Debate Now Political Tactics and Putting Out Fires

[Foxfyre]

In the NYT op ed section yesterday, Gail Collins criticizes Republican actions opposing Democratic legislation but not proposing legislation of their own. It is not the illustrations that she used to make her point that are the focus of this discussion, but the concept of opposing legislation without offering a specific alternative. Most especially when it could compromise necessary legislation. The op ed piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/opinion/gail-collins-and-now-homeland-insecurity.html?_r=0

Whether accurate or not, the GOP has often been criticized for opposing while not offering an alternative to legislation re health care reform, immigration reform, and other controversial issues. (And yes, the Democrats have also been labeled 'the party of no' as well.)

To this kind of criticism, one of Thomas Sowell's most famous lines asks:
"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"

The point of course is whether bad legislation is better than no legislation at all.

As an example only: The GOP has tried to force defunding of what they consider a disastrous immigration policy by tying that defunding to the Homeland Security funding bill that they support. Some say this is the only way to force President Obama to back off a disastrous immigration policy--it is putting out the fire. Others say that this is dirty pool and unfair and partisan tactics at their worst most especially when the GOP has not offered its own immigration reform legislation.

Rules for this discussion:

1. No ad hominem re members participating. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent etc. of the member himself or herself.

2. No ad hominem re Republicans or Democrats or any other political party or ideology. Criticism of specific policies they promote that relate to the topic is fair game, but do not comment on the character, motive, or intent etc. of the political parties themselves.

3. Please address the topic as much as is reasonably possible rather than debate the pros and cons of various policy and legislation used as illustration.

4. If you don't like Gail Collins or Thomas Sowell or the content of what they write, I don't care and we won't be discussing them. They or any other personalities are not the issue here. The opposing concepts they offer is.

THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:

Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:

1) Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

2) Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

3) And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

1 - No. Depending on what the policy is, you can shutdown/repair portions of a policy that doesn't work, while leaving portions that do alone. But of course that would just make entirely too much sense; so this rarely happens.

2 - Depends again on what the program is. Almost everyone agrees that the IRS is a faaaar outdated, unnecessary and largely problematic branch of government. But you can't just shut it down without replacing it. So I think the answer to that depends on the age of the policy and size of the program.

3 - Of course it is. But everyone does it, which is exactly why it still happens. Also, both parties have a looong habit of adding pork and bad policies within hours of being voted on...now THAT should be illegal.

 

[Derideo_Te]

THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:

Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

1. Yes. The policy or legislation that is being opposed must have come into being through the due process of how anything becomes law in the first place. Therefore opposing without a feasible and viable alternative is merely grandstanding and pandering to the political base.

2. No. If you are elected to represent the people then you have a duty to provide a viable alternative. Failing to do so means that you are unworthy of your elected office IMO.

3. Bundling has been happening since the inception of this nation. Nothing is going to stop that happening IMO. Trying to force the opposition to swallow a "poison pill" by bundling the bad with the good says volumes about those doing the bundling. They know that what they are trying to do doesn't have majority support so that is why they are trying to circumvent the process by bundling. It is a bad practice and both sides are equally guilty of it. The honest approach is to keep the issues separate but politicians make their living by being dishonest.

 

[Foxfyre]

THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:

1) Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

2) Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

3) And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

1 - No. Depending on what the policy is, you can shutdown/repair portions of a policy that doesn't work, while leaving portions that do alone. But of course that would just make entirely too much sense; so this rarely happens.

2 - Depends again on what the program is. Almost everyone agrees that the IRS is a faaaar outdated, unnecessary and largely problematic branch of government. But you can't just shut it down without replacing it. So I think the answer to that depends on the age of the policy and size of the program.

3 - Of course it is. But everyone does it, which is exactly why it still happens. Also, both parties have a looong habit of adding pork and bad policies within hours of being voted on...now THAT should be illegal.

1. I tend to agree. In the case of the immigration policy Obama has put into effect via executive order, many who oppose it are convinced that if the Supreme Court or Congress doesn't stop it in its tracks, it will do serious damage and create consequences that cannot be fixed. And they are not sure that the president will obey even the Supreme Court since his executive orders suggest a role of what some of us would describe as 'dictator' that gives no respect to Congress. So they need to put out the fire.

If those who oppose the bill are right, it only makes sense to stop it from going into effect. It would be putting out the fire and it is unnecessary to replace it with anything.

2. The IRS really isn't a 'fire' as the immigration policy is described. The IRS is more like a malignant cancer. So yes, it would irresponsible to disband it without having some means in place to fund the necessary functions of government. So the question would ultimately be reform or replace? And that would make a great topic for a separate thread.

3. In the example Collins used in her piece, the GOP tied defunding of the President's executive order immigration policy to funding of the DHS. And she seemed to be saying this is irrisponsible because we cannot afford for the DHS to be defunded. But Obama has threatened to veto any stand alone bill that would thwart his immigration policy.

So while I think ALL legislation above and beyond the basic government budget should be in stand alone bills--no add ons, no pork, just clean bills--I can see the reasoning behind the GOP House initiative tying defunding of immigration to funding the DHS when they believe they really need to put out a fire and their constituency is demanding that they do so.

The only way stand alone bills will ever work though is if we do away with the Senate fillibuster.

 

[Foxfyre]

THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:

Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

1. Yes. The policy or legislation that is being opposed must have come into being through the due process of how anything becomes law in the first place. Therefore opposing without a feasible and viable alternative is merely grandstanding and pandering to the political base.

2. No. If you are elected to represent the people then you have a duty to provide a viable alternative. Failing to do so means that you are unworthy of your elected office IMO.

3. Bundling has been happening since the inception of this nation. Nothing is going to stop that happening IMO. Trying to force the opposition to swallow a "poison pill" by bundling the bad with the good says volumes about those doing the bundling. They know that what they are trying to do doesn't have majority support so that is why they are trying to circumvent the process by bundling. It is a bad practice and both sides are equally guilty of it. The honest approach is to keep the issues separate but politicians make their living by being dishonest.

1. So if it is just bad legislation that should not be allowed to happen, and there is no logical alternative, they should pass it anyway? Is that what you are arguing?

2. Same question as No. 1

3. And what if bundling is the only way they have to stop destructive legislation--if that is what it is--from going into effect? Even with a legislative majority and at least a plurality of public support with them, right now that is the only leverage they have against a Senate filibuster and a promised Presidential veto.

 

[Derideo_Te]

1. So if it is just bad legislation that should not be allowed to happen, and there is no logical alternative, they should pass it anyway? Is that what you are arguing?

Given that the current legislation was updated by the Senate in a bipartisan manner there is most definitely a logical alternative. Derailing their obligation to fund the government just because they failed to pass the bipartisan alternative is not how Congress is supposed to work.

3. And what if bundling is the only way they have to stop destructive legislation--if that is what it is--from going into effect? Even with a legislative majority and at least a plurality of public support with them, right now that is the only leverage they have against a Senate filibuster and a promised Presidential veto.

It wasn't and isn't the "only way". They are entirely separate issues. Funding the government is an obligation of the House and failure to do so is violation of the trust of the American people IMO. Alternative bipartisan legislation exists and could be amended in the House and sent back to the Senate. There is zero justification for the current underhanded tactics IMO.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

Yes. Being blindly opposed to something does less good if you don't have an alternative. It leads to more gridlock and infighting, either within his own party or between both parties.

Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

Whether it is bad policy or not is all in the eye of the beholder. Not easy to predict from one lawmaker to another. To me "I disagree" simply isn't a sufficient reason to vote against it.

And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

No. Simply because it will lead to more fighting and grandstanding. To me it is nothing but a halfhearted attempt to appease their respective base.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

Yes. Being blindly opposed to something does less good if you don't have an alternative. It leads to more gridlock and infighting, either within his own party or between both parties.

Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

Whether it is bad policy or not is all in the eye of the beholder. Not easy to predict from one lawmaker to another. To me "I disagree" simply isn't a sufficient reason to vote against it.

And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

No. Simply because it will lead to more fighting and grandstanding. To me it is nothing but a halfhearted attempt to appease their respective base.

So do you think Thomas Sowell didn't have a point, TK? And I think opposition to bad legislation is not the same thing as simply disagreeing. And how then do the Republicans, who were elected in part to stop Obama's illegal immigration policies, do that as a stand alone bill won't get past a senate filibuster or a Presidential veto?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And how then do the Republicans, who were elected in part to stop Obama's illegal immigration policies, do that as a stand alone bill won't get past a senate filibuster or a Presidential veto?

They don't. They can mount as much opposition and pass as many alternatives they wish, basically they are in the same position they were in before the election, not to mention they aren't doing anything they were elected to do.

And I think opposition to bad legislation is not the same thing as simply disagreeing.

Of course not. What I see here is people opposing legislation simply to oppose it.

So do you think Thomas Sowell didn't have a point, TK?

He would, if people in today's Washington would learn not to put fires out with gasoline. When one policy is a disaster, another policy is introduced which makes it an even bigger disaster. Nobody in Washington today knows how to write good policy anymore, I mean, you can essentially equip then with flamethrowers and watch the fireworks. Simply put.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What floors me, but no surprise, is someone saying a lawmaker should vote for a bill even if they disagree with it. Of course people who say that always ALWAYS are saying it when their party is currently in power.
No doubt they were not/would not say it 10 years ago.

 

[Foxfyre]

And how then do the Republicans, who were elected in part to stop Obama's illegal immigration policies, do that as a stand alone bill won't get past a senate filibuster or a Presidential veto?

They don't. They can mount as much opposition and pass as many alternatives they wish, basically they are in the same position they were in before the election, not to mention they aren't doing anything they were elected to do.

And I think opposition to bad legislation is not the same thing as simply disagreeing.

Of course not. What I see here is people opposing legislation simply to oppose it.

So do you think Thomas Sowell didn't have a point, TK?

He would, if people in today's Washington would learn not to put fires out with gasoline. When one policy is a disaster, another policy is introduced which makes it an even bigger disaster. Nobody in Washington today knows how to write good policy anymore, I mean, you can essentially equip then with flamethrowers and watch the fireworks. Simply put.

The whole point of putting out a fire though is that the fire is the destructive thing and it must be put out. You don't replace the fire with something else. You just put it out so it is no longer destructive and doesn't keep making things worse.

The GOP believes the President's executive order overriding the immigration laws is destructive and could cause irreparable harm if allowed to go into effect. They believe they need to put it out. Many of us who elected them believe they need to put it out. And they cannot put it out as a stand alone bill because the Senate Democrats will continue to filibuster it to death and, even if it did pass, President Obama will veto the legislation.

So. . . .EVERYBODY wants to fund the DHS. So they tied the immigration defunding to the DHS funding to force the Senate Democrats to end their filibuster so the elected representatives of the people can vote on it. The vote will almost certainly be to defund the immigration policy while funding the DHS.

So, if the immigration policy is indeed a fire that needs to be put out--or with any other legislation that is so bad it is a fire that needs to be put out--I don't know what the alternative will be to bundling the bills together that way.

At the same time, the practice has also forced us to accept a lot of bad stuff in order to get necessary stuff. So that's the flip side of that coin.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And how then do the Republicans, who were elected in part to stop Obama's illegal immigration policies, do that as a stand alone bill won't get past a senate filibuster or a Presidential veto?

They don't. They can mount as much opposition and pass as many alternatives they wish, basically they are in the same position they were in before the election, not to mention they aren't doing anything they were elected to do.

And I think opposition to bad legislation is not the same thing as simply disagreeing.

Of course not. What I see here is people opposing legislation simply to oppose it.

So do you think Thomas Sowell didn't have a point, TK?

He would, if people in today's Washington would learn not to put fires out with gasoline. When one policy is a disaster, another policy is introduced which makes it an even bigger disaster. Nobody in Washington today knows how to write good policy anymore, I mean, you can essentially equip then with flamethrowers and watch the fireworks. Simply put.

The whole point of putting out a fire though is that the fire is the destructive thing and it must be put out. You don't replace the fire with something else. You just put it out so it is no longer destructive and doesn't keep making things worse.

The GOP believes the President's executive order overriding the immigration laws is destructive and could cause irreparable harm if allowed to go into effect. They believe they need to put it out. Many of us who elected them believe they need to put it out. And they cannot put it out as a stand alone bill because the Senate Democrats will continue to filibuster it to death and, even if it did pass, President Obama will veto the legislation.

So. . . .EVERYBODY wants to fund the DHS. So they tied the immigration defunding to the DHS funding to force the Senate Democrats to end their filibuster so the elected representatives of the people can vote on it. The vote will almost certainly be to defund the immigration policy while funding the DHS.

So, if the immigration policy is indeed a fire that needs to be put out--or with any other legislation that is so bad it is a fire that needs to be put out--I don't know what the alternative will be to bundling the bills together that way.

At the same time, the practice has also forced us to accept a lot of bad stuff in order to get necessary stuff. So that's the flip side of that coin.

There is no fire when it comes to what Obama did with immigration.

There is a bipartisan Senate bill that could be debated on the House floor and even amended if necessary.

The House has the power to take up that Senate bill and deal with immigration as adults. That they failed to do so is not an excuse to conflate funding the DHS with their own calumny. There are procedures in both chambers to deal with immigration legislation and there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not taking that route.

To call it a "fire" is to expose the fact that the Republicans are responsible for failing to implement the necessary fire prevention protocols.

Let's put the blame where it belongs.

 

[Foxfyre]

And how then do the Republicans, who were elected in part to stop Obama's illegal immigration policies, do that as a stand alone bill won't get past a senate filibuster or a Presidential veto?

They don't. They can mount as much opposition and pass as many alternatives they wish, basically they are in the same position they were in before the election, not to mention they aren't doing anything they were elected to do.

And I think opposition to bad legislation is not the same thing as simply disagreeing.

Of course not. What I see here is people opposing legislation simply to oppose it.

So do you think Thomas Sowell didn't have a point, TK?

He would, if people in today's Washington would learn not to put fires out with gasoline. When one policy is a disaster, another policy is introduced which makes it an even bigger disaster. Nobody in Washington today knows how to write good policy anymore, I mean, you can essentially equip then with flamethrowers and watch the fireworks. Simply put.

The whole point of putting out a fire though is that the fire is the destructive thing and it must be put out. You don't replace the fire with something else. You just put it out so it is no longer destructive and doesn't keep making things worse.

The GOP believes the President's executive order overriding the immigration laws is destructive and could cause irreparable harm if allowed to go into effect. They believe they need to put it out. Many of us who elected them believe they need to put it out. And they cannot put it out as a stand alone bill because the Senate Democrats will continue to filibuster it to death and, even if it did pass, President Obama will veto the legislation.

So. . . .EVERYBODY wants to fund the DHS. So they tied the immigration defunding to the DHS funding to force the Senate Democrats to end their filibuster so the elected representatives of the people can vote on it. The vote will almost certainly be to defund the immigration policy while funding the DHS.

So, if the immigration policy is indeed a fire that needs to be put out--or with any other legislation that is so bad it is a fire that needs to be put out--I don't know what the alternative will be to bundling the bills together that way.

At the same time, the practice has also forced us to accept a lot of bad stuff in order to get necessary stuff. So that's the flip side of that coin.

There is no fire when it comes to what Obama did with immigration.

There is a bipartisan Senate bill that could be debated on the House floor and even amended if necessary.

The House has the power to take up that Senate bill and deal with immigration as adults. That they failed to do so is not an excuse to conflate funding the DHS with their own calumny. There are procedures in both chambers to deal with immigration legislation and there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not taking that route.

To call it a "fire" is to expose the fact that the Republicans are responsible for failing to implement the necessary fire prevention protocols.

Let's put the blame where it belongs.

The House majority believe the President's immigration policy to be disastrous. A lot of their constituency, including me, believe the President's immigration policy to be disastrous. The Senate bill caved on the issue of immigration and does not fix that problem. Why should the House capitulate to the Senate just because the Senate gave the Democrats and the President what they wanted?

 

[Foxfyre]

What floors me, but no surprise, is someone saying a lawmaker should vote for a bill even if they disagree with it. Of course people who say that always ALWAYS are saying it when their party is currently in power.
No doubt they were not/would not say it 10 years ago.

I'm not sure I agree that it is only those whose party is in power who want lawmakers to go along to get along. I'm seeing on this thread a lot of argument that the majority should cave to the minority and, by implication, are bad people because they won't. IMO, their constituents put the majority into power to do things differently and not to go along with those they voted out of power.

We have had a lot of really REALLY bad legislation over the last several decades no matter which party was in power in Washington. I certainly don't have any rose colored glasses on and don't think the GOP is any less self-serving than the Democrats are. But at least we can hope they will try to keep their base happy, and a whole big bunch of their base wants them to block and/or revoke legislation that is damaging to the country and its people and to pass legislation that the people want and need.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Senate bill caved on the issue of immigration and does not fix that problem.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Furthermore nothing was stopping or is still stopping the House from either amending the Senate bill or proposing their own bill. The purpose of being the majority party in power is to govern, not to pursue an agenda against an individual.

The American people are witnessing the failure of the GOP to govern by not proposing viable alternatives. Without a feasible alternative there is no effective leadership.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll stick by my opinion that most of us don't elect people to go along to get along. We elect them to represent us and do the job we sent them to do. The Senate bill did not defund Obama's immigration policy. The House bill did. I don't want the House to blink on that and I understand why they would attach it to funding that has almost 100% bipartisan support.

It is the ONLY leverage that I see that the House has to accomplish what their constiuents want them to accomplish.

I would entertain a proposal that would allow our elected representatives the ability to do their job without engaging in such bundling of legislation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Senate bill did not defund Obama's immigration policy.

Let me repeat...the purpose of being the majority party in power is to govern, not to pursue an agenda against an individual.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Senate bill did not defund Obama's immigration policy.

Let me repeat...the purpose of being the majority party in power is to govern, not to pursue an agenda against an individual.

I don't see them pursuing an agenda against an individual. I see them pursuing their constituents opposition to what is very bad and dangerous policy not passed by Congress as all such policy should be, but issued as an executive order. They are objecting to the policy, not the person. They are attempting to use the only power given to them by the Constitution to prevent terrible policy from being enacted.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What floors me, but no surprise, is someone saying a lawmaker should vote for a bill even if they disagree with it. Of course people who say that always ALWAYS are saying it when their party is currently in power.
No doubt they were not/would not say it 10 years ago.

I'm not sure I agree that it is only those whose party is in power who want lawmakers to go along to get along. I'm seeing on this thread a lot of argument that the majority should cave to the minority and, by implication, are bad people because they won't. IMO, their constituents put the majority into power to do things differently and not to go along with those they voted out of power.

We have had a lot of really REALLY bad legislation over the last several decades no matter which party was in power in Washington. I certainly don't have any rose colored glasses on and don't think the GOP is any less self-serving than the Democrats are. But at least we can hope they will try to keep their base happy, and a whole big bunch of their base wants them to block and/or revoke legislation that is damaging to the country and its people and to pass legislation that the people want and need.

I turned 50 today. Something I say all the time is one of the greatest threats to the American way of life is the diminishing number of people that remember what America was before the investor class, and the corporatist takeover of America.
People under the age of 45, maybe 40 at the youngest, simply were not around to remember their cities/towns and neighborhoods filled with small businesses and privately owned establishments.
People under 40-45 only remember McDonalds, Starbucks, CVS, Lowes, Home Depot, Super-Walmart, chain gas stations, chain retail stores everywhere. Earning every location in America the name "Anytown, USA".
Small business-America has been under a direct assault from every angle. And with that are vanished opportunities.
People forget that it isn't a lack of money that is the problem for most people - IT IS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY.
In America's economic golden era between the 1950-60's, what made it so great was not Wall Street, not central banks and sure as hell not the government - but OPPORTUNITY for everyone. Educated or not educated, their was solid, good paying jobs absolutely everywhere. Jobs with benefits that we can only dream of today, virtually everyone had a pension. Virtually everyone earned a living wage.
Not so today.
All made possible by our government. We are not a republic any longer. We are a Kleptocracy. By definition... a government that exist to promote the wealth of themselves and the ruling class. The ruling class in America is Wall Street, central banks and super corporations. Their interest have ruled this country fr the past 30 years - PERIOD.

Like I have said many times on this forum - the parties do not matter. They only exist to divide the people. No matter who is "in power" - it is never us. We do not benefit either way.

 

[Foxfyre]

What floors me, but no surprise, is someone saying a lawmaker should vote for a bill even if they disagree with it. Of course people who say that always ALWAYS are saying it when their party is currently in power.
No doubt they were not/would not say it 10 years ago.

I'm not sure I agree that it is only those whose party is in power who want lawmakers to go along to get along. I'm seeing on this thread a lot of argument that the majority should cave to the minority and, by implication, are bad people because they won't. IMO, their constituents put the majority into power to do things differently and not to go along with those they voted out of power.

We have had a lot of really REALLY bad legislation over the last several decades no matter which party was in power in Washington. I certainly don't have any rose colored glasses on and don't think the GOP is any less self-serving than the Democrats are. But at least we can hope they will try to keep their base happy, and a whole big bunch of their base wants them to block and/or revoke legislation that is damaging to the country and its people and to pass legislation that the people want and need.

I turned 50 today. Something I say all the time is one of the greatest threats to the American way of life is the diminishing number of people that remember what America was before the investor class, and the corporatist takeover of America.
People under the age of 45, maybe 40 at the youngest, simply were not around to remember their cities/towns and neighborhoods filled with small businesses and privately owned establishments.
People under 40-45 only remember McDonalds, Starbucks, CVS, Lowes, Home Depot, Super-Walmart, chain gas stations, chain retail stores everywhere. Earning every location in America the name "Anytown, USA".
Small business-America has been under a direct assault from every angle. And with that are vanished opportunities.
People forget that it isn't a lack of money that is the problem for most people - IT IS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY.
In America's economic golden era between the 1950-60's, what made it so great was not Wall Street, not central banks and sure as hell not the government - but OPPORTUNITY for everyone. Educated or not educated, their was solid, good paying jobs absolutely everywhere. Jobs with benefits that we can only dream of today, virtually everyone had a pension. Virtually everyone earned a living wage.
Not so today.
All made possible by our government. We are not a republic any longer. We are a Kleptocracy. By definition... a government that exist to promote the wealth of themselves and the ruling class. The ruling class in America is Wall Street, central banks and super corporations. Their interest have ruled this country fr the past 30 years - PERIOD.

Like I have said many times on this forum - the parties do not matter. They only exist to divide the people. No matter who is "in power" - it is never us. We do not benefit either way.

Well Happy Birthday IAWIS

And kudos on a very well thought out and written post that offers a lot of food for thought.

And thirty lashes with a wet noodle for that post not addressing the thread topic.

I wish you would take that post and start a separate thread in this forum. I really would like to discuss the concept you present.

Here you really need to show how it applies to the thread topic though.