http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/us/po...day'spaper.I may be reading this all wrong, but it seems to me that all this poll says is that noone in either political party should assume to have the country in their back pocket for this year's elections. Bottom line, it could go either way because folks are so angry. Bipartisanship should be something that both parties are striving to show voters. Whoever does that best between now and November, comes out ahead, imho.
Last edited by EVAY; 02-12-2010 at 11:45 AM.
Vote against every single in bent (for any 3rd party candidate if there is one on the ticket). They ALL have had a hand in where we are today; if you are still taken in by the tribal instinct of it's simply the (Dems or Republicans) other guys fault - you just aren't paying attention.
We need a "Clean the House (and a 3rd of the Senate) Party"
sorry folks,
I cannot get the url in the above reference to go back to the original page. I don't know what is wrong with it, but the url doesn't open the pages, which means I've screwed it up somehow.
Just never mind...it probably wasn't worth pursuing anyway...moderation rarely gets much play in these boards in any case, and i'm not in the mood to argue with anyone about it.
But realistically, no third party has the economic wherewithall to get started. With the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding corporate ads having free speech protections on an unlimited basis, what corporation would allow a 'newcomer' to oust someone they have already paid for?
Here is a particularly apt quote from the article:
"unfavorable views of the Democratic Party are as high as they have been since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, though Republicans continue to register an even worse showing."
Here is a particularly apt quote from the article:
"unfavorable views of the Democratic Party are as high as they have been since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, though Republicans continue to register an even worse showing."
I agree.
Too bad we cannot kick out 90some of the senators, and start over there too.
Interesting most people in the poll still blame Bush for the economic woes...
Only if a third party is one ballot, otherwise simply vote for the Dem or Rep that is NOT an in bent. Simple formula.
Fewer than 1 in 10 Americans say members of Congress deserve re-election.
...and yet over 90% will probably be reelected.
We should have a simple, nationwide, up or down vote on ALL of them; then when the Congress as a whole goes down; new elections with fresh faces. Need to read up on the Cons ution; see if an amendment can occur without Congressional involvement.
What these dumb Americans don't understand is that the usual "throw out the bums", both parties, means we get a new crop of Congress critters to be corrupted inevitably, by the corps and capitalists.
The US political system is irretrievable broken, and the Repug-packed SCOTUS made the bribery and extortion legal, and SCOTUS will continue for decades to favor ins utions over citizens, EXACTLY the opposite of what the Founding Father intended.
Tell me again how many wonderful successes the Repugs have visited on the USA these last 30 years!
The non-proportionality of the Senate and the electoral college are historical anomalies that need abolishing.
oops, excuse me. Even for me, myths Die Hard. Voting makes no difference, proportional or not.
Can do it via State houses.
I don't think anyone can, legitimately. But neither have the Dems; and I'll give you 80 years to scan their records.Tell me again how many wonderful successes the Repugs have visited on the USA these last 30 years!
Thank you very much.
This. It's ridiculous that a ballot in Nebraska is worth more than one in California.
+1.
Then make a law that they cannot live their entire adult life in congress.
Congress make laws...
Rofl
The last thing we need is to rewrite the Cons ution, for I shudder to contemplate what the American people would agree to as a replacement.
Further, the reason that there's equal representation in the Senate is that the states were to provide a check on power of the federal government. Or, if you are concerned about certain interests buying power in DC over your life, that's only accelerated the more political power is concentrated in DC.
"reason that there's equal representation in the Senate is that"
... the writers needed to get the underpopulated Western (not-yet) states, territories on board for joining the country, ratifying the Cons ution, because those outliers feared being dominated by the proportional representation of the populous states.
So the writers tried to equal the field and gave 2 Senators to every state.
Another distortion of proportionality is the winner-take-all-by-state of the electors, rather than proportionally to the popular vote.
The founders' paranoia didn't need the states to check the power of the feds. The states are represented in 2 of the 3 branches in the checks-and-balances scheme.
I note LOUDLY that it is the Repugs who want to make the Exec more unCons utionally powerful than the other two branches and effectively above the law, as was achieved by head and Black Addington.
The representation was certainly a check on the power of the federal government, as well as a check on the people.
Yes, both parties have had a hand in this, no doubt. Still, a move to a pure democracy would be worse than the status quo and the eviscerated Cons ution. Sure, we'd have a much more efficient federal government if we dispensed with the states and made those artifacts of the past and created a dictatorship of the people.
Bull . The Framers did it that way for a reason.
I would rather not have the same mob rule that has run Cali to financial ruin getting the same power in D.C., thank you.
Fail. It was a check on power.
LOL. That's why you have Pelosi whining about how the Senate should only need 51 votes to pass a bill.
That's why you have Obama appointing 11 billion czars that report to him, make policy, but aren't accountable to Congress or We the People.
Among other things.
It's ing ridiculous that all votes are not equal in our national elections. Having a senate is re ed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
