Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jihad High School

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by WuDrWu View Post

    And this is why everyone has to go. EVERYONE. Recently I heard Mitch McConnell talk about what he might or might not do in 2024 regarding filling a Supreme Court position. How about you do the People's work today, Mitch? In 2024 you should be a masters checkers player worrying about the early bird special and that's ALL.

    WuShock16 and I have had many political and philosophical discussions. We agree on some things and disagree on many. But we could, and if charged, WOULD, come up with a fix. We might argue and yell, but we'd work together and figure out how to get to a solution and if we couldn't fix big problems, we'd start with smaller ones. Just like most everyone here would do.

    And that's simply NOT how we're represented, politically, anymore. We're represented by power hungry and corrupt politicians interested in their own success, at the expense of the taxpayers.



    Brewster's Millions. NONE of the above.
    Mitch may not be your cup of tea Doc, but does McConnell equal the Squad? Pelosi is protecting the Squad but while I don’t agree with all Republicans all the time, I don’t see the equity (to use a Democrat racist packed term).

    Doc, maybe you can answer my question above. Who are the right wing extremists?

    Comment


    • #17
      This is the big problem with the two party system. It's strictly about power and control and little to no compromise or negotiation. If we had three, four, five, whatever parties, there would need to be more discussion and working together to get things done. Some parties would be closer to others on certain issues, but one would hope that no one party would have the power to do things on their own.

      Sadly, it doesn't appear we're likely to see anything like that in for foreseeable future as anyone outside of the two dominant parties is cast aside by media and others and they generally end up with zero coverage and no real chance at election. Of course, this leads to more of the same crap that so many complain about.

      I believe most of us would agree that we can be mostly civil and still get along with people with whom we have disagreements with. We can still talk and figure stuff out. There's little interest in DC for that and absolutely no interest in the media to see it happen. Most Americans aren't really represented by either the R or D. We may side more with one than the other, but I would guess if we really broke down the beliefs, policies and whatnot of both parties, and most who run within them, we'd end up in agreement with maybe 70% of one. While that's not horrible, it's also not necessarily representative of who we truly are. It's what leads to the "lesser of two evils" that most seem to vote for.

      All of this also makes me wonder how either party gets away with catering to their extreme members who represent and even smaller percentage of their voters than most seem to believe. Most Americans are much closer in their beliefs than not, but the parties are drastically apart in many areas and force more reasonable people to pick a side, even if neither is good for them. Both parties really need to fracture and split. At some point, they'll have to. The extremists get more bold and make most of the noise and at some point there's going to be those that have some level of backbone that will say enough is enough. How long that will take, is anyone's guess.

      The beauty of life is that we're all different. We have different beliefs. Different wants. Different needs. We should all be able to pursue those things in relative harmony without forcing others to do things against theirs or to harm others.

      Omar is a loon.
      Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
      RIP Guy Always A Shocker
      Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
      ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
      Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
      Save Shocker Sports - A rallying cry

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SubGod22 View Post
        This is the big problem with the two party system. It's strictly about power and control and little to no compromise or negotiation. If we had three, four, five, whatever parties, there would need to be more discussion and working together to get things done. Some parties would be closer to others on certain issues, but one would hope that no one party would have the power to do things on their own.

        Sadly, it doesn't appear we're likely to see anything like that in for foreseeable future as anyone outside of the two dominant parties is cast aside by media and others and they generally end up with zero coverage and no real chance at election. Of course, this leads to more of the same crap that so many complain about.

        I believe most of us would agree that we can be mostly civil and still get along with people with whom we have disagreements with. We can still talk and figure stuff out. There's little interest in DC for that and absolutely no interest in the media to see it happen. Most Americans aren't really represented by either the R or D. We may side more with one than the other, but I would guess if we really broke down the beliefs, policies and whatnot of both parties, and most who run within them, we'd end up in agreement with maybe 70% of one. While that's not horrible, it's also not necessarily representative of who we truly are. It's what leads to the "lesser of two evils" that most seem to vote for.

        All of this also makes me wonder how either party gets away with catering to their extreme members who represent and even smaller percentage of their voters than most seem to believe. Most Americans are much closer in their beliefs than not, but the parties are drastically apart in many areas and force more reasonable people to pick a side, even if neither is good for them. Both parties really need to fracture and split. At some point, they'll have to. The extremists get more bold and make most of the noise and at some point there's going to be those that have some level of backbone that will say enough is enough. How long that will take, is anyone's guess.

        The beauty of life is that we're all different. We have different beliefs. Different wants. Different needs. We should all be able to pursue those things in relative harmony without forcing others to do things against theirs or to harm others.

        Omar is a loon.
        The media says that all Republican or right leaning people are extremists. Maybe you can tell me who the right leaning extremists are. Maybe the Anti-Antifa thugs who are causing all of the riots in Minnesota. Portland, New York, California, etc. They ar3 the extremists, even though I don’t know who they are. Please have a discussion and tell me who the right wing extremists are that the media and Democrat Party point to because I know who the Squad, and Antifa are.

        Comment


        • #19
          Those in the party that continue to blindly support corporate welfare. (playing favorites and picking winners and losers isn't small government)
          Those in the party that want to control tech companies because they don't agree with them. (Nothing about this is small government)
          Those in the party that continue to want to spend more and more money. (spending less than Dems want isn't fiscal conservatism)
          Those in the party that want to dictate what businesses can and cannot do. (I hate the idea of proof of vaccine to do something, but if a business wants to do it, let them. Free market should prevail)
          Those in the party that continue to support the surveillance state. (Republicans have supported the overextension of gov't surveillance for at least 20 years)
          Those in the party that basically ignore the party platform of small government and continue to pull the party into wanting more power and control over the lives of others. (There seem to be few small government members of the party in DC)

          Which seems to be the majority of those elected representatives in DC within the Republican party. The party of small government is dominated by big government cronies. So for an alleged small government party, most of the elected representatives hold extremist views. If the party was honest about what it really strived for, there would be far fewer extremists, and those that would be, would be the few small government types that still manage to get elected.

          And we can play this same game on the Dems side. Though they've been more open as a party about their desire to grow government and the few moderates with at least a little backbone are the outcasts. I do believe they have more moderates than one would think, though they're spineless when it comes down to it and follow party leadership. But the same can be said with republicans. If you don't blindly support the leadership, you will be attacked.

          But if you want a list, my list of non-extremists on the right would be much shorter than the list of those I consider more extremists. I'm guessing you like the extremists so therefore don't consider them as such. And for the record, extremists aren't only those that support or resort to violence, which you seem to indicate.

          I do think the R party would be much better off with more representatives like Massie, McClintock, Amash, Lee, Scott, Paul and a few others who are generally platform republicans who support smaller government like the rest pretend to advocate for. I still have some issues with where they stand on certain issues, but I'm also not a Republican.

          I will state that it's possible that many of those I'd consider more extremist republican types may just be because I only hear about/from them on issues where I think they're more off the rails of the small gov't claim that the party still uses, and they may be more small government than I realize.

          I will also state that the party would greatly benefit from a change in leadership. McConnell is an idiot and couldn't lead anyone out of a wet paper bag.
          Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
          RIP Guy Always A Shocker
          Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
          ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
          Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
          Save Shocker Sports - A rallying cry

          Comment


          • #20
            A 3+ party system is a pie in the sky dream. There is no way to make it work because it either uses a run-off system or ranked choice voting. On top of that, the only people who would vote “off party” are those who are of a more conservative persuasion, and will end up getting someone elected with less than a majority. It is possible for someone to get elected with 34% of the vote if three people are running. If you do a run off, money comes into play. The money will control the perceptions, and that’s impossible to overcome.

            The way more realistic fix is term limits. That will create coalitions, but with coalitions you have a much better chance to have multiple parties because the coalitions will vie for control of the party, and money will fund the coalition instead of the party. We will have the same issues but broken into smaller chunks that are easier to overcome by a grass roots movement.
            People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. -Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by SubGod22 View Post
              This is the big problem with the two party system. It's strictly about power and control and little to no compromise or negotiation. If we had three, four, five, whatever parties, there would need to be more discussion and working together to get things done. Some parties would be closer to others on certain issues, but one would hope that no one party would have the power to do things on their own.

              Sadly, it doesn't appear we're likely to see anything like that in for foreseeable future as anyone outside of the two dominant parties is cast aside by media and others and they generally end up with zero coverage and no real chance at election. Of course, this leads to more of the same crap that so many complain about.

              I believe most of us would agree that we can be mostly civil and still get along with people with whom we have disagreements with. We can still talk and figure stuff out. There's little interest in DC for that and absolutely no interest in the media to see it happen. Most Americans aren't really represented by either the R or D. We may side more with one than the other, but I would guess if we really broke down the beliefs, policies and whatnot of both parties, and most who run within them, we'd end up in agreement with maybe 70% of one. While that's not horrible, it's also not necessarily representative of who we truly are. It's what leads to the "lesser of two evils" that most seem to vote for.

              All of this also makes me wonder how either party gets away with catering to their extreme members who represent and even smaller percentage of their voters than most seem to believe. Most Americans are much closer in their beliefs than not, but the parties are drastically apart in many areas and force more reasonable people to pick a side, even if neither is good for them. Both parties really need to fracture and split. At some point, they'll have to. The extremists get more bold and make most of the noise and at some point there's going to be those that have some level of backbone that will say enough is enough. How long that will take, is anyone's guess.

              The beauty of life is that we're all different. We have different beliefs. Different wants. Different needs. We should all be able to pursue those things in relative harmony without forcing others to do things against theirs or to harm others.

              Omar is a loon.
              Why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can vote for the lesser of three?
              Livin the dream

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shock View Post
                A 3+ party system is a pie in the sky dream. There is no way to make it work because it either uses a run-off system or ranked choice voting. On top of that, the only people who would vote “off party” are those who are of a more conservative persuasion, and will end up getting someone elected with less than a majority. It is possible for someone to get elected with 34% of the vote if three people are running. If you do a run off, money comes into play. The money will control the perceptions, and that’s impossible to overcome.

                The way more realistic fix is term limits. That will create coalitions, but with coalitions you have a much better chance to have multiple parties because the coalitions will vie for control of the party, and money will fund the coalition instead of the party. We will have the same issues but broken into smaller chunks that are easier to overcome by a grass roots movement.
                Term limits and the number of parties are surface level concerns for problems that radiate deep.
                Livin the dream

                Comment


                • #23
                  The real problem is that there is 6 trillion (or however much now) getting spent when all that should be is defense, Social security and Medicare. The rest is pissed away at crap that has less than zero benefit to anyone but the politicians that funnel it and the mooches that lobbied the politicians. And we just let it happen because live in the richest country in the world.

                  If the country were really as this little lady claims, with a political class living like they do, she and those that agree with her should be burning down Washington and beheading the politicians yesterday!

                  But the facts are that we don't really care about the graft because most of us are just too damn comfy to care.

                  Revolution is hard.
                  Civil War is hard.

                  Buying creature comforts on Amazon and bitching is easy.
                  When the power, food and cell service goes, then we'll talk. But until then, all you can do is vote for the millionaire that talks best and doesn't hurt your feelings.
                  "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ShockerPrez View Post
                    The real problem is that there is 6 trillion (or however much now) getting spent when all that should be is defense, Social security and Medicare. The rest is pissed away at crap that has less than zero benefit to anyone but the politicians that funnel it and the mooches that lobbied the politicians. And we just let it happen because live in the richest country in the world.

                    If the country were really as this little lady claims, with a political class living like they do, she and those that agree with her should be burning down Washington and beheading the politicians yesterday!

                    But the facts are that we don't really care about the graft because most of us are just too damn comfy to care.

                    Revolution is hard.
                    Civil War is hard.

                    Buying creature comforts on Amazon and bitching is easy.
                    When the power, food and cell service goes, then we'll talk. But until then, all you can do is vote for the millionaire that talks best and doesn't hurt your feelings.
                    Term limits and party balances don’t matter if the federal government doesn’t have so much power.
                    Livin the dream

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by wufan View Post

                      Term limits and party balances don’t matter if the federal government doesn’t have so much power.
                      Agreed, but unfortunately that ship sailed 20 years ago. The majority of Americans now want free government ****. They have never lived in a world without. (Even our poor have it good).

                      There is zero political incentive to cut government. The system will need to collapse in order for real change to occur.

                      And then capitalism will be blamed.
                      "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ShockerPrez View Post

                        Agreed, but unfortunately that ship sailed 20 years ago. The majority of Americans now want free government ****. They have never livedcin a world without. (Even our poor have it good).

                        There is zero political incentive to cut government. The system will need to collapse in order for real change to occur.

                        And then capitalism will be blamed.
                        A collapsatsrian!
                        Livin the dream

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X