The Myth of Establishment Republicans versus Conservative Republicans

[NightFox]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive. There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

 

[Rustic]

A paralyzed government is good thing, to think we need government to function is so 1970/80s communism.

The private sector is so much more efficient at most things, sure we need for some government(military, police, etc) but, just for some things.

Hashtag never trust anyone saying we are from the government and we are here to help

 

[Misty]

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately from self-described conservatives (of course) that establishment Republicans are so much different from real conservatives who have principles.

That's just nonsense, and I'll tell you why. Here's the reality.

The way that modern day campaigns are now paid for with big money donors footing the overwhelming costs of media advertising as well as other campaign-related costs, a Republican (and that means ANY Republican) politician, whether he's considered moderate or conservative, understands that he has to 'deliver the goods' if he has any hope of winning his reelection bid.

In other words, unless you're naïve and you believe that politicians can accept these large sums of hard and soft money from wealthy corporations and well-heeled donors and then ignore those very same corporate requests for gov't contracts and what otherwise amounts to what those corporate interests consider a 'return on their 'investment,' you would understand that it's the manner in which campaigns are financed (and WON) that's at the heart of the problem.

So, for you conservatives out there, here's the answer to the problem in the nutshell. If you want things to change, in terms of how Washington works in order to get control over spending, you've got to support REAL campaign finance reform when it comes to the way in which campaigns are financed. That means that the public financing of campaigns is the most logical option because that would mean that politicians would not be beholding to big money donors anymore. Without that type of real reform, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is EVER going to change.

But you guys seem to be constantly suckered into supporting the argument that these large expenditures of money in the 10s of millions of dollars (if not considerably more) is an example of freedom. It's not. Not unless it means it's your freedom to continually get suckered into constantly backing a candidate who will ultimately realize which side of the bread has the butter on it and vote in such a way that furthers his own personal and professional interests, regardless of his stated political affiliation or his particular ideology.

That's the way the system now works and any wishing to the contrary is a waste of time. That means if you want to change the outcome, you've got to change who has the greatest input. If it's wealthy corporate interests and big money donors, they'll be the ones who decide while you sit on the sidelines complaining about the process.

Trump is backing his own campaign. That's why he's says what he wants and why people are responding to him.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive. There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

 

[Rustic]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive. There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

You can't expect the "freedom caucus" to sell out to the moderates for political acceptance??

They represent people that have no agreement with a limped sense of morality, as do the progressives.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive. There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

You can't expect the "freedom caucus" to sell out to the moderates for political acceptance??

They represent people that have no agreement with a limped sense of morality, as do the progressives.

The problem here is that, at some point, cooperation has become confused with capitulation.

In order for a government to function properly, there must be cooperation.

And if your group has more votes and more power, that's an indication of the spoils of victory for you to enjoy.

Get those votes and off you go.
.

 

[Rustic]

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

You can't expect the "freedom caucus" to sell out to the moderates for political acceptance??

They represent people that have no agreement with a limped sense of morality, as do the progressives.

The problem here is that, at some point, cooperation has become confused with capitulation.

In order for a government to function properly, there must be cooperation.

And if your group has more votes and more power, that's an indication of the spoils of victory for you to enjoy.

Get those votes and off you go.
.

But, that doesn't mean standing down... No one likes that, this what the moderates do....... spineless.

There are times were standing ground is a must no matter the cost... It's called integrity.

No better time than now for it... The world is on fire.

Hard decisions are called hard for a reason...

 

[NightFox]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive. There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

In the words of Bill Lumbergh ... "Eww.. yeah..I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there". The design of our Republic contains elements whereby the minority has legally sanctioned means of expression which do not involve majority victory at the "ballot box", the framers understood very clearly the pitfalls of democracy (namely the tyranny of the majority) and intended that the House of Representatives be a bulwark against the possibility of said tyranny, to whit; that the raucous peoples house was expected to be the battleground by which the minority might "gum up the works" to force acceptable compromise, it was designed that way because the framers understood that the only other alternatives available to a minority would be open revolt or enraged silence (often the precursor to open revolt). So what's happening in the House right now is all part of the design, it's not even historically unusual for the House.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

IMHO No they don't, What they are doing now is perfectly legal as well as within the overall intent of the design of the Republic, we should all celebrate this expression of the voice of the minority since at some point any one of us could be part of that minority, you really don't have to be concerned about it since it will be worked out and the status quo will continue (possibly slightly altered).

 

[BULLDOG]

I am open minded to the idea of campaign finance reform. It is ridiculous to expect the insecure attention whores who are attracted to politics to possess any moral scruples.

But the fact is Democrat candidates receive just as much money as Republican. It's insane to blame it all on "Republicans". That is exactly the type of binary thinking that these DC clowns rely upon.

Sure,they both take advantage of the money because they would be fools not to. The difference is Democrats want to get big money out of politics. Republicans don't.

Garbage.....

They've just learned how to use it as a wedge issue.

Democrats at the federal level are no more/no less corrupt than republicans.

If that's true, the repubs could easily end that issue by joining the effort to get big money out of politics.

 

[Davros]

Yeah, let's make sure both parties are crammed with ideological absolutists and crazies, that'll be constructive. There are too many people who spend too much time listening to the radio and not enough time thinking stuff through.

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

In the words of Bill Lumbergh ... "Eww.. yeah..I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there". The design of our Republic contains elements whereby the minority has legally sanctioned means of expression which do not involve majority victory at the "ballot box", the framers understood very clearly the pitfalls of democracy (namely the tyranny of the majority) and intended that the House of Representatives be a bulwark against the possibility of said tyranny, to whit; that the raucous peoples house was expected to be the battleground by which the minority might "gum up the works" to force acceptable compromise, it was designed that way because the framers understood that the only other alternatives available to a minority would be open revolt or enraged silence (often the precursor to open revolt). So what's happening in the House right now is all part of the design, it's not even historically unusual for the House.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

IMHO No they don't, What they are doing now is perfectly legal as well as within the overall intent of the design of the Republic, we should all celebrate this expression of the voice of the minority since at some point any one of us could be part of that minority, you really don't have to be concerned about it since it will be worked out and the status quo will continue (possibly slightly altered).

BS. The tea publican RINOS only have power because the rest of the majority party is afraid of being primaried out if they offend the extremist wing. Also because of the Hastert rule which states legislation will only be brought up if a majority of Republicans support it.

It has nothing to do with the framers design of a "raucous people's house" to protect a minority.

 

[Rustic]

Your looking at it all wrong, the more laws and regulations = less freedom..

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

In the words of Bill Lumbergh ... "Eww.. yeah..I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there". The design of our Republic contains elements whereby the minority has legally sanctioned means of expression which do not involve majority victory at the "ballot box", the framers understood very clearly the pitfalls of democracy (namely the tyranny of the majority) and intended that the House of Representatives be a bulwark against the possibility of said tyranny, to whit; that the raucous peoples house was expected to be the battleground by which the minority might "gum up the works" to force acceptable compromise, it was designed that way because the framers understood that the only other alternatives available to a minority would be open revolt or enraged silence (often the precursor to open revolt). So what's happening in the House right now is all part of the design, it's not even historically unusual for the House.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

IMHO No they don't, What they are doing now is perfectly legal as well as within the overall intent of the design of the Republic, we should all celebrate this expression of the voice of the minority since at some point any one of us could be part of that minority, you really don't have to be concerned about it since it will be worked out and the status quo will continue (possibly slightly altered).

BS. The tea publican RINOS only have power because the rest of the majority party is afraid of being primaried out if they offend the extremist wing. Also because of the Hastert rule which states legislation will only be brought up if a majority of Republicans support it.

It has nothing to do with the framers design of a "raucous people's house" to protect a minority.

Nothing wrong with standing ground... Otherwise we are just France.

Hashtag France's moto: I surrender

 

[Rustic]

I am open minded to the idea of campaign finance reform. It is ridiculous to expect the insecure attention whores who are attracted to politics to possess any moral scruples.

But the fact is Democrat candidates receive just as much money as Republican. It's insane to blame it all on "Republicans". That is exactly the type of binary thinking that these DC clowns rely upon.

Sure,they both take advantage of the money because they would be fools not to. The difference is Democrats want to get big money out of politics. Republicans don't.

Garbage.....

They've just learned how to use it as a wedge issue.

Democrats at the federal level are no more/no less corrupt than republicans.

If that's true, the repubs could easily end that issue by joining the effort to get big money out of politics.

Ok, John McCain...

Hashtag two time loser

 

[BULLDOG]

I am open minded to the idea of campaign finance reform. It is ridiculous to expect the insecure attention whores who are attracted to politics to possess any moral scruples.

But the fact is Democrat candidates receive just as much money as Republican. It's insane to blame it all on "Republicans". That is exactly the type of binary thinking that these DC clowns rely upon.

Sure,they both take advantage of the money because they would be fools not to. The difference is Democrats want to get big money out of politics. Republicans don't.

Garbage.....

They've just learned how to use it as a wedge issue.

Democrats at the federal level are no more/no less corrupt than republicans.

If that's true, the repubs could easily end that issue by joining the effort to get big money out of politics.

Ok, John McCain...

Hashtag two time loser

There are lots of reasons why McCain lost.

 

[BULLDOG]

Americans have a very wide spectrum of opinions on the balance between pure freedom and pure government. Most are willing to give up some degree of freedom for the benefits that government can provide. The question is equilibrium.

For one group to hold the government hostage over that group's own specific interpretation of "freedom" is narcissistic and selfish.

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?

Until then, paralyzing the system in a political tantrum is not constructive.
.

Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

In the words of Bill Lumbergh ... "Eww.. yeah..I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there". The design of our Republic contains elements whereby the minority has legally sanctioned means of expression which do not involve majority victory at the "ballot box", the framers understood very clearly the pitfalls of democracy (namely the tyranny of the majority) and intended that the House of Representatives be a bulwark against the possibility of said tyranny, to whit; that the raucous peoples house was expected to be the battleground by which the minority might "gum up the works" to force acceptable compromise, it was designed that way because the framers understood that the only other alternatives available to a minority would be open revolt or enraged silence (often the precursor to open revolt). So what's happening in the House right now is all part of the design, it's not even historically unusual for the House.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

IMHO No they don't, What they are doing now is perfectly legal as well as within the overall intent of the design of the Republic, we should all celebrate this expression of the voice of the minority since at some point any one of us could be part of that minority, you really don't have to be concerned about it since it will be worked out and the status quo will continue (possibly slightly altered).

BS. The tea publican RINOS only have power because the rest of the majority party is afraid of being primaried out if they offend the extremist wing. Also because of the Hastert rule which states legislation will only be brought up if a majority of Republicans support it.

It has nothing to do with the framers design of a "raucous people's house" to protect a minority.

Nothing wrong with standing ground... Otherwise we are just France.

Hashtag France's moto: I surrender

I don't think you know the history of France "Standing Ground". Without military and financial help from France, there would be no U.S.A.

 

[Rustic]

I am open minded to the idea of campaign finance reform. It is ridiculous to expect the insecure attention whores who are attracted to politics to possess any moral scruples.

But the fact is Democrat candidates receive just as much money as Republican. It's insane to blame it all on "Republicans". That is exactly the type of binary thinking that these DC clowns rely upon.

Sure,they both take advantage of the money because they would be fools not to. The difference is Democrats want to get big money out of politics. Republicans don't.

Garbage.....

They've just learned how to use it as a wedge issue.

Democrats at the federal level are no more/no less corrupt than republicans.

If that's true, the repubs could easily end that issue by joining the effort to get big money out of politics.

Ok, John McCain...

Hashtag two time loser

There are lots of reasons why McCain lost.

A progressive coward??

Hashtag not an Maverick

 

[Rustic]

Help me out here, how is this any different than the big government advocates holding the government "hostage" (like they've been doing for decades) and doing exactly what they wish against the will of those who want less government involvement in their daily lives? What do you propose the minority do, just suffer the tyranny of the majority in silence? What other course of action is available to them in a system where the electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption?
Why is it not constructive? If one views the preponderance of what the system produces as detrimental to ones self interest and/or the best interests of ones fellow citizens then isn't it constructive to bring the system to halt?

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

In the words of Bill Lumbergh ... "Eww.. yeah..I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there". The design of our Republic contains elements whereby the minority has legally sanctioned means of expression which do not involve majority victory at the "ballot box", the framers understood very clearly the pitfalls of democracy (namely the tyranny of the majority) and intended that the House of Representatives be a bulwark against the possibility of said tyranny, to whit; that the raucous peoples house was expected to be the battleground by which the minority might "gum up the works" to force acceptable compromise, it was designed that way because the framers understood that the only other alternatives available to a minority would be open revolt or enraged silence (often the precursor to open revolt). So what's happening in the House right now is all part of the design, it's not even historically unusual for the House.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

IMHO No they don't, What they are doing now is perfectly legal as well as within the overall intent of the design of the Republic, we should all celebrate this expression of the voice of the minority since at some point any one of us could be part of that minority, you really don't have to be concerned about it since it will be worked out and the status quo will continue (possibly slightly altered).

BS. The tea publican RINOS only have power because the rest of the majority party is afraid of being primaried out if they offend the extremist wing. Also because of the Hastert rule which states legislation will only be brought up if a majority of Republicans support it.

It has nothing to do with the framers design of a "raucous people's house" to protect a minority.

Nothing wrong with standing ground... Otherwise we are just France.

Hashtag France's moto: I surrender

I don't think you know the history of France "Standing Ground". Without military and financial help from France, there would be no U.S.A.

Only because of self interest... France never a pillar of courage.

Hashtag Pepe lepew surrenders

 

[Iceweasel]

If that's true, the repubs could easily end that issue by joining the effort to get big money out of politics.

The Dims will never go for it, nor would obama's handlers permit it.

 

[BULLDOG]

I certainly can't argue with your point that the "electorate is under continuous assault by partisan manipulation, outsized special interest influence and corruption", sure as hell.
I'm just dealing with the way things are rather than the way I'd like them to be.

But the way a democracy/republic/vote-based society works, at least as I see it, is that if a party or ideology wants to change or improve or revise or tweak things, they have to do so through the ballot box and under the expectation that our representatives are going to admit when they are defeated and then live to fight another day.

In the words of Bill Lumbergh ... "Eww.. yeah..I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there". The design of our Republic contains elements whereby the minority has legally sanctioned means of expression which do not involve majority victory at the "ballot box", the framers understood very clearly the pitfalls of democracy (namely the tyranny of the majority) and intended that the House of Representatives be a bulwark against the possibility of said tyranny, to whit; that the raucous peoples house was expected to be the battleground by which the minority might "gum up the works" to force acceptable compromise, it was designed that way because the framers understood that the only other alternatives available to a minority would be open revolt or enraged silence (often the precursor to open revolt). So what's happening in the House right now is all part of the design, it's not even historically unusual for the House.

So, if the Freedom Caucus - which appears to be the closest thing to an identifiable group for these people - wants to really win, all they have to do is get bigger through the ballot box and vote their stuff in. That way they can actually and accurately say they're doing the will of the people.

Until then, all they're doing is leveraging parliamentary procedure to politically hold their breath 'till they turn blue.
.

IMHO No they don't, What they are doing now is perfectly legal as well as within the overall intent of the design of the Republic, we should all celebrate this expression of the voice of the minority since at some point any one of us could be part of that minority, you really don't have to be concerned about it since it will be worked out and the status quo will continue (possibly slightly altered).

BS. The tea publican RINOS only have power because the rest of the majority party is afraid of being primaried out if they offend the extremist wing. Also because of the Hastert rule which states legislation will only be brought up if a majority of Republicans support it.

It has nothing to do with the framers design of a "raucous people's house" to protect a minority.

Nothing wrong with standing ground... Otherwise we are just France.

Hashtag France's moto: I surrender

I don't think you know the history of France "Standing Ground". Without military and financial help from France, there would be no U.S.A.

Only because of self interest... France never a pillar of courage.

Hashtag Pepe lepew surrenders

Pick up a history book sometimes idiot.

 

[Rustic]

In the words of Bill Lumbergh ... "Eww.. yeah..I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there". The design of our Republic contains elements whereby the minority has legally sanctioned means of expression which do not involve majority victory at the "ballot box", the framers understood very clearly the pitfalls of democracy (namely the tyranny of the majority) and intended that the House of Representatives be a bulwark against the possibility of said tyranny, to whit; that the raucous peoples house was expected to be the battleground by which the minority might "gum up the works" to force acceptable compromise, it was designed that way because the framers understood that the only other alternatives available to a minority would be open revolt or enraged silence (often the precursor to open revolt). So what's happening in the House right now is all part of the design, it's not even historically unusual for the House.

IMHO No they don't, What they are doing now is perfectly legal as well as within the overall intent of the design of the Republic, we should all celebrate this expression of the voice of the minority since at some point any one of us could be part of that minority, you really don't have to be concerned about it since it will be worked out and the status quo will continue (possibly slightly altered).

BS. The tea publican RINOS only have power because the rest of the majority party is afraid of being primaried out if they offend the extremist wing. Also because of the Hastert rule which states legislation will only be brought up if a majority of Republicans support it.

It has nothing to do with the framers design of a "raucous people's house" to protect a minority.

Nothing wrong with standing ground... Otherwise we are just France.

Hashtag France's moto: I surrender

I don't think you know the history of France "Standing Ground". Without military and financial help from France, there would be no U.S.A.

Only because of self interest... France never a pillar of courage.

Hashtag Pepe lepew surrenders

Pick up a history book sometimes idiot.

History is never written by the conquered...

See the Indian nations

 

[BULLDOG]

BS. The tea publican RINOS only have power because the rest of the majority party is afraid of being primaried out if they offend the extremist wing. Also because of the Hastert rule which states legislation will only be brought up if a majority of Republicans support it.

It has nothing to do with the framers design of a "raucous people's house" to protect a minority.

Nothing wrong with standing ground... Otherwise we are just France.

Hashtag France's moto: I surrender

I don't think you know the history of France "Standing Ground". Without military and financial help from France, there would be no U.S.A.

Only because of self interest... France never a pillar of courage.

Hashtag Pepe lepew surrenders

Pick up a history book sometimes idiot.

History is never written by the conquered...

See the Indian nations

That is generally a true statement, but the French involvement in our fight for freedom is far from questionable. They turned our local battle into a world war by attacking the British any where they were encountered. You really should find out what happened.