Bi-partisanship

[EAwer 1]

Principle is second to unity. If you live by a set of principles that you will result in the best life, then you would not sacrifice these principles in order to appease your neighbor. Why should politicians be any different? If someone is against a federally funded bailout in principle, why should they sacrifice this principle in the name of this idea known as "bi partisanship?" Bi partisanship is a crock of ###### and should not be a factor when legislatures decide their votes.

[Savage Beast 1]

Principle is second to unity. If you live by a set of principles that you will result in the best life, then you would not sacrifice these principles in order to appease your neighbor. Why should politicians be any different? If someone is against a federally funded bailout in principle, why should they sacrifice this principle in the name of this idea known as "bi partisanship?" Bi partisanship is a crock of ###### and should not be a factor when legislatures decide their votes.

 

[Vikings4ever 500]

 

When the 2 parties do work together, the average American generally ends up getting screwed over.

 

I'd rather the 2 parties fight and bicker, rendering the federal government, for all intents and purposes, impotent, as the founding fathers wanted it to be.

[Voltaire 4,630]

 

When the 2 parties do work together, the average American generally ends up getting screwed over.

 

I'd rather the 2 parties fight and bicker, rendering the federal government, for all intents and purposes, impotent, as the founding fathers wanted it to be.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Big fights of presidents vs Congress of the opposing pary have always worked well. Reagan vs Dems, Daddy Bush vs Dems, Clinton vs GOP were the best times of this country. It's always been when one party controlled everything that we got the most screwed: Clinton and the Dems, The Bushtard and the GOP, and now Obama and the Dems.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

The way a legislature is supposed to work is simple.

 

Each of the 535 members of Congress should review each bill, have their staffs do any necessary research and whatnot, solicit opinions from applicable groups and individuals.

 

And then they should go to the chamber and vote based on one principle, and one only: What is best for the people of this country?

 

Not "well, I have to face reelection soon, and this is unpopular." Not, "well, this bill is a POS, but the whip is leaning on me hard to vote the party line, and I need the party's support in the next election." Not, "ABC corp hates this bill, and they are my biggest campaign donor, so I better vote no."

 

Any legislator who ever votes for any reason other than what he or she thinks is best for the country is a lowlife POS and should be shot.

 

If I ever were to be elected to either Congress or the State Legislature, I can guarantee I would be a one termer. I wouldn't even bother to return the Party leadership's phone calls, or attend caucus meetings. I wouldn't be out shilling rich folks for money. And I would vote my conscience, party be damned.

 

I think you could fix a lot of the evils of our system of government by term limiting every office to one term. If Congressmen and Senators were unable to ever run for re-election, many problems would be solved.

 

1) No more pandering to the voters on issues they aren't qualified to judge.

2) No more pandering to lobbyists and special interest groups.

3) Much less corruption

4) We'd actually have full time lawmakers, instead of fund raisers who moonlight as lawmakers.

5) You wouldn't have people who served for 70 years able to pass as much pork

6) The job would not be a lucrative career, but a brief period of service. Perhaps this would get the right kind of people in Congress, and the lifer wh0res out.

 

At least that's my $.02

[Snoopy1 0]

The way a legislature is supposed to work is simple.

 

Each of the 535 members of Congress should review each bill, have their staffs do any necessary research and whatnot, solicit opinions from applicable groups and individuals.

 

And then they should go to the chamber and vote based on one principle, and one only: What is best for the people of this country?

 

What if the bill is best for the country, but not best for the legislator's home constituents?

[Lackman 0]

Just because they enjoy having sex with men and women is no reason to judge them.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

What if the bill is best for the country, but not best for the legislator's home constituents?

 

Well, I guess there are two schools of thought on that.

 

Some would say a legislator is supposed to represent the people of his or her district, and that they should vote as such.

 

Others would say that Congress is a national body, and that its members should vote with the good of the nation as a whole in mind.

 

I tend to support the latter view, but I suppose that is between a Congressman and his or her constituents.

[wiffleball 4,696]

What if the bill is best for the country, but not best for the legislator's home constituents?

 

Nice.

 

Roland Martin had it right a few days ago. Basically he said "Everbody needs to shut up about pork. You all shout about pork - until that pork benefits your state, then "well it's all part of the process of fighting for my constituents." Stop being hypocrites. When you make a vow to never push for pork for your state - and MEAN it, then you can talk about pork. But you won't do that, because you'd never get re-elected."

 

He nailed it. Find me a Senator who doesn't come up with multi million dollar boondoogles for his constituents and I'll show you a Senator who's out of work. So now what? They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

- Not trying to turn this into a porkfest.

[KSB2424 3,087]

Nice.

 

Roland Martin had it right a few days ago. Basically he said "Everbody needs to shut up about pork. You all shout about pork - until that pork benefits your state, then "well it's all part of the process of fighting for my constituents." Stop being hypocrites. When you make a vow to never push for pork for your state - and MEAN it, then you can talk about pork. But you won't do that, because you'd never get re-elected."

 

He nailed it. Find me a Senator who doesn't come up with multi million dollar boondoogles for his constituents and I'll show you a Senator who's out of work. So now what? They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

- Not trying to turn this into a porkfest.

Valid points. I think the differentiation is in perception and size. When things are going good, and taxes are low, and the deficit is halfway under control pork is tolerated by the general public and understood as congress trying to get a piece of pie for their state. But when the economy is in the tank. It comes out that the pork money is not really used as it was intended, the spending is exuberant, pork is hidden in the name of stimulus, ect. It rubs people the wrong way.

 

But back to the topic at hand, I think Vike4Ever nailed it in my opinion.

[EAwer 1]

 

When the 2 parties do work together, the average American generally ends up getting screwed over.

 

I'd rather the 2 parties fight and bicker, rendering the federal government, for all intents and purposes, impotent, as the founding fathers wanted it to be.

 

Exactly. The less a government does, the better the lives of its citizenry.

[wiffleball 4,696]

But back to the topic at hand, I think Vike4Ever nailed it in my opinion.

 

 

Pretty much, but a few things:

 

 

1) Did the FF really intend for their to be only 2 parties? Fock, the parties we have didn't even exist back then, did they? Whigs? I knew they wanted a check and balance between Congress and the Exec, but I'm not clear on the whole 2 parties aspect of that.

 

2) The OP isn't quite right. If you dig into the principles of the FF, these fockers had some very solid beliefs about things. - And ultimately, ended up compromising those very stringent principles for the greater good.

 

3) For example, did you know that Ben Franklin wanted the national bird to be the Turkey?

[Snoopy1 0]

Pretty much, but a few things:

 

 

3) For example, did you know that Ben Franklin wanted the national bird to be the Turkey?

 

That would of made Thanksgiving the suxor...

[wiffleball 4,696]

Exactly. The less a government does, the better the lives of its citizenry.

 

I've said this before, but what the heck:

 

Did you realize that back when the FF first established Congress that being a Congressman was a part-time gig? These guys would get together for a month or two in the summer (fields had been planted, not yet harvest time) knock out what needed to be done, then go the fock home and hold their real jobs, hang out with the real people. Sure, they might send letters back and forth debating things. They'd work on stuff at home, then bring it to Philadelphia and debate it, that kind of stuff. But mostly, they stayed home and lived as normal hardworking citizens.

 

Think about that. These guys set up AN ENTIRE GOVERNMENT: The Federal Reserve, the Army, - every GD thing. In a matter of weeks. Then went the fock home. All the necessary laws have been passed. Now, politicians (state and local) are just making up shiit to look busy. Trans-Fats? Are you kidding me?

 

I think we need to go back to that. Fine, you guys get to meet for two weeks once a quarter. Whatever shiit needs passing, gets done then. Then you go back and have to face your constituents in the grocery store, the bank, restaurants, etc. If you're focking up, you'll hear about it.

 

We'd be a lot better off.

[wiffleball 4,696]

That would of made Thanksgiving the suxor...

 

Dunno. I've never deep-fried an Eagle before...

[TD Ryan2 315]

Principle is second to unity.

 

 

sure, but the problem is that half the time "principle" has NOTHING to do with how elected officials govern.

Principle goes out the window the minute someone from another party has a decent plan or idea. Principle goes out the window the minute campaign donors, corporate allies, and lobbyists might lose some money. Principle becomes the shield the elected officials hide their idiocy and greed behind.

and then the dumfocks who believe naively that their elected officials have "principle" take to the streets and internets to defend these wonderful "principles".

 

EDIT:

and this is the problem with partisanship and how our elections and politics are run in the first place.

 

See, the goal of politicians isn't to make things "right" or "better" for the people. The job is to GET ELECTED. That's it.

If you want to GET ELECTED, you need money (which leads you away from your wonderful principles) and you need the opponent to fail and look bad (which again leads you away from your wonderful principles).

 

And the officials justify it in their evil, pea brains by thinking:

- If I don't sell my soul a little, if I don't do a couple of unscrupulous things to get elected, I'll never get to make any changes based on my principles. So, the things I have to do to get elected are a necessary evil.

 

John McCain/Sarah Palin is a great example of this. McCain is freakin' war hero. He's a great American and by most accounts a man of integrity and principle even in the most dire of situations.

But to GET ELECTED, some strategists and pollsters come up with Sarah Palin. You bet your ass McCain hated the idea, but... he had no choice... sell your sould a little if you want to get all your wonderful principles in place as President.

 

see? focked up system :yes:

The job of candidates is to be candidates, not Senators, Presidents, or Statesmen... that sh!t's all secondary (maybe tertiary).

[wiffleball 4,696]

sure, but the problem is that half the time "principle" has NOTHING to do with how elected officials govern.

Principle goes out the window the minute someone from another party has a decent plan or idea. Principle goes out the window the minute campaign donors, corporate allies, and lobbyists might lose some money. Principle becomes the shield the elected officials hide their idiocy and greed behind.

and then the dumfocks who believe naively that their elected officials have "principle" take to the streets and internets to defend these wonderful "principles".

 

Excellent, excellent post.

 

[Voltaire 4,630]

Pretty much, but a few things:

1) Did the FF really intend for their to be only 2 parties? Fock, the parties we have didn't even exist back then, did they? Whigs? I knew they wanted a check and balance between Congress and the Exec, but I'm not clear on the whole 2 parties aspect of that.

 

2) The OP isn't quite right. If you dig into the principles of the FF, these fockers had some very solid beliefs about things. - And ultimately, ended up compromising those very stringent principles for the greater good.

 

3) For example, did you know that Ben Franklin wanted the national bird to be the Turkey?

 

The first parties were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. Parties were well established in governments of the time and founders were aware of them but didn't particularly like them. They were building a government from scratch, never took parties into account, and built the mechanism to essentially have two parties by default. In Europe third parties can win seats in the legislature if they (depending on the country) get 5% of the vote even if they don't win any districts. They learned from our mistakes. In the US, third parties are useless, their only function is splintering off votes from the major party closest to them.

[wiffleball 4,696]

The first parties were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. Parties were well established in governments of the time and founders were aware of them but didn't particularly like them. They were building a government from scratch, never took parties into account, and built the mechanism to essentially have two parties by default.

 

Is the bolded part true? I don't understand. They didn't like parties, didn't take parties into account, but set up a system to have two parties by default? WTF?

 

Excuse my ignorance. I really don't know. And that seems contradictory.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Pretty much, but a few things:

1) Did the FF really intend for their to be only 2 parties? Fock, the parties we have didn't even exist back then, did they? Whigs? I knew they wanted a check and balance between Congress and the Exec, but I'm not clear on the whole 2 parties aspect of that.

 

I think partisanship got itself started in America with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As an aside, this is also, to the best of my knowledge, the first time in American Politics that "brand" won. The Federalists were for something, and the Antis were merely against something. That lesson trickles down to us today. You notice that we have "pro lifers" not "anti abortioners".

 

Anyway, no wiff, this was not intended to be a two party system. In fact, Washington warned against the dangers of party politics. Unfortunately, just like his warning to avoid foreign entanglements, this warning was ignored.

 

The early years of the Republic were rife with partisan bickering. The Federalists, led by Adams, their only President, fought with the Democratic-Republicans, of which Jefferson was a founder.

 

In fact, as a historical aside, the principle of judicial review of decisions of the other two branches came about because of partisan bickering.

 

Adams, a Federalist, appointed a Mr. Marbury to be Justice of The Peace for D.C., as he was leaving office.

 

When Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, took office, decided not to deliver the patent, and just sat on it.

 

Marbury sued to compel Monroe, as Sec. of State, to deliver the patent, and in the famous case Marbury v. Madison, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall made a power grab, and declared the applicable statute unconsitutional, and began the tradition of Judicial review.

 

Anyway, there's todays history lesson kids. Enjoy your day.

[Vikings4ever 500]

Pretty much, but a few things:

1) Did the FF really intend for their to be only 2 parties? Fock, the parties we have didn't even exist back then, did they? Whigs? I knew they wanted a check and balance between Congress and the Exec, but I'm not clear on the whole 2 parties aspect of that.

I meant the founding fathers wanted the federal government to be (pretty much) impotent.

[Snoopy1 0]

The first parties were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. Parties were well established in governments of the time and founders were aware of them but didn't particularly like them. They were building a government from scratch, never took parties into account, and built the mechanism to essentially have two parties by default. In Europe third parties can win seats in the legislature if they (depending on the country) get 5% of the vote even if they don't win any districts. They learned from our mistakes. In the US, third parties are useless, their only function is splintering off votes from the major party closest to them.

 

Looking at the parilimentary model, I've wondered if multiple parties would serve us better. For instance, say there were a uber right, conservative, centrist, left, way left partys-with none having a majority, wouldn't the result be that groups would be forced to work together to get legislation passed. Or nothing would happen at all...and I'd be cool with that too.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Looking at the parilimentary model, I've wondered if multiple parties would serve us better. For instance, say there were a uber right, conservative, centrist, left, way left partys-with none having a majority, wouldn't the result be that groups would be forced to work together to get legislation passed. Or nothing would happen at all...and I'd be cool with that too.

 

That system has its pluses and minuses. It is largely the reason why countries such as France and Italy can't keep a government in power for more than two weeks.

 

But basically, it would just function the same. The right centrist party, if it wanted power, would have to cut a deal with the uber right party, and the same on the left. They basically do that now, just under the Aegis of two parties, rather than four or five.

[GettnHuge 1]

the more the pol parties fight about the more they keep their base in line.

[Snoopy1 0]

That system has its pluses and minuses. It is largely the reason why countries such as France and Italy can't keep a government in power for more than two weeks.

 

But basically, it would just function the same. The right centrist party, if it wanted power, would have to cut a deal with the uber right party, and the same on the left. They basically do that now, just under the Aegis of two parties, rather than four or five.

 

Sure that would happen, but either side would need the centrists party to move anything forward. Actually compromise & some bipartisanship might actually happen. Rather than the straight party-line votes we get now...

 

Oh well I guess I should leave Narnia now.

[Vikings4ever 500]

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Big fights of presidents vs Congress of the opposing pary have always worked well. Reagan vs Dems, Daddy Bush vs Dems, Clinton vs GOP were the best times of this country. It's always been when one party controlled everything that we got the most screwed: Clinton and the Dems, The Bushtard and the GOP, and now Obama and the Dems.

That just goes back to my argument about the 2 parties fighting. When the 2 parties check each other things go well. When they work together (or a party has a supermajority where the other can't check the one in power), things don't.

[wiffleball 4,696]

Looking at the parilimentary model, I've wondered if multiple parties would serve us better. For instance, say there were a uber right, conservative, centrist, left, way left partys-with none having a majority, wouldn't the result be that groups would be forced to work together to get legislation passed. Or nothing would happen at all...and I'd be cool with that too.

 

I loved watching Tony Blair take questions from Parliament. I honest to God think we should have that. It would require smarter Presidents - instead of some moron like Bush hiding behind his spokesmen. I couldn't help but think of how Bush would do in such a format. Clinton and Obama can hold their own. Clinton more than Obama so far, but most modern presidents would fail miserably.

 

This new bloke from England sucks too. Gordon Brown has all the charisma of a wet noodle.