Posted on Dec 7, 2019
House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.
466
16
16
6
6
0
Responses: 6
3
3
0
This type of complaint makes me laugh. The founding fathers, in a period of near divine inspiration, designed the ship of state to turn slowly and with great difficulty. Is there a single person out there in RP land that will deny that we are a nation divided? The entire system of government, from the three branches and separation of powers to the rules used in the legislature to the electoral college our government was designed with a single-minded intent..
IF AN ISSUE DOES NOT MERIT OVERWHELMING SUPPORT, WITH THE POPULACE AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, IT GOES NOWHERE!!!
It was intentional, and it is what carries the day here and now. Until we, as a voting electorate come to a clear and convincing consensus as to the direction our country should go, the status quo is just fine. When we the voting electorate decide something must change, and this is how we want it to change, it is supposed to remain unchanged. When we the voting electorate decide that the price of the status quo is greater than the price of reasoned and rational compromise, we're SUPPOSED to live with what we've got. This is not a problem this is a democratically elected, constitutional republic functioning as designed. Does ANYONE truly want to live in a Republic ruled by the passions of the moment?
Instead of complaining, we should thank the founding fathers for their foresight, and get back to the serious business of well-intentioned, reasonable and rational compromise.
IF AN ISSUE DOES NOT MERIT OVERWHELMING SUPPORT, WITH THE POPULACE AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, IT GOES NOWHERE!!!
It was intentional, and it is what carries the day here and now. Until we, as a voting electorate come to a clear and convincing consensus as to the direction our country should go, the status quo is just fine. When we the voting electorate decide something must change, and this is how we want it to change, it is supposed to remain unchanged. When we the voting electorate decide that the price of the status quo is greater than the price of reasoned and rational compromise, we're SUPPOSED to live with what we've got. This is not a problem this is a democratically elected, constitutional republic functioning as designed. Does ANYONE truly want to live in a Republic ruled by the passions of the moment?
Instead of complaining, we should thank the founding fathers for their foresight, and get back to the serious business of well-intentioned, reasonable and rational compromise.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Maj John Bell - Is your counter argument based on statistical data or your personal observation? Can you quantify "many" and a "vast majority"?
A lot of people think they are educating themselves, but often they are just swallowing whatever they are fed from those that speak the longest or the loudest, and will go whatever feels good or aligns with whatever they already think. I agree with your statement regarding people educating themselves, but I would bet you what people consider "educating themselves" diverges considerably.
"Vote intelligently" can be a very subjective standard. Is voting based on one's own self interests voting intelligently, or is it voting for the greater good? Opinions on what is considered voting intelligently will also diverge dramatically.
Lastly, the privileged elite are not giving cash for name recognition. Candidates may use it for that, but that is not why those with a lot of money are pouring it into campaigns and candidates. Beyond direct support to candidates, they finance lobbyists, and between campaign finance laws that allows for rivers of dirty money to flow and legalized corruption in lobbying legislation, people with money have secured access to the levers of power and locked out those of us that do not have that kind of money to spend. Maybe you do. I do not, despite being solidly middle class. That being the case, the popularity of an issue with the general populace is meaningless. Unless there is money behind it, it goes nowhere.
A lot of people think they are educating themselves, but often they are just swallowing whatever they are fed from those that speak the longest or the loudest, and will go whatever feels good or aligns with whatever they already think. I agree with your statement regarding people educating themselves, but I would bet you what people consider "educating themselves" diverges considerably.
"Vote intelligently" can be a very subjective standard. Is voting based on one's own self interests voting intelligently, or is it voting for the greater good? Opinions on what is considered voting intelligently will also diverge dramatically.
Lastly, the privileged elite are not giving cash for name recognition. Candidates may use it for that, but that is not why those with a lot of money are pouring it into campaigns and candidates. Beyond direct support to candidates, they finance lobbyists, and between campaign finance laws that allows for rivers of dirty money to flow and legalized corruption in lobbying legislation, people with money have secured access to the levers of power and locked out those of us that do not have that kind of money to spend. Maybe you do. I do not, despite being solidly middle class. That being the case, the popularity of an issue with the general populace is meaningless. Unless there is money behind it, it goes nowhere.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt Steve Sweeney - My counter argument is based on asking my elected officials "why in hell did you vote against...?" I have received multiple responses from multiple elected officials that exposed "poison pills" within proposed legislation. Armed with that knowledge, I'd have voted the same way they did.
Voting intelligently is not a subjective standard. A person can vote intelligently on an issue if they know for what they are voting. Whether you or I agree with that vote is not relevant to the intelligence of that vote. Unfortunately we now have a case that people believe that anyone who does not think like they think and vote like they vote is "stupid." I believe that is not the case. I think that people who know why they vote for or against an issue and have an accurate and well-informed understanding of the consequences of their vote are voting intelligently, whether I agree with them or not. We just disagree.
Lastly, I was not referring to the reason the donor class donates. The donations are used by candidates to increase their name recognition and to pin their name to a set of promises.
Here's a problem, most campaign promises are not within the powers of the office for which they are running, (i.e. I'm going to create private sector jobs, or I'm going to end domestic violence) or not within the limits of the Constitution, (i.e. I'm going to seize all center fire, semi-automatic rifles) or the campaign promise is a non-differentiating "vision" that every candidate is for, (I'm for full-employment, or I'm for more home ownership).
Or candidates use the donations to pin their opponent's name to a set of "bad stuff" that is often not true, or is presented in a misleading manner. "My opponent wants everyone to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow and does not care that they will freeze to death in the next few days." or my opponent wants people with mental illness and violent anti-social history to be armed and does not care if kids are killed in school by mass murderers."
Low information voters buy those messages.
Voting intelligently is not a subjective standard. A person can vote intelligently on an issue if they know for what they are voting. Whether you or I agree with that vote is not relevant to the intelligence of that vote. Unfortunately we now have a case that people believe that anyone who does not think like they think and vote like they vote is "stupid." I believe that is not the case. I think that people who know why they vote for or against an issue and have an accurate and well-informed understanding of the consequences of their vote are voting intelligently, whether I agree with them or not. We just disagree.
Lastly, I was not referring to the reason the donor class donates. The donations are used by candidates to increase their name recognition and to pin their name to a set of promises.
Here's a problem, most campaign promises are not within the powers of the office for which they are running, (i.e. I'm going to create private sector jobs, or I'm going to end domestic violence) or not within the limits of the Constitution, (i.e. I'm going to seize all center fire, semi-automatic rifles) or the campaign promise is a non-differentiating "vision" that every candidate is for, (I'm for full-employment, or I'm for more home ownership).
Or candidates use the donations to pin their opponent's name to a set of "bad stuff" that is often not true, or is presented in a misleading manner. "My opponent wants everyone to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow and does not care that they will freeze to death in the next few days." or my opponent wants people with mental illness and violent anti-social history to be armed and does not care if kids are killed in school by mass murderers."
Low information voters buy those messages.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Maj John Bell - You tell me that voting intelligently is not a subjective standard, and then immediately explain how different people have different standards for what intelligent is based on their belief, ergo, subjective. I agree with your explanation.
You are entirely correct that most if not all of the promises candidates make are beyond their power to achieve alone. This may break down to semantics and candidates don;t want to say they will "advocate for" or "work toward" for fear of sounding weak or indecisive. Candidates do have to pander to the lowest common denominator and know saying what people want to hear works better than trying to explain the reality. So while I agree with what you are saying, I also understand why they posture in the way they do. It is, after all, a popularity contest.
And yes, candidates use the full spectrum of rhetoric and hyperbole. Low information voters do buy those messages, but then they hold most of the votes.
You are entirely correct that most if not all of the promises candidates make are beyond their power to achieve alone. This may break down to semantics and candidates don;t want to say they will "advocate for" or "work toward" for fear of sounding weak or indecisive. Candidates do have to pander to the lowest common denominator and know saying what people want to hear works better than trying to explain the reality. So while I agree with what you are saying, I also understand why they posture in the way they do. It is, after all, a popularity contest.
And yes, candidates use the full spectrum of rhetoric and hyperbole. Low information voters do buy those messages, but then they hold most of the votes.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Admittedly my standard, and one that others may not use, but it is one size fits all..."people who know why they vote for or against an issue and have an accurate and well-informed understanding of the consequences of their vote are voting intelligently." The intelligence quality is not based on the subjectivity of their belief but upon understanding of the consequences of their vote.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
The problem with Trump and the REPs is there defense is based on lies, innuendos, and attacking witnesses.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Passing a bill in the house is meaningless unless it can pass in the Senate and the President will sign it or they have the votes to overturn a presidential veto. The democrats have hundred of pet bills they will pass that have no chance of going anywhere. Moving bills forward with zero chance is a waste of time. The democrats have buried loads of time in Mueller first then impeachment. Neither of those will have their desired outcome. We know Mueller failed epically and impeachment is on the way to the morgue. They have no interest in finding common ground really. The USMCA is the exception that proves the rule.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google