We're All Bipartisan at Heart

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, you heard me right. Believe it or not, we're all bipartisan at heart. As overtly partisan as we all are at times, we seek a sort of political balance in our subconscious. Don't believe me? Why do we seek unbiased interpretations of the news? Or of the facts? Why do we seek bipartisanship between the two parties in Washington? Why do we react so angrily with someone who claims to be bipartisan but is not?

As crazy as that all sounds, I believe all of us, from extreme right to extreme left seeks bipartisanship in some way. We all want cooperation in our government. I've observed it. We want both parties to work together for the furtherment of America! It might not look like it, but in some way we desire bipartisanship. Just a few hours ago, I was accused of being a neo-con. I am a libertarian, albeit not a perfect one. I have some Republican leanings, admittedly.

I try to be bipartisan when I can, but sometimes I fail to do that. Yes, even I am not infallible. So, while that accusation was off the mark, it shows that the accuser might be seeking that same bipartisanship. It shows how all of us seek it, but are disappointed when someone or something isn't truly bipartisan in nature. Bipartisanship is hard to achieve, it can also be dangerous. But one thing is clear. It makes sure whatever it is needing to get done, get's done.

Bipartisanship can also be dangerous, when those of our parties decide to work against us. It can be a blessing or a curse, a weapon or a tool. We are all bipartisan at heart, whether we like it or not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Bipartisan is a completely bullshit term with no real meaning.

I think for myself, rather than trying to fit "between" the parties. There's a staggering spectrum of political views that aren't represented at all by either party.

I know where you're coming from, but bipartisan isn't the right word for it.

 

[OKTexas]

Your right, I'm all for bipartisanship so long as all parties are operating within the strict limits of the Constitution, AS WRITTEN. Yep I'm for that.

 

[Harry Dresden]

except for Dean .....

 

[Avatar4321]

If they follow the Constitution, I'd support bipartisanship.

As it stands now, bipartisanship is both parties working together to screw the people.

 

[Seawytch]

The poll also showed that Democrats are generally more willing to compromise than Republicans or Independents. Over 60 percent of Democrats said that “more compromise” was preferable, while only 55 percent of Independents and 38 percent of Republicans agreed. In addition, Democrats preferred compromise over ideological intransigence by a 41 percent margin, while Republicans said they sought the same by only a 2 percent margin.

Self-identified “Tea Party supporters” notched the most significant opposition to compromise, with only 39 percent supporting some form of it. Nonetheless, 40 percent of Tea Partiers still preferred tangible results to ideological purity.

Poll: 53 Percent Favor Compromise in Congress

 

[rdean]

Republicans are 90% white.

Voter suppression.

Deficit creating tax cuts for the rich.

War for profit.

Wealth redistribution to the rich.

Political retribution.

I don't want any part of that.

 

[Peterf]

Templarkormac is right in this sense. In a functioning democracy all parties accept the results of elections. They hate it when the wrong lot get into power through the ballot box but they accept that the government is legitimate. Hence the contrast between a democracy like the US and a non-democracy like, say, Egypt.

Not quite bipartisanship, but understanding that the other side will sometimes get a turn to govern.

 

[Avatar4321]

The poll also showed that Democrats are generally more willing to compromise than Republicans or Independents. Over 60 percent of Democrats said that “more compromise” was preferable, while only 55 percent of Independents and 38 percent of Republicans agreed. In addition, Democrats preferred compromise over ideological intransigence by a 41 percent margin, while Republicans said they sought the same by only a 2 percent margin.

Self-identified “Tea Party supporters” notched the most significant opposition to compromise, with only 39 percent supporting some form of it. Nonetheless, 40 percent of Tea Partiers still preferred tangible results to ideological purity.

Poll: 53 Percent Favor Compromise in Congress

They may say they are more willing to compromise. But they never do. When they talk about compromise, they are talking about others compromising, not them.

 

[candycorn]

Bipartisan is a completely bullshit term with no real meaning.

I think for myself, rather than trying to fit "between" the parties. There's a staggering spectrum of political views that aren't represented at all by either party.

I know where you're coming from, but bipartisan isn't the right word for it.

I would argue that what you're contemplating is an elimination of the word "partisan" to start with. I am for gun control and I am for strict voter registration laws where a voter must show valid ID to vote as long as the Valid IDs are free. I am for armed security guards in schools and the Federal Government paying for your first two years of college; to me both are security issues. I am for expansion on Nuclear Power and getting us off of the polluting coal based power that we have now but only if we have a command and control structure implemented by an organization such as the US Navy...no "my buddy needs a job, can I get him on here?" antics where our nuke plants are concerned. I feel that the US Constitution should be amended to take the "we make our own rules" nonsense away from the houses of Congress. I could detail my views that bridge the gap between the right and left until I ran out of bandwidth.

I state all of the above because no party or politician that I am aware of encompass all of those views. For me to show allegiance to an individual from one party locally and a person from a different party nationally isn't bi-partisanship, it's advanced citizenry. On the national level, the rules are well-known. You need 60 in the Senate to get anything done pretty much, a compliant President or extreme super majorities that do not exist any longer in both houses. On the state and local level, much lower standards are set so I am extremely careful with whom I vote for when it comes to the local politicians.

I think what you mean is that you vote for whomever checks as many boxes on your scorecard as possible; be it a blue or a red. In our system, you can only vote for one woman/man so you have to bite your lip and hope you made the right decision. Billy Joel was right; sooner or later it comes down to faith.

The only real betrayal I feel is when a local rep on city council or country office holder is abusing her/his power and I voted for she/he. I can understand why McCain and Flake and even Reid and McConnell are the way they are. They live in their state but often money from California or New York or Dallas get them elected. The House, I give less of a pass to but the paradigm is the same in some cases. There is no excuse for a council member to flip on their promises; if you fail to enact it's fine, if you fail to fight for it; that's not.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Avatar is exactly right...all of this I also believe is true.
But it isn't a divided government that is the biggest problem, it a corrupt government who represents special interest groups, super corporations and the central finance groups well ahead of occasionally representing us.
Both sides actively seek to pay back their contributors, sway votes/write regulations to benefit certain corporations and/or deregulate specific industries in order to pad their own insider trading.
It is not illegal for both house members to change their investments based on knowledge they gain while governing. Talk about conflict of interest.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Republicans are 90% white.

Voter suppression.

Deficit creating tax cuts for the rich.

War for profit.

Wealth redistribution to the rich.

Political retribution.

I don't want any part of that.

you forgot...."Let him Die".....

 

[Edgetho]

I have opinions that may fit nicely into the liberal platform from time to time.

I believe we MUST have a mandated health insurance program in this Country. And since ONLY government can mandate, I suppose they have to be involved in some fashion.

I also believe in Unions. I do NOT, however, believe in Public Employee Unions (the one major thing I hold against JFK) and I especially do not believe in STUPID Unions. WAY too many are.

But bipartisan? Me?

Not a chance in hell. dimocraps are the scum of the Earth. Period.

Their entire belief system is based on, and carried out through, lies. They are the political descendants of National Socialism, communism, Fascism and plain, old-fashioned marxism.

All of which are/were murderous, totalitarian, disgusting, anti-human ideologies. Same as dimocraps

If they could tell the truth..... But if they did that, then they wouldn't be dimocrap scum and they couldn't get anything passed.

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth. Period.

And the people they elect aren't a lot better.

Yeah, I got your 'bi-partisan'

hangin'

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes, you heard me right. Believe it or not, we're all bipartisan at heart. As overtly partisan as we all are at times, we seek a sort of political balance in our subconscious. Don't believe me? Why do we seek unbiased interpretations of the news? Or of the facts? Why do we seek bipartisanship between the two parties in Washington? Why do we react so angrily with someone who claims to be bipartisan but is not?

As crazy as that all sounds, I believe all of us, from extreme right to extreme left seeks bipartisanship in some way. We all want cooperation in our government. I've observed it. We want both parties to work together for the furtherment of America! It might not look like it, but in some way we desire bipartisanship. Just a few hours ago, I was accused of being a neo-con. I am a libertarian, albeit not a perfect one. I have some Republican leanings, admittedly.

I try to be bipartisan when I can, but sometimes I fail to do that. Yes, even I am not infallible. So, while that accusation was off the mark, it shows that the accuser might be seeking that same bipartisanship. It shows how all of us seek it, but are disappointed when someone or something isn't truly bipartisan in nature. Bipartisanship is hard to achieve, it can also be dangerous. But one thing is clear. It makes sure whatever it is needing to get done, get's done.

Bipartisanship can also be dangerous, when those of our parties decide to work against us. It can be a blessing or a curse, a weapon or a tool. We are all bipartisan at heart, whether we like it or not.

No! You?! Come on........stop playing!

 

[Truthmatters]

Your right, I'm all for bipartisanship so long as all parties are operating within the strict limits of the Constitution, AS WRITTEN. Yep I'm for that.

and you are not the one who gets to tell us what the constitution means.


that is not within YOUR powers in this country.
Stop thinking YOUR the dictator here

 

[Truthmatters]

I have opinions that may fit nicely into the liberal platform from time to time.

I believe we MUST have a mandated health insurance program in this Country. And since ONLY government can mandate, I suppose they have to be involved in some fashion.

I also believe in Unions. I do NOT, however, believe in Public Employee Unions (the one major thing I hold against JFK) and I especially do not believe in STUPID Unions. WAY too many are.

But bipartisan? Me?

Not a chance in hell. dimocraps are the scum of the Earth. Period.

Their entire belief system is based on, and carried out through, lies. They are the political descendants of National Socialism, communism, Fascism and plain, old-fashioned marxism.

All of which are/were murderous, totalitarian, disgusting, anti-human ideologies. Same as dimocraps

If they could tell the truth..... But if they did that, then they wouldn't be dimocrap scum and they couldn't get anything passed.

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth. Period.

And the people they elect aren't a lot better.

Yeah, I got your 'bi-partisan'

hangin'

Your the party of cheating in elections.

That makes your team the scum

 

[Avatar4321]

I have opinions that may fit nicely into the liberal platform from time to time.

I believe we MUST have a mandated health insurance program in this Country. And since ONLY government can mandate, I suppose they have to be involved in some fashion.

I also believe in Unions. I do NOT, however, believe in Public Employee Unions (the one major thing I hold against JFK) and I especially do not believe in STUPID Unions. WAY too many are.

But bipartisan? Me?

Not a chance in hell. dimocraps are the scum of the Earth. Period.

Their entire belief system is based on, and carried out through, lies. They are the political descendants of National Socialism, communism, Fascism and plain, old-fashioned marxism.

All of which are/were murderous, totalitarian, disgusting, anti-human ideologies. Same as dimocraps

If they could tell the truth..... But if they did that, then they wouldn't be dimocrap scum and they couldn't get anything passed.

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth. Period.

And the people they elect aren't a lot better.

Yeah, I got your 'bi-partisan'

hangin'

Your the party of cheating in elections.

That makes your team the scum

Al Gore
Al Franken

Nuff said

 

[Truthmatters]

If you believed in democracy you cant love the republican party

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.

The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

 

[Avatar4321]

Your right, I'm all for bipartisanship so long as all parties are operating within the strict limits of the Constitution, AS WRITTEN. Yep I'm for that.

and you are not the one who gets to tell us what the constitution means.


that is not within YOUR powers in this country.
Stop thinking YOUR the dictator here

No. The Constitution is what gets to say what the Constitution means.

For example, when the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law," it means that Congress shall make no law. Not some laws. Not alot of laws. Not laws only if this applies. No laws. Zero. Zilch Nada. None.