Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Feb. 14, 2013 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
In today’s talk about politics, most discussions usually revolve around either the Democratic or Republican parties and maybe third parties, but what about reforming our political system to allow citizens to vote on bills through in-person or electronic means?
Many citizens would say a direct form of democracy such as this couldn’t work effectively with a population around 315 million people, but here are some reasons why it should be considered for our country.
A direct democracy would allow citizens to vote or introduce legislation through various methods and would encourage more people to get involved in political issues. It would actually empower voters instead of leaving them feeling hopeless, which many do. Voters would feel like they are part of the whole process instead of being just another a number without much say in regard to policy set at any level of government.
A direct democracy would take power away from lobbying interests that currently exert control over policies and legislation and speak on behalf of corporations.
Finally, if citizens could actually vote on legislation, many laws could be repealed as an infringement on individual liberties. If citizens were allowed to vote and propose legislation, we would be a prosperous society because unnecessary laws as well as regulations would probably not exist.
Who is going to write the bills that are voted on a lobbyist, Democrat or a Republican?
Will they vote on all amendments? This Will require us to vote all day long as Reid play games with the Republicans.
300 million people putting in bills we have to vote on
-----
Clearly a dependency society would for more largess to be provided by the job creators
As long as 50% do not pay income taxes they will vote for anything they don't pay for
Will they increase SS and Medicare payouts
I understand why Mr. Miller calls for a direct democracy, and I am frustrated too, but other solutions exist.
Powerful interests with lobbyists corrupt our legislative (Congress) branch, so we end up being a nation run by powerful interests for the benefit of powerful interests.
We could lessen their influence if we just instituted public financing of Congressional campaigns, Term Limits and Lobbying Reform.
If we did that, we'd remove the desire of most in Congress to make it a 'career', we'd remove the need for our elected representatives to pander to powerful interests for cash in order to be elected and we could finally get lobbyists out of the business of writing the legislation they desire that benefits and advantages 'only' themselves.
The solution to our corrupted Congress sits before us. We just need to embrace it.
Michael
Our Constitutional Republic has worked well for 237 years despite all those who said it couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Make it better.
CarmineD
A well intended suggestion Bill but it would make government decision-making cumbersome and less effective. How would we debate a proposed bill? Who would conduct hearings to get expert testimony on pertinent areas relative to the bill? We would be at the mercy of uninformed decision-makers compared to what we have now which is uninformed voters.
Carmine,
Sorry to disagree but our Constitution is not working well under either party.
Congress has become like a giant pig trough, with Presidents throwing money into it, while many powerful pigs with lobbyists (business, labor, government unions, private unions, interests groups, cities, counties, states, etc) stand ready, with their lobbyists to suck the money out of the trough for their benefit. They simply make sure Congress members get what they need to be re-elected and our representatives just stand aside and let the feast continue.... they even facilitate it!
It doesn't change in any meaningful way no matter what party wins. With Bush and Republicans, part of it was the defense contractor 'pigs' at the trough. With Obama and the stimulus, it was cities, counties and state 'pigs' gorging at the trough. Switching parties changes nothing that matters.
Presidents will always throw money in the Congressional trough. The gatekeepers... the people who are supposed to make sure the money in the trough is well spent, have been co-oped, by the 'pigs' at the trough.
The Republicans are wrong to think that they can starve the government. The 'system' in place will always thwart that. The 'system' has to be changed.... Term Limits, Public Financing of Campaigns and Lobbying Reform!
Michael
An interesting concept even if it is a bit utopian. We can influence the legislative branch right now by emailing our views on any proposed or needed legislation. While a Congressman or Senator might not read every email, rest assured that they count them. An energized and informed electorate has the potential to get it's way and accomplish its goals. If we are neither informed or energized we'll just get more of the same and deserve every bit of it.
"Carmine,
Sorry to disagree but our Constitution is not working well under either party." Michael
I never said it was perfect...I said it works. And it can always be made better.
CarmineD
This format being discussed has merit.
The quorum requirements for public voting would need to be high, and like 80% of ELIGIBLE voters weighing in.
This would need a constitutional amendment to be sure, however it will be worth it.
We would have settled the gun safety issue , public financing, term limits, no matter which way the public would decide these issues by voting for, against, or failing to get a quorum, and leaving the decision in congresses hand.
These citizens votes could be petitioned for quick judicial review if 65% of Congress agreed that the new laws were unconstitutional.
I trust even Casler more than Dingy Harry.
It is workable.
Ever been in a room with 3 other people? Ask a political question and you'll get 4 different views. With hundreds of millions - you will get hundreds of millions of views - except from the parasites. It would be this forum on steroids. They are united in their quest to suck more blood from the turnip - the turnip in this case being the US Treasury. Think spending is out of control now? I shudder to think of what happens if the parasitic class gets the opportunity to directly vote themselves raises at any time. Why they would act like, well, politicans and line their own pockets.
Miller,
With some due respect, you should evaluate your proposal further. Afterwards, I suspect you will come to understand the weaknesses and the potential disaster of a complete democracy. Furthermore, you will better understand the timeless brilliance of our Constitution and its strong desire for separation of powers. It was simply brilliant then and it is simply brilliant now.
Regards,
Purgatory
Casler, et al.
I posit to you that the Constitution is working EXACTLY as intended and if not for the "check & balance" of our three powers, our Constitutional Republic would have failed many years ago. Please believe that in your soul and spend your thoughtful time in a more useful manner.
Purgatory
Direct representation without obstructionism and gridlock? republicans would filibuster that idea faster than a sweaty, parched Mark Rubio reaches for a drink of kool-aid.
After the shellacking GOPers took in November the last thing they want is more voter involvement. Long lines and hours-long waits at voting places, the direct result of repubes trying to disenfranchise certain segments of voters, thereby undermining our free democracy, failed miserably to hold back the rising tide of anti-conservatism.
Giving the people more power as described in the letter would be the final nail in the GOP coffin.
Purgatory,
I have to inform you that several things have changed in the years since the Constitution was written.
1) In the 1780's, being a member of Congress was not a lucrative position, where you could go from the middle class to being wealthy.
2) People did not try to make 'service' in Congress a career.
3) There were not lucrative opportunities to become a paid lobbyist after your 'service' was concluded.
4) The Federal government was not big enough that every single group that can afford to engaged paid lobbyists to get what they wanted out of Congress.
There are many other ways things are different now. I applaud your defense of our Constitution, but even our brilliant framers could not see what the world would like like today. We do need to make some changes in the term limits for Congress, the way campaigns are funded, the way lobbying works, the different benefits that members of Congress have and the people have, the rules that have been implemented within Congress, the way the 2 parties exclude 3rd parties from debates, etc, etc.
Our system is still a good system, but flaws have developed that we must address, if we hope to prosper as a nation.
Michael
My little buddy Carmine said:
"Our Constitutional Republic has worked well for 237 years despite all those who said it couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Make it better."
I tried unsuccessfully to educate Carmine about the type of government that we presently have but he refuses to move forward with his thinking....
I guess that's why he's a conservative!!
Actually, we have a "constitutional democratic-republic."
The Founders created a republican form of government with very, very limited democracy....
Only a small percent of the population could vote or hold office in 1787, but due to our continuous emphasis on extending democracy to a majority of our population, we NOW have a "constitutional democratic-republic."
Carmine, like most conservatives, doesn't believe that this country has or should have wide spread democracy...
In most conservatives twisted little mind, they want a country run by the elite, the rich & well born.
Sort of the Alexander Hamilton approach to government!
More and more Americans now see that and when they look at the Republican Party, they see a party that does not truly represent a majority of the people who live here...
The GOP got their butt kicked this past November and now they're determined to take back control of the country by not winning the support of a majority of the population, but by changing the rules of the game...
I hope I have made it clear that I am not against the Federal government spending money. I am against the Federal government wasting money and not taxing enough to pay for what it spends.
Let's take Solyndra as an example. I suspect there were some financial red flags raised even before the initial loan was granted. I know red flags went up later when the company was clearly struggling. Why were those flags ignored? Because some lobbying group that stood to gain from the Solyndra loan had enough 'influence' to push it through. Our representatives in Congress see similar actions everyday but do nothing, because they depend on such lobbyists and their employers for the money and support needed to be re-elected.
The fact that the Federal government spends is not our real problem. The real problem is that our gatekeepers (our elected representatives) are not doing what they are supposed to do. Why? Because our system is now at a place where if our representatives buck the interests with lobbyists and do the 'right' thing, they will be targeted and defeated in the next election.
Whether we have a President Obama, who believes in large and continuous government spending or one who believes in only moderate spending, if we leave the Congressional system as it is, we can be assured that lots of the money government spends will end up benefiting those with a seat at the table with lobbyists and not the rest of us.
Michael
EL Lobo,
It is such a bunch of baloney to claim that most Conservatives want a country run by the elite, the rich & well born. Some Conservatives may want that but most don't.
I'm conservative economically and I want the government to spend. I could support several things President Obama talked about that involved spending money. All he'd need to do is really balance the spending with reductions elsewhere and/or higher taxes and remain involved in the legislation when it is in Congress to make sure the money isn't misappropriated and or wasted.
No President ever does both these things. Bush did nothing to pay for the wars and he allowed the defense funds to be badly spent in many areas. President Obama did the same things with the stimulus money that was supposed to be for shovel ready projects that turned out not to be so shovel ready.
To do this on a continual basis is a travesty but both Conservatives and Liberals do it.
Michael
"In most conservatives twisted little mind, they want a country run by the elite, the rich & well born." @ El Lobo
You call me a conservative yet I have said here many times, and to you, that the US should follow the lead of England, with the House of Lords now being a symbolic body with no rule, and disband the Senate. The millionaires' club. If you're not wealthy before you join you are after. And you have argued in favor of keeping it. So tell me... who is the conservative?
CarmineD
People already do a lousy job at deciding who should be sent to Congress, what makes you think could possibly do a better job at voting on bills directly?
No a direct democracy such that proposed would rapidly become the WORST possible form of government today.
Casler,
Your premise that "several things have changed in the years since the Constitution was written" is where you first go wrong. The rest of your energy is spent in a useless endeavor. NOTHING about human nature has changed since the 18th century. NOTHING. Hence, the need to keep the Constitution exactly as it is. You wanna amend it, go ahead. The Framers envisioned that and included a process for it.
Now please heed my advice and and "believe that in your soul and spend your thoughtful time in a more useful manner."
Regards,
Purgatory
Millions and millions of people in this country never so much as graduated from high school. They can't accomplish simple tasks such as balancing a checkbook. You're going to give them a direct vote on legislation. They don't even understand the legislative process.
God help us if that were to happen!
roughly 30% of voters identify themselves as Democrats and 30% identify themselves as Republicans. People are leaving both parties in droves. It's the people in between those two parties that are going to decide the fate of this country going forward. People will decide on issues and not party rhetoric.
WRT definition of the US form of government El Lobo, and which is best, I suggest you read and try to understand this excerpt:
"In case anyone needed a lesson in understanding the difference between democracy and a Constitutional Republic a.k.a. Europe and America, tonight's results should serve as a clear message. This is democracy in full force.
Why did we need a constitution? Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?
A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections. In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition. They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison).."
If you care to research, the author goes on to say that while the Dems kept the Senate and White House, the Reps kept the House [and 60 percent of the State Mansions with Governors]. 2/3 Dem and 1/3 Reps. Checks and balances. Constitutional Republic vs democracy.
CarmineD
I wholeheartedly agree with zippert1's post at 9:51 a.m. above. However, I think he might be overly optimistic with how he concludes his post of 9:57.
More Americans believe in angels than evolution.
That pretty much sums up why direct democracy is a terrible idea.
Purgatory,
If it took an amendment or amendments to make the changes I feel are necessary, I would support doing that.
Human nature hasn't changed but circumstances have. The Constitution was written to account for human nature and the circumstances of the time. One has not changed but the other has. We need to make some changes to better deal with today's changed circumstances.
Michael
How many Americans believe in aliens and that Obama was born in Africa????
Most of us agree on something. The end of the world must be near!!!!
Votes, 300 million to evolve. A country as huge as America those votes could make dramatic dividing effect for parties represented today. Of all votes, election years may not become similarly voted again.
I could think two party system could face dramatic change to adjust liberal 300 million. It would be time when party would ask voters for their deep trust.
The form of government established by our Constitution shows that the founders had a strong distrust of pure democracy and a feeling that such could quickly become akin to mob rule.
The Bill of Rights shows that they had an equally strong mistrust of government growing too powerful.
The combination of the two is an almost unique compromise that places limitations on both the government and the governed. I think it has worked very well as attested to by the fact that besides the original Bill of Rights we have seen a need to amend the Constitution only 17 times, and two of those cancel each other (Prohibition) so there are really only 15 changes in some 225 years. That is a remarkable record!
Parties would fear direct democracy. Today.
At this point I think we should remember the popular (but probably fake) quote from Ben Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
"we have seen a need to amend the Constitution only 17 times, and two of those cancel each other (Prohibition) so there are really only 15 changes in some 225 years. That is a remarkable record!" boftx
And one was to limit presidential terms to 2 consecutive of 8 years. [As a direct result of President Franklin Roosevelt not following the tradition of 2 terms established by George Washington]. So the USA would not have dynasties and monarchies like England.
CarmineD
Carmine....Carmine....Carmine....
What should we do with you? You simply don't get it and of course, you never will.
We're a "constitutional democratic-republic." We didn't start out that way but over time (200+ years) we have become just that....
The Senate serves a valuable role in the governmental process, & the Founders knew that would be the case.
The Constitution would NEVER have been ratified with out the creation of the Senate. The small states would NEVER have accepted the new government written by the Founders if there had not been the presence of a bicameral legislature....
Hmmmmmm...were you sleeping in class when your high school government teacher covered that?
Apparently....
Ben Franklin was one of the Founders who pushed hard for the creation of a bicameral legislature. He felt that the presence of the two houses would be a good thing in terms of scrutinizing legislation.
You may remember reading about the Articles of Confederation and the fact that it had a unicameral legislature with equal representation for all the states and how it was insufficient to the task that it faced...
You're simply anti-senate because the Democrats are in control of it....
Every one on this board knows that I'm "light years" away from being a conservative...
I'm a "big D Democrat" & proud of it...
On the other hand, you have the word "conservative" stamped on you forehead for all to see....
You try to hide behind the label known as "independent" but that's simply a funny, funny joke....
You're a Republican from head to toe & back again....
The Republican Party is filled with guys like you....
The present day GOP is an extreme right-wing party that does not believe in democracy. The party likes to hide behind such words as "republic" and if they don't change their ways, they will NEVER, NEVER win back to White House....
In closing, I'll repeat what I said earlier:
"In most conservatives twisted little mind, they want a country run by the elite, the rich & well born."
Casler said:
"It is such a bunch of baloney to claim that most Conservatives want a country run by the elite, the rich & well born. Some Conservatives may want that but most don't."
What's you're saying is simply the thoughts/beliefs of a very naive poster. Your daily posts on this board validates that very thing...
I'm sure we have some conservatives out there who think as you say you do but look at the leadership of the GOP.
Look at the extreme actions the leaders of that party did in an attempt to win the last election...
They tried to keep voters away from the voting booth and they did everything they could think of to limit or do away with early voting.....
Look at their policies......they're anti-minority; anti-women, and anti-immigrant.
They have fought long & hard to protect the rich and they actually believe that corporate America should pay ZERO in taxes......
The have NO real plan to move the middle class forward and they have stood quietly by and watched as some 10-12 million jobs have been taken off shore over the last 10-12 years.
They have become masters at using the "fear factor" to influence voting and they have tried time after time to paint President Obama as a socialist, a communist or a fascists...some times calling him all three.
They continue to say that he wasn't born in this country and they spent the last four years prior to the last election, trying to block his re-election.
How did Mitch McConnell put it just hours after Obama's first election?
That was their main objective. At NO time did they ever say that they wanted to work with Obama to move the country forward.
Look at what McConnell said in response to Obana's recent SOTU speech...
Sorry, but the GOP is not interested in doing what is best for this country. If you actually believe that, please contact me. I have a great bridge in New York That I would love to sell you...
El Lobo.....
I wouldn't trust anyone's vote -- including my own.
My voting history has never resulted in an elected official --
I am a perpetual voting loser with a long track record.
My vote is worthless -- as my conscience fails to support thieves commonly known by winners as Democrats and Republicans --
I continue to exist only as a proletarian, victimized by a democratic society.
: {
El_Lobo had the best and most accurate comments
here today.
republicans got a good lesson that they will never
admit to.
This current republican party is a horrible mess
with a bunch of poor losers.
They keep proving it every single day.
DEMOCRATS FOREVER!
"Every one on this board knows that I'm "light years" away from being a conservative...
I'm a "big D Democrat" & proud of it..." El Lobo
"El_Lobo had the best and most accurate comments
here today.....DEMOCRATS FOREVER!" Teamster
Party and labels limit your minds' eye view.
CarmineD
El Lobo,
One of us is naive, but it's you, not me. I recognize and admit that both our major parties are failing us. You don't. You make generalizations that are inaccurate. I don't. Your solution is all Democrats, all the time. My solution is not all Republicans, all the time. I see a major issue with Congress, how long members serve, how much money it takes to get elected and stay in office and with lobbying. You see none of that and believe that 'all' the problems are related to the fact that there are conservatives and Republicans in the world.
One of us is naive, alright, but it isn't me!
Michael
Michael Casler wrote,
"We could lessen their influence if we just instituted public financing of Congressional campaigns, Term Limits and Lobbying Reform."
This is the heart of our current problems in Washington and State politics.
Money corrupts. Therefore, the political system is corrupt.
Our system of government is complex! The frame work looks good, the words sounds good, but our system is inherently a corruptible system.
LongtimeVegan,
It seems as if you are one of the few in this forum that sees the real issue. Whether one favors small, medium or large government, the one constant is that Congress creates the legislation, allocates the money and sets taxes.
If members of Congress must do what powerful interests with lobbyists in DC want so they get the money to be re-elected, how can we expect the taxes we pay to be used wisely, fairly and without regard to what powerful interests want?
The answer is that we cannot. It matters very little what party is in control. The system has to be changed, or whatever Congress spends will result in unintended consequences. wrong priorities, misdirected allocations, and waste and fraud on a massive scale. It goes on in defense and in every domestic program as well.
The solution is not to cut spending on a massive scale and provide even more tax cuts, as Republicans propose, nor is it to spend even more and tax the rich more, as the Democrats propose. It is instead to fix what is wrong in the Legislative branch so whatever we decide to spend is not subject to the desires of powerful interests with lobbyists.
Michael
Nothing new coming from Casler. He continues to live in a world that does not exist. I repeat, Casler is naive...
He continues to push for term limits, campaign finance reform & government financed elections but what he fails to recognize is the fact that ONLY Congress has the power to bring that about...
In other words, the Fox is guarding the chicken coop!
Neither party is going to go down that road.....
Casler would have all of us believe that if we simply voted out the present Congress, then the the new Congress would gladly and quickly pass legislation that would bring about term limits; campaign finance reform & government financed elections....
Is that naive, or what?
Casler also refuses to recognize the fact that the GOP is a party controlled by the rich; the elite; & the well born....
They don't represent a majority of the American people and they refuse to change their views on most things....
They're anti-women's rights; anti-immigrant and anti-minority. Two of those three groups was mainly responsible for the butt kicking that the GOP received on November 6th....
The Republicans remind me of the old Federalist Party that existed at the beginning of the 19th century...
We all know, or should know, what happened to the Federalist as time went on......they disappeared as a political party.
Historians often called the Federalist Party the only undemocratic party in the history of this country....
When it's all said and done, I believe history will add the present day GOP to that list....
Again, the GOP is run by an elite, rich, & well born group of old men. They believe progress is going in reverse...
Casler votes Republican time after time and refuses to recognize the fact that they don't truly represent him....
They say that they're for balanced budgets; smaller government and individual rights but their record doesn't support that....
Who was the last Republican president to produce a balanced budget? Who was the last Republican president to actually decrease the size of the federal government?
Need I say more???
In this new system laws would not make process any faster. Persons would face elections and change. Anyway legal acting process knows no way to be faster and to heave every day life less complicated.
"Who was the last Republican president to produce a balanced budget? Who was the last Republican president to actually decrease the size of the federal government?
Need I say more??? " El Lobo
No, because it will still be skewed by your blind political patronage to the democratic party and its left wing ideology.
CarmineD
El_Lobo has it wrong. I don't think the present Congress is going to willingly enact term limits, public financing of campaigns or lobbying reform. It isn't in their interests to do so. I also don't believe that if we replaced everyone in Congress that the new members would willingly enact any of the above.
To get those things enacts, we would need a public demand for them and at present, that public demand does not exist. That being said, these things are vital and they need to be done, so I call for them.
The issue I have with El_Lobo and many others of all political persuasions is that they believe we will achieve very positive results if only everybody throws their support to the Democrats or Republicans. I did believe that at one tome too, but no longer.
If we don't reform Congress, much of whatever government spends will misappropriated, wasted and will be subject to massive waste and fraud.
I don't care if El_Lobo is a big D Democeat and votes that way. What I would like to see from El_lobo and everyone else is a recognition that we have a dysfunctional and corrupted Legislative branch.... and most importantly.... that what is wrong is extremely serious and cannot be remedied by ignoring the facts and continuing to act and believe that the problems are the result of one party or can be resolved by either party.
Michael
Casler said:
"El-Lobo has it wrong. I don't think the present Congress is going to willingly enact term limits, public financing of campaigns or lobbying reform. It isn't in their interests to do so. I also don't believe that if we replaced everyone in Congress that the new members would willingly enact any of the above."
Hmmmmmmm....I believe I said just what Casler just said...
Where in the world did he get the idea that I said anything different?
Oh well, that's just about what I would expect from a "die in the wool" conservative...
They live in a bubble and just make it up as they go along...
Have most of you out there recognized the fact that Casler NEVER changes his rant.....
He talks and talks about the importance of having campaign finance reform, term limits, and government financed elections but then admits that the present Congress or a newly elected Congress wouldn't do anything alone those lines.....
I wonder if Casler has a "plan B" since "plan A" isn't working....
Yes, the present Congress is very dysfunctional. Part of the problem is the GOP members of Congress are still opposing Obama on EVERYTHING that he tries to do.....
Mitch McConnell is so determined to oppose the Democrats that he recently threatened to filibuster his own proposed legislation...
Hey Carmine.....
Tell me, who was the last Republican president to produce a balance budget & who was the last Republican president to actually decrease the size of the national government?
"Hey Carmine.....
Tell me, who was the last Republican president to produce a balance budget & who was the last Republican president to actually decrease the size of the national government?" El Lobo
"El_Lobo........
Good question for Carmine.
He can't answer it.
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA,!" Teamster
It's a trick question. Why? For several reasons. The law clearly states that the President MUST submit an annual budget PROPOSAL to Congress in the first week of April of the year before it is effective. BTW, President Obama submitted a budget in 2009. Not in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. He's late this year BUT claims he will submit one for 2014 next month.
Even if the there was a law to submit a balanced budget, what would be the enforcement
provision if a President did not? Hint: What is the enforcement provision for a President when he doesn't submit a budget proposal, period. Nothing. Just look at the current President's failures in 4 years of the budget sibmissions. What happens? Nothing.
Finally, the President is required by law to submit a budget PROPOSAL. Not an approved balanced budget. Congress must pass its own budgets, reconcile theirs with the President's, get both Houses to approve, and then the President's signature on it in order to be effective. It's a coequal effort. Not just the Prsident's responsibility.
BTW, the House, read Republicans, have submitted a budget every year in the last 5 years. The Senate and President have not. And while not balanced in the current fiscal year, the House budget versions have provisions for balance in the out years IF THEY HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AND PASSED BY THE SENATE AND PRESIDENT.
CarmineD
BTW while I enjoy educating you here on US government budget procedures and laws, it is not relevant to the issue of the letter. As I recall we were debating the best form of representative governace: Constitutional Republic [like the US] vs democracy [like Europe]. The verdict is in: 237 years and still counting.
CarmineD
The Republicans in the Washington, and in control of state houses, are rabid in their response to "anything" President Obama proposes. Anything! When President agrees with the Republicans, they change their position. Period!
Agnostic, yet being obstructionist. All designed to stop the system. The root motivation...bias and prejudice!
Driven by accepted racial thinking and behavior, taught by community and family generations in the States once know as the Slave States based on the boundaries on the map of 1850. Yet, not much has changed in the thinking and the boundaries of those is such areas.
"When President agrees with the Republicans, they change their position. Period!" Longtimevegan
Name some, please.
CarmineD
"Driven by accepted racial thinking and behavior, taught by community and family generations in the States once know as the Slave States based on the boundaries on the map of 1850. Yet, not much has changed in the thinking and the boundaries of those is such areas." Longtimevegan
Nonsense. Americans elected the first African American president not just once but twice. Plenty has changed. We'll know when change is complete when the first African American president can be judged rightly/wrongly on his opinions without the race card played.
CarmineD
Michael, I almost always agree with your posts that our political system is broken/corrupt and that both parties share responsibility. It seems to me that the issues that get debated ad nauseum (gun control, taxes, abortion, immigration, etc.) are designed to distract people from the inherent corruption of the system (companies spending more on lobbying than they pay in taxes, for example). When I was younger I would scoff at conspiracy theorists, but now I'm starting to wonder if these distraction issues are created and the fires of disagreement along party lines are fanned intentionally by people who want to distract the public from the bigger system issue. I'm curious about your thoughts on this.
Same comment back at you: Stick to the letter's writer subject. What's the better form of governance: A Constitutional republic, like the USA, or democracy like Europe? Or have you resigned yourself to the weight of the evidence and agree it is the USA and a Constitutional Republic. If so, you're right!
CarmineD
Ha! Ha! Ha!
My little buddy Carmine again did what he always does when he can't/won't answer a simple question tossed at him.......he tries to change the subject & he "beats around the bush" without attempting to answer it.....
First of all, Carmine, I was asking you a simple question about Republican presidents & the budget...
You immediately starting talking about Obama & the budget....
Please.....please......little buddy! Answer my original question! Is that so hard? Apparently!
The question again:
Who was the last Republican president to produce a balanced budget?
Carmine.....
The best form of government is the type of government that we currently have.....a "constitutional democratic-republic."
That's far superior to a "constitutional republic."
"Please.....please......little buddy! Answer my original question! Is that so hard? Apparently!" El Lobo
I already did. Reread until it sinks in.
'"The best form of government is the type of government that we currently have.....a "constitutional democratic-republic."
That's far superior to a "constitutional republic."' El Lobo
One and the same. But as usual, you need more words.
CarmineD
BTW, I am neither little, like you, or your buddy. Although, I suspect you have a need for one and wishfully think it is me.
CarmineD
Hmmmmm....still no answer from Carmine. Nothing new there!
If we had a form of direct democracy on the state level and made our elected officials going to Congress contracted to the people of the state related to state referendums applicable to the federal government, we might be able to gain back the loyalty of our reps.
Under the contracts terms, they would be required to vote in accord with the state's vote on referendums, or get canned.
This could put the decision of eliminating many of the nasty aberrations that have developed, i.e., lobbying, campaign financing, and 501(c)(3)'s, into the hands of the voter's rather than the politicians who will never eliminate them.
The Race Card is being played in full display in congress. Anyone who said different is in denial, or sympathetic to those who are racist, or a racist themselves. The language the action speak loudly, speak volumes, of how this President is being portrayed by Republicans.
Foxnews and company ran against "their" version of President Obama. Their manufactured character...they lost. They are in a bubble. A different reality. The majority of Americans are not in Bubble.
Many of the States being controlled by Republican governors have changed state law to protect Republican elected officials and Republicans candidates. Gerrymandering. Yes, the Democrats of guilty too. However, Republican controlled states have taken it several steps further in changing voter laws. And now trying to change the voting, to a proportional vote system from our current system. The Republicans are constantly changing the rules to make sure another person of color does not win elected to the highest office in the land. The voices and the actions from those who oppose the President speak clearly of Bias and Prejudice. This all adds up to to Racism on a whole different level.
My friends, the majority of the America People are not racist!
The majority of Republicans, and States controlled by Republicans tell us through their actions and words, they have institutional bias and prejudices. That's being Racist when applied to our First Black President. Racism! Alive and thriving in Washington and in Republican controlled States. America's Reality!
The prosecution rest!