We need solutions, not argument. I would love to dialogue with anyone on the right, left, or center on ways we might be able to end this accelerating race to totalitarianism and hatred. We can do it....Americans always have.

Here is one of my suggestions for whoever is reading this. We (as individuals) must seize every oppurtunity to take back our institutions by running for office, seeking appointed office and populating professions including academia, journalism and business with American patriots who really care about making a difference. We must teach our children of the greatness of our country, it's Constitution, the opportunities and advantages granted to our society via Capitalism and most important - the evils of Socialism and those who promote it. We must also again teach our children to respect law enforcement, specifically local police and the military that has protected us throughout our history.

The need to get our young people involved in the change process by becoming part of that process is critical. Two terms on the local school board, a term on the recreation board and appointments to state and federal advisory committees to governors and presidents taught me the most important lessons of my life. We can craft change from within the system and we can bring honor and integrity to the political process. The most important lesson it taught me was that I could work with the other side of the aisle as long as both sides come to a negotiation with honest opinions and a desire to work toward the greater good.

The same held true in my years as a University professor. Getting young minds to be willing to understand that for most issues, there are at least two honest positions became a passion of mine and gave me voice to continue to shape politics as a vehicle for good and not one for personal aggrandizement.

You speak of "the evils of socialism" as if Americans do not need or covet the socialism that serves them, such as the military, the police, the fire departments, the libraries, public education, etc etc etc.

You seem to fear socialism as much as Americans fear Communism.

IMO, the division between rich and poor is growing wider every day, and is that a benefit?  Thank God I was born in and grew up and spent most of my life in Canada because of the benefit of universal health care, and such a system is considered "socialism" where even the poorest person in society gets medical care without requiring payment and NOBODY goes bankrupt or has to do without medical care because in the event that they need it.  

Those things aren’t socialism.  

I thought that the things I named are paid for collectively through taxes and is the increasing of collectively paid for services not considered socialism?  I've seen lots of American critics call universal health care socialism.  What are the things that you consider to be socialism, in particular what the Democrats are proposing, that conservatives such as yourself fear?

You seem to fear socialism as much as Americans fear Communism.

Marx said that Socialism was nothing more that a bastardization of Communism.

"Marx said that Socialism was nothing more that a bastardization of Communism."

So does that mean that Americans fear socialism as much as they fear Communism?  

I think I need to check the definitions.  

So does that mean that Americans fear socialism as much as they fear Communism? 

That means that Americans have historically rejected both, starting with the growth of labor unions as an integral part of the free enterprise system. If there ever was a time America could have adopted Socialism or Communism it was at the height of the Great Depression, yet America never waivered. You can cite the programs that came via FDR and LBJ but Americans never asked for those programs. When FDR launched Social Security most people didn't even understand it. So, Capitalism gave America it's wealth and to this day even the rising giant of Asia envies it.

Marx said that Socialism was nothing more that a bastardization of Communism.

Marx defined socialism as the necessary interim stage between a failed but mature industrialized capitalist system and communism.   It is the stage where the proletariat are in control of the socio-economic/political system and are working to achieve the goals of communism which, per Marx, is the ability for all human beings to contribute to society based on their talents and to benefit from the collective work of society.   (That is, people are free to pursue their ambitions and desires and need not toil simply to survive.)

You are grossly misrepresenting Marx.  Plus, I am confident that what you mean by 'communism' and 'socialism' do not match what Marx described but rather match closer to what Stalin produced.

I think I need to check the definitions.  

I would suggest going to Marx because the definitions since Lenin / Stalin are radically different from what he described.

That means that Americans have historically rejected both, starting with the growth of labor unions as an integral part of the free enterprise system.

The labor unions are consistent with Marx.

If there ever was a time America could have adopted Socialism or Communism it was at the height of the Great Depression, yet America never waivered.

That was indeed a time when our mature industrial-based capitalist system failed.   Marx likely would have seen that as the point where the USA would see socialism emerge (the workers would take over the factories, etc.).   But USA workers (the proletariat class) never did organize in such a manner so Marx' prediction was wrong.

You can cite the programs that came via FDR and LBJ but Americans never asked for those programs. When FDR launched Social Security most people didn't even understand it.

Those programs are NOT socialism; not by any stretch of the imagination.   Public (government) programs are not a defining characteristic of socialism (per Marx).   They are, however, THE defining characteristic of social democracy (which is a variant of capitalism).

So, Capitalism gave America it's wealth and to this day even the rising giant of Asia envies it.

Natural resources, 'spirit', industry and a free market (and stifled worldwide competition) is what turned the USA into a superpower.   Capitalism, in essence, simply means that individuals can leverage without limit productive property to increase their own capital and acquire more productive property to make even more capital.  It defines a hierarchic system based on wealth and social status.   It differed from ancient systems (e.g. feudal) in that innovation and aptitude enabled breakthrough success and not simply social status and generational wealth (although those factors remain very much in play even today).   A free market, industry, etc. are not dependent upon capitalism.

I think Xi Jinping calls China's system Capitalistic Socialism with Chinese characteristics, but although China is somewhat Capitalistic, recently the extremes were getting out of hand, and rather than achieving the increasingly huge division of wealth as in the USA (the kind of thing that leads to revolutions), it was deemed necessary to put some controls on it so that it did not spiral totally out of control.  I don't think you'll find any trillionaires happening in China, but I think there are more billionaires than there are in the USA.

"...the ability for all human beings to contribute to society based on their talents and to benefit from the collective work of society."

I think of it as "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

And that phrase has been reinterpreted to falsely portray Marx as promoting a purely egalitarian society.

It sure is good to see SOMEONE provide accurate common sense explanations.  I find it interesting that those Americans who were Communists were mostly intellectuals, usually brilliant.  I think of a prime example as being Dalton Trumbo.  Those who are familiar with the movies know who is is.  

[Thank you; for helping set this area of discussion 'upright.']

Marx said that Socialism was nothing more that a bastardization of Communism.

In Israel, they have socialism (Kabutzs) and they are not in the least bit communist. 

In Israel, they have socialism (Kabutzs) and they are not in the least bit communist. 

Are you using communist as in the former USSR or communist in the sense of Marx which is a stateless society where all needs are provided by technology and people are free to pursue their ambitions?   Kabutzs are far from the idealized communism of Marx but they arguably are (and have been) on that path.

We really have to get it straight, don't we?  Comparing sytems that in one case slaughters millions of people and in another results in reduced incentives, reduced prosperity and dependency, is very important.

I want to see candidates who gives us the benefit of their intellect and experience. I want a candidate for whom the election isn't the end all and be all, but a public service for all. I want a candidate for any office to vote his/her true conscience and not kowtow to the will of a bully or leader. I want to fight for our democracy. What do you want to do?

I want to see candidates like that, also. I want public servants in office not money grabbers or power hungry egoists.

What do I want to do? Encourage young people to think about political office, but start small...school boards, city councils, etc.

But what I really want to do is enact term limits and do away with political parties.

Bingo!!

do away with political parties

that would essentially be political anarchy. 

I disagree

Half the electorate just wants to vote for the winning team so they can gloat about it. Meanwhile both these parties are corrupt as F***. I just can't get over the wealth our elected officials amass on 200k a year salaries?

John, I refer you Washington's Farewell Address...

But what I really want to do is enact term limits and do away with political parties

YAY on term limits, these rubes need to serve and go, not serve themselves.

But what I really want to do is enact term limits and do away with political parties.

1st BIG step should be to eliminate lobbyists and Citizens United.

I like that, too

Maybe the single most prescient thing that we could do to get better people into elected office.

No problem with doing away with either.

So long as all Unions are lumped in with corporations when it comes to political donations.

Even extend it further than that, no entity with a PAC can receive aid form of from the federal government. That will get the non profits out of elections as well.

eliminate lobbyists and Citizens United.

Tell that to Zuckerberg.

Any movement to place term limits on elected officials has got to help the overall body politic. I'd go one step further and place a twelve year term limit on appeals court and supreme court justices. Lifetime appointments are one way this country is threatened with autocratic leadership. Term limits on justices forces the appointers to lean toward moderation, since there is no guarantee who will be in power twelve years down the line. Terms can be spaced so that no more than two justices come up on any particular election cycle.

I like your ideas!

It is too late for "good people" to make all the difference just by themselves. 

The "internet" has made it possible for people to create their own realities and millions of people live in an alternate reality that they not only believe, but also have reinforced every day by the news media they choose to imbibe. 

There are people who actually believe that AOC is a bigger danger to this country than Donald Trump is. 

I'm afraid we are only in the beginning stages of our great tribulation. 

I don't care about AOC's policy but to make my point she was worth -8 grand but now is a millionaire after serving a few years. How the hell does that happen says the foot paying stupid money for beef?

Do you have proof of that?

So she makes $174K a year and STILL only has between $1,001 and $15K in each of those areas in three years and still owes that much student loan debt? Wow what a spendthrift.

After taxes and retirement contributions AOC probably only takes home about $90,000 a year yet she pays rent in DC and in the Bronx plus pays on her student loan debts. Go get elected to Congress if you think it is so easy.

Maybe she should ask for a loan from her boyfriend?

msn

Robert boasts of a successful career as a web developer, and you must be interested in knowing how much wealth he has amassed to date. His alleged net worth is $1.5 million. He has boosted his bank account with the income he receives as a web developer. Robert has also pocketed a hefty sum as a technology consultant.

Or maybe she doesn't need it. Seems MSN thinks she is worth a hell of a lot more than he is.

Robert is still young, and his net worth will, undoubtedly, continue to increase in future as he continues with his endeavours. On the other hand, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's net worth is estimated at $10 million. She has built her net worth with the salary she receives as a congresswoman and other political endeavours.

Of course MSN is a right wing news outlet so they have to be lying.

Social Media has torn us apart, we need to get off social media, get our lives back and act like adults at the ballot box to solve real world problems that affect us. all.

Our politicians waste all the people's money on ridiculous things. Where does the money go? All I can gather is that all our politicians get to inside trade and become very wealthy very quick serving the people. This has to end. We didn't elect you to line your pockets. We elected you to fix real problems.

Social Media has torn us apart

Yes, by allowing anyone to make claims, with no truth to them, about public servants like AOC and others.

That is rich after the last 5 and half years and counting of TDS drivel the left put this country through. 

I was right there with ya until the (mostly R's) crap. I know you don't give a damn what I think but we were sooooo close.

Whether R's or D's, there are, unfortunately, many legislators on both a state and national level whose only interest is themselves and their big money donors. Those are the people we have to get out of office. We have to eliminate the R versus D debate to weed out the wheat from the chafe. Those that don't belong can't be allowed to retain their positions only because they have big money donors who control their votes.

Where's the rage?  Everywhere.

Rage has been growing since the 2008 Great Recession.  You think Occupy Wall Street wasn't about rage?  You think the TEA Party wasn't about rage?  You think Bernie Sander's Revolution and Donald Trump's MAGA isn't about rage?  You think BLM and Proud Boys isn't about rage?  'Let's go Brandon' isn't expressing satisfaction with politics or politicians.

The growing rage is seeking an outlet.  The growing rage is becoming more violent.  Politics is no longer a tool; politics is becoming a weapon.  Democracy is allowing people to express their rage by electing megaphones for that rage.

Or, could be a textbook case of Elder Rage...

Or, could be a textbook case of Elder Rage...

What we are witnessing isn't Boomer rage.  The Boomers aren't the majority any longer.  Expressing angst over the demise of the Boomer status quo won't address what is happening in politics.  The era of neoliberal globalization dies with the Boomer generation.

Joe Biden is of the WWII Silent Generation; Biden is older than a Boomer.  Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Trump are from the very early Boomer years, born before 1950, that were strongly influenced by the WWII generation and post WWII affluence.  Barack Obama has been the only truly Boomer President born in the late 1950s.  Our politics is still being influenced by the Great Depression and WWII.

We're still arguing about policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who died in office 76 years ago.  Biden wants to revitalize FDR policies and programs put in place 90 years ago.  We're still talking about the Marshall Plan in a world that doesn't even remotely resemble the post WWII world.  And we keep electing very, very old politicians from that era.

The generations following the Boomers are now adopting politics that precedes WWII.  Politics has regressed to the 19th century.  The younger generations are reverting to a modern form of Victorian sensibilities.  The Victorian era was a time of social movements like temperance, suffrage, living conditions in the slums, and labor reforms.  The Victorian era was a time of social intolerance marked by protest and political violence.  

We may be seeing a return to politics of the past but what we are witnessing isn't Boomer rage.  

What we're seeing is, in many instances, a return to a time when history is being re-written by the losers. This was an outgrowth of the Civil War and the re-writing of history by the south. Those who were in power during the Confederacy were never punished. They didn't even have to apologize for the bloodiest war, in terms of American casualties, in our history. Slavery was recast as a benevolent movement toward those who were enslaved. The war was recast as the War of Northern Aggression. The post Civil War south became the "lost cause" movement that proceeded through the balance of the nineteenth century and into the early 20th century.

What we see today is a recasting of that "lost cause" movement. The denial of, or at least the effort to deny, minorities equal voting rights in the south and some of the northwest is exactly the same thing that happened during the Jim Crow era. 

The retelling of the events leading to and of January 6th are becoming mantra for a significant number of individual deniers and the political class that relies on those deniers as a key voting bloc. The big difference is that the entire insurrection is on mass media and people are being told not to believe what is seen by them every day. The more information that goes out there, the weaker the case for denialism. It is truly a "lost cause" movement. What will happen is they might win some short term skirmishes, but like the post Civil War denialists, they are just postponing the inevitable. We are becoming a nation where there will be no recognizable majority. A majority will only be gained through coalitions. The battle for the future lays squarely in who can mobilize as voting blocs the largest coalition of minorities.

My money is on a coalition of progressive and moderate Caucasians, Hispanics, and Black Americans. Out demographic curve certainly favors that alliance.

What we see today is a recasting of that "lost cause" movement. The denial of, or at least the effort to deny, minorities equal voting rights in the south and some of the northwest is exactly the same thing that happened during the Jim Crow era. 

What you imagine you see is totally wrong. No on is being denied their right to vote, and I defy you or anyone else to prove otherwise. To equate today with the Democratic Jim Crow days is nonsense.

What we're seeing is, in many instances, a return to a time when history is being re-written by the losers. This was an outgrowth of the Civil War and the re-writing of history by the south. Those who were in power during the Confederacy were never punished. They didn't even have to apologize for the bloodiest war, in terms of American casualties, in our history. Slavery was recast as a benevolent movement toward those who were enslaved. The war was recast as the War of Northern Aggression. The post Civil War south became the "lost cause" movement that proceeded through the balance of the nineteenth century and into the early 20th century.

The Victorian era wasn't motivated by the Confederacy.  The 'lost cause' political narrative didn't become part of politics until the political influence of the South was completely displaced by the political influence of the West following WWII.  The 'lost cause' political narrative is an invention of the intellectual elite created during the last half of the 20th century.

The administrations of Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt weren't about reconstruction or relitigating the Civil War; their administrations were about westward expansion and economic development of the West.  The growing influence of the West was a threat to entrenched politics of the Democratic Party that depended upon the Solid South. 

What we see today is a recasting of that "lost cause" movement. The denial of, or at least the effort to deny, minorities equal voting rights in the south and some of the northwest is exactly the same thing that happened during the Jim Crow era. 

Democrats controlled the Solid South.  Democrats disenfranchised the black population to retain a competitive political advantage over Republicans.  Republicans were looking west and using westward expansion to provide new opportunities and a new prosperity.  Republicans were on the ascendency and Democrats needed to retain political power in the Solid South to support their political power.  That's why Democrats imposed Jim Crow on the mostly Republican leaning black population in the south. 

Jim Crow didn't have anything to do with a 'lost cause' movement.  Jim Crow was a direct result of growing Republican political influence in the west.  Democrats used Jim Crow to retain political power and sustain the political influence of the Solid South.

The retelling of the events leading to and of January 6th are becoming mantra for a significant number of individual deniers and the political class that relies on those deniers as a key voting bloc. The big difference is that the entire insurrection is on mass media and people are being told not to believe what is seen by them every day. The more information that goes out there, the weaker the case for denialism. It is truly a "lost cause" movement. What will happen is they might win some short term skirmishes, but like the post Civil War denialists, they are just postponing the inevitable. We are becoming a nation where there will be no recognizable majority. A majority will only be gained through coalitions. The battle for the future lays squarely in who can mobilize as voting blocs the largest coalition of minorities.

January 6th was a direct threat to political government controlled by a self-serving, autocratic political elite.   January 6th did not threaten the civilian population or civil society.  January 6th was not about coercing government to impose abstract, intellectual political and social theories onto the country.  January 6th wasn't about reshaping society or rewriting history.  January 6th wasn't even about partisan loyalty.  January 6th wasn't directing rage toward private citizens or how ordinary people live their lives.  January 6th was rage directed toward the political system and nothing else.

January 6th did not threaten the black population and was not attempting to disenfranchise black voters.  Democrats are using January 6th in an attempt to control the black vote to maintain a competitive advantage against Republicans just as they did with Jim Crow.  Democrats are still using the black population for political purposes as Democrats have done for 200 years.  Just keep in mind that Democrats are telling the public what to think about January 6th.  Democrats are glossing over the fact that January 6th was rage directed solely at the political system controlled by the political elite of two political parties.

My money is on a coalition of progressive and moderate Caucasians, Hispanics, and Black Americans. Out demographic curve certainly favors that alliance.

A coalition built upon a phony partisan telling of history won't change the political system for the better.  Especially when the partisans telling that history gloss over their less than stellar past.  What that hope expresses is really a return to the Victorian era of social intolerance marked by protests and political violence.  

Your history, while nicely written, is absolutely in conflict with the facts of the 21st century. Democrats of pre-1960 are almost all Republicans now. The progressives, who were primarily, Republicans moved over to the Democratic party.  Today's Democratic party is a much closer relative of Lincolnian Republicanism than the modern Republicans. This was the result of the Nixon southern strategy. It was brilliantly orchestrated. It doesn't make a lick of difference what was happening in the 1800s and the first part of the 1900s other than as a marker for the mistakes and corrections that our nation made. 

To argue that the January 6th insurrection is an attempt for Democrats to control the Black vote is absurd at its' core. It is a re-write of recent history. It is telling the American people, and yes, the world, that their own eyes are lying to them. Just watch the action. It was only a small group of patriots peacefully protesting. Bull of the highest order. It was a concerted attempt to overthrow a duly elected government, by attempting to prevent that duly elected government from being seated. The "rage" that was seen was a large group of people who received marching orders from a criminal President and his political cronies. They were convinced of a big lie that an election was stolen. That lie was so absurd that the only thing that people should be able to do is laugh at it. Trump lost by between 7 and 8 million votes. He lost states that he was certain he was going to win { sort of the same mistake Hillary Clinton made in 2016 when she only won the popular vote by 3+ million votes}. That criminal President was fomenting insurrection from 6 months before the election and used every part of his bully pulpit to convince his supporters that any vote against them was a fraudulent vote. 

Those Trumpists that are still buying that tripe would like to rewrite history. Luckily, there are enough people out there who will believe their eyes and ears and will dismiss the "big lie". The Trump mania will subside, as has every authoritarian movement in this nation and, hopefully, we will get back a 2 party system that will govern the way the system has been designed {hopefully with some tweaks here and there to fix the cracks}. Political races that force both sides to move a little bit, with the winning side getting a slight push in their direction. We can differ and still govern. That has been proven over two and a half centuries of America.

Democrats of pre-1960 are almost all Republicans now.

No, they are almost all dead.

he progressives, who were primarily, Republicans moved over to the Democratic party

Not really true. Woodrow Wilson, the man who resegregated the Federal government was a progressive. So was his political heir and the KKK's choice at the 1924 convention William Gibbs McAdoo and FDR's admisntration was overflowing with progressives. There were some "progressive Republicans like LaFollotte and Hoover, but the party was much more conservative compared to the Democratic Party (Think Coolidge, Taft).

 closer relative of Lincolnian Republicanism than the modern Republicans. This was the result of the Nixon southern strategy.

Lol.. Lincoln detested identity politics. The idea that the party that is defined by racial identity politics and abortion  is "closer to Lincoln" is absurd. 

This was the result of the Nixon southern strategy

What an egregious misreading of history that pernicious myth is. The South started trending Republican in the 40's. When the democratic party embraced "acid, abortion and amnesty" it lost the middle class throughout the country, which is why the Republicans started doing  well in the South when they did well nationally.   

Conservatives have always been the majority of the racists. What most people who talk about this fail to realize is that the Democratic Party used to have a lot of conservatives.  It is only in recent decades that one party is only the liberal party and the other is only the conservative party. 

What an egregious misreading of history that pernicious myth is. The South started trending Republican in the 40's. When the democratic party embraced "acid, abortion and amnesty" it lost the middle class throughout the country, which is why the Republicans started doing  well in the South when they did well nationally.   

You are not entitled to your own facts. The southern strategy was a deliberately orchestrated approach to election viability after Johnson led civil rights legislation after Kennedy was assassinated. It was seen as the only way an election win was viable after the Goldwater debacle of '64. 

You are entitled to your own opinion, but your recreation of history is not factually based. The southern strategy is clearly spoken about in every reputable history text of the era. It is still taught as a seminal about face strategy in almost every University history class.

The other issue that you need to check your history on is when the south moved en masse to the Republican side of the aisle. That movement was a 60s and 70s occurrence. Let's not quibble, however, by a few decades. Look at where the racism and identity politics actually stand today. It is a Republican thing with the identity absolutely rooted in the white nationalist movement. If you want to call a political party racist for espousing equality for all, white, black, brown, and native, I admit guilt for your accusation of identity politics.

Hey bob, long time no see, how ya been?

ou are not entitled to your own facts.

I have THE facts on my side, they aren't mine. 

t was seen as the only way an election win was viable after the Goldwater debacle of '64. 

You seem to lack a grasp on the basic facts. As I said, the south started to move towards Republicans in the 40s.  Eisenhower, the guy who desegregated schools at gunpoint won southern states and performed better in the the south than Goldwater, the guy who opposed the civil rights act.  The southern drift towards the Republicans took decades and Nixon "southern strategy" and win of the border states Eisenhower performed strongly in  didn't prevent Carter from sweeping the south in '76. Nixon won 3 confederate states in 1960 and was close in others, except for the deep south.  The facts are the Republicans did well in the border states and in the prosperous suburbs. It was the "deep south" and the most rural and backward areas that remained democratic strongholds the longest. 

Republicans did well in the south when they did well nationally(68, 72, 80, 84).  They lost southern states when they didn't.(64, 76)

It is still taught as a seminal about face strategy in almost every University history class.

No, it's not. At least not respectable ones. If you actually look at "the facts", you'll see everything I said is correct. Racists who like to think everyone is as obsessed with race as they are, think race was the only issue people care about and vote over. Vietnam, social issues, the economy, perception of the candidates experience,  all of those things were massively important.

r history on is when the south moved en masse to the Republican side of the aisle

Carter won every former confederate state except Virginia (one of the border states)  in 1976. Republicans didn't capture a majority of southern seats until 1994.

 you want to call a political party racist for espousing equality for all, white, black, brown, and native, I admit guilt for your accusation of identity politics.

You are not entitled to your own facts. Republicans stand for equality for all, Democrats  stand for racial discrimination, much like they have since the antebellum era. . 

Sean, how many conservatives in Congress voted yes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 

"No on is being denied their right to vote, and I defy you or anyone else to prove otherwise."

Aren't American citizens living in the District of Columbia denied the right to vote?  The fact that they are not allowed to vote by Constitution or otherwise still denies them the right to vote whether or not they ever had it.  And are felons in prison who are American citizens permitted to vote?

Aren't American citizens living in the District of Columbia denied the right to vote?

No, they are not.

The fact that they are not allowed to vote by Constitution or otherwise still denies them the right to vote whether or not they ever had it. 

Not sure where you are getting your facts from, but perhaps it is time to get a new source.

District of Columbia voting rights - Wikipedia

TheTwenty-third Amendment, adopted in 1961, entitles the District to the same number ofelectoral votesas that of the least populous state in the election of thepresidentandvice president. And are felons in prison who are American citizens permitted to vote?

Sure, if that is what their state has decided to allow.

No federal law prohibits it.

Why have I been reading articles and comments on NT that indicate that DC residents do not have the right to vote?  How about jailed felons?

Why have I been reading articles and comments on NT that indicate that DC residents do not have the right to vote? 

Probably because some people never bother to check if what they post is true or not.

How about jailed felons?

No federal law prohibits jailed felons from voting.

Each state decides what they allow within the confines of the US Constitution.

Buzz, they are allowed to vote. For president, etc.

What they don't have is representation in congress. Ie there is no DC senator.

Oh, okay, then I misunderstood. Never studied American civics.

Not a problem. People like to mix things up and mislead.

The whole thing really leads to should DC be its own territory or state.

Have representation in federal government.

Meaning give them reps in the House and Senate, which would basically make them their own state, which would be illegal because the Capital itself cannot be a state...

JR wrote: " Sean, how many conservatives in Congress voted yes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?"

en.wikipedia

Your history, while nicely written, is absolutely in conflict with the facts of the 21st century. Democrats of pre-1960 are almost all Republicans now. The progressives, who were primarily, Republicans moved over to the Democratic party.  Today's Democratic party is a much closer relative of Lincolnian Republicanism than the modern Republicans. This was the result of the Nixon southern strategy. It was brilliantly orchestrated. It doesn't make a lick of difference what was happening in the 1800s and the first part of the 1900s other than as a marker for the mistakes and corrections that our nation made. 

So, the corollary is that pre-1960 Republicans are now Democrats?  That's not a rewriting of history; that completely ignores a century of history.

The south has always had an outsized influence on politics compared to population size.  And up until the mid 20th century about half the southern population was black.  The south has always been more diverse than other regions of the country.  Jim Crow provided the means for Democrats to retain their political power by rigging the political system to give the south outsized political influence and compete with growing influence of the west.  But the black population began migrating north (and west) during the 20th century.  Today a little less than half of the black population remain in the south.  Jim Crow might work in the south with a history of slavery but doesn't translate to areas where there never had been slavery.  Talking about slavery in Chicago or Detroit or Minneapolis is a ludicrous perversion of history.

Your narrative completely ignores westward expansion and shifts in political influence to the west.  The political influence of the west was the gold, silver, copper, borax, cattle, timber, wheat, oil, and other resources.  California was built on yellow gold and black gold.  Los Angeles is an oil city.  The west was home to big business that was competing for influence with the industrial north.  The nation's money supply depended upon western gold and silver.  The influence of the west on government can be illustrated by the creation of the US Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management during the first half of the 20th century.  The Department of the Interior was created to manage western resources and indigenous people of the west.  The south isn't part of that history.  The west was not settled and built with slave labor.  Democrat's racial politics did not work in the west then and doesn't now.  That's why the revised and twisted history Democrats use for their politics completely ignores a century of history.

To argue that the January 6th insurrection is an attempt for Democrats to control the Black vote is absurd at its' core. It is a re-write of recent history. It is telling the American people, and yes, the world, that their own eyes are lying to them. Just watch the action. It was only a small group of patriots peacefully protesting. Bull of the highest order. It was a concerted attempt to overthrow a duly elected government, by attempting to prevent that duly elected government from being seated. The "rage" that was seen was a large group of people who received marching orders from a criminal President and his political cronies. They were convinced of a big lie that an election was stolen. That lie was so absurd that the only thing that people should be able to do is laugh at it. Trump lost by between 7 and 8 million votes. He lost states that he was certain he was going to win { sort of the same mistake Hillary Clinton made in 2016 when she only won the popular vote by 3+ million votes}. That criminal President was fomenting insurrection from 6 months before the election and used every part of his bully pulpit to convince his supporters that any vote against them was a fraudulent vote. 

I did not make an argument that the January 6th was an attempt for Democrats to control the Black vote.  What I said is that January 6th wasn't about black people in any way, shape, or form.  January 6th was a direct threat to political government; not a threat to civil society or a threat to ordinary people.

I also did not claim that January 6th was peaceful or lawful.  The only thing I said about January 6th was that it was directed solely towards the political system and nothing else.

I realize Democrats must rewrite every history to include the black population because Democrats' political influence depends upon controlling the black population.  Democrats are rewriting the history of January 6th, after the fact, to fit Democrats' racial politics.  Democrats don't know how to respond simply because January 6th was not racially motivated and was not motivated by partisan loyalty.  But that doesn't stop Democrats from rewriting and perverting what really happened to fit their narrow and cynical racial politics.

Aren't American citizens living in the District of Columbia denied the right to vote?  The fact that they are not allowed to vote by Constitution or otherwise still denies them the right to vote whether or not they ever had it.

That is incorrect.  The District of Columbia does not have Senators or Representatives so does not have a vote in Congress.  Citizens in the District of Columbia have the right to vote in elections.

The District of Columbia becoming a state would create a conflict of interest for Senators and Representatives serving in Congress.  And statehood would establish a morass of problems over jurisdiction.  Statehood for the District of Columbia would open the door for western states to claim authority and control over Federal lands in the west.

They also have a Rep in the House . However, like the Senator they are not allowed to vote! Their votes can also be overturned by the Congress. DC passed a marihuana legalization law about 2-3 years ago. The Republican Congress overturned their voter approved law. DC is the only area in the US that doesn't have representation in Congress. All elected officials from DC are NON VOTING just like Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.

Okay.

Thanks. to all for helping me to understand the convoluted American governmental system.  It's so much simpler in Canada - which probably explains why there is so much less controversy there.  

"The Southern Strategy was but one in a series of decisions the GOP made not just on race, but on feminism and religion as well, in what Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields call the "Long Southern Strategy." The Southern Strategy is traditionally understood as a Goldwater and Nixon-era effort by the Republican Party to win over disaffected white voters in the Democratic stronghold of the American South. (2019}"

This is the accepted definition of the southern strategy. It is from a textbook by Maxwell & Shields from 2019 called the Long Southern Strategy. There are innumerable other books and references that define the strategy. You can also see the strategy laid out in the wikipedia description of the strategy. 

The truth is the Republican party leadership under both Goldwater and Nixon moved that party by dropping support for the ERA, identifying with the most right wing religious southerners and their views of reproductive choice {mostly Democrats at that time} and engaging in party politics that either openly or thinly veiled a racist viewpoint. That is the history.

You are right when saying that the last southern state to turn fully away from the Democrats didn't occur until 1992, but when you read the history, this was a longterm strategy.

see my response to Sean Tracy below.

Plus they have no voting member of congress and no senators. The electoral vote issue only applies to Presidential elections. True representation would be to give DC residents the same thing that citizens of the states have. The Republicans have fought this idea for seemingly forever. Just like they would not vote to grant statehood to Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, etc. Full representation would destroy any chance for the Republicans to control the Senate, and would make the House more difficult for Republicans to control unless they moderate some of their stances.

but one in a series of decisions the GOP made not just on race, but on feminism and religion as well, in what Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields call the "Long Southern Strategy

So we agree there was no "southern strategy" as is popularly alleged, but rather its an ex post facto rationalization of what happened (the South turning gradually Republican over a course of 60 years) 

Republican party leadership under both Goldwater and Nixon mo

It's ahistorical and dishonest to group Goldwater and Nixon and their positions.  Goldwater and the "radical right" opposed the civil rights acts on federalist grounds and Nixon, the moderate, supported them.  Nixon's campaign in 68 was modeled on Eisenhower and was not  even remotely "openly or thinly" racist. He knew he could never win the "Wallace vote" so he ignored them. And when Wallace imploded after the Lemay nomination for Vice President, Wallace's northern supporters flocked to Humphrey, turning what looked like a Nixon blow out in September into a tight race. 

this was a longterm strategy.

Not at all. Politicians lookout for their own immediate interests and don't really care about what happens to the party decades after they retired. It's preposterous to think of Nixon engaging in a strategy that wouldn't help him,  but would somehow help other Republicans (who he often hated) in future decades.  The Republicans didn't become competitive and than triumphant in the south because of any long term strategy (or the asinine claim that the civil rights bill flipped the south), it was because on  issue after issue, the economy, the military and foreign policy, abortion, the democrats embraced the far left and purged the party of moderates.  

There's no great secret, as the Democrats embraced the hard left, they lost ground in the south. 

I will end this by imploring you to go beyond the right wing propaganda and read some of curated history of the southern strategy and the conscious attempt to appeal to the anti-ERA, the religious fundamentalists, and the racist right in the south. If you will provide me with curated histories that are presenting a different view, I will be happy to read them and, if they are part of accepted professional orthodoxy, include them in future writing.

Well, there is the matter of the US Constitution which says that DC can not be a state.

People who chose to live there know this already, or damn sure should know it.

Everything I wrote is the exact truth.

And really, don't we all know WHY Democrats want DC to be represented like a state?

g you to go beyond the right wing propaganda and read some of curated history of the southern strategy and the conscious attempt to appeal to the anti-ERA, t

I've read actual "curated history" history, I suggest you get out of your left wing pop history bubble and do the same. I've  made fact based defenses of my position while you offer simple, unsupported conclusions that don't fit into any sort of coherent explanation of reality. 

I will end this by imploring you to go beyond the right wing propaganda and read some of curated history of the southern strategy and the conscious attempt to appeal to the anti-ERA, the religious fundamentalists, and the racist right in the south.

Why doctor, I thought you were looking for common ground?   Please don't tell us that you have an agenda!

"The Southern Strategy was but one in a series of decisions the GOP made not just on race, but on feminism and religion as well, in what Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields call the "Long Southern Strategy." The Southern Strategy is traditionally understood as a Goldwater and Nixon-era effort by the Republican Party to win over disaffected white voters in the Democratic stronghold of the American South. (2019}"

This is the accepted definition of the southern strategy. It is from a textbook by Maxwell & Shields from 2019 called the Long Southern Strategy. There are innumerable other books and references that define the strategy. You can also see the strategy laid out in the wikipedia description of the strategy. 

The truth is the Republican party leadership under both Goldwater and Nixon moved that party by dropping support for the ERA, identifying with the most right wing religious southerners and their views of reproductive choice {mostly Democrats at that time} and engaging in party politics that either openly or thinly veiled a racist viewpoint. That is the history.

You are right when saying that the last southern state to turn fully away from the Democrats didn't occur until 1992, but when you read the history, this was a longterm strategy.

The white population of the former Confederacy is about 20 pct of the US population.  That's why the south has always had an outsized political influence.  And those white southerners did not all turn into Republicans.  Many southern Democrats have been elected to Congress and the Presidency since 1960.  Democrats have been elected state governors and controlled state legislatures in those southern states at various times since 1960.

Barry Goldwater was a western politician from Arizona.  Richard Nixon was a western politician from California.  Their politics wasn't shaped by the south or southern culture and history.  

Lyndon Johnson was a southern politician from Texas.  Jimmy Carter was a southern politician from Georgia.  Bill Clinton was a southern politician from Arkansas.  Their politics was, indeed, shaped by southern culture and history.

The Democratic Party emphasized racial politics following the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The Democrats' strategy was to control the Black voting block; particularly in urban areas.  The de facto segregation of the Black population in Democrat controlled urban areas wasn't an accidental circumstance.  Why do you think Democrats supported housing projects and urban development projects?  And the Black population has become almost monolithically Democrat.  Democrats adopted a strategy of race baiting, rewriting history, and reviving slavery in politics.  The Democratic Party has once again become the party of slavery.

The so called Southern Strategy was based upon western politics and not southern politics.  The Democrats renewed effort to segregate the Black population wouldn't work in the south because the south was less urban.  The Democrats' Southern Strategy was premised on the fact that there were more Black voters living in urban areas than there were white Republican voters living in the south.

imploring you to go beyond the right wing propaganda and read some of curated history

Curated by who? some left wing propagandist history re-writer? (that's what most history professors are nowadays)

Nothing above limits or hinders any persons right to vote

Educate yourself as to how the voting  process works in Colorado.

Then please explain to me why these laws only apply to counties with majority brown and black populations {6 counties with almost 50% of Texas' population, while it doesn't apply to the other 60 Texas counties. Tell everyone that it is designed to make voting easier and not to hinder the emerging majority in Texas from taking over the legislature and other aspects of governance in the next decade. I could use a good laugh at one of those explanations.

Can you expand on this?  I thought the new Texas voting bill was for the entire state and covered all counties the same.  Which parts of the law only apply to which counties?

Look at the sections of the bill that apply to:

• regulating voting hours
• banning drive thru voting
• regulating the distribution of polling places in urban areas {one of the most egregious provisions}
• regulating donations to counties {must be approved by partisan state officials, not local officials}
• requiring the recording of vote counting {as written, only counties with populations over 100,000 would be affected}

I used the bill text found at   :      legiscan

It's failure is maybe because it's not the full law?  But I didn't see where individual counties were identified. There were some counties that made some changes to how they handled the 2020 elections, citing the Covid pandemic as the reason for it. One could argue that these counties did not have the proper authorization to change voting procedures and this is the state taking back that management.

• regulating voting hours

While Harris County is the only country that in the 2020 election instituted 24 hour voting, this part of the bill does not only impact Harris county.  It is applied state wide.

• banning drive thru voting

What county other than Harris County instituted drive-thru voting for all?  The bill bans drive-thru voting for all counties, only exceptions are for the disabled.

• regulating the distribution of polling places in urban areas {one of the most egregious provisions}

There are 12 listings in the bill text dealing with polling but none of them talk about the distribution of polling stations in urban areas. Please provide more detail here.

• regulating donations to counties {must be approved by partisan state officials, not local officials}

Nothing in the bill text mentions donations so I'm at a loss here. Can you provide context please? 

• requiring the recording of vote counting {as written, only counties with populations over 100,000 would be affected}

 Again, this is all counties isn't it?  The bill mentions that even with electronic counting the counties need to keep paper records showing ballets issued vs spoiled.

Sec.   125.0621.     LOGS OF ISSUED AND SPOILED BALLOTS. If an
	electronic voting system uses paper media for recording votes cast,
	the election officer shall maintain a record of the serial numbers
	of all ballots issued at that polling place and the serial numbers
	of any spoiled ballots, if any. All logs maintained under this
	section are election records subject to public inspection as
	provided by Section 1.012.

So I'm not seeing how this only applies to 6 counties.  One can argue that this can impact Harris County more as they made a lot of changes for the 2020 election but that also then begs the question, did Harris County have the authority to change the election rules?  Article 1 Section 4 of the US Constitution gives state legislatures the task of determining how congressional elections are to be held. So can a county override state rules for elections, especially elections for federal offices such as Congress and the Presidential elections?

SB 7 would target the distribution of polling places in the state’s biggest counties — most of which are under Democratic control and home to a large share of voters of color.

In recent years, county election officials have worked to ditch precinct-based voting on Election Day and instead open up every polling place to all voters regardless of where they live in a county. That model, known as countywide voting, has existed in Texas for many years but  has been taken up most recently by both blue urban metros and Republican-leaning suburbs . The 2020 election marked the first major election during which the state’s five largest counties — Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar and Travis — all operated under the countywide model.

Under SB 7, counties with a population of one million or more that use countywide voting would be subjected to a specific formula for distributing polling places based on the number of registered voters in each state House district within the county. That formula would capture those five, mostly Democratic counties, while the more than 60 other Texas counties that use countywide voting — many of them rural and under Republican control — would remain under the state’s more relaxed rules for polling place distribution.

A formula based on voter registration would likely reduce the number of polling places in House districts represented by Democrats — the vast majority of them people of color serving districts that typically have a larger share of voters of color compared to Republican-held districts — where registration numbers are generally much lower than in districts represented by Republicans. {Texas Tribune}

This, in itself was designed to target people of color, both to have fewer polling places and to force long lines waiting to vote. Rural counties will still have the same number of booths and this provision will not affect them. That is a covertly racist method of restricting the right to vote.

I would have to see how the numbers actually play out. From initial research it seemed to show that the counties that used the county-wide voting actually had less polling locations than before because they were able to create voting centers which were larger than the older model but required less staffing so it was a financial win. It can cause some people to have to drive further if their normal polling location was closed. 

Harris County has a good number of districts so if they were to close some to create larger voting centers would people have to travel more to get to one? And I don't know the law in Texas, here in Arizona even though I have an assigned polling station I can go to any polling station and request a provisional ballot. 

While Democrats have been calling this an attempt by Republicans to restrict voting on people of color I'm not convinced that is true. 

It looks like it makes it more difficult to cheat.

show us examples of cheating......the only two that have been widely reported was a case in suburban Philadelphia and one in Florida. Both were Trump supporters trying to vote for dead relatives

Are we waiting for cheating to take place?  You know that after an election that is almost impossible to find.

What did the Carter-Baker Report of 2005 tell us about mail-in voting?

dailysignal

As much as I respect both Carter and Baker, the 2005 report has been totally discredited by everyone but the far right. Congress was cold to the report for obvious biases, the non-southern states were basically against it. If you want to read a well written critique of the report, see the Response written by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, the commentary of Spencer Overton, the Chair of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, and the writings of the National Network on State Election Reform. All have extensive critiques of the Carter-Baker Report. You have to come up with a better reason than what might have been. Especially when Trumps own person in charge of election integrity called the 2020 election the most honest in history.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

It's never been debunked. Maybe some are trying at the university, but the fact of the matter is that mail-in-voting, especially on a massive scale is less secure than in-person voting. If anything, it's common sense. Election officials or workers are making decisions on millions of signatures rather than simply having the voter personally validate identity. What makes it more dangerous is something called ballot-harvesting, which is an open door to fraud.

At best mail-in-voting simply benefits democrats. Why is that?  Because Republican voters get up on election day and vote. Not all democrats seem to be inclined to do that. So there is a enthusiasm deficit for democrats. Democrats have learned that the way to bridge that gap is to send out the ballots

All nonsense. 

For as long as I have been voting , and I have voted in person every election since 1972, we sign a slip and hand it to the election judges, one republican and one Democrat, who verify the signature against the signature of mine they have in their "book" which has copies of every voter in that precincts signature made when they registered to vote.  In Illinois they always check every voters signature. That is the prescribed procedure. 

There are U.S. states that have used mail in voting for years. I dont recall any of them reporting any previous problems. 

Trump started all this crap. But let us recall, Trump has NEVER accepted the possibility of him losing an election fair and square. In 2016 he said he might not accept the results if he lost.  Everyone forgets about that because he didnt lose in 2016. 

"Conservatives" are mired in conspiracy theories, pipe dreams, and delusions.  It is ruining our country. 

For as long as I have been voting , and I have voted in person every election since 1972

I'm sure every one like you and I have done the same. How about people who seldom think about politics?


we sign a slip and hand it to the election judges, one republican and one Democrat, who verify the signature against the signature of mine they have in their "book" which has copies of every voter in that precincts signature made when they registered to vote. 

Ya, that sounds like in-person voting. I'm glad you agree that it's reasonably secure.


In Illinois they always check every voters signature. That is the prescribed procedure. 

I hope so John, but I wouldn't hold up Illinois as a state to be emulated.


There are U.S. states that have used mail in voting for years. I dont recall any of them reporting any previous problems. 

California has it plus ballot-harvesting. It is without a doubt the most dishonest state in the country - in the nation's history.


Trump started all this crap.

No, John, this started long before Trump. It started when democrats realized that a lot of democrats simply don't go out and vote on election day, but they will vote if a ballot is sent right to their homes.

Statistics prove it. Mail-in-voting benefits democrats.

Because Republican voters get up on election day and vote. Not all democrats seem to be inclined to do that. So there is a enthusiasm deficit for democrats. Democrats have learned that the way to bridge that gap is to send out the ballots

So what's special about "getting up on election day and voting"? Why is that "inclining"?  Old-fashioned, yes.  The "enthusiasm" displays itself in the outcome of voting—not lines of people uncomfortably and perhaps unsafely wrapped or stacked around edifices. Simply there to make some conservatives feel. . .

what exactly?

So what's special about "getting up on election day and voting"?

It means one is interested in the election.


 Why is that "inclining"?  

Civic duty.


  The "enthusiasm" displays itself in the outcome of voting—not lines of people uncomfortably and perhaps unsafely wrapped or stacked around edifices.

Long before the pandemic there were people not inclined to get up off their asses and vote. Mail-in voting got them to vote. Those votes trend democrat.

Civic duty is voting, period. There is no SET format for voting or there would not be this "see-sawing" over it. People constitute what voting is. That means "asses" voting efficiency, quality, and quantity is the performance metric - not long lines unsafe, unhealthy, lines.

People are the who and what of voting. Let us not be insular!

Prior to the 2020 election, mail in voting was primarily a republican occurrence. In every election republicans using mail in voting over democrats about 57 to 43%. The republicans had little complaint when their people were using the mail in vote to win elections. It was only in 2020 during the pandemic when democrats turned the table on who was using the mail in vote. Now it became a source of cheating for the republicans. Give us all a break! If the mail in vote continued to benefit republicans it would have been fine.......but those "criminals" who identified as democrats were using the mail-in vote to their advantage.

Bottom line......I want to see every registered voter get out there and vote, whether they are Rs or Ds or even socialists or white supremists. Democracy is stronger if everyone votes. For most Rs, however, democracy is only strong if there are only Rs in power.

Emphatically. NOW-AND may the best man or woman WIN!

Prior to the 2020 election, mail in voting was primarily a republican occurrence.

Absolutely false. It has been a democrat pet project ever since they discovered that it was a way to close the enthusiasim gap,

Are you really going to try and deny that mail-in-voting benefits democrats?

Where is your proof?

Is voting some kind of "competition"?! Is that the conservative or "some conservative" mindset? Extreme political warfare (at home)?!!

Has our two party systems lost their "collective" minds?! We, the citizenry are not 'warring factions' to be won over or to be sacrifices to causes! We want to live with others in peace as much as it lies within us (all)!

Voting needs to be secure, otherwise people will lose their confidence in the system.

First, signify that you have confidence in "good governance" rather than outlawish leadership. Do that before you champion voting integrity! Go ahead.

Assessing the Impact of Absentee Voting on Turnout and Democratic Vote Margin in 2020

KEY POINTS FROM THIS ARTICLE

— While the 2020 presidential election saw a record volume of absentee votes cast, not all states made it equally accessible.

— Eased absentee voting rules contributed to higher voter participation rates.

— With higher turnout, President Joe Biden’s performance still tracked closely with Hillary Clinton’s state-by-state results in 2016 — he just performed slightly better across the board.

— All told, the sharp increase in absentee voting in 2020 wasn’t disproportionately beneficial to either presidential candidate.

This was published by Larry Sabato's group at the University of Virginia. The article, in it's entirety clearly shows that absentee ballots in the 2020 election did not benefit President Biden. Granted, this article only explored 2016 and 2020, but it blows the tires off of the argument that Democrats outpaced Republicans for absentee votes. The only thing more open and easily accessible absentee ballots did was increase the total number of votes.  Isn't that the whole point of our election system? Get the turnout for elections to as close to 100% as possible. 

If you are concerned about historical context, I will be happy to post some historical documents.

If you are concerned about historical context, I will be happy to post some historical documents.

Start with the percentage of mail-in-ballots that went to Biden.

One other thing the next President needs to do - stop funding universities that teach any form of leftist ideology.

I'm sorry, but your response is pathetic. You don't want to hear what is said in peer reviewed journals, not do you accept current research. Debating a brick wall is an exercise in futility. When you decide to research any peer reviewed articles and show me competing facts, we can continue. Until then, I will opt to respond to people who want to have legitimate discussions.

[removed]

Yet you couldn't provide any data showing what percentage of mail-in-voting goes to democrats.

You are in my classroom now and you can't just tell me about evidence - you need to produce it!

[Deleted]

Ridiculous.

sorry buddy....my article....my classroom....my rules.....read the peer reviewed article I gave you the summary of.....you seem to have Trump disease.....argue without facts....ignore the truth and try to deny the evidence provided....may work in your circle....won't work in mine.

It's not me, it's you. Mail-in-voting benefits democrats. That is an absolute fact and you couldn't disprove it. 

Everyone saw it.

I'm not sorry!

Wowee. That happened. Voting According to Republicans. . . .

Whenever I see a vote that every member of party votes aye or nay, I see my core value of democracy going down the drain. 

Cogent and spot on!

I want a candidate for any office to vote his/her true conscience and not kowtow to the will of a bully or leader.   . . . .

Where's the Rage?

We have a former president who has no honor as a man or as a leader. Who is indecent. Who has injured the nation. Who has 'led' a rebellion. Who continually exacerbate our unsolved 'divides.' And, I am angry all that people don't cast Donald J. Trump, a former president off! Donald Trump plays off the silence of 'many' and brands that silence as love, support, and enabling.

It is wrong. More people should be outraged that, our nation allows, and in some segments of our people, celebrates something called a "Big Lie."

People, it is a lie: Why 'green-light' that into your hearts and minds?

Where is the rage? There is plenty of rage, it just has no consistent target. It is all rage for the sake of rage.

I see two hurdles that would need to be overcome in order to get to a country that holds the vision you do.

1.  The party system. Even the founding fathers, who at least in their writings, decried the party system, were themselves soon embroiled in party politics. As an adjunct, the state laws that support that system would also need to be changed.

2.  A lethargic, uneducated electorate. That electorate can be divided broadly into two groups: the 'gourmet' mac and cheese eating, Netflix binging group, and the beer and fritos Simpson watching group. It will require two different strategies to educate those folks.

I don't follow your big-picture solution here. Right now, it is not the party system (which we glomed onto) that is the most concern: it is this thing: "The Big Lie" that percolates around and through our politics that needs to be condemned by all and purged from our consciences. 

Your #2 is superfluous. What people digest outside of politics has no true value on their political conduct or appetites for common decency, in my opinion.

This said, it would be nice to learn more about your perspective if you choose to elaborate further on it.

The two-party system has devolved into only one purpose, WINNING. Winning is the only reason to exist. The parties are no longer about representation, ideas or anything other than winning.

In order to win, you must show that the other side is evil, even less than human at times. In other words, it demands partisanship and the destruction of the 'other'.

The political parties are feeding a 'doom-loop'. The nation is doomed if you vote for the other side.

To hell with rights, no one cares about rights except their own. The 'other' shouldn't even exist, thus they have no rights.

"Your #2 is superfluous. What people digest outside of politics has no true value on their political conduct or appetites for common decency, in my opinion."

You aren't good at nuance are you? It has everything and nothing to do with their beliefs.

The two-party system has devolved into only one purpose, WINNING. Winning is the only reason to exist. The parties are no longer about representation, ideas or anything other than winning.

All I know for a fact is the parties (all of them) are wasting life away from us all; while this (whatever it is) is happening. I'm a little bit older than i was a week ago watching the same shit different day political activity (and I feel it) - how about 'u'?

As to the rest of the comment. Yawn! That was soooo 5 days ago and I don't remember why I wrote it or care at this point! (Chuckles.) I'm. . .drained of political will at this moment. Replenishment needed.

It may be unfortunate that many potential voters are not locked into the political information sphere, in the way that many of us on Newstalkers are, but they are the electorate that we have. Each of them has the same right to a vote as the most politically erudite. That is our constitutional guarantee. 

That fact alone should make it much more important that those who aren't following the political maneuverings closely, get the true and accurate reading of our political situation. What we have to do is eliminate the "big lie" from our political rhetoric. Each side has the right to debate policy and share their viewpoints on those policies. What we don't have is the right to spread what we know are untruths to people who are just looking for the most basic information. As a national priority we have to somehow vow to share truths and opinions. Those truths have only one right or wrong answer. Those opinions are then designed to tell people how we make the truths that are harmful better. The weight of persuasion and honesty will get people choosing one side or the other.

That would be something that all real patriots and believers in American democracy can live with.

Evangelism by any other name. You aren't going to get the left or right media to go along. There is no money to be made there.

The one true way is person to person. And who has the time for that?

I can appreciate the overriding desire to come to the truth and spread such truth. But who is to define truth? As Pilate so famously said, "What is truth?"

Truth is that which is substantiated by facts. When someone walks up to you, puts a gun to your head and rob you of all your money, the truth is that you were robbed. The attorney for the robber can spin it any way they can, but the truth is that you were robbed. Politics isn't as clear cut most of the time. What there is, however, are underlying truths. You can be pro-life or pro-choice. Those are two truths who choose to present different facts. The stronger set of facts {and in this case beliefs} wins the battle for public acceptance. We are in a stage of the COVID pandemic that has truths attached to it. Over 725,000 people have died as a result of the virus. Another 35,000,000 plus have contracted the disease. We now have a vaccine and boosters. They are basically safe {as much as any vaccine can be} and effective {more so than many other vaccines}. Today, people who are hospitalized with the virus are overwhelmingly non-vaccinated. Those are facts, supported by data and peer review. Some choose, either because of deeply held beliefs or political devotion, not to accept the truths and continue to keep us in an active pandemic situation. Those are also truths. The one thing we do know......the truths are totally supported by facts/. We'll see what happens.