Has anyone changed

[candycorn]

If there were ENOUGH dues paying members with your views in the NRA -- they would listen. I was thinking more along the lines of containing the DISSENT WITHIN the PARTIES. For instance resolving splits between mainstream DEMS and the Progressives who are currently in charge. Or between Country Club Republicans and Conservatives and T.Party within the Republican ranks, Or between the idealogically pure and the realists in the Libertarian Party.. THAT'S where the issues need to get homogenized and made to fit a CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY that the members can live with..

To do that -- my bet is we need MORE PARTIES. THe largest part of the turmoil and POLARIZATION today is that we don't have political institutions that can be molded to our beliefs. We've got only 2 book marks that only have to be less corrupt and less inept than the other one to retain power.

Open UP the American political process and we can STOP this increasing polarization and public conflict..

I hold that parties are the problem.

You aren't (I don't think) one of these but I'm continuously amazed at how many on the GOP side of the ledger speak so highly of the Republican Party but spit each and everytime after they say the word "union". They're one in the same. Both care only about their members, not the body their members serve; in a union's case that may be GM, in the GOP/DNC case that is the government.

The largest problem facing the American people isn't Democrats or Republicans; it's that we live under the rules written 225 years ago. At that time, the common enemy was at the gates so there wasn't that much time for partisan bickering. As America became a great nation due to the setting aside of partisan differences, the enemies became less lethal and more distant. When that happens, partisan bickering becomes more amplified. Thus resulting in the gridlock we have now.

More parties aren't the answer. The answer is to further perfect the document to WRITE IN RULES that will ensure the nation's business at least gets considered. Are you happy with what Harry Reid has done; basically in essence pocket vetoing bills on his own as Senate Majority Leader? No? Well, he's playing by the rules in the Constitution which is to say the Constitution has almost zero rules on how the Senate or the House will operate. I'm thought of as a liberal here so I decided to call out a Democrat. John Boehner is doing the same in the House.

For just one very small example of a rule that needs to be written into the document; we need to ensure that one house will consider the work of the other house within 90 days and have a full floor vote on the measure. Or call it 60 days. Or 30 days. Or whenever. But it makes the representatives put their name next to a YEA or NAY vote; not hide behind some political appointee's discretion.

No, more political parties aren't the answer. I offer that they are precisely the wrong prescription for what ails the government.

Reid and Boehner get away with that dictatorial power because THEY OWN the votes. By perpetuating the myth that only 2 parties can exist -- you've given an automatic bias to the system for gridlock.. It's a rare politician that can defy their party and live to tell about it. Like Joe Lieberman for instance, who only wanted a stronger defense and more rational foreign policy -- just like you do.. Defy the party and you will be operating from a broom closet with a rotary phone and a parrot for a secretary. And come election time A TRUE BLOODED party member will be running against you in the primary with a war chest.

There are not 535 representatives in Washington anymore -- there are 2 votes. Because the members cannot escape punishment for disobedience. AND there is nowhere else for them to go to make their views different.

The skirmishes need to be CONTAINED within the parties. Right now the ENTIRE COUNTRY believes there are just TWO CAMPS. Even if the "expansion teams" don't WIN a lot of seats, they will help refine the debate of the issues and DEFUSE the polarity.

OPEN UP the system and put 3 or 4 legs on that chair and a more stable system results. Even if the major role of minority parties is to keep the major parties honest.

You would not want just 2 unions representing labor. And labor actually doesn't give 2 farts about career paths or personal achievement. And the membership is STUCK with a leadership that thinks jobs are the same as they've always been..

If you are "so open-minded" as you claim --- you wouldn't be leaping to use FORCE of law to change the way that Congress works. You would be approving of the EASY fixes first and allowing MORE CHOICE for people to organize and express their views...

Is there such a thing as party loyalty?

 

[BDBoop]

Is there such a thing as party loyalty?

I shouldn't think so. Not since if you're not fringe right, you're a RINO.

It's funny. They are so eager to throw away anybody that disagrees with them. Whoever won an election by narrowing your base down as far as possible?

 

[flacaltenn]

I hold that parties are the problem.

You aren't (I don't think) one of these but I'm continuously amazed at how many on the GOP side of the ledger speak so highly of the Republican Party but spit each and everytime after they say the word "union". They're one in the same. Both care only about their members, not the body their members serve; in a union's case that may be GM, in the GOP/DNC case that is the government.

The largest problem facing the American people isn't Democrats or Republicans; it's that we live under the rules written 225 years ago. At that time, the common enemy was at the gates so there wasn't that much time for partisan bickering. As America became a great nation due to the setting aside of partisan differences, the enemies became less lethal and more distant. When that happens, partisan bickering becomes more amplified. Thus resulting in the gridlock we have now.

More parties aren't the answer. The answer is to further perfect the document to WRITE IN RULES that will ensure the nation's business at least gets considered. Are you happy with what Harry Reid has done; basically in essence pocket vetoing bills on his own as Senate Majority Leader? No? Well, he's playing by the rules in the Constitution which is to say the Constitution has almost zero rules on how the Senate or the House will operate. I'm thought of as a liberal here so I decided to call out a Democrat. John Boehner is doing the same in the House.

For just one very small example of a rule that needs to be written into the document; we need to ensure that one house will consider the work of the other house within 90 days and have a full floor vote on the measure. Or call it 60 days. Or 30 days. Or whenever. But it makes the representatives put their name next to a YEA or NAY vote; not hide behind some political appointee's discretion.

No, more political parties aren't the answer. I offer that they are precisely the wrong prescription for what ails the government.

Reid and Boehner get away with that dictatorial power because THEY OWN the votes. By perpetuating the myth that only 2 parties can exist -- you've given an automatic bias to the system for gridlock.. It's a rare politician that can defy their party and live to tell about it. Like Joe Lieberman for instance, who only wanted a stronger defense and more rational foreign policy -- just like you do.. Defy the party and you will be operating from a broom closet with a rotary phone and a parrot for a secretary. And come election time A TRUE BLOODED party member will be running against you in the primary with a war chest.

There are not 535 representatives in Washington anymore -- there are 2 votes. Because the members cannot escape punishment for disobedience. AND there is nowhere else for them to go to make their views different.

The skirmishes need to be CONTAINED within the parties. Right now the ENTIRE COUNTRY believes there are just TWO CAMPS. Even if the "expansion teams" don't WIN a lot of seats, they will help refine the debate of the issues and DEFUSE the polarity.

OPEN UP the system and put 3 or 4 legs on that chair and a more stable system results. Even if the major role of minority parties is to keep the major parties honest.

You would not want just 2 unions representing labor. And labor actually doesn't give 2 farts about career paths or personal achievement. And the membership is STUCK with a leadership that thinks jobs are the same as they've always been..

If you are "so open-minded" as you claim --- you wouldn't be leaping to use FORCE of law to change the way that Congress works. You would be approving of the EASY fixes first and allowing MORE CHOICE for people to organize and express their views...

Is there such a thing as party loyalty?

Like I said -- try being an UNloyal party member in Congress and see what jobs and perks and tenure that gets you... Parties get HIJACKED by the wingers all the time.. Look at the feud between the Progressives and the Clintons. It's not your grandaddy's party anymore.

If the problem you are trying to solve is unfreezing govt.. You need more than 2 options to vote for unless you just want to reward the "less evil"..