I just wonder how many strokes are going to happen when a Republican wins.

The Goddess Writes:

And yes, I'm proud to be "a hater" -- I believe it suggests my brain hasn't been snatched by one of the parties and turned into butterscotch pudding.

Has yours?

You'd ask this forum? Please, Amy. Think about who you're addressing.

Among the posters here, you must, must, must agree 100% with what someone else is saying, otherwise, you're demonized as a liberal/communist/whatever.

If you don't claim a particular position, you'll be accused of having one, one that is the least desirable to the person leveling the accusation.

So, to answer your question, I would say that at least 90% of the posters here have indeed had their brains turned to mush by partisanship.

I could spend years attacking both Bush and Obama, but in truth, nothing either one of them does surprises me. The position is that elected officials have only one interest: their own. If they can line their own pockets and dump benefits upon themselves securing cushy retirement, they simply don't care about you, me or anyone else. They don't care about your rights and they will continue to chop away at them if it serves their own interest. And they've known for decades, if not longer, what works in eroding your rights: scaring you.

Fear the communists, fear the gays, fear the terrorists, fear your own shadow. We'll protect you, just sign away your own soul along with your civil liberties, and we'll protect you from the boogie-men.

Jim P.

I just wonder how many strokes are going to happen when a Republican wins.

The same number that happened among Republicans when Obama won, and won again.

Good cartoon by Signe Wilkinson.

The sooner we all depart this two-party paradigm, the better off we'll be.

"The sooner we all depart this two-party paradigm, the better off we'll be."

I don't think the problem is the two-party paradigm per se. It saves us from a lot of the dysfunction that parlimentary systems often face when a one-seat, one-issue minor party can bring down the government if they aren't bought off. The problem is the two particular parties that we have now. The Democratic Party seems hell-bent on leftist authoritarianism. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has reverted to the 1950s; it's out of touch with a lot of today's issues, and its leadership is content being a minority party as long as they remain on the Washington cocktail party A-list.

Per Drudge, Joe Biden issued a statement this morning in which he "warned" that the GOP is being run by Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. If only it were true.

Among the posters here, you must, must, must agree 100% with what someone else is saying, otherwise, you're demonized as a liberal/communist/whatever.

Actually, Paddy, what you HAVE to do is take a position.

When you claim that we have no right to purchase services from private businesses without government thugs checking your wisdom teeth via the intestinal tract, and fail to mention you disagree, it is reasonable for people to assume you do indeed agree

We hardly have to agree, I disagree with others on the 2 party system. In that I see the problem being in the 'party' part of it. That D vs R means that the people don't have a real choice. Or as Boss Tweed said it "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."
Having 1 party, 2 parties, or 10 is not the problem, the choices are rigged before it ever reaches the population. And once in session, a Senator has loyalty to Party, above loyalty to honesty or the people he/she represents.
As we see with this 75-52 and 64 vs 34 switch, the little D vs R seems to matter more than what they are actually doing.

What's the alternative, though? You can't tell people not to form political parties. It goes against human nature, never mind the legalities of it. One of the things that the govenment has been trying like heck to do for the past half century is to either prevent the formation of new political associations, or to make them ineffective, and they've only been successful at the top level.

The sooner we all depart this two-party paradigm, the better off we'll be.

Posted by: Bill S Preston, Esquire at June 12, 2013 6:32 AM

This would most likely require a constitutional convention, as our republican form of government gives a lot of power to the states.

The federal government has no power to either change or reform the two party system.

Looking at the way the parliamentary system functions, in European countries, it would not be an improvement, assuming you would like to retain a constitution and a bill of rights, and some checks and balances that we used to have when the press was not in bed with the government.

Not saying the party system is perfect, just better than that mythical unicorn form of government that the starry eyed idealists, all seem to long for, and somehow believe they can wish into existence.

Not to worry, People's Comrade - just remember that the feral government and their wholly owned subsidiaries, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Verizon, Yahoo, and just about everybody else who has anything to do with the internet or other communications have ONLY your best interests at heart.

As Comrade Eric Schmidt once correctly stated, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

I'm sure the British felt the same way.

Lindsey Graham: ‘If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it’

And yeah, he's talking about paper-in-envelope snail mail.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/lindsey-graham-thought-censoring-mail-necessary-suggest-182932835.html

The Goddess writes:

To make it in the comments here, you need to be logical and able to support and defend your position.

If that were true, then most of the regular posters would not be here. At least you rule your own blog, pretty much anyone can post here, and it takes quite a bit before you brandish the ax.

And I reserve the right to present information on a purely factual basis, without comment, without being accused of "agreeing" or "disagreeing." And if certain semi-literate posters on this blog don't like it. They may perform a certain act involving their tongue and a vascular organ on my anatomy that occurs only in males.

One thing people need to remember is we don't technically have a 2 party system, there are no rules that say there are only two parties. The system (that the parties in power set in place) however, makes that the only viable way. We actually have many, though most of the population isn't aware of them and are ignored/suppressed by the media.
To Cousin Dave, sure it is human nature to form like minded groups. However, the laws, rules, and regulations do not need to help in this or as they are now practically require it.
When the rules and money needed to get someone on a ballot are so onerous that even the big 2 sometimes fail, it is a case of protectionism.

Just as I have no problem with unions per se, but I do have a problem when the laws become pro union, joining the union becomes the only way to work a that job. The same is true in politics today.

There have been a few times and places in the US where there were viable third parties, which, although unable to gain power themselves, were able to throw the election to the weaker of of the two mainline party presidential candidates.

If you honestly believe, winning an election gives you the power to govern, watch what happens if Republicans take control of Congress in 2014.

Obama at that point will be a non entity as far as any ability to influence legislation, or almost anything else.
He can just climb in his little golf cart, and go on a two year vacation until he waves goodbye in January of 17.

This particular Pew survey is, shall we say, biased?

Example:

Would you consider this access to telephone call records an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?

That's an all-or-nothing, and a lot of people won't go with nothing. Question design is kind of important.

Compare their results with this CBS poll (emphasis mine):

Seventy-five percent of Americans approve of federal agencies collecting the phone records of people the government suspects of terrorist activity, but a 58 percent majority disapproves of this type of data collection in the case of ordinary Americans.

And I reserve the right to present information on a purely factual basis, without comment, without being accused of "agreeing" or "disagreeing."

There is a factual basis. But there is also a time that facts don't override the Bill Of Rights.

And if certain semi-literate posters on this blog don't like it. They may perform a certain act involving their tongue and a vascular organ on my anatomy that occurs only in males. -- Patrick at June 12, 2013 9:40 AM

Remember some people can bite. :-p

Not saying the party system is perfect, just better than that mythical unicorn form of government that the starry eyed idealists, all seem to long for, and somehow believe they can wish into existence. -- Isab at June 12, 2013 8:44 AM

Actually I wouldn't ban the parties. There is one law I would like to seen be taken off the books though. Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 preferably by Constitutional Amendment. If there were one representative per 100K people (or preferably 1/50K) buying congress would be a virtually impossible task. If there were 3100 representatives (or 6200) even with gerrymandering you could still get the your representative to listen to you and a bunch of buddies.

As it stands now my representative has a major city in his district. He has to kiss their asses. I, living in the countryside, am fucked by the cities.

And I reserve the right to present information on a purely factual basis, without comment, without being accused of "agreeing" or "disagreeing." And if certain semi-literate posters on this blog don't like it. They may perform a certain act involving their tongue and a vascular organ on my anatomy that occurs only in males.

Sorry, Pat

A REFUSAL to disagree is tacit approval

Jim P, a more simple solution would be to stop Congress from voting on their own pay and benefits , and being corrupted by being in DC.

There is no reason for Congressmen to ever leave or live outside of their states and districts, and no reason for them to be paid out of the federal treasury. They can be paid appropriately by the states and districts that they represent.

If the Internet can be made secure enough for classified data, it is secure enough for all voting to take place on line, from Congressional and Senate districts. No need for anyone to become a mover and shaker in DC. When lobbiests have to visit fifty states and three hundred plus congressional districts to pedal their influence, it will be much harder to do.

Jim P writes: There is a factual basis. But there is also a time that facts don't override the Bill Of Rights.

Facts are facts. The Bill of Rights does not suddenly make facts nonfactual. If I say that the courts have ruled that we do not have a right to fly, and that availing ourselves of airlines implies consent to a search, then that is a fact. The courts have said this.

The Bill of Rights is not a magic wand you can wave over past events and change what the courts have said.

But poor luj (who renews his battle with English on a daily basis and loses every time), must, must, must, must, must have a commitment from you. In luj's few and only sporadically working brain cells, it is not possible to merely report an objective fact, such as "this is what the courts have said." If you do not vigorously denounce it, damn it with every fiber of your being, call upon it 1000 curses from every deity that was ever worshiped in the history of the humanity, then luj foams and snarls like a rabid beast that you actually agree with what was said, and that you think it is the finest idea ever conceived.

Poor guy doesn't understand the concept that one can report things without expressing any opinion on it. In luj's universe, which bears little resemblance to the real world, refusing to express an opinion implies agreeing with it.

If the Internet can be made secure enough for classified data, it is secure enough for all voting to take place on line, from Congressional and Senate districts. No need for anyone to become a mover and shaker in DC. When lobbiests have to visit fifty states and three hundred plus congressional districts to pedal their influence, it will be much harder to do. -- Isab at June 13, 2013 12:11 PM

There is a problem in that.

The Senate was designed to represent the the individual state's issues. The Seventeenth Amendment screwed the individual states.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 screwed the individual. If I live in New York City, I and my neighbors in a 15 block gerrymandered district may have 1.5M people represented by one person.

But if I live in North Dakota I may be represented by one person for 250K people.

So in ND me and my 25K buddies may call my rep and influence his vote. But the NYC rep has an 1.5M people to listen to so where do my 25K buddies rate?

Is that equal representation?

Equal representation would basically mean that the urbanites will be calling all the shots for the nation. You may as well take away all representation in sparsely populated areas, such as farmland.

But of course, we can trust the city dwellers to take good care of our rural population, and will certainly consider their interests when lobbying their representatives.

Yeah, right.

Facts are facts. The Bill of Rights does not suddenly make facts nonfactual. If I say that the courts have ruled that we do not have a right to fly, and that availing ourselves of airlines implies consent to a search, then that is a fact. The courts have said this. -- Patrick at June 13, 2013 1:18 PM

I'm sorry, you don't have a basis in Constitutional facts. Congress can make a law that says flying does not imply a consent to search. Then they can also add in that SCOTUS has no jurisdiction as this is a 10th/14th issue.

Congress also has a right to determine the size and composition of the court.

So Congress can override the court if they decide to. And if Congress really wanted to, they could amend the Constitution to say a right to privacy existed.

Equal representation would basically mean that the urbanites will be calling all the shots for the nation. ... Yeah, right. -- Patrick at June 13, 2013 9:20 PM

You are starting to get it.

This is sort of an aside because it is about Senators, not Representatives but now Bloomberg is out to harm Senators that voted against gun laws:

Those Democratic senators – Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana (who's not running for re-election) – "sided with a gun lobby increasingly out of touch with Americans' priorities," Bloomberg wrote in his letter.

These Senators were listening to the people of their states and voted against additional gun control.

I'm sure a similar letter is on the horizon for Democratic Representatives from Bloomberg.

The point is that decreasing the number of people to each Representative would change the dynamic.

If 10K people were complaining to a representative out of 100K people they may be heard. If the representatives had to get 1551 representatives to agree, they would face the fact it has to be a good idea. The chance of the Christmas tree bill passing would fade.

I'm sorry Pat, didnt realise you were a journalist being paid to dispense facts in a neutral manner.

I was under the impression this was a blog wherein we opined on the subject at hand.

If you want to report "just the facts" and no opinion put in a mother fucking disclaimer at the time.

Otherwise it comes across as personal approval. Look I'm sorry you have a problem understanding WHY people assume you agree with a position. I've tried explaining it.

Let me make it even more simple. We already know what the courts have said, so your telling us that does not come across as new INFORMATION especially when you are telling us for the 40th time this year. And if it is not seen as info it is seen as opinion. Do you get it now?

Also, are you as quick to ridicule parapalegics for being unable to walk I wonder?