Why did the DEMS not allow 1 single vote on HR 2?***

I was asked to define this back when I was a PoSc student at Clemson, many moons ago. I came up with this:

"People who should be working together toward a common goal each working instead toward their own goal."

This is why, when people now ask me why I'm not working with my degree, I simply tell them, "Have you ever had a job where there was no politics?" Then they get it.

I get the different parties and ideologies and such. Believe me. I've worked in it for over a decade. But ultimately, legislators should be working for the good of the country, the people, etc. There is a need and even a requirement to be able to work together to some degree. What's that word..... "compromise"? It means that you find the things that are not negotiable and you stand firm on those, but those that are negotiable - well, you negotiate!

This is one of many reasons why MAGA is so dangerous. MAGA is all about MAGA. No dissent allowed. All the petty and juvenile name-calling and slandering can be fun, but it's counterproductive to getting anything done.

Tiggity®

Oculus Spirit [97746]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 64879

Joined: 7/13/02

You can trace conservatism and liberalism as far back as politics goes

Feb 29, 2024, 11:58 AM

The ideas are far older than the GOP or the Democrats. It's far older than America. It's as old as democracy. And politics have ALWAYS been shaped by the environment politics governs. The purpose you explained. But that purpose is very different for different people in different places and cultures. Generally, the divide has always been rural vs. urban. Tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people (human beings) were NEVER intended to live in close quarters. Cities are a human invention, and they carry benefits, and problems. It takes more laws, more regulations, and less freedom for a million people to all live together in close proximity. Likewise, it takes more freedom, less laws, and less governing for people to live in rural areas where they depend less on others.

But the problem we have in the US, today, isn't political, or the geography that divides our "politics". It is also the very same problem our founders confronted in the 18th century. Our founders chose to make us a republic in form and function, but democratic in nature. The federal government was never intended to be more than that which was explicitly outlined in the Constitution. All other rights were reserved to the states. And for a century we operated much that way. Two things undermined this structure on which we were set and grew. One was the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This forces us into a federal system that must apply laws equally, everywhere. This is how we got abortion as a federal issue. The second thing that put us on this dangerous path was the 16th Amendment and the creation of the IRS and a federal income tax. Previously, for 150 YEARS, the federal government was mostly funded through tariffs, etc. With federal income skyrocketing from the income tax, that allows the federal government to leverage MONEY, to gets states to comply when they otherwise WOULD NOT. This gets is a 55mph speed limit (gas crisis bill), and a 21yo drinking (another highway bill) and now tobacco age (covid relief).

But the crux of our problem is one we have been trained to discredit, omit, overlook, or not believe. DEMOCRACY is not the perfect form of government. There is no perfect form, but democracy is just as imperfect as any other. The historical rule in politics is that "all large and diverse democracies fail, eventually". And they do. And our founding fathers knew this. They knew democracies, historically, have only worked long-term in small, homogenous societies with similar races, religion, laws, beliefs, etc. The larger, and likewise more diverse a nation, the more prone it is to failing as a democracy. And the US is no exception to this rule, as our founders made us a republic. A democratic republic, but a republic nonetheless. Create a nation with a federal government with limited and specific powers, and then you can have 50 little democracies all functioning largely on their own, and you get an overall placated, happy population. Have a central, federal system of government governing everyone the same, and you will get a net HIGHER number of disaffected people. We've seen this most recently with abortion. It was a 50/50 issue forever, since Roe and before. The federal government took the issue over, made a ruling, and applied it to all 50 states, ensuring 50% of Americans would be unhappy. FFWD to today. The Supreme Court did a 180 on abortion and released the issue back to the states to handle. And each state has handled the issue. The net number of Americans ticked off about abortion has decreased. You may have 20/80% mad now versus 50/50 for decades.

Circling back to the danger of America being a democracy, we are going to fail as one, on our current path. The reason is simple really. No one, and I mean NO ONE, pub, dem, or whatever, will ever vote for less. Everyone votes for more, just more for what THEY want. Less is not part of the equation. Less loses elections. So no one promises less, we never cut spending or do with less, and ALWAYS spend more. The 16th Amendment allows this to happen. Leveraging our tax dollars, and our children's tax dollars (LABOR) to perpetually spend more and more, which is how we end up with a Geritol Congress that we have.

So how do we fix this democracy problem that has given us a debt problem, illegal immigration problem, labor problems, and moral and family problems? You can't fix it in Washington. You can't fix it by electing the politician who tells you what you like to hear the most. It can only be done at the ballot box by voting for whoever likely tells you what NO ONE wants to hear, and as such they aren't elected, and that's why the problem can't be fixed in a voting booth, no matter your political colors.

Once again, those founding fathers were wise FAR beyond their years. They knew the dangers of an unchecked federal government with literally unlimited funding. So they included checks. One is Article V. It was built into the Constitution in the event America gets an oligarchical, perpetually re elected Congress with an unlimited purse, capable of passing laws that must be forced on all 50 states. And what laws they can't force, they can simply buy off the state's compliance. In this Article, the STATES (those 50 mini-democracies that make up the USA) the states have a means to bypass Congress, and amend the Constitution, in the event we ever get into a situation where we have a Congress that will never amend it to fix some problem. The United States Congress has not ONCE in my lifetime done something I've done my ENTIRE LIFETIME. They have never balanced a budget. They have never spent less. Even when they did achieve a balanced budget, briefly, under Clinton, that was due to the line item veto. Without that, there is no means to check federal spending.

And make no mistake, any attempt at an Article V convention WILL BE UNDERMINED, in a bipartisan manner. It will be castigated, called unworkable, it's never been done, and even when it is tried, money from Washington will pollute state legislatures, buy off votes, and legislatures will enter a laundry list of wet dream amendments to make the process doomed to fail. This is what will happen, and has every time Article V is mentioned, or tried. Ironically, this is the ideal opportunity for someone to come in and truly lead to fix our problems. A President.

Through LEADERSHIP, meeting with every governor, and with state legislatures, the President can pound the idea of only TWO amendments, and TWO ONLY. He can't do anything else but be a cheerleader in the process, but even THAT leadership to keep the goals on track could yield solutions. A balanced budget amendment phased in over 10 years AND term limits of two terms for each house of COngress. 75-80% of Americans support those two amendments. They could easily pass, IF debate is limited to ONLY THOSE amendments, and that would be a job for the President to make sure states stay on track and the process isn't undermined. But again, in our current situation, without some leader to provide guidance, even Article V will never work, and we have no leaders even willing to step up. And sadly, any leader who did provide this type of leadership, would end up assassinated most likely.

But one of two things happens, we collapse as a nation into some type of less than democratic nation, OR we balance a budget and limit politicians to two terms. One of the two will happen, because we are currently on an unsustainable trajectory, to use Jerome Powell's term. And we all know it. WHEN the game is over, may be 5 years, 2 years, or 20 years, but whenever the inevitable collapse happens, there will be violence, as for decades, and generations really, Americans have been trained to think all problems are caused by the other guy, the other party, etc. This mass ignorance will yield to either several new nations, or a singular nation under non-democratic rule.

This is just how I see things as a "political science" major. Oh, and a history major. The two should go hand in hand. Understand one, and you will understand the other.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Politics

Re: Politics

I like it. Gone from deplorable to dangerous. Nice***

Unless you're Russian, and somehow, those are 'different' commies.

Re: Politics

Re: Politics

Nope. Not at all.

Re: Nope. Not at all.

Re: Nope. Not at all.

Your TDS is showing. November 5th, coming quick.***

They even do it to their own Republicans.

Yea, get you some Pelosi or Jefferies...***

Rechecking my post...

Re: Politics

^^This is what is so dangerous

Re: Politics

Re: Politics

Re: Politics

Re: Politics

Re: Politics

Re: Politics

Which is why it got rejected by the Supreme Court.***

You can trace conservatism and liberalism as far back as politics goes

So how old was the kid who brought the gun to the playground? Did they say?***

Re: So how old was the kid who brought the gun to the playground? Did they say?***

I love how all the leftists

Re: I love how all the leftists

No, it's a 'reflection'.***

Re: Politics

TigerBoard POTD