|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 7, 2016 13:46:05 GMT
I am not talking down to you, just to be clear here. If you haven't paid much attention before, this might not be old ground for you. The letter by a politician's name has come to represent more than just her or his political affiliation. It has come to also mean the very real likelihood of what his or her vote will be on any given subject. As in politicians are far less likely to vote their conscience (or their district/state's concerns) than they are to vote their party ticket. Maybe if politicians started to break out more from adhering so closely to the party lines, it wouldn't matter so much what letter is there. If this was already obvious to you, please just disregard. Welcome to the "I've lost a lot of respect for our government [officials] club." We are a rapidly growing community. Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's like people cease to have their own identity. If they have an R before their name they're going to vote a certain way, and the Ds are going to hate them. If they have a D before their name they're going to vote a certain way, and the Rs are going to hate them.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know. When I took that quiz that was supposed to tell you which candidate you were most in agreement with, I was split evenly between Rs and Ds. I suppose that could be a big reason why I don't understand the strict party line thing.
(no offense against any strictly partisan folk - just because I don't understand it doesn't mean you're a bad person)
We have an adversarial system of government by design. With constant opposition, it is much harder for one person or one group of people to fully take over the government. We have a damn good constitution that is the basis for our laws. Changes to it must be done with great care The adversarial process slows great changes down until the majority of the citizenry come to the same understanding of a change that they want. When people's views begin to change, it starts slowly and then picks up speed as the younger generation begins to be old enough to vote these changes through. Women can vote. People of color can vote. Slavery is abolished. These changes took time, but when was the last time you heard of protests demanding that we revert back? Compare that with the rate of great change we have seen in recent years that was implemented outside of the normal process of creating law, and you'll begin to understand that we have set precedents for chipping away at our constitution outside of the way of change that was incorporated from the beginning through the amendment process. You bet that people have strong beliefs here. That doesn't make it a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 7, 2016 14:02:42 GMT
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's like people cease to have their own identity. If they have an R before their name they're going to vote a certain way, and the Ds are going to hate them. If they have a D before their name they're going to vote a certain way, and the Rs are going to hate them.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know. When I took that quiz that was supposed to tell you which candidate you were most in agreement with, I was split evenly between Rs and Ds. I suppose that could be a big reason why I don't understand the strict party line thing.
(no offense against any strictly partisan folk - just because I don't understand it doesn't mean you're a bad person)
We have an adversarial system of government by design. With constant opposition, it is much harder for one person or one group of people to fully take over the government. We have a damn good constitution that is the basis for our laws. Changes to it must be done with great care The adversarial process slows great changes down until the majority of the citizenry come to the same understanding of a change that they want. When people's views begin to change, it starts slowly and then picks up speed as the younger generation begins to be old enough to vote these changes through. Women can vote. People of color can vote. Slavery is abolished. These changes took time, but when was the last time you heard of protests demanding that we revert back? Compare that with the rate of great change we have seen in recent years that was implemented outside of the normal process of creating law, and you'll begin to understand that we have set precedents for chipping away at our constitution outside of the way of change that was incorporated from the beginning through the amendment process. You bet that people have strong beliefs here. That doesn't make it a bad thing. Adversarial, yes; but the fact that it's been a binary choice is bad for America. If one party goes completely off the rails, then there really is no choice, and nothing to keep the other party in check. All either party ever has to be is "not as as bad as the other guys." And you and I both know that in many states, including ours, there isn't really any adversarial system. One party has total, unchallenged control. That might be different if there were more than two parties or ways of thinking in play.
|
|
|
Post by Laurie on Jul 7, 2016 14:34:48 GMT
Oh I'm sure that the perfect Republican's won't succumb to such shenanigans. After all, according to a few here, Democrats are the scourge of the Earth. (Insert major eye roll) Why are you always so hateful and sarcastic to Republicans? I am one and I don't think Democrats are awful people. Your attitude does you no favors, that's for sure. I am grateful for others on this board who are Democrats who have behaved in a much kinder manner. Exactly. I have said many times that posts by Lucy, and a few others, I actually read and sometimes my viewpoint changes a bit. Then there are posts like the one above that I scroll past. They aren't intelligent posts meant to show a different opinion so I don't take those posters seriously. Which is sad because they may very well be intelligent people.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 7, 2016 14:49:42 GMT
We have an adversarial system of government by design. With constant opposition, it is much harder for one person or one group of people to fully take over the government. We have a damn good constitution that is the basis for our laws. Changes to it must be done with great care The adversarial process slows great changes down until the majority of the citizenry come to the same understanding of a change that they want. When people's views begin to change, it starts slowly and then picks up speed as the younger generation begins to be old enough to vote these changes through. Women can vote. People of color can vote. Slavery is abolished. These changes took time, but when was the last time you heard of protests demanding that we revert back? Compare that with the rate of great change we have seen in recent years that was implemented outside of the normal process of creating law, and you'll begin to understand that we have set precedents for chipping away at our constitution outside of the way of change that was incorporated from the beginning through the amendment process. You bet that people have strong beliefs here. That doesn't make it a bad thing. Adversarial, yes; but the fact that it's been a binary choice is bad for America. If one party goes completely off the rails, then there really is no choice, and nothing to keep the other party in check. All either party ever has to be is "not as as bad as the other guys." And you and I both know that in many states, including ours, there isn't really any adversarial system. One party has total, unchallenged control. That might be different if there were more than two parties or ways of thinking in play. I was thinking more of the Democrat lock on the House of Representatives 46 out of the last 60 years or so.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 7, 2016 15:00:08 GMT
In a nutshell, what I was saying is I want to decide on my own what I believe is best for the country, vote for who I think would do the best job, and respect & get along with folks based on who they are as a person, not which party they're affiliated with. I always thought that's what democracy was, but clearly there's something I'm not getting, here, and I take responsibility for that. Maybe I should have paid better attention in HS Government class.
|
|
|
Post by whopea on Jul 7, 2016 16:36:29 GMT
If it is for real, that's disgusting. And yes, before it's asked, if the RNC does anything of the sort in Philadelphia, it's equally disgusting. Let the parties have their nominating conventions in peace and start the campaign afterwards. Which part do you find "disgusting"? The jokes about tiny fingers? Lowbrow, maybe, but that's a pretty small part of the plan. "Crashing" the convention is what The Smoking Gun called it, but apparently the political types call it "counter-programming," and they're pretty proud of it. From four years ago: ABC NewsI find it disgusting that a political party would spend nearly $1 million on pranks to include barf bags and other trivial items. I also find this part most disgusting: That's a bs move for residents of the City of Cleveland and the thousands of workers who have the opportunity to earn a fair amount of income with the influx of convention goers. I am a firm believer in the concept that you don't make yourself better by tearing others down.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 8, 2016 3:50:47 GMT
Oh I'm sure that the perfect Republican's won't succumb to such shenanigans. After all, according to a few here, Democrats are the scourge of the Earth. (Insert major eye roll) Why are you always so hateful and sarcastic to Republicans? I am one and I don't think Democrats are awful people. Your attitude does you no favors, that's for sure. I am grateful for others on this board who are Democrats who have behaved in a much kinder manner. I'm not hateful towards Republican's, and surely not always! My post was being sarcastic-- read the big inserted eye roll. I vote both republican and democratic, not locked into one.
|
|