Right now I would say neither party fits that bill although they both have members who would fit the bill. I’m a answers usually in the middle type of guy. If we had moderate Dems and moderate Republicans I think things would be way better. It just seems as if both sides in the age of the internet are skewing toward the loonies.
The Republicans have the least conservative person as their leader and the Dem nominee was forced to slew farther left than he probably is as that’s the way the party leaned.
I’ll use Kansas as an example. For the longest time we had moderate Dems, moderate Republicans, and some far right Republicans. The moderates kept the loonies in check. Not enough of them to have power on their own. Then Republicans decided moderate was an awful word and it was how far right can you be. So we got rid of the moderate Republicans and elected Sam Brownback. Disastrous results followed.
But working with the other side which used to be a valued trait is now a political attack. This person voted with Obama or this person voted with Trump and so they need to be removed. Doesn’t matter WHY the republican or Democrat voted with the opposition just that they did. And we need purists and all that nonsense.
If we can get back to a point sometime where people who are center but lean left of lean right are who we want then I think that would be the way to go. How to get there I have no idea as I can’t speak for the people who insist that far right or far left is the solution.
It’s not just interesting it’s true. That’s why the two who were so against the comment didn’t fight it. Legally many times this has been challenged and it has always held up.
It’s not like laws can’t be changed. Like I said the issue with the burn it all down people is that those views aren’t popular. Maybe my taxes shouldn’t go towards sewers and firefighters here in town. I have no idea. I just know those aren’t popular opinions.
I just sent a rather irritated letter to my representative after receiving an email “survey” that pretty much follows this to the letter.
We’re in a crisis. I don’t give 2 shits that you say some bad villain is blocking your grand generous plans. Quit playing victim, sack the fuck up and work something out. Period.
I’m not familiar with the entire history of money coming out of paychecks nor do I really care. It’s been true for a long time and not defeated many times.
Yes. The places that are the most successful have government. Some of the best places to live in the world have an active government. We can quibble over how much, what should government do, etc for forever if we want. But the facts are clearly on the side of government and people working together provide better experiences for people. They aren’t on the side of all government and they aren’t on the side of anarchy.
It’s probably the single biggest issue facing us I think in terms of how things are done. Instead of saying you can work across the aisle we have begun saying I can promise you I won’t work across the aisle and that’s the people we are promoting.
Instead of looking at problems and thinking about solutions it’s become total party unity in everything. We won’t work with Obama and we won’t work with Trump is insane. By all means fight for the things you want and attempt to get fellow members to your side. But refusing to listen to ideas merely because of the letter by the name makes no sense.
That’s why I say we need to kill the two party system and I’ve said that on this board a ton of times. I have no idea how or what the alternative is but I’d be ready to try some radical things to achieve it.
Agreed. I mean, if you don’t think you can get elected by saying you can work across the aisle, but you really want to get into office, fine. Do you. Just don’t say you “just want to help”. Don’t call yourself a leader or a difference maker, and don’t expect me to support you. Call yourself what you are, a self-centered ambitious person who wants perks and status.
I used the phrase entitlement because those who were calling it all their money and that it was stolen from them are incorrect. You don’t have a legal right to pre-tax income. This is just a fact. But again I’m not really interested in the what’s an entitlement and what’s not. I have no idea if people are entitled to their pre-tax income with no restrictions. Maybe they are. But they aren’t at this point in this country and they aren’t in most other places people want to live.
Now if someone wants to talk about morally or how much or this that whatever I’m fine with that. But from a legal standpoint it’s pretty cut and dry. I don’t think I would have much success using the federal government to not pay into social security.
It’s essentially saying I’m the type of person who has all the answers and I won’t be listening to anyone who disagrees with that. To me that’s childish behavior and I think we have enough of that coming from the White House and Congress.
Watching both sides change what they say they want based off what the other side says is maddening.
Another observation on this type of politics - we often hear (especially from the Right) we need more politicians from the business world who treat government more like business. However, in business, the inability to work with people you don’t see eye to eye with is basically a death sentence for your success - you have a diverse customer base you can’t piss off, and vendors/suppliers/upstream contractors you will see again, so you need to be able to deal with an eye toward future relationships, which means some sacrifices in the short term.
We really do need more business types in politics - but what’s successful in business in seen as squishy-ness by the true believers dominating the parties these days, especially the GOP.
Agreed with your post. I think everybody wants it until they realize what it means… Which is the exact opposite of what we have been pitched for a number of years now.
He shouldn’t have to. It’s a timeless lesson that means we should give $1 bills to George Washington, $2 bills to Thomas Jefferson, $5 bills to Abraham Lincoln, etc.
I don’t think anything is magical about a person being in business making them good for politics. The President was a successful businessman (or at least rich) and now we have someone who tweets about reality TV.
The character, intelligence, etc of someone is more important than their background. Not to say that can’t come from someone in business but it’s nothing magical. People from all sorts of backgrounds can be effective politicians.
Running government like a business is a stupid phrase I believe on the whole, but it could mean so many different things it’s hard to say how bad it is. Do I want government to be prudent and make smart decisions? sure. Do I want it to eliminate “worthless employees?” No.