Gunboards Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
101 - 120 of 120 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Sure, the filibuster is just one of the Senate's rules and is subject to change. I wasn't really referring to it as part of how it was to be hard to pass laws, but it is an adequate stand in for the original make up of the simple majority Senate that was appointed by state legislatures rather than election by popular vote. In the original system, the Senate and House could have wildly different priorities and goals, reflecting the very different backgrounds and interests of their members.

Personally, I'm not sure the 17th Amendment was such a good idea, any more than I really think the filibuster is such a great idea. Put together I think they are adequate if not ideal.
For making it hard to pass laws congress certainly did a lot of it until recently even when polarization was also very bad. I just don't subscribe to the idea that the current situation is remotely close to their experience or intent. Attempts to work backwards to justify it seem motivated.


You must be a youngster :D Us older farts often realize that a "do over" is not a bad thing. Sometimes you need to correct a profound mistake. Refinements are great, but one has to be able to evaluate them with objectivity and refine them back out if they did not work well. Maybe the filibuster is one like that - but the progressive argument against it will not be taken at face value when so many of those people making the argument were very recently making the opposite argument when Trump was President and had all of Congress with him. I've seen that happen too often to be easily fooled by it.
Unless the goal was to grow executive power to an insane degree the filibuster has not functioned well. A lot of people complain that we now see passage of enormous omnibus bills containing all manner of things that are hard to digest. This is a direct result of the filibuster.

I think what the founders did envision is the bitter polarization that we have seen at times during our history and that we are seeing right now. The whole point of making it difficult to make substantive changes is that it only becomes impossible when the nation is bitterly divided. That is precisely when you want substantive changes to be the hardest to make
.

They also generally believed in the people in power, having a mandate, to be able to exercise that power. We're increasingly on the road to permanent minority rule as the structural biases all tilt to one party who consistently gets a lot less votes and that gap is growing. Left unaddressed the legitimacy of the government will be increasingly in question.

Its admittedly frustrating for the impatient progressives, but remember that it was also very frustrating for the equally impatient Donald Trump. Legislatively, what did he really do beyond the tax cut? What do you think he would have done had laws been easier to pass?
Most Republicans legislators simply have limited policy goals beyond tax cuts and judges, both of which are accomplished with bare majorities. Even if they do have a general direction in mind on something else 50 of them won't agree on what that looks like so all attempts at the caucus negotiating with itself simply implode at the start. The leadership is content to stack the judiciary to do this lifting for them instead.

Heheh... so you wish that those of us who disagree with you would "be honest" and admit that what we say is not what we mean and that your assumptions of our motivations are 100% correct? Have you considered the possibility that your assumptions of my motivations are in error? Perhaps the reason that you think what I say is not what I really mean is because your assumptions are incorrect.
When I see arguments being made about the intents of the founders and how they actually acted in the government they built which don't comport with history, yes I'm inclined to question a person's motivations. Sometimes it's an innocent case of rose colored glasses and sometimes it's motivated misrepresentation.

That politicians have it easy and are out of touch is not intended to be a policy argument. Yes, it is an emotional argument, and it is intended to do nothing more but underscore that a large number of constituents feel that their elected representatives do not have their best interests at heart. The reason to make that point is not tribalism, it is to illustrate that many policy questions are best left to be decided at the local level. Tribalism is irrational, localism (allowing local communities control over their own regulations) is not.
Look at the surveys of congress vs a person's individual congressperson. Almost invariably the latter is always higher absent some major scandal. Most people actually like their representatives but dislike the process of governing because it confuses them and lot of people lie about what goes on. A lot of that lying is tribally motivated signaling to whatever base needs to be appeased to win a primary.

As far as localism...if there is such a party in the United States that genuinely supports it I'm not aware of it. The states are on a continuum of how much leeway smaller bodies of government get but the state (and thus party in power) ultimately runs things.

Apologies for the delay in response, went on my first vacation in a year.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
379 Posts
For making it hard to pass laws congress certainly did a lot of it until recently even when polarization was also very bad. I just don't subscribe to the idea that the current situation is remotely close to their experience or intent. Attempts to work backwards to justify it seem motivated.
I do tend to believe that the current situation is close to their intent, I believe that given the huge power disparity between the federal government and those of the states, the founders would certainly approve of hamstringing the power of the fed.

Looking at the Bill of Rights, they clearly intended to limit the federal government to those specific areas where it could do a better job than the individual states. The 10th Amendment in particular makes it clear to me that the founders did not intend to have the federal government lord over the states. I believe that they intended the federal and state governments to be equal partners in the project of serving the citizens, each being responsible for those tasks that each could do more efficiently than its partners and each limiting their interference to tasks that were beyond what the citizens could do themselves. That is serving them.

The current progressives' attempts to remove obstructions to their grand designs (that is sarcastically said btw), like the filibuster absolutely seem motivated to me. Go back a few years to when Trump was President and had a slim Senate majority behind him, and all these same actors now demonizing the filibuster were instead talking up it's crucial importance. This is nothing more than a tawdry power grab.

Unless the goal was to grow executive power to an insane degree the filibuster has not functioned well. A lot of people complain that we now see passage of enormous omnibus bills containing all manner of things that are hard to digest. This is a direct result of the filibuster.
The filibuster has not functioned well, no. We agree on that.

But Congress hast the ability to rein in executive power, they ceded that power to write legislation to executive agencies. They can take it back simply by doing the hard work for which they are paid, writing the legislation and convincing their peers to vote in favor of it. If they don't like the executive having so much rule making authority all they have to do is not write that delegation into the laws in the first place.

Omnibus bills are not a direct result of the filibuster. They are the direct result of the conflicted loyalties and much more so the conflicted interests of members of Congress themselves.
.
They also generally believed in the people in power, having a mandate, to be able to exercise that power. We're increasingly on the road to permanent minority rule as the structural biases all tilt to one party who consistently gets a lot less votes and that gap is growing. Left unaddressed the legitimacy of the government will be increasingly in question.
Like Biden? Mandate my foot! The democrats lost seats in the House, barely, just barely squeaked out a 50-50 split in the Senate, and only got Biden in because he seemed so moderate and uncontroversial after 4 years of Trump. That is not a mandate, it is fatigue with politics being the central theme on so much popular media, politics influencing which news one watches, what non-political tv shows one watches, even infecting professional sports. The 60 percent of moderate voters are sick of this crap, and the 20 percent on either extreme are too blind to see that.

The legitimacy of the US federal government, the state governments, and all the municipal governments comes from effective service of the citizens. Where the polarization is coming in is that citizens themselves are becoming very tribal in their views of what services are expected from their various governments. When the two parties cannot agree on how to exercise power, that is what challenges legitimacy - but the answer is not to give one absolute power based on the slimmest of majorities, a majority which always proves temporary. The answer is to incentivize them to learn to exercise power in cooperation with each other.

Care to take a guess as to why that last sentence strikes you as impossible? A completely crazy idea that could never be made to work? I know why it sounds that way, but you can figure it out for yourself. It is the absolute reason that our government is losing its legitimacy, as it should be doing.


Most Republicans legislators simply have limited policy goals beyond tax cuts and judges, both of which are accomplished with bare majorities. Even if they do have a general direction in mind on something else 50 of them won't agree on what that looks like so all attempts at the caucus negotiating with itself simply implode at the start. The leadership is content to stack the judiciary to do this lifting for them instead.
Yeah, you're a youngster alright :D

Republicans like tax cuts, its their version of the payoffs to the unions that Biden is currently pushing through. Judges only really became a focus in the last 20 years (not to say it had not been at other times as well, but it was not as much a republican focus before GW Bush). But you've forgotten that republican legislators love spending money too - on the military, on policing, on border walls, on just as many goofy little pork projects for their districts as the democrats have.

The democrats are similarly divided on vision, you're just too far to the extreme left to see it. Manchin won't play ball on a lot of what you guys want, and if he caved others from less resolutely blue jurisdictions would also likely start to wonder if they wanted to suppress their doubts about the grand vision and go along with it and risk their chances of re-election.

Ever wonder why libertarians tend to lean GOP? Its because they prefer legislators to have limited policy goals. They prefer the legislator's poor judgement to have limited effect on their own lives.


When I see arguments being made about the intents of the founders and how they actually acted in the government they built which don't comport with history, yes I'm inclined to question a person's motivations. Sometimes it's an innocent case of rose colored glasses and sometimes it's motivated misrepresentation.
But that does not address the question, or at least not well. All you are doing is justifying your desire to say that I am lying to you and therefore you can dismiss anything else that might give you pause if you stopped and thought about it a bit from another perspective. This is a universal human irrationality, a comfortable way to reject everything that someone from another tribe might say if it makes you uncomfortable. But it is not exactly the hallmark of an open mind.

Arguments about the intents of the founders are absolutely going to be tinged by the modern viewpoints of those making the arguments, as all arguments supported by historical references will be. The tricky part is trying to stay open minded in spite of it.

Look at the surveys of congress vs a person's individual congressperson. Almost invariably the latter is always higher absent some major scandal. Most people actually like their representatives but dislike the process of governing because it confuses them and lot of people lie about what goes on. A lot of that lying is tribally motivated signaling to whatever base needs to be appeased to win a primary.
Sure, it absolutely is. And it is almost universal with political critters.

I can't tell if you intend to agree with what I was saying, but I take this point as a feature that supports my point. People like their own reps better than those of other tribes in general, because a lot of times they just know a bit more about them. The local news covers them, sometimes they meet them or write to them, etc. But the reason a lot of voters generally don't like politicians is that they do indeed say anything to whoever wants to hear it in order to hold onto their power. Its pretty transparent, and even when it works in our favor as individuals, its still hard to respect.

As far as localism...if there is such a party in the United States that genuinely supports it I'm not aware of it. The states are on a continuum of how much leeway smaller bodies of government get but the state (and thus party in power) ultimately runs things.
libertarians.

Apologies for the delay in response, went on my first vacation in a year.
No worries. A good debate keeps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
I do tend to believe that the current situation is close to their intent, I believe that given the huge power disparity between the federal government and those of the states, the founders would certainly approve of hamstringing the power of the fed.

Looking at the Bill of Rights, they clearly intended to limit the federal government to those specific areas where it could do a better job than the individual states. The 10th Amendment in particular makes it clear to me that the founders did not intend to have the federal government lord over the states. I believe that they intended the federal and state governments to be equal partners in the project of serving the citizens, each being responsible for those tasks that each could do more efficiently than its partners and each limiting their interference to tasks that were beyond what the citizens could do themselves. That is serving them.

The current progressives' attempts to remove obstructions to their grand designs (that is sarcastically said btw), like the filibuster absolutely seem motivated to me. Go back a few years to when Trump was President and had a slim Senate majority behind him, and all these same actors now demonizing the filibuster were instead talking up it's crucial importance. This is nothing more than a tawdry power grab

The filibuster has not functioned well, no. We agree on that.
I'm pretty sure they would've considered that ship as having definitively sailed in the first half of the 1860s. A legacy of an intractable problem of their time that became even less tractable later. Also not all of them would have strenuously objected to a more powerful federal government and indeed some argued for it during the convention. Even the Democratic Republicans seemed to enjoy pushing the boundaries of their own stated positions when it suited them, Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase is certainly something that comes to mind.

The filibuster works terribly and should be done away with and I don't really care who is arguing we should keep it. It was a mistake to implement it and has caused nothing but problems.


But Congress hast the ability to rein in executive power, they ceded that power to write legislation to executive agencies. They can take it back simply by doing the hard work for which they are paid, writing the legislation and convincing their peers to vote in favor of it. If they don't like the executive having so much rule making authority all they have to do is not write that delegation into the laws in the first place.
Strong argument for filibuster reform.

Omnibus bills are not a direct result of the filibuster. They are the direct result of the conflicted loyalties and much more so the conflicted interests of members of Congress themselves.
The growing size of those bills where even priorities that most of the Senate agrees on but is stymied by one or a few Senators is definitely a result of the modern filibuster. Congress passes far fewer bills but they continue clown car more and more stuff into the must pass legislation for government funding.

Like Biden? Mandate my foot! The democrats lost seats in the House, barely, just barely squeaked out a 50-50 split in the Senate, and only got Biden in because he seemed so moderate and uncontroversial after 4 years of Trump. That is not a mandate, it is fatigue with politics being the central theme on so much popular media, politics influencing which news one watches, what non-political tv shows one watches, even infecting professional sports. The 60 percent of moderate voters are sick of this crap, and the 20 percent on either extreme are too blind to see that.
You may have confused the present Republican structural advantage with the policy preferences of the electorate at large.

The legitimacy of the US federal government, the state governments, and all the municipal governments comes from effective service of the citizens. Where the polarization is coming in is that citizens themselves are becoming very tribal in their views of what services are expected from their various governments. When the two parties cannot agree on how to exercise power, that is what challenges legitimacy - but the answer is not to give one absolute power based on the slimmest of majorities, a majority which always proves temporary. The answer is to incentivize them to learn to exercise power in cooperation with each other.

Care to take a guess as to why that last sentence strikes you as impossible? A completely crazy idea that could never be made to work? I know why it sounds that way, but you can figure it out for yourself. It is the absolute reason that our government is losing its legitimacy, as it should be doing.
Well all majorities are temporary by nature. Maybe the head of one party should not have tried to convince his supporters and Americans at large the election was fraudulent, even though said party did well except for him, and whip up an insurrection against the Congress and his own VP. The "who did this" vibes around exploding polarization and tribalism when there is quite clearly a set of high profile suspects who nakedly claim credit is a little less than genuine. Politically the Republicans have been generally well served by their current course so there is no market for change or compromise even if the voters say they are interested in it, because they'll get elected anyway.


Yeah, you're a youngster alright :D

Republicans like tax cuts, its their version of the payoffs to the unions that Biden is currently pushing through. Judges only really became a focus in the last 20 years (not to say it had not been at other times as well, but it was not as much a republican focus before GW Bush). But you've forgotten that republican legislators love spending money too - on the military, on policing, on border walls, on just as many goofy little pork projects for their districts as the democrats have.
Tax cuts were more of a bipartisan issue than this would suggest. Even through the Obama years the prevailing economic view in the leadership was that they were ok where possible and letting any of them lapse would be bad politically. More contemporary experience and actually asking the electorate the questions has revealed that the GOP gorging especially of the Trump years was not favorably perceived and the TCJA had the low approval figures to back this. Similarly the polling on increased taxes for high earners and corporations is the reverse.

The democrats are similarly divided on vision, you're just too far to the extreme left to see it. Manchin won't play ball on a lot of what you guys want, and if he caved others from less resolutely blue jurisdictions would also likely start to wonder if they wanted to suppress their doubts about the grand vision and go along with it and risk their chances of re-election.
Every party has a continuum of ideology however what that ideology is and how it manifests in legislating can have much different results. There is a lot of disagreement in the Dem caucus but it is less damaging than things like the Tea Party were to the business of managing the caucus in the direction needed. The Republican right is more extreme than the Democrat left because doing nothing at all is ALWAYS a palatable choice for Conservatives politically. The same is generally not true of the Democrats who would rather get part of what they want instead of spending all their time beating each other over the head.

Ever wonder why libertarians tend to lean GOP? Its because they prefer legislators to have limited policy goals. They prefer the legislator's poor judgement to have limited effect on their own lives.
When I meet some more I'll let you know. Most of the ones I've encountered are really just run of the mill Republicans who like to flirt with libertarian ideology as a rhetorical cudgel. The rest...well they often cross the border into "cooky".


But that does not address the question, or at least not well. All you are doing is justifying your desire to say that I am lying to you and therefore you can dismiss anything else that might give you pause if you stopped and thought about it a bit from another perspective. This is a universal human irrationality, a comfortable way to reject everything that someone from another tribe might say if it makes you uncomfortable. But it is not exactly the hallmark of an open mind.

Arguments about the intents of the founders are absolutely going to be tinged by the modern viewpoints of those making the arguments, as all arguments supported by historical references will be. The tricky part is trying to stay open minded in spite of it.
If the position is that the founders wanted to make things hard to change which flies in the face of what they actually did after establishing the government I'm just not all that inclined to take that argument as in good faith. They reversed themselves a LOT. They carved huge swaths of tradition and precedent that endure to today that aren't explicitly set down in the constitution and simply legislated much of the rest in grey areas.

I can't tell if you intend to agree with what I was saying, but I take this point as a feature that supports my point. People like their own reps better than those of other tribes in general, because a lot of times they just know a bit more about them. The local news covers them, sometimes they meet them or write to them, etc. But the reason a lot of voters generally don't like politicians is that they do indeed say anything to whoever wants to hear it in order to hold onto their power. Its pretty transparent, and even when it works in our favor as individuals, its still hard to respect.
I think this dramatically overlooks the political inertia of incumbency absent a shift in the local partisan landscape.


libertarians.
see above
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
379 Posts
I'm pretty sure they would've considered that ship as having definitively sailed in the first half of the 1860s. A legacy of an intractable problem of their time that became even less tractable later. Also not all of them would have strenuously objected to a more powerful federal government and indeed some argued for it during the convention. Even the Democratic Republicans seemed to enjoy pushing the boundaries of their own stated positions when it suited them, Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase is certainly something that comes to mind.
Granted, we discuss "the founders" as if they were one unified body, which they were not. Jefferson largely opposed the federalism of Hamilton, and Madison bridged the gap between the two sides. My personal opinion (as in I have nothing to back it up) is that either the Jefferson or Hamilton factions would equally likely have lead the new nation into an authoritarian regime if not for the restraining influences of cooler heads like Madison and Washington. Hamilton would have done so by inclination, Jefferson by thinking he was following practical reality. The real genius in the founding was Madison.

The filibuster works terribly and should be done away with and I don't really care who is arguing we should keep it. It was a mistake to implement it and has caused nothing but problems.
And had you been arguing for that any time in the last 4 years, I'd grant you the legitimacy of your opinion. I did not favor elimination of the filibuster during the Trump administration or during the GW Bush administration when I recall the first talk of its elimination for confirmation votes.

I did not mind its elimination for cabinet confirmations, as I don't see the slow walking of staffing a new administration to be productive - even for Presidential administrations with no particular mandate (the vast majority of them), they are elected to run the day to day mechanics of the country and the Senate should not obstruct that out of nothing more than political spite.

I think that elimination of the filibuster for judicial confirmations was a mistake. McConnell did so because, I think, he was in a corner and the pressure to get Gorsuch confirmed was enormous after his tactics with Garland's nomination. The GOP benefited from this in the short term, but I think they will end up regretting it one day.

Strong argument for filibuster reform.
You only take it that way because you are not impartial on that subject. The filibuster has no bearing on the question of Congress's appropriate role in government or why they have largely ceded that role to the executive branch.

Elimination of the filibuster will not fix the disfunction of Congress. It will suit your short term desires for progressive action, but before long those evil GOP'ers like McConnell will use it to enact policy that you despise. That is what he did with Garland's nomination (he followed Biden's made up rule from 1992). Safety rails are often annoying, but they keep your enemies from shoving you off the roof. Once you've removed them to shove your own enemy off, there's nothing keeping his unseen heir standing behind you from returning that favor.

The problem with a do nothing Congress is not that it is 535 individual politicians, with a wide and eternally varying range of individual priorities. As much as you want the Biden administration to have a "mandate" after the 2020 election, its just not so - and the lack of a mandate is clearly seen in the simple fact that he can't even get 50 Senate democrats to go along with elimination of the filibuster. One or two of them seem to realize that they will rue the action in just a few years, and one or two others are simply more concerned with re-election.

The growing size of those bills where even priorities that most of the Senate agrees on but is stymied by one or a few Senators is definitely a result of the modern filibuster. Congress passes far fewer bills but they continue clown car more and more stuff into the must pass legislation for government funding.
Except that the democrats currently have the ability to remove the filibuster. Why can they not do so? Their caucus is not unified on the question. Consequently you have an action that most of their caucus agrees on being stymied by one or a few Senators.

Elimination of the filibuster simply would shift power to a few strong willed, stubborn Senators who are unafraid of jabbing the majority leader in the eye to get something they want. It would give Senators like Manchin more power. You guys crack me up, you don't realize that its much easier to find a few republican squishes to go along with you than to get a single bull headed power guy of your own party to go along, so you want to do something that will put you at the absolute mercy of any single intransigent person in your own party who wants something.

Bottom line in my view, Congress is doing nothing much because there is nothing important enough to get 535 individual crooks to put their petty ambitions aside so that they can achieve a greater goal. Congress doing nothing tells me that we still live in pretty prosperous, easy times.

You may have confused the present Republican structural advantage with the policy preferences of the electorate at large.
The present republican structural advantage? You were just talking about your party's mandate! So you actually think that the electorate at large is wildly in favor of fundamental transformation of the political and societal fabric of the US because Biden won by 1.26% popular vote? It looked like a stronger win because of the electoral college system, a system you guys always want to eliminate when it works against you.

The actual reality is that this country is divided between two roughly equal minority factions that feel very strongly and very absolutely opposite each other on almost everything, and then a much larger minority that agrees with moderated portions of the policies of either of those other two factions. A Presidential administration only has "a mandate" when the issue driving the voters is something that transcends the politics of the progressive or conservative factions - things like "its the economy stupid" to quote Bill Clinton (that was also Reagan's mandate, such as it was) or something like 9/11 for Bush - a non-electoral mandate, no one voted him in because of an event that hadn't happened yet, but he had overwhelming support - carte blanche for a little while as a result of it (and now we still have the Patriot Act).

Well all majorities are temporary by nature. Maybe the head of one party should not have tried to convince his supporters and Americans at large the election was fraudulent, even though said party did well except for him, and whip up an insurrection against the Congress and his own VP. The "who did this" vibes around exploding polarization and tribalism when there is quite clearly a set of high profile suspects who nakedly claim credit is a little less than genuine. Politically the Republicans have been generally well served by their current course so there is no market for change or compromise even if the voters say they are interested in it, because they'll get elected anyway.
Heheh... see, that is how I know you are a progressive partisan. You missed the important part of that debate point and instead shifted to something well within your comfort zone. Had you been able to see what I was driving at there, I might have been more interested in this debate - in that portion of my reply was perhaps the only thing I said in any of these replies that I really consider important. I mostly debate politics because it is interesting to me, not because I consider my opinions or yours very important in the grand scheme of things.

Ok, so to reply to your shift into the comfort zone - I don't think those events represented the viewpoints of a majority of even the republican electorate let alone the broader electorate. To my way of thinking its kind of a non sequitur to bring that up at all. Non sequitur replies are a sign that we talk past one another.

For what its worth, your last sentence would pass un-contested in the average republican discussion circle if you simply changed the word "republicans" to "democrats". That should tell you something very enlightening (but I doubt it will).

Tax cuts were more of a bipartisan issue than this would suggest. Even through the Obama years the prevailing economic view in the leadership was that they were ok where possible and letting any of them lapse would be bad politically. More contemporary experience and actually asking the electorate the questions has revealed that the GOP gorging especially of the Trump years was not favorably perceived and the TCJA had the low approval figures to back this. Similarly the polling on increased taxes for high earners and corporations is the reverse.
Sure, tax cuts are always popular with the electorate. Tax burden shifts are always popular too, but they are specific enough by their nature to polarize the electorate, hence all the angst over the SALT deduction or the capital gains rate. The irony in that last bit is that both the SALT deduction and reduction of the capital gains rate benefit very much the same demographic - actually a large overlap between to similar demographics, the explanation is that the political factions are targeting the non-overlapping portions of each demographic.

Every party has a continuum of ideology however what that ideology is and how it manifests in legislating can have much different results. There is a lot of disagreement in the Dem caucus but it is less damaging than things like the Tea Party were to the business of managing the caucus in the direction needed. The Republican right is more extreme than the Democrat left because doing nothing at all is ALWAYS a palatable choice for Conservatives politically. The same is generally not true of the Democrats who would rather get part of what they want instead of spending all their time beating each other over the head.
Hahaha! Ok, see the comment above about how you could just change "republican" to "democrat" and fit right in with all the republican hacks! Not going to reply to it, there is no point because I'm not going to defend hackery of the GOP, I dislike it as much as the hackery of the democrats.

When I meet some more I'll let you know. Most of the ones I've encountered are really just run of the mill Republicans who like to flirt with libertarian ideology as a rhetorical cudgel. The rest...well they often cross the border into "cooky".
Yeah, you do have a lot in common with republicans - they feel the same way about libertarians as you do :D The kooks among the libertarians are just there because its the party that doesn't mind having a few kooks (like the guy with the boot on his head). I'm probably more republican than libertarian myself, but I like libertarians for a lot of reasons. What keeps me from being a libertarian is that I doubt it is possible to deconvolve what I like about them from the fact that they have very little power and thus very little opportunity to screw things up. Its easy to have no scandals and be virtuous when you are never tempted by having the power to cheat and probably get away with it :D Honestly, I can't say that this is not the reason that they seem more honest than the big parties. On the left, I would bet the greens could have come from that same mold.

If the position is that the founders wanted to make things hard to change which flies in the face of what they actually did after establishing the government I'm just not all that inclined to take that argument as in good faith. They reversed themselves a LOT. They carved huge swaths of tradition and precedent that endure to today that aren't explicitly set down in the constitution and simply legislated much of the rest in grey areas.
Yes, that is the big risk of basing one's rhetoric solely on what those founders would have done or would think of such and such. Its actually a pretty lousy debating tactic.

People are by their natures changeable, it is not at all unreasonable to point out that the founders were as inconsistent as any one else. The basic argument in favor of originalist thinking (and that is what I consider invocation of the founder to be, its just easier to put a tag on it) is that they had a pretty good idea that they put into action. Problems have cropped up, since no idea is perfect, and we've had a varying history of success at dealing with those problems. Originalism aims to err on the side of minimizing the effects of overcorrecting for the things that the founders couldn't have anticipated. None of it is perfect, but its a lot better than all the other alternatives the world has seen.

So to re-iterate that, sure, they reversed themselves a lot. Originalist thinking is really talking about that one good idea, not all the mind changing and reversing that is usually driven by more immediate (and often less honest) priorities and desires of individual human beings.

I think this dramatically overlooks the political inertia of incumbency absent a shift in the local partisan landscape.
Political inertia of incumbency is really just that 40% of the voters aren't that interested in politics. The other thing I like about libertarians is that they tend to recognize this as a fact of life rather than a problem to be solved or a well of power to be utilized if they could just figure out how to reach those people.

Those people are not interested for a wide variety of reasons, its why true mandates are so very rare.

see above
Ok, so what you have never seen does not exist? The viewpoints you have never experienced personally must be illegitimate?

Libertarians are localists. One need only read what they write to know this. The bigger hurdle is to accept what they write as a potentially legitimate viewpoint - something that is as hard as accepting the opposing partisan viewpoint as a potentially legitimate one. That is basically why both big parties hate libertarians and the disinterested independents view them in a tepidly favorable light on the rare occasions that they are exposed to the idea of another party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
I'm pretty sure they would've considered that ship as having definitively sailed in the first half of the 1860s. A legacy of an intractable problem of their time that became even less tractable later. Also not all of them would have strenuously objected to a more powerful federal government and indeed some argued for it during the convention. Even the Democratic Republicans seemed to enjoy pushing the boundaries of their own stated positions when it suited them, Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase is certainly something that comes to mind.

The filibuster works terribly and should be done away with and I don't really care who is arguing we should keep it. It was a mistake to implement it and has caused nothing but problems.




Strong argument for filibuster reform.



The growing size of those bills where even priorities that most of the Senate agrees on but is stymied by one or a few Senators is definitely a result of the modern filibuster. Congress passes far fewer bills but they continue clown car more and more stuff into the must pass legislation for government funding.



You may have confused the present Republican structural advantage with the policy preferences of the electorate at large.



Well all majorities are temporary by nature. Maybe the head of one party should not have tried to convince his supporters and Americans at large the election was fraudulent, even though said party did well except for him, and whip up an insurrection against the Congress and his own VP. The "who did this" vibes around exploding polarization and tribalism when there is quite clearly a set of high profile suspects who nakedly claim credit is a little less than genuine. Politically the Republicans have been generally well served by their current course so there is no market for change or compromise even if the voters say they are interested in it, because they'll get elected anyway.




Tax cuts were more of a bipartisan issue than this would suggest. Even through the Obama years the prevailing economic view in the leadership was that they were ok where possible and letting any of them lapse would be bad politically. More contemporary experience and actually asking the electorate the questions has revealed that the GOP gorging especially of the Trump years was not favorably perceived and the TCJA had the low approval figures to back this. Similarly the polling on increased taxes for high earners and corporations is the reverse.



Every party has a continuum of ideology however what that ideology is and how it manifests in legislating can have much different results. There is a lot of disagreement in the Dem caucus but it is less damaging than things like the Tea Party were to the business of managing the caucus in the direction needed. The Republican right is more extreme than the Democrat left because doing nothing at all is ALWAYS a palatable choice for Conservatives politically. The same is generally not true of the Democrats who would rather get part of what they want instead of spending all their time beating each other over the head.



When I meet some more I'll let you know. Most of the ones I've encountered are really just run of the mill Republicans who like to flirt with libertarian ideology as a rhetorical cudgel. The rest...well they often cross the border into "cooky".




If the position is that the founders wanted to make things hard to change which flies in the face of what they actually did after establishing the government I'm just not all that inclined to take that argument as in good faith. They reversed themselves a LOT. They carved huge swaths of tradition and precedent that endure to today that aren't explicitly set down in the constitution and simply legislated much of the rest in grey areas.



I think this dramatically overlooks the political inertia of incumbency absent a shift in the local partisan landscape.




see above

You obviously know your stuff. It is true that Libertarianism among the right wing is a mere rhetorical tool. Actual libertarianism exists on both sides of the political spectrum, as does authoritarianism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Granted, we discuss "the founders" as if they were one unified body, which they were not. Jefferson largely opposed the federalism of Hamilton, and Madison bridged the gap between the two sides. My personal opinion (as in I have nothing to back it up) is that either the Jefferson or Hamilton factions would equally likely have lead the new nation into an authoritarian regime if not for the restraining influences of cooler heads like Madison and Washington. Hamilton would have done so by inclination, Jefferson by thinking he was following practical reality. The real genius in the founding was Madison.



And had you been arguing for that any time in the last 4 years, I'd grant you the legitimacy of your opinion. I did not favor elimination of the filibuster during the Trump administration or during the GW Bush administration when I recall the first talk of its elimination for confirmation votes.

I did not mind its elimination for cabinet confirmations, as I don't see the slow walking of staffing a new administration to be productive - even for Presidential administrations with no particular mandate (the vast majority of them), they are elected to run the day to day mechanics of the country and the Senate should not obstruct that out of nothing more than political spite.

I think that elimination of the filibuster for judicial confirmations was a mistake. McConnell did so because, I think, he was in a corner and the pressure to get Gorsuch confirmed was enormous after his tactics with Garland's nomination. The GOP benefited from this in the short term, but I think they will end up regretting it one day.



You only take it that way because you are not impartial on that subject. The filibuster has no bearing on the question of Congress's appropriate role in government or why they have largely ceded that role to the executive branch.

Elimination of the filibuster will not fix the disfunction of Congress. It will suit your short term desires for progressive action, but before long those evil GOP'ers like McConnell will use it to enact policy that you despise. That is what he did with Garland's nomination (he followed Biden's made up rule from 1992). Safety rails are often annoying, but they keep your enemies from shoving you off the roof. Once you've removed them to shove your own enemy off, there's nothing keeping his unseen heir standing behind you from returning that favor.

The problem with a do nothing Congress is not that it is 535 individual politicians, with a wide and eternally varying range of individual priorities. As much as you want the Biden administration to have a "mandate" after the 2020 election, its just not so - and the lack of a mandate is clearly seen in the simple fact that he can't even get 50 Senate democrats to go along with elimination of the filibuster. One or two of them seem to realize that they will rue the action in just a few years, and one or two others are simply more concerned with re-election.



Except that the democrats currently have the ability to remove the filibuster. Why can they not do so? Their caucus is not unified on the question. Consequently you have an action that most of their caucus agrees on being stymied by one or a few Senators.

Elimination of the filibuster simply would shift power to a few strong willed, stubborn Senators who are unafraid of jabbing the majority leader in the eye to get something they want. It would give Senators like Manchin more power. You guys crack me up, you don't realize that its much easier to find a few republican squishes to go along with you than to get a single bull headed power guy of your own party to go along, so you want to do something that will put you at the absolute mercy of any single intransigent person in your own party who wants something.

Bottom line in my view, Congress is doing nothing much because there is nothing important enough to get 535 individual crooks to put their petty ambitions aside so that they can achieve a greater goal. Congress doing nothing tells me that we still live in pretty prosperous, easy times.



The present republican structural advantage? You were just talking about your party's mandate! So you actually think that the electorate at large is wildly in favor of fundamental transformation of the political and societal fabric of the US because Biden won by 1.26% popular vote? It looked like a stronger win because of the electoral college system, a system you guys always want to eliminate when it works against you.

The actual reality is that this country is divided between two roughly equal minority factions that feel very strongly and very absolutely opposite each other on almost everything, and then a much larger minority that agrees with moderated portions of the policies of either of those other two factions. A Presidential administration only has "a mandate" when the issue driving the voters is something that transcends the politics of the progressive or conservative factions - things like "its the economy stupid" to quote Bill Clinton (that was also Reagan's mandate, such as it was) or something like 9/11 for Bush - a non-electoral mandate, no one voted him in because of an event that hadn't happened yet, but he had overwhelming support - carte blanche for a little while as a result of it (and now we still have the Patriot Act).



Heheh... see, that is how I know you are a progressive partisan. You missed the important part of that debate point and instead shifted to something well within your comfort zone. Had you been able to see what I was driving at there, I might have been more interested in this debate - in that portion of my reply was perhaps the only thing I said in any of these replies that I really consider important. I mostly debate politics because it is interesting to me, not because I consider my opinions or yours very important in the grand scheme of things.

Ok, so to reply to your shift into the comfort zone - I don't think those events represented the viewpoints of a majority of even the republican electorate let alone the broader electorate. To my way of thinking its kind of a non sequitur to bring that up at all. Non sequitur replies are a sign that we talk past one another.

For what its worth, your last sentence would pass un-contested in the average republican discussion circle if you simply changed the word "republicans" to "democrats". That should tell you something very enlightening (but I doubt it will).



Sure, tax cuts are always popular with the electorate. Tax burden shifts are always popular too, but they are specific enough by their nature to polarize the electorate, hence all the angst over the SALT deduction or the capital gains rate. The irony in that last bit is that both the SALT deduction and reduction of the capital gains rate benefit very much the same demographic - actually a large overlap between to similar demographics, the explanation is that the political factions are targeting the non-overlapping portions of each demographic.



Hahaha! Ok, see the comment above about how you could just change "republican" to "democrat" and fit right in with all the republican hacks! Not going to reply to it, there is no point because I'm not going to defend hackery of the GOP, I dislike it as much as the hackery of the democrats.



Yeah, you do have a lot in common with republicans - they feel the same way about libertarians as you do :D The kooks among the libertarians are just there because its the party that doesn't mind having a few kooks (like the guy with the boot on his head). I'm probably more republican than libertarian myself, but I like libertarians for a lot of reasons. What keeps me from being a libertarian is that I doubt it is possible to deconvolve what I like about them from the fact that they have very little power and thus very little opportunity to screw things up. Its easy to have no scandals and be virtuous when you are never tempted by having the power to cheat and probably get away with it :D Honestly, I can't say that this is not the reason that they seem more honest than the big parties. On the left, I would bet the greens could have come from that same mold.



Yes, that is the big risk of basing one's rhetoric solely on what those founders would have done or would think of such and such. Its actually a pretty lousy debating tactic.

People are by their natures changeable, it is not at all unreasonable to point out that the founders were as inconsistent as any one else. The basic argument in favor of originalist thinking (and that is what I consider invocation of the founder to be, its just easier to put a tag on it) is that they had a pretty good idea that they put into action. Problems have cropped up, since no idea is perfect, and we've had a varying history of success at dealing with those problems. Originalism aims to err on the side of minimizing the effects of overcorrecting for the things that the founders couldn't have anticipated. None of it is perfect, but its a lot better than all the other alternatives the world has seen.

So to re-iterate that, sure, they reversed themselves a lot. Originalist thinking is really talking about that one good idea, not all the mind changing and reversing that is usually driven by more immediate (and often less honest) priorities and desires of individual human beings.



Political inertia of incumbency is really just that 40% of the voters aren't that interested in politics. The other thing I like about libertarians is that they tend to recognize this as a fact of life rather than a problem to be solved or a well of power to be utilized if they could just figure out how to reach those people.

Those people are not interested for a wide variety of reasons, its why true mandates are so very rare.



Ok, so what you have never seen does not exist? The viewpoints you have never experienced personally must be illegitimate?

Libertarians are localists. One need only read what they write to know this. The bigger hurdle is to accept what they write as a potentially legitimate viewpoint - something that is as hard as accepting the opposing partisan viewpoint as a potentially legitimate one. That is basically why both big parties hate libertarians and the disinterested independents view them in a tepidly favorable light on the rare occasions that they are exposed to the idea of another party.
There is no blame in reforming the filibuster, especially when the bills being filibustered have wide bipartisan support of the VOTERS

Stand up and filibuster. I want politicians to suffer when they filibuster, rather than 'filibustering' merely by saying they don't support the bill and then calling it a day without saying why.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,978 Posts
Read the rules. This is the RKBA forum. We will continue to delete political rants that have nothing to do with the RKBA.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,978 Posts
The posts concern the legislative process that may be used to affect our RKBA. It is a far reaching discussion that’s a little iffy for this board - I wrote that before - but nobody is getting called names for their opinions or political beliefs.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
5,839 Posts
There is no blame in reforming the filibuster, especially when the bills being filibustered have wide bipartisan support of the VOTERS

Stand up and filibuster. I want politicians to suffer when they filibuster, rather than 'filibustering' merely by saying they don't support the bill and then calling it a day without saying why.
The Filibuster is the last chance a minority party has to gain any respect or influence. I look at it as a foundation of our 2 party system. All you have to do is look at these $ Trillion spending sprees that are only supported by one party with a slim majority , to see that without the Filibuster, we would be bankrupt , disarmed, and ripe for invasion. Biden keeps saying that the Bill of Rights is " not absolute" !! He's eyeballing the 2nd Amendment as well as the 10th . We already have the Speech Police in almost every media outlet , including TV , Newspapers, and internet providers. They have violated the 1st amendment right and I believe are doing so at the behest of the Biden administration. The 1st Amendment used to say "Freedom of Speech". You said what you wanted and left it up to the people listening or reading your comments , to decide for themselves , whether it was true. Todays Gestapo reviews anything you say, and THEY decide if it meets their "Truth" profile and rejects accordingly. That is what's known as "CENSURING " but since it's for the party in charge, that's good !!!! Don't listen to the demagogues who say the filibuster is racist or outdated . It's a key to which our entire system of government protects the people, from these autocrats !!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Granted, we discuss "the founders" as if they were one unified body, which they were not. Jefferson largely opposed the federalism of Hamilton, and Madison bridged the gap between the two sides. My personal opinion (as in I have nothing to back it up) is that either the Jefferson or Hamilton factions would equally likely have lead the new nation into an authoritarian regime if not for the restraining influences of cooler heads like Madison and Washington. Hamilton would have done so by inclination, Jefferson by thinking he was following practical reality. The real genius in the founding was Madison.
Well Hamilton did propose that we have a king for a hot minute. Both Jefferson and Hamilton were capable of compromise at least, sometimes via Madison, which is why a lot of stuff got done. Though I think the Nullification Crisis most reliably informs on Madison's view about the federal system as implemented.

And had you been arguing for that any time in the last 4 years, I'd grant you the legitimacy of your opinion. I did not favor elimination of the filibuster during the Trump administration or during the GW Bush administration when I recall the first talk of its elimination for confirmation votes.

I did not mind its elimination for cabinet confirmations, as I don't see the slow walking of staffing a new administration to be productive - even for Presidential administrations with no particular mandate (the vast majority of them), they are elected to run the day to day mechanics of the country and the Senate should not obstruct that out of nothing more than political spite.

I think that elimination of the filibuster for judicial confirmations was a mistake. McConnell did so because, I think, he was in a corner and the pressure to get Gorsuch confirmed was enormous after his tactics with Garland's nomination. The GOP benefited from this in the short term, but I think they will end up regretting it one day.
I'd have been fine with the filibuster going away during the Trump admin. The Republicans could not muster the votes to even partially repeal the ACA through reconciliation where you just need a bare majority. I think I'd argue that the filibuster also mostly keeps political parties from actually trying to act and consequently be held accountable by their voters for things they've promised. This isn't what was intended.

Administrative and judicial appointments should not be bottled up by the filibuster or the majority leader's refusal to bring them to a floor vote. They should come to the floor automatically in an expeditious manner regardless of the committee vote. If Senators want to sink a nomination they should have to be on the record.

You only take it that way because you are not impartial on that subject. The filibuster has no bearing on the question of Congress's appropriate role in government or why they have largely ceded that role to the executive branch.
I strongly disagree with this. When you decline to exercise power directly some other body is going to take it up like the Executive or the Judicial because the need and desire doesn't just disappear.

Elimination of the filibuster will not fix the disfunction of Congress. It will suit your short term desires for progressive action, but before long those evil GOP'ers like McConnell will use it to enact policy that you despise. That is what he did with Garland's nomination (he followed Biden's made up rule from 1992). Safety rails are often annoying, but they keep your enemies from shoving you off the roof. Once you've removed them to shove your own enemy off, there's nothing keeping his unseen heir standing behind you from returning that favor.
Not entirely no but it's a start and probably the best you can do to fix the Senate without an Amendment. Elected governments should be able to implement policy and the voters can decide later if they're happy with it. Supposedly this is the way it was to work.

The problem with a do nothing Congress is not that it is 535 individual politicians, with a wide and eternally varying range of individual priorities. As much as you want the Biden administration to have a "mandate" after the 2020 election, its just not so - and the lack of a mandate is clearly seen in the simple fact that he can't even get 50 Senate democrats to go along with elimination of the filibuster. One or two of them seem to realize that they will rue the action in just a few years, and one or two others are simply more concerned with re-election.

Except that the democrats currently have the ability to remove the filibuster. Why can they not do so? Their caucus is not unified on the question. Consequently you have an action that most of their caucus agrees on being stymied by one or a few Senators.
Basically all the arguments I've seen in favor of retaining the modern filibuster are badly ahistorical. That includes those from people like Manchin and Sinema. Again the filibuster allows Senators to hide behind convenient rules they have control of to avoid taking policy positions voters might judge them for. It is difficult to qualify what a mandate might be if a governing trifecta is not one.

Elimination of the filibuster simply would shift power to a few strong willed, stubborn Senators who are unafraid of jabbing the majority leader in the eye to get something they want. It would give Senators like Manchin more power. You guys crack me up, you don't realize that its much easier to find a few republican squishes to go along with you than to get a single bull headed power guy of your own party to go along, so you want to do something that will put you at the absolute mercy of any single intransigent person in your own party who wants something.
In theory the filibuster is supposed to encourage bipartisanship. In practice does an extremely poor job of this. The vote gap is too wide for many acceptable (on a policy basis to voters) compromises to pass because of the partisan bias the Senate currently has. This makes a strong argument for either eliminating the modern filibuster or substantially altering the threshold as has been done before.

Bottom line in my view, Congress is doing nothing much because there is nothing important enough to get 535 individual crooks to put their petty ambitions aside so that they can achieve a greater goal. Congress doing nothing tells me that we still live in pretty prosperous, easy times.
Political ambitions aren't necessarily a bad thing unless they override all sense of duty and service to the people and nation you serve. Those are the dangerous ones and you can quite clearly see it in electeds like Hawley and Cuomo. People generally don't run for election because they don't want to be there.

The present republican structural advantage? You were just talking about your party's mandate! So you actually think that the electorate at large is wildly in favor of fundamental transformation of the political and societal fabric of the US because Biden won by 1.26% popular vote? It looked like a stronger win because of the electoral college system, a system you guys always want to eliminate when it works against you.
Republicans can win total control of the government with far fewer votes than Democrats can. The Senate tilt alone exceeds R+5. Republican control of state legislatures ensures gerrymandering of house districts that magnifies GOP power as well. Both sides gerrymander because nobody is going to unilaterally disarm even though it should be entirely done away with. The House (especially) and EC wasn't really intended to magnify the power of the minority like the Senate does.

The actual reality is that this country is divided between two roughly equal minority factions that feel very strongly and very absolutely opposite each other on almost everything, and then a much larger minority that agrees with moderated portions of the policies of either of those other two factions. A Presidential administration only has "a mandate" when the issue driving the voters is something that transcends the politics of the progressive or conservative factions - things like "its the economy stupid" to quote Bill Clinton (that was also Reagan's mandate, such as it was) or something like 9/11 for Bush - a non-electoral mandate, no one voted him in because of an event that hadn't happened yet, but he had overwhelming support - carte blanche for a little while as a result of it (and now we still have the Patriot Act).
An elected government has a mandate. If it doesn't then what is it doing there?

Heheh... see, that is how I know you are a progressive partisan. You missed the important part of that debate point and instead shifted to something well within your comfort zone. Had you been able to see what I was driving at there, I might have been more interested in this debate - in that portion of my reply was perhaps the only thing I said in any of these replies that I really consider important. I mostly debate politics because it is interesting to me, not because I consider my opinions or yours very important in the grand scheme of things.

Ok, so to reply to your shift into the comfort zone - I don't think those events represented the viewpoints of a majority of even the republican electorate let alone the broader electorate. To my way of thinking its kind of a non sequitur to bring that up at all. Non sequitur replies are a sign that we talk past one another.

For what its worth, your last sentence would pass un-contested in the average republican discussion circle if you simply changed the word "republicans" to "democrats". That should tell you something very enlightening (but I doubt it will).
A majority of Republicans think the election was stolen because that's what they were told. Even internal GOP polling reflects this belief. It's part of party orthodoxy now. Your last comment is kind of both sides-y as there is a larger centrist block of Ds than of Rs these days and that's generally reflected in the political landscape. In other words the Republicans have drifted farther and faster to the extreme of their party than the Democrats have despite a reluctance to admit that. The Democrats might get to the same place in a few more cycles but that remains to be seen.


Sure, tax cuts are always popular with the electorate. Tax burden shifts are always popular too, but they are specific enough by their nature to polarize the electorate, hence all the angst over the SALT deduction or the capital gains rate. The irony in that last bit is that both the SALT deduction and reduction of the capital gains rate benefit very much the same demographic - actually a large overlap between to similar demographics, the explanation is that the political factions are targeting the non-overlapping portions of each demographic.
The theory was that tax cuts were popular but they really don't seem to figure too much in to the minds of voters until, as some states have done, the revenue is gone and services are cut. TCJA was never popular and some people have finally realized this. The SALT deduction should not have existed but the motivation the GOP had for getting rid of it was to screw over the large blue states with big prop tax bills, so while I'm not unhappy about the result I don't want to hear Republicans crow about making something more fair because that wasn't the motivation. They would rather burn the capitol down than vote for an increase in cap gain taxes.


Yeah, you do have a lot in common with republicans - they feel the same way about libertarians as you do :D The kooks among the libertarians are just there because its the party that doesn't mind having a few kooks (like the guy with the boot on his head). I'm probably more republican than libertarian myself, but I like libertarians for a lot of reasons. What keeps me from being a libertarian is that I doubt it is possible to deconvolve what I like about them from the fact that they have very little power and thus very little opportunity to screw things up. Its easy to have no scandals and be virtuous when you are never tempted by having the power to cheat and probably get away with it :D Honestly, I can't say that this is not the reason that they seem more honest than the big parties. On the left, I would bet the greens could have come from that same mold.
The minor parties are little more than spoilers exploited by the big ones. As organizations they're basically irrelevant besides that. As an ideology you'll find bits sprinkled in various people but if you dig down a bit I've always found that they are intensely partisan even though they describe themselves as "libertarian" to avoid expressing that partisanship.

Yes, that is the big risk of basing one's rhetoric solely on what those founders would have done or would think of such and such. Its actually a pretty lousy debating tactic.

People are by their natures changeable, it is not at all unreasonable to point out that the founders were as inconsistent as any one else. The basic argument in favor of originalist thinking (and that is what I consider invocation of the founder to be, its just easier to put a tag on it) is that they had a pretty good idea that they put into action. Problems have cropped up, since no idea is perfect, and we've had a varying history of success at dealing with those problems. Originalism aims to err on the side of minimizing the effects of overcorrecting for the things that the founders couldn't have anticipated. None of it is perfect, but its a lot better than all the other alternatives the world has seen.

So to re-iterate that, sure, they reversed themselves a lot. Originalist thinking is really talking about that one good idea, not all the mind changing and reversing that is usually driven by more immediate (and often less honest) priorities and desires of individual human beings.
I'd probably argue that the founders were also driven by many immediate concerns when they wrote the Constitution. The most important of them being slavery and the resultant inclusion of the 3/5ths clause which had some pretty serious ramifications down the line that they hoped they wouldn't have to deal with themselves. Seems not above debate that they left us some landmines which they figured we'd get to clearing just hoping we wouldn't blow ourselves up not because they thought it was a good idea but because the had few practical alternatives.



Political inertia of incumbency is really just that 40% of the voters aren't that interested in politics. The other thing I like about libertarians is that they tend to recognize this as a fact of life rather than a problem to be solved or a well of power to be utilized if they could just figure out how to reach those people.
This would seem to back up my statement that many people don't realty know their reps that well and will probably vote for them or not based on the partisan trend.


Ok, so what you have never seen does not exist? The viewpoints you have never experienced personally must be illegitimate?

Libertarians are localists. One need only read what they write to know this. The bigger hurdle is to accept what they write as a potentially legitimate viewpoint - something that is as hard as accepting the opposing partisan viewpoint as a potentially legitimate one. That is basically why both big parties hate libertarians and the disinterested independents view them in a tepidly favorable light on the rare occasions that they are exposed to the idea of another party.
Typically when I meet someone that describes themselves as libertarian it doesn't take but a few minutes to hear some view that's just wildly inconsistent with libertarianism asserted. Sometimes even less time than that. Like if I told people I'm a socialist but think that Medicare expansion is bad because it would raise my taxes. People pick and chose what parts of it they might favor then deem themselves libertarians to avoid a partisan pigeonhole that they are actually already pretty ensconced in.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
5,839 Posts
A majority of Republicans think the election was stolen because that's what they were told. .
It's obvious you are extremely biased in favor of democrats because they are chomping at the bit to turn this country into another Venezuela , and the "Filibuster" is standing in their way. This is obviously the cause of both Obama and now Biden, getting writers cramp, signing all these 'Executive Actions" !!! Obama tried to enforce his anti gun policies by Executive Action only to find out he couldn't because he couldn't as President , make new law. Only Congress can make new law . As I stated, the only thing preventing a Dictatorship like government in this country is our 2 party system and whereas the House can pass bills by simple majority , the Senate CAN'T because of the FILIBUSTER !!! That means The MINORITY PARTY and all it's voters are PROTECTED !!!!
Now to the part I took out of your "manifesto" . Republicans thought the election was stolen , NOT BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT , but because they couldn't believe there were that many stupid people in this country . After all, the middle class on average, [me included], got about 25% more in their tax return than the previous year. The unemployment rate was the lowest it's been in 50 years with all races gaining. We were a NET EXPORTER of gas and oil !! We had confronted all the rogue regimes and they were taking notice !! We had a guy who did what he said he was going to do . Yet, supposedly , a failed presidential candidate with over 50 years in government, with nothing more to show except fighting school bussing, enacting a punitive criminal justice law, and cavorting with Chinese and Ukrainian companies while VP , won. It seemed the impossible was now here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
It's obvious you are extremely biased in favor of democrats because they are chomping at the bit to turn this country into another Venezuela , and the "Filibuster" is standing in their way. This is obviously the cause of both Obama and now Biden, getting writers cramp, signing all these 'Executive Actions" !!! Obama tried to enforce his anti gun policies by Executive Action only to find out he couldn't because he couldn't as President , make new law. Only Congress can make new law . As I stated, the only thing preventing a Dictatorship like government in this country is our 2 party system and whereas the House can pass bills by simple majority , the Senate CAN'T because of the FILIBUSTER !!! That means The MINORITY PARTY and all it's voters are PROTECTED !!!!
Now to the part I took out of your "manifesto" . Republicans thought the election was stolen , NOT BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT , but because they couldn't believe there were that many stupid people in this country . After all, the middle class on average, [me included], got about 25% more in their tax return than the previous year. The unemployment rate was the lowest it's been in 50 years with all races gaining. We were a NET EXPORTER of gas and oil !! We had confronted all the rogue regimes and they were taking notice !! We had a guy who did what he said he was going to do . Yet, supposedly , a failed presidential candidate with over 50 years in government, with nothing more to show except fighting school bussing, enacting a punitive criminal justice law, and cavorting with Chinese and Ukrainian companies while VP , won. It seemed the impossible was now here.
Weird how such an amazing president was quite unpopular and consequently lost his re-election bid. Certainly never happened to anyone else before so must be suspicious.
 
101 - 120 of 120 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top