Party Loyalty is Poison

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Neither party wants that, they want to keep dividing and conquering.

The two party system requires both in order to flourish, we need more choices that aren’t Republican or Democrat.

They are called third parties. No one is buying what they are selling.

 

[Billiejeens]

Such as what? Is it because they got everything they wanted that kept Jeffries talking for eight hours or so to prevent a vote until he finally had to go to the bathroom? Exactly what is it they wanted that they got?

They didn't get to keep the border open.

They didn't get to keep funding for Planned Parenthood, PBS, NPR, USAID, Medicaid for migrants.

They didn't get to let the Trump tax reforms expire.

They didn't get trillions poured into green energy that accomplish nothing.

Exactly what is it they got?

He's lunatic fringe.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The founders knew it. Anyone with a brain and a pulse knows it. We've replaced principles and values with "sides".

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart | HISTORY

The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.

www.history.com

The fact is that our two party system is hurting Americans.

Sure, but our election system all but guarantees a two party near-monopoly on elections, and therefore on being nominated to judgeships.

The more important thing than a futile attempt to eliminate parties would be trying to shrink the size of government. If government was as small as it was during the time of the founders, it would be far less important who runs it and how they are chosen.

Trump - a product of the admittedly terrible two-party system - is taking steps in that direction. He's wasn't really a Republican, but he remade the party in his own image.

If he had tried to run as an independent, he really would have been the footnote that people thought he would be when he announced for the GOP primary in 2016.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, I said we needed a legit 2-party system that wasn't a uniparty and YOU disagreed.

This uni-party BS is all because you don't get what you want. The votes on the funding bill should illustrate that with the narrow margins and partisan voting.

 

[dblack]

To the extent that we have political Parties, political “loyalty” is kind of necessary. This is why we have positions such as Party “Whip.”

I imagine that the OP is actually complaining more about the existence of political Parties at all than about “loyalty.”

No. I'm actually complaining about the blind loyalty aspect. We should be unwavering in our convictions, but suspicious as hell of anyone who demands "loyalty". It's a demand that we refrain from critical thought and follow. I'll never play that game. For any party.

 

[dblack]

Sure, but our election system all but guarantees a two party near-monopoly on elections, and therefore on being nominated to judgeships.

Yep. That's what needs to change.

The more important thing than a futile attempt to eliminate parties would be trying to shrink the size of government. If government was as small as it was during the time of the founders, it would be far less important who runs it and how they are chosen.

Absolutely agree. Though I'd stress limiting the scope first and foremost. I'm fine with government being as "big" as necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. But that list of responsibilities should be short and concise.

Trump - a product of the admittedly terrible two-party system - is taking steps in that direction. He's wasn't really a Republican, but he remade the party in his own image.

I just don't see it. He fired a bunch of people. Cut some funding. Got his revenge. Pissin' in the wind.

 

[toobfreak]

To the extent that we have political Parties, political “loyalty” is kind of necessary. This is why we have positions such as Party “Whip.”

I think our party whip should be given a real whip. And then errant members of the party can be put on the rack naked, stretched, and whipped until they see fit to vote right.

 

[YoursTruly]

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yep. That's what needs to change.

Are you envisioning a parliamentary system? Proportional representation? What?

Absolutely agree. Though I'd stress limiting the scope first and foremost. I'm fine with government being as "big" as necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. But that list of responsibilities should be short and concise.

Agree.

I just don't see it. He fired a bunch of people. Cut some funding. Got his revenge. Pissin' in the wind.

Yes, I know. Democrats and "not Democrats" will never give Trump credit for anything.

He fired 120 people who used to work for the CDC's "Office of Smoking and Health," plus an unknown number of contractors.* That and many other actions are actively shrinking government. Yes, these are small steps. But when people see that the sky doesn't fall, the rivers do not leap from their banks, and plagues of locusts do not descend, they will be ready to accept more cuts.

What do you expect? A president to run as an independent and then force through massive cuts his first six months in office?


*My guess: There were perhaps a dozen contractors who were paid far more than the salaries of the employees. To do what? Who knows? But they worked for the "Office of Smoking and Health" so cutting them was evil. EEEEEVIL!

 

[BackAgain]

No. I'm actually complaining about the blind loyalty aspect. We should be unwavering in our convictions, but suspicious as hell of anyone who demands "loyalty". It's a demand that we refrain from critical thought and follow. I'll never play that game. For any party.

Party loyalty serves a legitimate purpose. Can it be misguided? Sure. A legislator’s true beliefs and firm convictions shouldn’t be dismissed on the basis of “Party” loyalty. But in most cases, it’s not that urgent.

 

[dblack]

Are you envisioning a parliamentary system? Proportional representation? What?

Agree.

Yes, I know. Democrats and "not Democrats" will never give Trump credit for anything.

He fired 120 people who used to work for the CDC's "Office of Smoking and Health," plus an unknown number of contractors.* That and many other actions are actively shrinking government. Yes, these are small steps. But when people see that the sky doesn't fall, the rivers do not leap from their banks, and plagues of locusts do not descend, they will be ready to accept more cuts.

What do you expect? A president to run as an independent and then force through massive cuts his first six months in office?

I expect pretty much what we've seen. Rule by EO and bloated, omnibus bills that hide who knows what - passed on a purely partisan basis

What I'd prefer to see is real leadership. Real consensus building. Someone who could make the case for why limited government and individual rights are more important than ever. Because they are.

Trump won't do that. Can't do that. All he'll do is alienate people and recharge opposition to whatever he advocates.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've read very little. Omnibus bills are always a hard no for me out of the gate. They're just a way to push through legislation that can't win support on its own.

So what would you like to call legislation that funds the government and restructures the tax code?

 

[Foxfyre]

He's lunatic fringe.

Who? YoursTruly or Jeffries?

 

[scruffy]

I think our party whip should be given a real whip. And then errant members of the party can be put on the rack naked, stretched, and whipped until they see fit to vote right.

Stop talking about AOC like that.

 

[scruffy]

LSD hippies.

Yup. You old enough to remember that?

Before them was the Beatniks.

And before them was the Bohemians.

Same old same old

 

[eagle1462010]

I've read very little. Omnibus bills are always a hard no for me out of the gate. They're just a way to push through legislation that can't win support on its own.

Aka you dont know shit as usual

 

[Mac1958]

What I'd prefer to see is real leadership. Real consensus building.

I can't imagine there is anyone in either party who would promise this and survive their nomination process.

That's how fucked up we are right now, and that's how we got this buffoon in the White House.

 

[konradv]

Uh, neither should you then.

Are you trying to abridge my Freedom of Speech, fascist?

 

[eagle1462010]

Are you trying to abridge my Freedom of Speech, fascist?

 

[Billiejeens]

The founders knew it. Anyone with a brain and a pulse knows it. We've replaced principles and values with "sides".

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart | HISTORY

The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.

www.history.com

"neccesary" being the key word.