the scores of Conservative sites that do the same but I don't want to bruise any covfefes .
During the campaign it was brutal trying to actually wade through the garbage to find facts. It was hilarious when so many of a particular ideology were seeding propaganda from RT and swore by the accuracy only to find later that they were being fed paid propaganda...there was some serious scrubbing of seed histories!
I spent hours yesterday explaining the BLS report to people that got fed dubious information that almost 1,000,000 jobs were created in September, I was ridiculed that I didn't catch up......then when I proved how ridiculous these numbers are and why, they disappeared and abandoned the seed rather than learn anything....
This.
Nobody reads a newspaper (in paper or electronic format) anymore, or even a full article posted on social media. They don't get past the headlines before they've hit "like" or some emoji that indicates their dislike, and wouldn't know if the article supports the headline, or if it contradicted it entirely, but they'll argue it vociferously, anyway.
They want soundbites more than they want accuracy or depth.
I do.
Most of my friends do.
(Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong sort of crowd..?)
Ok, so maybe "nobody" was an underestimate.
Most people I know don't, or if they read a newspaper, don't make it much past the headline. Most would rather get their news from social media, from sources shared by their friends, who naturally hold the same views as themselves, and therefore receive "news" already skewed to suit their leanings. And they generally don't even read that past the headlines, based on many of their comments.
Some only read the headlines to argue - to call an article "fake news" without even reading it of viewing any supporting information, such as accompanying videos. They aren't interested in becoming informed; they're interested in fighting.
And so they stay uninformed, but are quite sure they are in the right.
Agreed Sandy.
I do think that's true of most Internet users....
I don't know if it's just internet users.
How in-depth are most network news shows anymore? Not very, IMO, which is why I quit watching them years ago. A few minutes of national news, maybe a nod to international news (but probably not), and on the celebrity gossip. Worthless.
I have often speculated as to how and why (& when) it started. I used to think it was the Internet but I think you're right-- TV played a role.
Of course now-a-days many people want to politicize everything, so no doubt many liberals will blame greedy corporations and lobbies, and many on the right will blame snowflakes, Obama, and Hillary.
But I think the real culprit, interestingly enough, is technology itself. Communication has become instantaneous. People are used to getting information quickly-- soundbites.
And also now there's something else. In the past media communicatesd to us-- but there was no interaction (with the exception of some "call in" show).
Communication was one way-- you could yell back at the TV announcer-- be he (& his listeners) couldn't hear you. But suddenly there was the Internet-- and people could talk back. And then others could respond. A sort of "feedback loop". Communication was now not only instantaneous-- but also two-way! short quick soundbites.
So conversation became more and more superficial....
I remember in college, watching the morning news when I was getting ready for class in the mornings. It was always just snippets of information in the mornings, due to time constraints, but it was actually real news. Not nearly so much celebrity gossip and fluff as there is now. Evening news shows were when anchors followed up with more detail to their stories, and there was no celebrity gossip then, at all.
I was an NBC gal, and it seemed to me that after Jane Pauley, Bryant Gumbel, and Tom Brokaw left, that's when the fluff crept in.
They're not under any more time constraints than they used to be. Hell, they now have an hour of Kathie Lee and Hoda Kotbe that they insist on inflicting upon daytime viewers, when they could be delivering news. But Kathie Lee and Hoda it is.
Probably because it reaches a larger demographic than news would at that time slot. I admit I still catch up with Days of Our Lives via dailymotion from time to time, but mostly I avoid daytime TV.
I googled to find demographics of daytime television audience. The link below did not really give me what I was looking for, but there is some interesting info. Our viewing habits are analyzed almost to the second.
I can't remember when I caught their show - maybe on a day I was off and actually home during the day with the TV on. It was awful. So I just quit turning on the TV during the day, and don't watch much in the evenings, either.
"Bowling for Columbine" had some relevant observations about the difference in news coverage between Canada and the US, where the news here seems designed to increase fears of things which are statistically insignificant, and where Canadian news is both more substantive and less prone to make false equivalencies. The result is that Canada is a less fearful and less hostile society than the US. The anecdotal example given was that few people in Toronto neighborhoods locked their doors.
Of course since that time even Canada has become Foxified.
Going to the bar to watch the baseball game, I'll be back with more reality later!
America has been divided since its conception. Tories were the conservatives and Patriots were the progressives. 240 years later, it is the opposite. Life is nothing if not change, but the present change seems very ugly. But is it any uglier than the change that created the United States of America? We seem to be living in a time of revolution, but one only for the sake of revolution with no discernible collective future.
Where is it that we want to get America back to? Some past that only existed in Father Knows Best or Leave It to Beaver? That past was a fantasy. And there in lies the rub, what is there to go back to and how do we move forward? We can't do both.
Both sides are adamant about being right, and neither cares to listen. When you are right and THE TRUTH is on your side, you don't need to, nor have to, listen to the other side. It is the narrative of THE TRUTH that is screaming in the headlines of today. Why? Because it creates the most revenue. And the great unwashed masses look on and continue with their lives just hoping that neither side causes enough trouble to disrupt their lives and rid them of their SUVs. They remain quiet and think lazily, if at all.
There will be no arena of thoughtful discussion until the arena is filled with the blood of the martyrs of THE TRUTH.
Please prove me wrong.
Can't. The first reply to your comment proves your point.
Would love to prove you wrong, but.. I can't.
Which headlines? Where are the headlines THE TRUTH? As PH pointed out, it sure isn't here...
The headlines themselves aren't the TRUTH. They are only hooks and dog whistles to the followers of the TRUTH. The TRUTH is whatever either side believes; only government can make our life better, giving more to the rich and corporations will make us better off, ad nauseum.
I thought I knew the TRUTH once, but I proved myself wrong.
I'm going to try to offer up something a little less dark than my initial comment.
I haven't really suffered the name calling and such on this forum as much as I have on Facebook and other places. I've seen it on this forum, but can't say it has ever been directed towards me. Mostly I get crickets. I try to give thoughtful posts, or posts to get others to think about their position and defend it, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in that.
Civility at times must suffer at the hands of abusers, but at all times, we must remain civil ourselves. Eventually, someone on the "other" side will take notice and themselves become more civil. And so it goes, one person at a time.
This is for Perrie, she will know of whom I speak I believe. I think of the discussions I had with Norm Nadel. He was exceptionally civil and unassuming. At that time, I was a hothead and prone to some outburts. But because of his calmness and civility, I never was that way around him. I can only hope that before I die, I can attain that level of civility and yet directness that he had.
Getting people to think about their political positions and be more civil in their discussions, may not have immediate effects, but we cannot let that deter us in the attempt. It may only show fruit years down the road.
I've always found your comments to be civil and thoughtful. You reply to other's posts with challenging questions that aren't answered very often. Maybe cause the answers are right there in the questions.
You set a good example here.
I'll second that. It makes me want to listen more when someone like Steve says something with forethought, logic and civility.
Thank you. I try.
I beg to differ, it didn't happen overnight but an increasing demand for truth has already had an effect. The decline of NV and other media owned websites can be directly linked to the demand for truth.
You and others like you are responsible for the decline in civil political conversations. Truth trolls are breaking the chains of information that major media and establishment politicians have been using to control the populace.
Social/political websites created by media moguls have served to restore the practice of free speech. No longer does it take days or even years to expose false stories and political manipulations. In their haste to make big bucks these moguls failed to realize the jeopardy they were putting themselves in by allowing people to communicate with each other on a one to one basis in an open format.
The creation of Newsvine was like sticking a wooden spear into the heart of a vampire.
Pointing the finger at ideological trolls is to easy and convenient they are nothing more than tools of desperation bent on deflecting and misdirecting people away from the truth. They failed.
Finding themselves being continuously being discredited and undermined from within their own operations, outfits like COMCAST just began shutting them down. Some are returning but they no longer have the tools available for people to use to find the real truth.
Many have left the major sites and migrated to places like this, cut off from the rest of the world, reliant upon the big servers and websites that have been working hand in hand with the establishment for years.
Pitiful. Difficult to traverse, constant format and feature changes. Are Perrie and her crew just a bunch of stumbling idiots? Hell no, they are at the mercy of big corp. They can only work with the tools available to them. These tools come and go at the whims of the TPTB. Often good features are woven together with unwanted features that add to the confusion and have the overall effect of making things more difficult.
NewsTalkers is an echo chamber. Not a left wing site, not a right wing site despite the numbers. An echo chamber of what Newsvine became. Same trolls from both sides. Same meta arguments from both sides, same blame game from both sides. Despite that, in my opinion NT has one of the best percentages of decent thoughtful conversations than the other refugee camps.
The quest for truth destroyed Newsvine and greatly retarded Comcast's entire social network. Eventually it will do the same to Facebook. This is a case where being the problem is a good thing. Hoot ! Hoot !
Wow. Not really sure that was called for.
If only.
Off topic [ph]
I long for the good old days of civil debate in American politics - like this and maybe this
Of course there was this
We are their decedents - why should we be surprised that we are like them.
[Background music "Cat's in the Cradle"]
Having established, from our past, a solid rationalization for our polarized behavior: let us endeavor to be more than our founding fathers.
Don't all parents want their offspring to "get on" a bit better...
And maybe a return to the good old days of possibly running a gauntlet in order to cast a ballot?
A really interesting article about the good old days.....
Not just the articles, but the discussion of them as well. It has all just devolved into name calling and idiotic generalizations, and unfortunately I have been drawn into it as well. But no longer, I am just going to abandon sites like these all together I think because every time I log in I just see one article after another declare one end of the political spectrum to be wrong, dumb etc etc and the comments sections are basically just more of it. In other words, there is no point in reading or commenting on them or since the articles are a bunch of hyperbolic BS and the comments amount to little more than brain farts from ideologues.
Not going to happen......unless there is an extended nationwide power outage.
Political identity is more than just ideology these days, its a lifestyle. A lifestyle that is very valuable to the folks that sell you cars, vacations, chicken sandwiches, coffee etc. They are planning an endlessly upward living experience "just for you". No matter what side of the debate you are on, someone cares deeply about your purchasing habits.
And your monetary support for this and against that - even if it is just $3, it is imperative that you donate so that some lobbying group can represent your interests!
Exactly!
Not unlike the televangelists of the 80's. Only instead of promising the afterlife, they promise utopia on earth.......if only they can raise enough money to defeat the other side.
♖
X
t
Marker
1
Test Comment
tracking