The Super Committee Falls On Its Sword- Surprised?

[Minor Axis]

Washington Post: Supercommittee Members Brace For Failure

Yes from a least harm philosophy, I've been leaning Democrat since Bush Sr declared that what was happening at Continental Airlines was "just business". Working in a labor profession along with the Republican's business-trumps-all centric view, I realized that the Republican view of what "just business" is, is very harmful to average working class citizens.

I've been an Independent voter since the 1970's but I've only voted for one Independant- Jesse Ventura for Governor of Minnesota. At the time it was a good choice all though in the long run, Ventura proved to not be a good compromiser. It would be really nice to have more viable Independant candidates. I really don't want to waste my vote if it means a GOPer will be elected into any position of significance.

It looks like our Democracy has turned into an ineffectual organization controlled by money, without balance, without consideration for the well being of our citizens across the spectrum, completely consumed with taking care of the 1%.

I'm starting to think that although it can be argued that Democrats traditionally look out for working class, due to gridlock maybe we have to clean house in Congress, start fresh. Practically everyone there has ideological baggage. I realize this is fantasy. My fear is that if we were able to do this, our idiot citizens would still be voting in more idiot politicians who will continue pander to the well off, while pulling the rug out from under the rest of us.

Have we proven the Democracy can fail? Maybe it's time for a benevolent dictatorship? Just let me pick the dictator. Seriously I'm more pessimistic about the future of the U.S. than any time in my life.

 

[Alien Allen]

viva la revolution !!

 

[Dana]

No, as I said on Facebook... Dog and pony...

 

[CityGirl]

It is a shame. This evening on the CBS News, Scott Pelley reported on a 2010 study by the National Journal that found the number of moderate senators had dwindled from 60 in 1982 to 0 today. [video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/[/video] The 50 second news blurb is titled Moderate Senators Disappear.

 

[Alien Allen]

a moderate is just somebody that is more apt to have their vote bought.

they don't stand for anything as a core principle

IMO

 

[Johnfromokc]

a moderate is just somebody that is more apt to have their vote bought.

they don't stand for anything as a core principle

IMO

Not intending to stir shit, but if I had a buck for every time I heard Rush Limpballs repeat that phrase over the years....

Anyhoo, I disagree with that statement. Why should anyone have to pick one political philosophy and stick with it through hell or high water even after time and reality have proven the flaws of both political parties? Why not go with the reasonable ideals of each side and toss the bullshit?

 

[Alien Allen]

Not intending to stir shit, but ........

:24::24::24::24:


nah you would never stir shit

and despite what you assume. Remember what assume spells

It is my belief

The moderates are why we have such a swing in elections.

you have 1/3 that is right

you have 1/3 that is left

and you have the clueless middle that go which ever way the wind blows.

That IMO

And I reserve the right to express it and you are free to disagree

 

[Peter Parka]

you have 1/3 that is right

you have 1/3 that is left

and you have the clueless middle that go which ever way the wind blows.

Interesting. From what I've seen here, you have a third that are Lefties, 2 thirds who are righties, a half of the righties that claim to be Libertarians and 70 percent who dont really understand fully what it is of what they say they believe, they understand and half of everyone who talk complete bollocks.

 

[Johnfromokc]

It is a shame. This evening on the CBS News, Scott Pelley reported on a 2010 study by the National Journal that found the number of moderate senators had dwindled from 60 in 1982 to 0 today. [video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/[/video] The 50 second news blurb is titled Moderate Senators Disappear.

The moderates are why we have such a swing in elections.

you have 1/3 that is right

you have 1/3 that is left

and you have the clueless middle that go which ever way the wind blows.

Not so much anymore. The study CG posted above shows whatever moderates there used to be seem to have taken sides and we are more polarized than ever. Here's the link to the study:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/congress-hits-new-peak-in-polarization-20110224

Now we just have 541 bickering, partisan asshats with narrow majorities that stopped representing We the People decades ago.

 

[CityGirl]

a moderate is just somebody that is more apt to have their vote bought.

they don't stand for anything as a core principle

IMO

I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh "school us" on what moderation is and I hear truths and half truths all mixed in. He sites extremes like what if we had met the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the institution of slavery with moderation (which we did for the first nearly 100 yrs of our Republic). He takes a no-holds-barred approach "Winners do not compromise. It's the losers who should be compromising-particularly in politics." http://dailyrushbo.com/rush-schools...-a-substantive-belief-moderation-is-a-tactic/ He also demonstrates that he believes the country will be better off if it tilts to the right and though he didn't outright say it, he comes across as supporting the majority of the nation embracing the policies and beliefs of the right and quite frankly, that scares me and I would think it would scare everyone. I'm good with holding center. Too far a shift in either direction is to capsize.

I know Rush has a great deal of respect for Ronald Reagan, as do I. Ronald Reagan understood moderation as he wrote in his autobiography:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

There are times for moderation. Sometimes, the moderators are the ones with the cool heads that can add some levity when the opposing sides can't see beyond their own agendas. I see this as a strength and not a weakness that is easily exploited. Moderates are principled but Rush doesn't think so. He sees them as turning whichever way the wind blows. Currently, our leaders are butting heads and not willing to compromise. We the people are ultimately the losers.

It is no wonder that these debate threads degenerate into

 

[Accountable]

I really don't want to waste my vote if it means a GOPer will be elected into any position of significance.

It's impossible to waste a vote if you keep yourself informed. Even choosing not to vote is not a waste if you are firm about the reason why.

Have we proven the Democracy can fail? .

We're not a democracy. Never have been.
I agree the future looks pretty gloomy, but it might be like the stock market. The adage goes something like 'when everybody is selling in a panic, that's the time to buy.' Smell the air. People are waking up, getting pissed about the way things are going. The turning point might be nearer than we realize.

 

[Minor Axis]

a moderate is just somebody that is more apt to have their vote bought.

they don't stand for anything as a core principle

IMO

BS. A moderate is moderate vs extreme.

:24::24::24::24:


nah you would never stir shit

and despite what you assume. Remember what assume spells

It is my belief

The moderates are why we have such a swing in elections.

you have 1/3 that is right

you have 1/3 that is left

and you have the clueless middle that go which ever way the wind blows.

That IMO

And I reserve the right to express it and you are free to disagree

Come on admit it. You think the 1/3 left and 1/3 middle (if it still existed) are clueless.

I know Rush has a great deal of respect for Ronald Reagan, as do I.

If Ronalld Reagan was alive today and held the same values he held when President, he would be shunned in today's GOP.

It's impossible to waste a vote if you keep yourself informed. Even choosing not to vote is not a waste if you are firm about the reason why.

You can absolutely waste your vote if the ass hole gets elected because you stood for your principle.

We're not a democracy. Never have been.
I agree the future looks pretty gloomy, but it might be like the stock market. The adage goes something like 'when everybody is selling in a panic, that's the time to buy.' Smell the air. People are waking up, getting pissed about the way things are going. The turning point might be nearer than we realize.

What do you imagine will happen as part of the turning point? If we are not supposed to be a Democracy, what are we? I'd say we do not meet this wiki definition:

Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

 

[CityGirl]

Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Wahooooooo!!!! Where'd ya get that thar definition of democracy? Everbody knows democracy is mob rule!

 

[Accountable]

If Ronalld Reagan was alive today and held the same values he held when President, he would be shunned in today's GOP.

You might be right. He was originally a dem.

You can absolutely waste your vote if the ass hole gets elected because you stood for your principle.

Abandoning principle in favor of winning is a bigger waste.

 

[Minor Axis]

You might be right. He was originally a dem.

Abandoning principle in favor of winning is a bigger waste.

Accountable, it's called being a pragmatist and involves compromise. Better to get half of what you want than none of what you want.

 

[Accountable]

Accountable, it's called being a pragmatist and involves compromise. Better to get half of what you want than none of what you want.

If you're allergic to peanuts and your choices are peanut butter sandwich and a Reese cup, it just might be better to go hungry for a little while rather than going for the bread or chocolate.

 

[Minor Axis]

If you're allergic to peanuts and your choices are peanut butter sandwich and a Reese cup, it just might be better to go hungry for a little while rather than going for the bread or chocolate.

A poor analogy imo. It seems to illustrate your misconceptions about how compromise works or you are dead set against compromise. In either case this is not how human beings successfully interact with each other in a society. "My way or the highway" is more in tune with living as a hermit.

 

[Accountable]

A poor analogy imo. It seems to illustrate your misconceptions about how compromise works or you are dead set against compromise.

Not at all. It's just that the two parties you mistakenly define as "choices" are both toxic for America. I know I said it's impossible to waste a vote if you keep yourself informed, but if you ignore all the information and blindly insist on choosing this bad choice or that one simply so that you have a chance of choosing a winner, you are wasting your vote.

Not only that, you are helping the very self-fulfilling prophesy you mentioned in the OP. You are actively preventing the house-cleaning in Congress you recommend. You are being instrumental in the failure of what you call the Democracy. You are the very person that gives you reason to be "more pessimistic about the future of the U.S." than any time in your life.

But hey, you keep compromising your principles.

 

[Minor Axis]

But hey, you keep compromising your principles.

You don't need to be condescending. You can't be for compromising and then not compromise. It's a black and white issue only to ideologues. There is no way you can paint compromise in a negative light unless you step too far away from your principles. I'm not advocating that. Compromise is the only way that people with divergent views can find any common ground. You have a variety of political choices. You can be realistic or you can set a standard that is unobtainable. If you insist on voting for your philosophically pure candidate who has no chance of winning an election, you've accomplished nothing while the other side is consolidating it's power base. Better to resist if there is a chance of achieving your goal. If it's not possible, then better to compromise.

 

[Accountable]

I answered this yesterday and get up this morning to see it's not here. Apparently I didn't hit submit or something. So I craft another post around fixing breakfast, but apparently took too long (timed out) & the damn thing disappeared. Hopefully third time's the charm.

You don't need to be condescending.

You're right. Sorry.

You can't be for compromising and then not compromise.

Of course you can. You can go shopping then decide not to spend your money because the product is too expensive, wasn't the quality you were promised, or you decide the salesperson is an ass and doesn't deserve the commission. Same thing with compromise. You don't have to compromise if the other party is asking for too much. It simply wouldn't be wise.

It's a black and white issue only to ideologues. There is no way you can paint compromise in a negative light unless you step too far away from your principles. I'm not advocating that.

Yes you are, in my case. You're asking me to step too far away from my principles, which are different from yours. You naturally value your principles more than mine; I'm asking you to respect that I value mine as much as you value your own.

Compromise is the only way that people with divergent views can find any common ground. You have a variety of political choices. You can be realistic or you can set a standard that is unobtainable. If you insist on voting for your philosophically pure candidate who has no chance of winning an election, you've accomplished nothing while the other side is consolidating it's power base. Better to resist if there is a chance of achieving your goal. If it's not possible, then better to compromise.

In my view, the other side has already consolidated its power so much that it can hedge its bets by submitting two candidates, calling one "Republican" and the other "Democrat." You would have me choose between these two and ignore all others, somehow imagining that I am compromising in the process. I refuse to play the "lesser of two evils" game because it guarantees that evil wins every time.
How can I vote for the guy that says he's for lower taxes when it also means voting to support the military industrial complex's ever-expanding empire, and cede my right to privacy?
How can I vote for the guy that says he's for small business when it also means voting to support the nanny state and cede my rights to self determination and self responsibility?

Asking me to compromise and choose between the generic dem or repub is like asking you to compromise and choose between GW Bush & Rick Perry.