What kind of government do you want?

[Slade3200]

Some in this country want government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, paid for by someone else of course.

Perhaps a small insignificant fraction. No point in putting all your energy focusing on that though. Most people are looking for a healthy balance

Most people are looking for a healthy balance???? Sure sounds like the folks on the left want the people on the right to pay for them...is that your idea of a balance?

If thats what you think the left wants then you don't understand their position. A simple example to disprove your point are the many many upperclass people who are on the left. These people are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and pay a shit ton in taxes. Maybe you think about them and their mentality when it comes to their ideology. Maybe there is more to it than the simplistic slander that you try to define it as.

Well, I don't have a free Obama-phone, I don't have subsidized healthcare, I haven't participated in any "peaceful" protest marches, I haven't taken a shit in someone else's front yard (or public park, or city hall), haven't burned down someone's business or car, so maybe I don't understand their position.

You obviously don't if you think you just defined what the majority of liberals believe/support

 

[OKTexas]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

Here's a thought, how about a federal government that follows the Constitution as written, then there would be a few thousand less topics of contention.

What do they do that's unconstitutional?

I'll give you one example and only one.

Regulating under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, things that are grown on private property, that never enter into commerce of any manner. Everything stays on the property, much less cross State lines.

 

[Slade3200]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

Here's a thought, how about a federal government that follows the Constitution as written, then there would be a few thousand less topics of contention.

What do they do that's unconstitutional?

I'll give you one example and only one.

Regulating under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, things that are grown on private property, that never enter into commerce of any manner. Everything stays on the property, much less cross State lines.

Who decides whether a bill is constitutional or not?

 

[OKTexas]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

Here's a thought, how about a federal government that follows the Constitution as written, then there would be a few thousand less topics of contention.

What do they do that's unconstitutional?

I'll give you one example and only one.

Regulating under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, things that are grown on private property, that never enter into commerce of any manner. Everything stays on the property, much less cross State lines.

Who decides whether a bill is constitutional or not?

No one needs to decide, the framers said it was written so the simplest framer could understand it. Do you have trouble figuring out what commerce between the States means?

 

[usmbguest5318]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation.

The surest way to be no better than one's opponents and peers is to emulate them.

 

[Slade3200]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

Here's a thought, how about a federal government that follows the Constitution as written, then there would be a few thousand less topics of contention.

What do they do that's unconstitutional?

I'll give you one example and only one.

Regulating under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, things that are grown on private property, that never enter into commerce of any manner. Everything stays on the property, much less cross State lines.

Who decides whether a bill is constitutional or not?

No one needs to decide, the framers said it was written so the simplest framer could understand it. Do you have trouble figuring out what commerce between the States means?

Obviously there needs to be a process that determines what's constitutional or not as their is often differences of opinion about it

 

[dblack]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

I think we're mistaken to take the current political divide in the US as a serious indication of underlying social discord. It's the two parties vying for control of our government who are bitterly opposed. Their opposition spills over into society - more so in this last election than any I've seen - but I think we have it backward if we think a social dispute is driving the politics. It's the other way around.

I also think it's important to recognize how much the partisan divide is driven by the rules we use for elections and lawmaking. With plurality, winner-take-all voting, there's simply no incentive for leaders to build broad consensus. Arguably, it's a waste of political capital to do so. This is why Democrats voted for a health care law with slim majority support. They didn't need more than a slim majority to pass the bill and had no incentive to write a law that would appeal to more voters. Now that the Republicans are in power, they're likely to do the same thing. They'll squeeze in the most radical changes they can manage, as long as they can eek out a win. And the pendulum will swing back after they push it too far, as they almost certainly will.

My point here is that the more or less even split between the left and right our country isn't a reflection of a real split in our values. It's an artifact or the two-party system, which is itself an artifact of our election systems. If we want to unite the country we have to address the root cause and fix the system. And fixing the system means changing the voting system so that it reflects the real values of voters and encourages broad consensus rather than narrow majorities.

I cannot imagine how the voting system could be changed to accomplish the goals you stated in your last sentence.

 

[Chuz Life]

I want a government that steadfastly adheres to the letter and to (more importantly) the principles espoused in our Constitution.

And that's it.

 

[OKTexas]

Here's a thought, how about a federal government that follows the Constitution as written, then there would be a few thousand less topics of contention.

What do they do that's unconstitutional?

I'll give you one example and only one.

Regulating under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, things that are grown on private property, that never enter into commerce of any manner. Everything stays on the property, much less cross State lines.

Who decides whether a bill is constitutional or not?

No one needs to decide, the framers said it was written so the simplest framer could understand it. Do you have trouble figuring out what commerce between the States means?

Obviously there needs to be a process that determines what's constitutional or not as their is often differences of opinion about it

Don't know why, the text is pretty simple. There are also detailed explanations available in the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by the founders.

 

[Rambunctious]

What kind of government do you want?

small

 

[Slade3200]

What do they do that's unconstitutional?

I'll give you one example and only one.

Regulating under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, things that are grown on private property, that never enter into commerce of any manner. Everything stays on the property, much less cross State lines.

Who decides whether a bill is constitutional or not?

No one needs to decide, the framers said it was written so the simplest framer could understand it. Do you have trouble figuring out what commerce between the States means?

Obviously there needs to be a process that determines what's constitutional or not as their is often differences of opinion about it

Don't know why, the text is pretty simple. There are also detailed explanations available in the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by the founders.

Yet there is still debate. So there must be a system that passes judgement and is responsible for enforcement pertaining to the constitutionality of our laws. Right?

 

[OKTexas]

I'll give you one example and only one.

Regulating under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, things that are grown on private property, that never enter into commerce of any manner. Everything stays on the property, much less cross State lines.

Who decides whether a bill is constitutional or not?

No one needs to decide, the framers said it was written so the simplest framer could understand it. Do you have trouble figuring out what commerce between the States means?

Obviously there needs to be a process that determines what's constitutional or not as their is often differences of opinion about it

Don't know why, the text is pretty simple. There are also detailed explanations available in the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by the founders.

Yet there is still debate. So there must be a system that passes judgement and is responsible for enforcement pertaining to the constitutionality of our laws. Right?

What can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.

 

[Slade3200]

Who decides whether a bill is constitutional or not?

No one needs to decide, the framers said it was written so the simplest framer could understand it. Do you have trouble figuring out what commerce between the States means?

Obviously there needs to be a process that determines what's constitutional or not as their is often differences of opinion about it

Don't know why, the text is pretty simple. There are also detailed explanations available in the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by the founders.

Yet there is still debate. So there must be a system that passes judgement and is responsible for enforcement pertaining to the constitutionality of our laws. Right?

What can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.

You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handled

 

[OKTexas]

No one needs to decide, the framers said it was written so the simplest framer could understand it. Do you have trouble figuring out what commerce between the States means?

Obviously there needs to be a process that determines what's constitutional or not as their is often differences of opinion about it

Don't know why, the text is pretty simple. There are also detailed explanations available in the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by the founders.

Yet there is still debate. So there must be a system that passes judgement and is responsible for enforcement pertaining to the constitutionality of our laws. Right?

What can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.

You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handled

Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.

BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.

 

[Darkwind]

I want a government that has a flat head so while it is giving Me head, I have a place to put My beer down. Afterward, it turns into a bag of coke and a straw.

 

[Muhammed]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

You are bitching about nothing.

Of course the Republicans did what they could to stop the evil Democrats from further damaging the USA against the will of the people. A prime example of this is when the Republicans blocked the Democrats from making our electricity bills skyrocket. I even took a poll here at USPOL and none of you LWNJs voted that you wanted your electricity bills to skyrocket.

The Republicans saved your collective asses AGAIN! If you had any ******* common sense whatsoever you would boycott the Democratic party and vote them into the dustbin of US history.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

The first thing to have is to have choice with political parties. How many times do people come on here and say "the right are for choice" and then demand to keep the political system with only two parties and no real choice?

Proportional Representation of some kind is the way forward. I like the German system where people vote twice. PR and FPTP so you end up with a local representative, but also with a govt that is actually what the people want. And it also ends up with coalition govts which forces political parties to work together, and prevents abuse.

Beyond this I've been thinking how best policies could be implemented. Could people vote for the executive in parts? Rather than having one president who controls everything, have people voting for the the person in charge of education. They run on policies, they state their budget during the election, and they're given that budget and then they have to achieve the goals they set out. This would allow people to vote for what they want in specific areas, rather than having to choose between one thing they want but getting something else they don't want.

 

[Slade3200]

Obviously there needs to be a process that determines what's constitutional or not as their is often differences of opinion about it

Don't know why, the text is pretty simple. There are also detailed explanations available in the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by the founders.

Yet there is still debate. So there must be a system that passes judgement and is responsible for enforcement pertaining to the constitutionality of our laws. Right?

What can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.

You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handled

Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.

BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?

 

[Slade3200]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

You are bitching about nothing.

Of course the Republicans did what they could to stop the evil Democrats from further damaging the USA against the will of the people. A prime example of this is when the Republicans blocked the Democrats from making our electricity bills skyrocket. I even took a poll here at USPOL and none of you LWNJs voted that you wanted your electricity bills to skyrocket.

The Republicans saved your collective asses AGAIN! If you had any ******* common sense whatsoever you would boycott the Democratic party and vote them into the dustbin of US history.

Haha, yeah right. You're definitely part of the problem. The saine voices will drown out the kind of blister you are spewing out, you can't honestly think that rational people take you seriously

 

[OKTexas]

Don't know why, the text is pretty simple. There are also detailed explanations available in the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by the founders.

Yet there is still debate. So there must be a system that passes judgement and is responsible for enforcement pertaining to the constitutionality of our laws. Right?

What can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.

You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handled

Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.

BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?

So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?