Congress' approval rating below that of telemarketers.

[Cruella]

The rules they have in congress stink. If someone proposes a bill it should be brought up for a vote, regardless. One reason Reid doesn't bring them to a vote is because he's afraid a lot of his Democrats will vote for a Republican's House bill and pass it.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The rules they have in congress stink. If someone proposes a bill it should be brought up for a vote, regardless. One reason Reid doesn't bring them to a vote is because he's afraid a lot of his Democrats will vote for a Republican's House bill and pass it.

As much as I hate that as well--it was built in over time to help deter certain situations. Has worked on both sides of the ball--I think I would remain ambivalent. Like the filibuster.

 

[PLC1]

The rules they have in congress stink. If someone proposes a bill it should be brought up for a vote, regardless. One reason Reid doesn't bring them to a vote is because he's afraid a lot of his Democrats will vote for a Republican's House bill and pass it.

and wouldn't that be terrible if a bill proposed by a member of the other party actually got passed? Much better to wait until our side has a majority, then pass the exact same bill over the objections of the party that first proposed it. Such are partisan politics in Washington.

Yes, any bill should be voted on.

 

[dogtowner]

and wouldn't that be terrible if a bill proposed by a member of the other party actually got passed? Much better to wait until our side has a majority, then pass the exact same bill over the objections of the party that first proposed it. Such are partisan politics in Washington.

Yes, any bill should be voted on.

i would be ok with any bill if all bills did one thing

 

[PLC1]

i would be ok with any bill if all bills did one thing

Good point.

Put a paragraph about building a bridge in your district in a bill about providing bulletproof vests to the military, then shout about how Senator Soandso, who voted against the bridge, voted against bulletproof vests, along with a few photos of dead soldiers. It's political gamesmanship at its worst.

 

[dogtowner]

Good point.

Put a paragraph about building a bridge in your district in a bill about providing bulletproof vests to the military, then shout about how Senator Soandso, who voted against the bridge, voted against bulletproof vests, along with a few photos of dead soldiers. It's political gamesmanship at its worst.

right-o. time to end the bs

 

[Johnny Tremain]

right-o. time to end the bs

At the very least--they should start with eliminating anything involving National Defense to be sullied this way.

 

[Cruella]

I wonder how many congress critters are even aware that bridges to nowhere are hidden inside of military bills. And the wording of these bills too. You need a team of lawyers just to understand what they say.

More BS that needs to stop.

 

[Gipper]

If that's the case, then Rome will continue to burn.

Exactly and why? Because of people like you who demand bi-partisanship.

There can be NO bi-partisanship with progressives. Their entire existence is based on ever bigger government. They have no intention of ever cutting the size of government. This is evident by their ludicrous criticisms of the very mild Ryan Budget.

 

[PLC1]

Exactly and why? Because of people like you who demand bi-partisanship.

There can be NO bi-partisanship with progressives. Their entire existence is based on ever bigger government. They have no intention of ever cutting the size of government. This is evident by their ludicrous criticisms of the very mild Ryan Budget.

Yes, a single party system worked oh so well in Mexico for the past 70 years.

We need more parties, not just one.

But, which party do you think we should keep, if we're only to have just one?

 

[Cruella]

The Constitution party

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, a single party system worked oh so well in Mexico for the past 70 years.

We need more parties, not just one.

But, which party do you think we should keep, if we're only to have just one?

ok lets just suppose more parties spring into existance and are not meaningless in size and scope, (a little like europe say), you still have to have coalitions which boil down to a binary choice to get anything done.

at the end of the day there are really only two ways to view the role of government. there is a scale of degree of course with most congregated near the mushy middle. so it always comes down to attracting a few of those to your guy.

IMO of course...

 

[PLC1]

ok lets just suppose more parties spring into existance and are not meaningless in size and scope, (a little like europe say), you still have to have coalitions which boil down to a binary choice to get anything done.

at the end of the day there are really only two ways to view the role of government. there is a scale of degree of course with most congregated near the mushy middle. so it always comes down to attracting a few of those to your guy.

IMO of course...

The reality is that both major parties are near the "mushy middle", but still they won't work together. Both party's goals are getting and keeping power for themselves.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Yes, a single party system worked oh so well in Mexico for the past 70 years.

We need more parties, not just one.

But, which party do you think we should keep, if we're only to have just one?

Whichever one is conservative.
You can survive being too conservative.
Too liberal--loses nations and freedoms.
Death awaits those who are too liberal.
History is replete with this "news".
The alternative is to put a drunk sailor in charge of the Bank.

 

[dogtowner]

The reality is that both major parties are near the "mushy middle", but still they won't work together. Both party's goals are getting and keeping power for themselves.

on the political spectrum they must be positioned in the mushy middle to get elected.

the problem as I see it is that too man y years of bipartisanship have run us to the brink of the collapse of this country as it has come to be. bipartisanship would be nice but without realization on both sides that things have to change, that just can't happen. unless the dems face up to the reality of the reslults of their ideas then deadlock may be the best alternative. the stupid bipartisan deals of the last few years were a huge mistake. better to have allowed the so-called shutdown and forced more sensible actions.