Seems like a bunch of different parties used to run for president back in the 1800s.

Not that comparing anything to the 1800s makes a good case for it.

Runyan interviewed on Hardball about the Sandy relief bill. Sounds exactly like you'd expect a former offensive tackle to sound.

kimbatiste wrote:Runyan interviewed on Hardball about the Sandy relief bill. Sounds exactly like you'd expect a former offensive tackle to sound.

Then again, so does this Joe Crowley cat.

That's Candy.

politics is such a joke. two separate votes on Hurrican Sandy relief so conservative crazies can say they didn't vote to add money to the debt. WHO GIVES A CRAP WHEN MILLIONS ARE IN NEED

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Unless you want a new constitution that isn't happening.

There havs been numerous points in our history where we've had more than 2 parties. Especially candidates who made a difference prior to the 1850's.

partisanship is the biggest failure of our society. it creates almost all of the problems we have today. a large chunk of the elected officials in this country don't vote with their convictions or their true beliefs, they vote in a way that will keep them out of trouble when they run for re-election. it happens on both sides. its shitty. its the reason i abandoned the notion of working in politics, despite wasting 4 years getting a BA in political science. the two party machine forces people to vote with their party as a whole in mind and not vote based on their own convictions. the two party machine drills people to believe there are only 2 solutions to any problem.

the three branches of government is a good idea. its good that potential laws have to be debated and vetted by multiple branches before they become law. its good that the president cant just come up with an idea and immediately enact it. dictatorships aren't good, generally speaking. but the two party system has gone a long way in killing pragmatism, critical thinking, and individual thought.

i know its a fight that cant be won. which is why its merely a dream to me.

Why we have a 2 party system:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Who wins on the payrolls tax thing?

I don't think either party particularly liked it. I'm glad we had it the past few years, but I guess we're basically back to the norm on it.

NPR said dems would have liked to have kept it but it was not a fight they were going to win against the Rs. so they just gave in.

it's a good thing to 'lose', since funding SS is always a good thing.

this was a democratic TROUNCING. dang, biden.

Does this mean the economy will do better? Or that Democrats "won?" Everything I've read leads me to believe that we're no better off, short-term or long-term. I honestly don't understand what folks are happy about, unless it's just partisan cheerleading.

momadance wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Unless you want a new constitution that isn't happening.

There havs been numerous points in our history where we've had more than 2 parties. Especially candidates who made a difference prior to the 1850's.

And what happens in a short time? The two parties adjust, form different coalitions and the third party goes away.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Who wins on the payrolls tax thing?

I don't think either party particularly liked it. I'm glad we had it the past few years, but I guess we're basically back to the norm on it.

NPR said dems would have liked to have kept it but it was not a fight they were going to win against the Rs. so they just gave in.

it's a good thing to 'lose', since funding SS is always a good thing.

this was a democratic TROUNCING. dang, biden.

Does this mean the economy will do better? Or that Democrats "won?" Everything I've read leads me to believe that we're no better off, short-term or long-term. I honestly don't understand what folks are happy about, unless it's just partisan cheerleading.

one day nearer to pitchers/catchers

We're better off with our politicians worrying about the next election more than what they think is best for the country. We're better off with politicians who act like politicians, rather than saints. If angels were to govern men and all that; ambition checks ambition. If anything too many people in Washington today are too attached to their principles, and are unwilling to make the messy, ugly, scandalous compromises that are the product of government. I want to back to the days when every single Senator believed he (or she) would do a better job as President than the current occupant of the White House, and rarely passed up an opportunity to express that belief.

There are two big failings in our political system--first, Congress has largely abdicated its constitutional role. Over the last half century or so, they have more or less allowed the executive branch do more and more of the legislating--not just proposing, but crafting the specifics of legislation.

Second, for the first time in a long, long time, one of the two major parties, the Republican party, has gone bat shit crazy, and all they seem to be able to do is prevent things from happening. Now, again, there are good reasons sometimes for minority parties to try to obstruct the majority party's wishes. But you're not supposed to do it on every single issue.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Who wins on the payrolls tax thing?

I don't think either party particularly liked it. I'm glad we had it the past few years, but I guess we're basically back to the norm on it.

NPR said dems would have liked to have kept it but it was not a fight they were going to win against the Rs. so they just gave in.

it's a good thing to 'lose', since funding SS is always a good thing.

this was a democratic TROUNCING. dang, biden.

Does this mean the economy will do better? Or that Democrats "won?" Everything I've read leads me to believe that we're no better off, short-term or long-term. I honestly don't understand what folks are happy about, unless it's just partisan cheerleading.

I think we're better off with a deal than with no deal. Maybe it was a victory for pragmatic centrists and the market.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Who wins on the payrolls tax thing?

I don't think either party particularly liked it. I'm glad we had it the past few years, but I guess we're basically back to the norm on it.

NPR said dems would have liked to have kept it but it was not a fight they were going to win against the Rs. so they just gave in.

it's a good thing to 'lose', since funding SS is always a good thing.

this was a democratic TROUNCING. dang, biden.

Does this mean the economy will do better? Or that Democrats "won?" Everything I've read leads me to believe that we're no better off, short-term or long-term. I honestly don't understand what folks are happy about, unless it's just partisan cheerleading.

you appear to have pegged me as a partisan. your loss.

it was a win for our nation because taxes are going up and republicans have broken their insane 'no new taxes' pledge. this means that perhaps, just perhaps, earnest negotiating may just start to show up from time to time over the next 2 years. likely? no. but it's possible when even a month ago this was utterly impossible to fathom. for too long, basically the entire first term, there was one earnest, dumb negotiator in DC and it was the president. now he appeared to be a smart negotiator and the republicans finally relented.

higher taxes without cutting necessary spending is what i'm all for, and i think our nation is better for it.

also, the economy IS doing better. where we are failing is making it do better for everyone, instead of the precious few.

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Who wins on the payrolls tax thing?

I don't think either party particularly liked it. I'm glad we had it the past few years, but I guess we're basically back to the norm on it.

NPR said dems would have liked to have kept it but it was not a fight they were going to win against the Rs. so they just gave in.

it's a good thing to 'lose', since funding SS is always a good thing.

this was a democratic TROUNCING. dang, biden.

Does this mean the economy will do better? Or that Democrats "won?" Everything I've read leads me to believe that we're no better off, short-term or long-term. I honestly don't understand what folks are happy about, unless it's just partisan cheerleading.

you appear to have pegged me as a partisan. your loss.

it was a win for our nation because taxes are going up and republicans have broken their insane 'no new taxes' pledge. this means that perhaps, just perhaps, earnest negotiating may just start to show up from time to time over the next 2 years. likely? no. but it's possible when even a month ago this was utterly impossible to fathom. for too long, basically the entire first term, there was one earnest, dumb negotiator in DC and it was the president. now he appeared to be a smart negotiator and the republicans finally relented.

higher taxes without cutting necessary spending is what i'm all for, and i think our nation is better for it.

also, the economy IS doing better. where we are failing is making it do better for everyone, instead of the precious few.

OK, so it was a symbolic win for the president and his party. OK, I get that. I just wanted to make sure that people didnt think that this does anything to either improve economic performance or the long-term trajectory we're on. Baby steps, I guess. I think that no deal would have been better medicine than this deal, but I'm a believer that a series of short-term patches is bad for the economy, and we'll continue limping along at 2% of growth until the next recession.

i fail to see how cutting medicare/medicaid/SS helps our economy, and this is what the other side wants.

Well, it eventually needs to be reformed/adjusted. I know that most people don't care what it does in 2025, but short-term debt is more palatable when our long-term trajectory is one that doesnt blow up. Making these changes before the markets force us to do by putting pressure on interest rates and inflation seems like a wise course of action.

medicare/medicaid are not the problem, it's the system they're working in. just raise taxes for SS and we're fine. SS has been 'running out' for 70 years and counting. i seem to be the only one in the nation not worried about its viability.

I may be wrong but doesn't the impending retirement of the baby boomers take the upcoming generational shift outside of historical norms?

TenuredVulture wrote:We're better off with our politicians worrying about the next election more than what they think is best for the country. We're better off with politicians who act like politicians, rather than saints. If angels were to govern men and all that; ambition checks ambition. If anything too many people in Washington today are too attached to their principles, and are unwilling to make the messy, ugly, scandalous compromises that are the product of government. I want to back to the days when every single Senator believed he (or she) would do a better job as President than the current occupant of the White House, and rarely passed up an opportunity to express that belief.

i dont even know where to start with this argument. first off, running for elected office shouldn't be considered a "job", which is what it is viewed as now. "ambition checks ambition" is a worthless phrase, and it doesn't apply to the US Congress unless you can define what the actual ambition is. the ambition isn't to make the country a better place, it is to wield more power and achieve a higher office. a large portion of elected officials would rather cut off their nose to spite their own face than to break rank on something that matters. you dont have people expressing their own thoughts, you have people parroting a hardline party rhetoric. and notice in my original post i said that pragmatism is dying. im not advocating for 435 different opinions and 435 different solutions. im arguing for a pragmatic, logic-based approach to creating and passing legislature. one that makes sense from a realistic, real world perspective, not something that openly caters to party lines and deep campaign contributor pockets. pragmatism is a dying art. its dying because our government is infested with partisan hacks. behind every piece of legislation should be a smart compromise grounded on common sense, not trying to "win" or make the other side "lose"...because americans are the ones losing, not career politicians.

There are two big failings in our political system--first, Congress has largely abdicated its constitutional role. Over the last half century or so, they have more or less allowed the executive branch do more and more of the legislating--not just proposing, but crafting the specifics of legislation.

i don't disagree with this. again, it comes down to the type of people that get elected to office.

Second, for the first time in a long, long time, one of the two major parties, the Republican party, has gone bat shit crazy, and all they seem to be able to do is prevent things from happening. Now, again, there are good reasons sometimes for minority parties to try to obstruct the majority party's wishes. But you're not supposed to do it on every single issue.

which is what i argued in my original post. but it goes both ways. there is a lot of cheerleading in this thread, and in our society as a whole when it comes to politics. and its disgusting. passing/vetoing legislation to spite the other side isn't a win for everybody. everybody loses. the saddest thing is that people on both sides still want to view the world as black and white instead of the many shades of gray it actually is. the "right" answer is almost never the easy answer, and it almost never comes from one side and one side only. dealmaking, compromise, and problem solving are what the government is supposed to be about. not partisan hackery, spiteful behavior, and some kind of three ring circus for the entertainment of the idiots on MSNBC, Fox, CNN and every other cable network that somehow functions for the sole purpose of trying to turn every discussion in to some kind of donkey show.

these people aren't rock stars, yet they want to believe they are, and the average american is happy to perpetuate that notion, which only makes it worse. im not an anarchist. i dont think the answer is some kind of revolution. the answer is basic human decency, logic, and rationalization. but those things seem really far fetched in the current political climate, dont they?