CDZ Can Washington Be Fixed from the Inside?

[Elvis Obama]

" irreproachable ethics"

These are the same guys that had a chance to do away with slavery but chose to make it an acceptable practice and the law of the land. This country was founded for white people. There should be zero illusions about that. Based on that fact the people will never get what they want from within.

Well, to be fair, I didn't suggest that irreproachable ethics were found among the founders. I wrote that, "What made it possible to do so was the size of the the country and the number of people involved in forming the nation."

FWIW, and to give a sense of what that entailed, in 1789, the nation had about 4 million people (white, natives, and blacks) in it, and the only ones among them who mattered (because they could vote) were male landowners, who comprised about 93% of white men at the time. So when thinking about the men who represented the various soon-to-be states before the Constitution was ratified, it wasn't at all difficult or uncommon for all the white male landowners in the state to know one another, and thus trust (or not) their representative to "do the right thing."

With all due respect, I think the pessimism you express in your final sentence above is among the key things that can ensure corrections don't happen. I infer from that statement that you have little trust of the folks in the government, and I realize they've not earned it from you. To the extent citizens lack trust in their political leaders, they need to make it clear that they do and act, more than answering a mailed/in person poll or posting in an Internet forum, to show as much.

I must have misunderstood the part where you said when the country was founded such a coalition was obtained. I mistook that to mean the people that founded it exemplified those traits. My apologies.

Correct. My pessimism would indeed make it a certainty that that no change from withing would ever work if I was actually a factor in making that change from within. The length of time needed to turn around the voting process and changing the populace into thinkers instead of sheep appears daunting, time consuming, and frankly impossible. The strength of the grip used by the movers and shakers in government on the minds of the american people has been steadily increasing for centuries. It would probably take centuries to turn around from within.

It's all a matter of simplifying things, reducing complex problems and solutions to slogans. Prohibition was a perfect example. Ban the demon drink! Simple. Far too simple, it turned out, but they got their constitutional amendment. Unfortunately you can;t hope to appeal to people's reason, it can only work if you appeal to their emotions. Right now there's enough anger in the country to light the world for decades, and it's being completely wasted, Reduce term limits to "throw the bums out!". Make Madison Avenue do something useful with their persuasive skills.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's all a matter of simplifying things, reducing complex problems and solutions to slogans. Prohibition was a perfect example. Ban the demon drink! Simple. Far too simple, it turned out, but they got their constitutional amendment. Unfortunately you can;t hope to appeal to people's reason, it can only work if you appeal to their emotions. Right now there's enough anger in the country to light the world for decades, and it's being completely wasted, Reduce term limits to "throw the bums out!". Make Madison Avenue do something useful with their persuasive skills.

Red:
While change is something I welcome, that is not one of the changes about which I feel that way.

Blue:
Changes that follow the pattern you suggest do not constitute a simplification of an idea or problem; they reflect a change in overall outcome. Presenting the sample idea of reducing (shortening) term limits as "throw the bums out" is to misrepresent one's intent.

That so often soundbites are not accurate representations of intent is precisely why I don't welcome or support the proposal to have even more of them. Catch phrases are fine once the idea is well understood by the people involved. Using them as you have suggested in the post above is manipulative.

Green:
Certainly when it comes to marketing goods and services for which no real need exists, yes, emotional appeals are the thing that work best. When it comes to devising and marketing policy and asking voters to choose among the options offered, it's ethically and intellectually reprehensible to present the policy choices so that they do so based largely on emotion. Emotion rightly plays a role in creating interest in a policy topic; ration is what rightly guides one's choice of policy to advocate/choose.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Barack Obama, in his 2012 re-election campaign, stated that his biggest failure to date was was not fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise to address Washington's dysfunctional culture.

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."

Agree? Disagree?

If you agree, can it be fixed from the outside? If so, how?

obama never had any intention of fixing DC. If he tried he never would have been re-elected, hell, if he actually wanted to, he never would have made it.

remember "drain the swamp"? How long did that last? Until the first dems got caught fucking around.


but yea, he's right, we can only fix DC from the outside and only by killing every pol that lives there and replacing them with people who will support and defend the Constitution or be executed.

Elvis rated this as funny.


I wasn't being funny.

DC can not be fixed with elections, the last set of elections should inform everyone of that.

The only way to fix it is to get rid of everyone in it and start over

 

[Elvis Obama]

It's all a matter of simplifying things, reducing complex problems and solutions to slogans. Prohibition was a perfect example. Ban the demon drink! Simple. Far too simple, it turned out, but they got their constitutional amendment. Unfortunately you can;t hope to appeal to people's reason, it can only work if you appeal to their emotions. Right now there's enough anger in the country to light the world for decades, and it's being completely wasted, Reduce term limits to "throw the bums out!". Make Madison Avenue do something useful with their persuasive skills.

Red:
While change is something I welcome, that is not one of the changes about which I feel that way.

Blue:
Changes that follow the pattern you suggest do not constitute a simplification of an idea or problem; they reflect a change in overall outcome. Presenting the sample idea of reducing (shortening) term limits as "throw the bums out" is to misrepresent one's intent.

That so often soundbites are not accurate representations of intent is precisely why I don't welcome or support the proposal to have even more of them. Catch phrases are fine once the idea is well understood by the people involved. Using them as you have suggested in the post above is manipulative.

Green:
Certainly when it comes to marketing goods and services for which no real need exists, yes, emotional appeals are the thing that work best. When it comes to devising and marketing policy and asking voters to choose among the options offered, it's ethically and intellectually reprehensible to present the policy choices so that they do so based largely on emotion. Emotion rightly plays a role in creating interest in a policy topic; ration is what rightly guides one's choice of policy to advocate/choose.

Unfortunately, since the advent of TV advertising for political purposes, we have sold candidates like commercial products. Why? Because the American electorate is disgustingly ignorant. Two third of Americans can't name the three branches of government. Only 15% can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. While reducing complex ideas to manipulative phrases which appeal to emotion is disgusting, and while I think you should also target the small percentage of Americans who can think about complex matters, they will not be enough.

I don't like the idea of term limits. It's training wheels for voting booths. If we could trust voters to do their job properly, they would not be needed. My suggestions for improving representative government are:

1- Term limits
2- Electoral reform
3- Anti-gerrymandering legislation

I don't believe you could get the American public sufficiently worked up about any of these things without an appeal to emotion, without being manipulative.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Barack Obama, in his 2012 re-election campaign, stated that his biggest failure to date was was not fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise to address Washington's dysfunctional culture.

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."

Agree? Disagree?

If you agree, can it be fixed from the outside? If so, how?

obama never had any intention of fixing DC. If he tried he never would have been re-elected, hell, if he actually wanted to, he never would have made it.

remember "drain the swamp"? How long did that last? Until the first dems got caught fucking around.


but yea, he's right, we can only fix DC from the outside and only by killing every pol that lives there and replacing them with people who will support and defend the Constitution or be executed.

Elvis rated this as funny.


I wasn't being funny.

DC can not be fixed with elections, the last set of elections should inform everyone of that.

The only way to fix it is to get rid of everyone in it and start over

If you weren't being funny, I can only assume you were being serious and you literally want to kill them. While that may be satisfying, in a Game of Thrones kind of way (we could make good use of those new spikes on top of the fence around the White House), I don't think it's a practical solution.

Right now decent people stay away from politics, because it's so disgusting. The disgusting people who feel right at home there want two things, money and power. Deny them those two things and they will go away.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's all a matter of simplifying things, reducing complex problems and solutions to slogans. Prohibition was a perfect example. Ban the demon drink! Simple. Far too simple, it turned out, but they got their constitutional amendment. Unfortunately you can;t hope to appeal to people's reason, it can only work if you appeal to their emotions. Right now there's enough anger in the country to light the world for decades, and it's being completely wasted, Reduce term limits to "throw the bums out!". Make Madison Avenue do something useful with their persuasive skills.

Red:
While change is something I welcome, that is not one of the changes about which I feel that way.

Blue:
Changes that follow the pattern you suggest do not constitute a simplification of an idea or problem; they reflect a change in overall outcome. Presenting the sample idea of reducing (shortening) term limits as "throw the bums out" is to misrepresent one's intent.

That so often soundbites are not accurate representations of intent is precisely why I don't welcome or support the proposal to have even more of them. Catch phrases are fine once the idea is well understood by the people involved. Using them as you have suggested in the post above is manipulative.

Green:
Certainly when it comes to marketing goods and services for which no real need exists, yes, emotional appeals are the thing that work best. When it comes to devising and marketing policy and asking voters to choose among the options offered, it's ethically and intellectually reprehensible to present the policy choices so that they do so based largely on emotion. Emotion rightly plays a role in creating interest in a policy topic; ration is what rightly guides one's choice of policy to advocate/choose.

Unfortunately, since the advent of TV advertising for political purposes, we have sold candidates like commercial products. Why? Because the American electorate is disgustingly ignorant. Two third of Americans can't name the three branches of government. Only 15% can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. While reducing complex ideas to manipulative phrases which appeal to emotion is disgusting, and while I think you should also target the small percentage of Americans who can think about complex matters, they will not be enough.

I don't like the idea of term limits. It's training wheels for voting booths. If we could trust voters to do their job properly, they would not be needed. My suggestions for improving representative government are:

1- Term limits
2- Electoral reform
3- Anti-gerrymandering legislation

I don't believe you could get the American public sufficiently worked up about any of these things without an appeal to emotion, without being manipulative.

Italicised terms:
Disgusting -- I have interpreted you mean "deplorable" rather than disgusting. Is that and accurate choice?
You -- where you wrote "you," I think you mean "one." Am I correct?

Just want to make sure I correctly understand you.

Red:
I agree re: the woeful ignorance and dearth of intellectualism among the U.S.' eligible voters, but I think not knowing the name of the Court's chief justice (CJ) is hardly an indicator of that. Who cares what the CJ's name is? Isn't the critical thing to know the role of the Court rather than who sits on it, or leads it, at any given time? In contrast, the names of the three branches of government are vastly more indicative of, and related to, their respective functions and obligations.

For example, were the response of "a random individual on the street" who is asked "what are the three branches of government?" given as "the law making, law interpreting and law enforcing" branches, I'd give them credit for it as "right" answer, even though I was expecting to hear "legislative, judicial and executive."

Green:
Is the "job" to which you refer that of becoming fully informed on matters about which they will exercise their right to vote? If so, I agree.

Purple:

1. We currently have them for some elected offices. Having them and not having them is a double-edged sword. Moreover, most folks want them when they don't like the "certain to be reelected" holders of them, but they don't want them when the person whom they "like" holds the very same office(s).
2. What exactly do you mean by "electoral reform?"
   
   1. Modifications to, or the abolishment of, the electoral college and its role?
   2. Modifications to the way the right to vote is granted?
   3. Modifications to the way the right to vote is exercised?
   4. Modifications to the way "who votes for whom" is determined?
   5. Modifications to who is permitted to participate in the political process?
   6. Modifications to the nature and extent to which various groups/individuals may participate in the political process?

It's not clear to me what you might mean.​

• Some combination of the items noted above, but no others? If so, what combination?
• Some combination of the items noted above, along with other specific things? If so, what other changes and what changes noted above?
• All of the things above, but nothing else?
• All of the things above, but additional changes as well? If so, what additional ones?
• None of the above, but rather different changes? If so, what changes?

As goes the gerrymandering prohibition, well, good luck with that. I'd like to see it go the way of the dodo too, but I doubt it's going to. Even in my most generous moments of optimism, I know better than to think that is going to go away. There's a limit to the extent of integrity one can expect to find among district line drawing officials.

The problem, as I see it is that districts are drawn based on the political affiliation and dispersion of a state's population. I don't know that there is a perfect solution for even prohibiting so-called gerrymandering introduces problems of its own. My idea for resolving that problem is to require that district lines be drawn (redrawn) five years prior to a census' results becoming available. That might help to eliminate some of the deliberacy connected with drawing lines so as to create "secure" seats for a given party. It probably wouldn't have that effect immediately, but over time and as people move about, it might help counteract the effectiveness of the gerrymandering intent.

Pink:
You probably cannot. I'm not sure I want the "unwashed masses" who have reached the age of majority to get "worked up" about most things. I think those folks are by and large proles and would just as soon they abstain from voting.

That said, my ethics don't allow me to support the idea of deliberately manipulating the electorate or obfuscating an important issue by using catch phrases that misrepresent (via oversimplification) the their full nature and scope.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Can Washington Be Fixed from the Inside?"

That depends on what is meant by 'fixed'; and it requires consensus on what the problems are.

For example, closing down Federal agencies, gutting or eliminating necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, ending important, beneficial social programs, and balancing the budget on the backs of working Americans, low income Americans, children, and the disabled is not 'fixing' Washington.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Barack Obama, in his 2012 re-election campaign, stated that his biggest failure to date was was not fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise to address Washington's dysfunctional culture.

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."

Agree? Disagree?

If you agree, can it be fixed from the outside? If so, how?

obama never had any intention of fixing DC. If he tried he never would have been re-elected, hell, if he actually wanted to, he never would have made it.

remember "drain the swamp"? How long did that last? Until the first dems got caught fucking around.


but yea, he's right, we can only fix DC from the outside and only by killing every pol that lives there and replacing them with people who will support and defend the Constitution or be executed.

Elvis rated this as funny.


I wasn't being funny.

DC can not be fixed with elections, the last set of elections should inform everyone of that.

The only way to fix it is to get rid of everyone in it and start over

If you weren't being funny, I can only assume you were being serious and you literally want to kill them. While that may be satisfying, in a Game of Thrones kind of way (we could make good use of those new spikes on top of the fence around the White House), I don't think it's a practical solution.

Right now decent people stay away from politics, because it's so disgusting. The disgusting people who feel right at home there want two things, money and power. Deny them those two things and they will go away.

You can't do either of those b/c they already passed laws to keep us from doing the right thing.

thinking you can vote in people that give a fuck is absurd

 

[candycorn]

Barack Obama, in his 2012 re-election campaign, stated that his biggest failure to date was was not fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise to address Washington's dysfunctional culture.

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."

Agree? Disagree?

If you agree, can it be fixed from the outside? If so, how?

Serious Campaign Finance Reform.

Unwittingly, the Trump/Cruz coalition and the rest of the clowns in the GOP circus who are just there to jack up their speaking fees and sell books (Huckabee, Fiorina, Pataki, etc...) have possibly constructed an atmosphere by which the Party elders may well be in a mood to further empower the smaller donors in favor of letting one or two benefactors keep a candidate in the race long past their expiration date. Normally, the new President is given a honeymoon where he can get pet projects passed. The GOP may be willing to listen to CFR because theirs is the party that will be fighting for a seat at the table in 2020. This time around it was a well known billionaire named Donald Trump. What would keep someone like the radio host gasbags from running and REALLY revealing the party warts?

 

[Elvis Obama]

It's all a matter of simplifying things, reducing complex problems and solutions to slogans. Prohibition was a perfect example. Ban the demon drink! Simple. Far too simple, it turned out, but they got their constitutional amendment. Unfortunately you can;t hope to appeal to people's reason, it can only work if you appeal to their emotions. Right now there's enough anger in the country to light the world for decades, and it's being completely wasted, Reduce term limits to "throw the bums out!". Make Madison Avenue do something useful with their persuasive skills.

Red:
While change is something I welcome, that is not one of the changes about which I feel that way.

Blue:
Changes that follow the pattern you suggest do not constitute a simplification of an idea or problem; they reflect a change in overall outcome. Presenting the sample idea of reducing (shortening) term limits as "throw the bums out" is to misrepresent one's intent.

That so often soundbites are not accurate representations of intent is precisely why I don't welcome or support the proposal to have even more of them. Catch phrases are fine once the idea is well understood by the people involved. Using them as you have suggested in the post above is manipulative.

Green:
Certainly when it comes to marketing goods and services for which no real need exists, yes, emotional appeals are the thing that work best. When it comes to devising and marketing policy and asking voters to choose among the options offered, it's ethically and intellectually reprehensible to present the policy choices so that they do so based largely on emotion. Emotion rightly plays a role in creating interest in a policy topic; ration is what rightly guides one's choice of policy to advocate/choose.

Unfortunately, since the advent of TV advertising for political purposes, we have sold candidates like commercial products. Why? Because the American electorate is disgustingly ignorant. Two third of Americans can't name the three branches of government. Only 15% can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. While reducing complex ideas to manipulative phrases which appeal to emotion is disgusting, and while I think you should also target the small percentage of Americans who can think about complex matters, they will not be enough.

I don't like the idea of term limits. It's training wheels for voting booths. If we could trust voters to do their job properly, they would not be needed. My suggestions for improving representative government are:

1- Term limits
2- Electoral reform
3- Anti-gerrymandering legislation

I don't believe you could get the American public sufficiently worked up about any of these things without an appeal to emotion, without being manipulative.

Italicised terms:
Disgusting -- I have interpreted you mean "deplorable" rather than disgusting. Is that and accurate choice?
You -- where you wrote "you," I think you mean "one." Am I correct?

Just want to make sure I correctly understand you.

Red:
I agree re: the woeful ignorance and dearth of intellectualism among the U.S.' eligible voters, but I think not knowing the name of the Court's chief justice (CJ) is hardly an indicator of that. Who cares what the CJ's name is? Isn't the critical thing to know the role of the Court rather than who sits on it, or leads it, at any given time? In contrast, the names of the three branches of government are vastly more indicative of, and related to, their respective functions and obligations.

For example, were the response of "a random individual on the street" who is asked "what are the three branches of government?" given as "the law making, law interpreting and law enforcing" branches, I'd give them credit for it as "right" answer, even though I was expecting to hear "legislative, judicial and executive."

Green:
Is the "job" to which you refer that of becoming fully informed on matters about which they will exercise their right to vote? If so, I agree.

Purple:

1. We currently have them for some elected offices. Having them and not having them is a double-edged sword. Moreover, most folks want them when they don't like the "certain to be reelected" holders of them, but they don't want them when the person whom they "like" holds the very same office(s).
2. What exactly do you mean by "electoral reform?"
   
   1. Modifications to, or the abolishment of, the electoral college and its role?
   2. Modifications to the way the right to vote is granted?
   3. Modifications to the way the right to vote is exercised?
   4. Modifications to the way "who votes for whom" is determined?
   5. Modifications to who is permitted to participate in the political process?
   6. Modifications to the nature and extent to which various groups/individuals may participate in the political process?

It's not clear to me what you might mean.​

• Some combination of the items noted above, but no others? If so, what combination?
• Some combination of the items noted above, along with other specific things? If so, what other changes and what changes noted above?
• All of the things above, but nothing else?
• All of the things above, but additional changes as well? If so, what additional ones?
• None of the above, but rather different changes? If so, what changes?

As goes the gerrymandering prohibition, well, good luck with that. I'd like to see it go the way of the dodo too, but I doubt it's going to. Even in my most generous moments of optimism, I know better than to think that is going to go away. There's a limit to the extent of integrity one can expect to find among district line drawing officials.

The problem, as I see it is that districts are drawn based on the political affiliation and dispersion of a state's population. I don't know that there is a perfect solution for even prohibiting so-called gerrymandering introduces problems of its own. My idea for resolving that problem is to require that district lines be drawn (redrawn) five years prior to a census' results becoming available. That might help to eliminate some of the deliberacy connected with drawing lines so as to create "secure" seats for a given party. It probably wouldn't have that effect immediately, but over time and as people move about, it might help counteract the effectiveness of the gerrymandering intent.

Pink:
You probably cannot. I'm not sure I want the "unwashed masses" who have reached the age of majority to get "worked up" about most things. I think those folks are by and large proles and would just as soon they abstain from voting.

That said, my ethics don't allow me to support the idea of deliberately manipulating the electorate or obfuscating an important issue by using catch phrases that misrepresent (via oversimplification) the their full nature and scope.

I chose the word disgusting because I think it's appropriate. Disgusting means "arousing revulsion or strong indignation". "You" can be used to refer to any person in general. You can determine this by the context in which the word is used.

I don't think that knowing the name of the Chief Justice of the SC is as important as understanding the function of the court, but I also believe that most politically informed and engaged Americans should know who the Chief Justice is. I don't expect anyone to be able to name all the senators or congresspersons, but I think you should know who the majority and minority leaders are. A general understanding of the structure of American government is essential, but I don't think it's enough. You have to be engaged in the present day realities of governance. The job of an American citizen is to provide oversight of these clowns, whether elected or appointed. You can't do that if you don't know the players.

There are many different ideas for electoral reform. The ones I would like to see are:
1- Campaign finance reform. Public funding for elections, and not much of it. Just tell us what your policy proposals are, then shut up.
2- Uniform national standards for national elections. State elections should be controlled by the states and national elections by the federal government.
3- A ban on television advertising for political purposes, like the ban which already exists in England and Norway. It's political representation, not toothpaste.
4- Stop advertising to get people to vote. If you don't know you should vote, you shouldn't vote. We create the impression that your responsibilities as a citizen begin and end with voting.
5- Dump the electoral college. What are we, the Holy Roman Empire?

Gerrymandering is also an electoral issue. So is term limits. So is the so-called "revolving door". Anti-gerrymandering legislation is simple to design. Take the job out of the hands of partisans. Again, district lines for federal purposes should be controlled by the federal government, not the states.

As far as limiting the vote, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. We expanded the franchise several times without considering the effect on the electorate, but we can't go backwards. Poll tests or other means of separating the smart from the dumb are not possible. We can't ignore the problem, however. We need to be concerned and debate the problem. Instead, we ignore it.

No taxation without representation, right? All this nonsense steals people's representation from them. They should be angry. They are angry, but unfortunately they are also ignorant, and blame the wrong people. They blame people who think differently from them. They blame their representatives. They should be blaming themselves, and I would love to see a hard-hitting advertising campaign which tells them exactly that.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"Can Washington Be Fixed from the Inside?"

That depends on what is meant by 'fixed'; and it requires consensus on what the problems are.

For example, closing down Federal agencies, gutting or eliminating necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, ending important, beneficial social programs, and balancing the budget on the backs of working Americans, low income Americans, children, and the disabled is not 'fixing' Washington.

What I think fixing the government means is restoring the integrity of representative government. Our so-called representatives represent themselves, their party and their donor base. Period. We the people are supposed to be in there, somewhere, aren't we? We should be insisting on checks which force these partisan, pork-barrel pigs to do their jobs.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Barack Obama, in his 2012 re-election campaign, stated that his biggest failure to date was was not fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise to address Washington's dysfunctional culture.

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."

Agree? Disagree?

If you agree, can it be fixed from the outside? If so, how?

Serious Campaign Finance Reform.

Unwittingly, the Trump/Cruz coalition and the rest of the clowns in the GOP circus who are just there to jack up their speaking fees and sell books (Huckabee, Fiorina, Pataki, etc...) have possibly constructed an atmosphere by which the Party elders may well be in a mood to further empower the smaller donors in favor of letting one or two benefactors keep a candidate in the race long past their expiration date. Normally, the new President is given a honeymoon where he can get pet projects passed. The GOP may be willing to listen to CFR because theirs is the party that will be fighting for a seat at the table in 2020. This time around it was a well known billionaire named Donald Trump. What would keep someone like the radio host gasbags from running and REALLY revealing the party warts?

The GOP is amazingly self-defeating. Citizens United made them less powerful. They no longer have control of their own nominating process. Their only hope, and it's a pretty good one, is how stupid their base is. Will that save them? I don't think they can save themselves. If they actually benefit America in their death throes, by implementing CFR, that would be pretty ironic.

 

[candycorn]

Barack Obama, in his 2012 re-election campaign, stated that his biggest failure to date was was not fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise to address Washington's dysfunctional culture.

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."

Agree? Disagree?

If you agree, can it be fixed from the outside? If so, how?

Serious Campaign Finance Reform.

Unwittingly, the Trump/Cruz coalition and the rest of the clowns in the GOP circus who are just there to jack up their speaking fees and sell books (Huckabee, Fiorina, Pataki, etc...) have possibly constructed an atmosphere by which the Party elders may well be in a mood to further empower the smaller donors in favor of letting one or two benefactors keep a candidate in the race long past their expiration date. Normally, the new President is given a honeymoon where he can get pet projects passed. The GOP may be willing to listen to CFR because theirs is the party that will be fighting for a seat at the table in 2020. This time around it was a well known billionaire named Donald Trump. What would keep someone like the radio host gasbags from running and REALLY revealing the party warts?

The GOP is amazingly self-defeating. Citizens United made them less powerful. They no longer have control of their own nominating process. Their only hope, and it's a pretty good one, is how stupid their base is. Will that save them? I don't think they can save themselves. If they actually benefit America in their death throes, by implementing CFR, that would be pretty ironic.

Well, be careful before you pronounce them dead. There are tens of millions of Republicans. The issue that is most troubling is that there are tens of millions of definitions as to what that means.

In the larger sense as to "fixing Washington", the one thing that must happen is CFR in a big way. There is no way to address anything else unless you control the money that flat out buys votes on both sides of the aisle. I think this is a wake-up call for both parties that someone can come in either by force of personality (celeb) or force of money and influence (Trump) and hi-jack the entire primary.

It is more likely that you can address it through party rules but that carries it's own "what ifs" and it may be preferable to the party elders and establishment to input some controls on the money which is the only lever there is to pull.

 

[Picaro]

The GOP is amazingly self-defeating. Citizens United made them less powerful. They no longer have control of their own nominating process. Their only hope, and it's a pretty good one, is how stupid their base is. Will that save them? I don't think they can save themselves. If they actually benefit America in their death throes, by implementing CFR, that would be pretty ironic.

The GOP is doing fine; they elected some 31 Governors, a majority of state legislators, and have effective control of Both Houses of Congress, something unthinkable a few decades ago. With the ascendance of judicial supremacy over Constitutional supremacy, winning the White House isn't a big deal any more, and neither is Congress for that matter.

In other news, as Vincent Canatto points out in his book Shattered Consensus, "There is no longer enough agreement in the American polity to address the nation's systemic problems before they escalate to the point of crisis'. I don't see anything in this discussion that does anything to redress that or the issues implied in my first paragraph, just a lot of vague memes that do little in the way of 'fixing' actual existential problems.

 

[candycorn]

The GOP is amazingly self-defeating. Citizens United made them less powerful. They no longer have control of their own nominating process. Their only hope, and it's a pretty good one, is how stupid their base is. Will that save them? I don't think they can save themselves. If they actually benefit America in their death throes, by implementing CFR, that would be pretty ironic.

The GOP is doing fine; they elected some 31 Governors, a majority of state legislators, and have effective control of Both Houses of Congress, something unthinkable a few decades ago. With the ascendance of judicial supremacy over Constitutional supremacy, winning the White House isn't a big deal any more, and neither is Congress for that matter.

In other news, as Vincent Canatto points out in his book Shattered Consensus, "There is no longer enough agreement in the American polity to address the nation's systemic problems before they escalate to the point of crisis'. I don't see anything in this discussion that does anything to redress that or the issues implied in my first paragraph, just a lot of vague memes that do little in the way of 'fixing' actual existential problems.

Winning the White House is no big deal any more? Oh okay...give us another reason to chuckle....

The GOP does well in areas where it's brand is supported by the natives of that area. One stat I heard a few months back was telling.

There are something like 106 districts in the House of Representatives that are majority minority meaning that Whites are not over 50% of the registered voters in those districts (106 out of 435 all together).

Of those 106 districts, Democrats were seated in 100 of them. This number will only continue to grow and there is no way gerrymandering can keep up with it.

Does that mean the party is dead? No. But it is hard to see any path to expansion outside of expanding the number of districts. There can be a very sound argument for such expansion--there hasn't been expansions in recent memory. If the GOP sneaks into the Oval, you may see that come up early in the next Presidential term.

 

[Picaro]

Winning the White House is no big deal any more? Oh okay...give us another reason to chuckle....

Chuckle all you want; Obama barely pushed through anything significant in two terms. If you want to call the 'Obamacare' farce an 'achievement' then the rest of us can chuckle.

The GOP does well in areas where it's brand is supported by the natives of that area. One stat I heard a few months back was telling.

There are something like 106 districts in the House of Representatives that are majority minority meaning that Whites are not over 50% of the registered voters in those districts (106 out of 435 all together).

Of those 106 districts, Democrats were seated in 100 of them. This number will only continue to grow and there is no way gerrymandering can keep up with it.

Does that mean the party is dead? No. But it is hard to see any path to expansion outside of expanding the number of districts. There can be a very sound argument for such expansion--there hasn't been expansions in recent memory. If the GOP sneaks into the Oval, you may see that come up early in the next Presidential term.

Two of the largest blue states are losing population, California and New York, and California occasionally swings Red. Even the New York Times writes off the much bally hooed 'hispanic vote', as it's concentrated in five states, and they have poor turnout records to boot. Even then, they aren't the solid blue captive vote the DNC hoped they would be even in California. Minorities played a big role in passing Prop 8 there, even as they voted Democrat in the Federal offices.

I realize the Democratic Party is totally dependent on 'identity politics' and race baiting, but that dog isn't going to hunt forever. Time to try and return to representing Americans again instead of narcissistic hippy fantasies. Despite your racist wish list, nobody wins without a big chunk of the white vote. Democrats are even losing ground in the female demographic in the age groups that vote the most. The Democrats' nostalgia for the 'good ole days' of self-serving machine politics where they take ghetto slum votes for granted aren't the way to the future. Brie and Chardonnay Neo-liberalism and hypocrisy and selling out labor is deader the GOP.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The GOP is amazingly self-defeating. Citizens United made them less powerful. They no longer have control of their own nominating process. Their only hope, and it's a pretty good one, is how stupid their base is. Will that save them? I don't think they can save themselves. If they actually benefit America in their death throes, by implementing CFR, that would be pretty ironic.

The GOP is doing fine; they elected some 31 Governors, a majority of state legislators, and have effective control of Both Houses of Congress, something unthinkable a few decades ago. With the ascendance of judicial supremacy over Constitutional supremacy, winning the White House isn't a big deal any more, and neither is Congress for that matter.

In other news, as Vincent Canatto points out in his book Shattered Consensus, "There is no longer enough agreement in the American polity to address the nation's systemic problems before they escalate to the point of crisis'. I don't see anything in this discussion that does anything to redress that or the issues implied in my first paragraph, just a lot of vague memes that do little in the way of 'fixing' actual existential problems.

Well, nothing you've written, so far, addresses the issues which keep Americans at each other's throats, instead of finding a more useful focus for their anger. Political action on the outside is the same as political action on the inside. You need consensus and votes. I agree with the quote from Mr. Canatto, but it doesn't apply to me. How about you? I'm more than willing to find common cause with any American citizen on any of the issues I mentioned here

Frankly, I found your reply, vis-à- vis the Republican party, to be endemic of the disease which is killing this country. I don't want a weak Republican party. Criticism of government is the means by which citizens can exercise a measure of control over their elected representatives. Where I disagree with Mr. Canatto quote is that I don't think it's a lack of agreement that's the problem, it's a lack of awareness.

 

[candycorn]

Winning the White House is no big deal any more? Oh okay...give us another reason to chuckle....

Chuckle all you want; Obama barely pushed through anything significant in two terms. If you want to call the 'Obamacare' farce an 'achievement' then the rest of us can chuckle.

The GOP does well in areas where it's brand is supported by the natives of that area. One stat I heard a few months back was telling.

There are something like 106 districts in the House of Representatives that are majority minority meaning that Whites are not over 50% of the registered voters in those districts (106 out of 435 all together).

Of those 106 districts, Democrats were seated in 100 of them. This number will only continue to grow and there is no way gerrymandering can keep up with it.

Does that mean the party is dead? No. But it is hard to see any path to expansion outside of expanding the number of districts. There can be a very sound argument for such expansion--there hasn't been expansions in recent memory. If the GOP sneaks into the Oval, you may see that come up early in the next Presidential term.

Two of the largest blue states are losing population, California and New York, and California occasionally swings Red. Even the New York Times writes off the much bally hooed 'hispanic vote', as it's concentrated in five states, and they have poor turnout records to boot. Even then, they aren't the solid blue captive vote the DNC hoped they would be even in California. Minorities played a big role in passing Prop 8 there, even as they voted Democrat in the Federal offices.

I realize the Democratic Party is totally dependent on 'identity politics' and race baiting, but that dog isn't going to hunt forever. Time to try and return to representing Americans again instead of narcissistic hippy fantasies. Despite your racist wish list, nobody wins without a big chunk of the white vote. Democrats are even losing ground in the female demographic in the age groups that vote the most. The Democrats' nostalgia for the 'good ole days' of self-serving machine politics where they take ghetto slum votes for granted aren't the way to the future. Brie and Chardonnay Neo-liberalism and hypocrisy and selling out labor is deader the GOP.

It would be fascinating to find out what what elections you've been watching. Nearly every thing you said is non-sensical jibberish except for the part about...no I was thinking about something else; all of your post is non-sense.