Politics

[Buster Bluth]

Obamacare will probably be a multigenerational screwup that can not be measured just how bad until every aspect of it gets activated.

I question the logic of putting your hate for Obama on the hypothetical outcome of a program you don't even remotely understand. Neither do I, for the record. Few people do, and that's a legitimate reason why it sucks. But 99.9% of Americans are basing their opinion on statements from talking heads and spin doctors. Simply saying, I know I don't know what Obamacare will actually do. History tells me Presidents don't pass laws that are intentionally (and/or obviously) awful though, so we'll see.

I think it'll probably be a bad policy, but I'm not about to go around saying Obama is literally the worst President ever until it actually does what GOP talking heads say it'll do.

This immigration EO also will have effects for years to come.

Is it the amnesty or the Executive Orders that you hate? Take your pick and we can find the same item while shopping down the Reagan aisle too. Amnesty? Oh yeah, 1986's Simpson-Mazzoli Act--a complete and total failure to solve immigration. But we'll give Reagan a pass, I guess.

His lack of foreign policy anything will take at least a decade to fix.

A decade to fix foreign policy blunders? You mean like buddying up with Saddam Hussein and funding "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan and creating a whole series of power vacuums around the world?

What if I told you there was an administration responsible for giving Saddam Hussein weapons-grade "biological materials that were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction"...would that be a foreign policy blunder? Check out the Riegle Report from 1994. But yeah I guess we can give Reagan a pass.

Good thing we're definitely not dealing with a decades-old foreign policy of Middle Eastern whack-a-mole today...it's Obama's fault because he sucks.

He was the best modern day president. Period. End of discussion.

Best modern day President to commit treason and get away with it. But I guess we can give another pass to Reagan for ignoring Congress' Boland Amendments and selling weapons to fucking Iran. Yeah I guess we can forget about that.

And Syria...I think what you ask is a fool's errand...if I understand correctly, that is. You are looking in code???(can't see links)...won't likely find it specifically enumerated. What this comes down to is interpretation, and precedent...and no I don't think Reagan and Bush 41 are precedence for this...because I think in both cases they clarified intent of law, and congress was behind it...ie neither went against the will of congress...I think its safe to say Mr. Obama has, and I think thats where he gets clipped...but we shall see. One thing about this guy...he is audacious...

You are aware that ol' Ronald completely ignored Congress' actions against funding Latin America terrorists who were doing the CIA's bidding....so Reagan sold weapons to Iran and gave the cash to said terrorists in a little ordeal called the Iran-Contra affair? An offense so absurdly more egregious that what Obama has done (and actually treasonous) that's it's a joke to not bring up and constantly keep in mind when discussing who is ignoring Congress and who isn't.

 

[wizards8507]

Is it the amnesty or the Executive Orders that you hate? Take your pick and we can find the same item while shopping down the Reagan aisle too. Amnesty? Oh yeah, 1986's Simpson-Mazzoli Act--a complete and total failure to solve immigration. But we'll give Reagan a pass, I guess.

Since immigration is the topic of the day, I'll chop your post down to that piece and comment directly.

Reagan's executive orders on immigration were AUTHORIZED by Simpson-Mazzoli, Simpson-Mazzoli being a statute created through the constitutionally mandated channel of congressional vote and executive approval. Obama's actions last night were completely outside of the constitutional authority of the president of the United States. There was no statute that gave him the authority to do what he did, none whatsoever.

Before you cry "prosecutorial discretion," that's not what prosecutorial discretion is or how it works. Picking and choosing which illegal immigrants to deport would be acceptable under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, but that's not what he did last night. He went beyond "we will not prosecute your illegal action" to flat-out saying "your illegal action is NO LONGER illegal." That's now how it works. Driving 75 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is still violating the speed limit even if a cop chooses not to pull you over. Dealing drugs is still illegal even if the district attorney chooses to let you walk in exchange for testimony against your supplier.

 

[Woneone]

Since immigration is the topic of the day, I'll chop your post down to that piece and comment directly.

Reagan's executive orders on immigration were AUTHORIZED by Simpson-Mazzoli, Simpson-Mazzoli being a statute created through the constitutionally mandated channel of congressional vote and executive approval. Obama's actions last night were completely outside of the constitutional authority of the president of the United States. There was no statute that gave him the authority to do what he did, none whatsoever.

Before you cry "prosecutorial discretion," that's not what prosecutorial discretion is or how it works. Picking and choosing which illegal immigrants to deport would be acceptable under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, but that's not what he did last night. He went beyond "we will not prosecute your illegal action" to flat-out saying "your illegal action is NO LONGER illegal." That's now how it works. Driving 75 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is still violating the speed limit even if a cop chooses not to pull you over. Dealing drugs is still illegal even if the district attorney chooses to let you walk in exchange for testimony against your supplier.

Not to mention, the whole "deal" for Amnesty with Reagan was predicated on the idea that there would be funding for securing the border, which the Dem's then took back after the fact. Since back then, INS was the department in charge of handling deportations and security, and Congress actual held the purse strings for the INS unlike today with DHS, they basically failed to fund the increase in security after the amnesty was granted.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I tend to stay away from politics. It's never been my thing. With that said, can someone kindly comment on my simple-minded thoughts here:

-The President is acting on his own to pass a temporary law because Congress is basically grid-locked on the issue. Is this actually illegal like so many are saying? Or is there an obvious gray area for these types of actions?

-Has anyone fact-checked his speech from last night:

Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it's been in nearly two years. Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts.

...That's why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent.

If these are accurate, then what is the problem? There is always room for improvement, but at least it seems to be trending in a positive direction.

-The President's plan:
1) Additional resources to the border
2) Easier/Faster for contributing immigrants to stay and help support the economy
3) Deal with undocumented immigrants who already live in the country responsibly.
Basically, get rid of the criminals altogether. All others, the following deal:
-Lived in American for 5+ years; have children who are American born; if you
register for and pass a criminal background check; and are willing to pay taxes,
you may stay in the country temporarily.

-I expect there to be an issue with illegal immigrants voluntarily coming forward. Criminals, for the obvious reason. But anyone else; who wants to voluntarily pay taxes? Most are already making the bare minimum. Why would they want less income?

-Overall, what is the big picture here? Political party battles? Or a president who is just trying to do the right thing and help people who come to this country looking for a better life? Obviously, there are a lot of moving parts and this is way more complex than I'm making it seem, but again, it's why I stay away from politics more often than not.

Thanks for the help in better understanding the situation here.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Since immigration is the topic of the day, I'll chop your post down to that piece and comment directly.

Reagan's executive orders on immigration were AUTHORIZED by Simpson-Mazzoli, Simpson-Mazzoli being a statute created through the constitutionally mandated channel of congressional vote and executive approval. Obama's actions last night were completely outside of the constitutional authority of the president of the United States. There was no statute that gave him the authority to do what he did, none whatsoever.

Before you cry "prosecutorial discretion," that's not what prosecutorial discretion is or how it works. Picking and choosing which illegal immigrants to deport would be acceptable under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, but that's not what he did last night. He went beyond "we will not prosecute your illegal action" to flat-out saying "your illegal action is NO LONGER illegal." That's now how it works. Driving 75 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is still violating the speed limit even if a cop chooses not to pull you over. Dealing drugs is still illegal even if the district attorney chooses to let you walk in exchange for testimony against your supplier.

"or"

I want him to clarify his dispute. Is it the amnesty or the EO? Reagan got amnesty through Congress and it failed miserably, so if one is going to roast Obama for amnesty they better roast Reagan (and HW Bush too I think) too. That is my point. Yeah, what Obama is doing is bogus. Going around Congress like that is pretty stupid...but hey at least he's not going around Congress to give weapons to Iran. So if you're going after Obama hard for bullshit like that....wellll Reagan has a whole bucket of worse bullshit.

This is an attack on the weird GOP insinuation that Reagan was basically Jesus Christ in Presidential form. It's not a supporting post for Obama outside of perhaps the foreign policy stuff.

 

[connor_in]

I have a quick question for those that are for the President's executive amnesty plan.

If in 2016 (or anytime in the future) a Republican President is elected and he decides to vacate this order retoractive to the date that President Obama started this, will you argue that he can't?

 

[EddytoNow]

As I have said many times, this President will go down in history as perhaps the absolute worst President our country has ever seen. The full effects of his time in office will not be seen for years.

With that said, the Republicans don't need to overreach here either. They control the power of the purse. They can affectively fight his executive order by simply not funding the programs necessary to get it done. No need to shut the government down. Pass a continuing resolution for a spending bill, wait till they control Congress in January, and then let him feel the full power of Congress' appropriations process. They need to systematically perform their duties beginning early next year to provide him will every bipartisan bill they can muster. Let him veto all the jobs bills, the Keystone Pipeline, and every other piece of legislation that should be passed. Then throw it out there just like this past election. He will see that his last two years in office the only way he gets anything done - legally or illegally - is with his pen. And if I was Congress, I wouldn't even fund him with enough money to buy a damn pen.

The "power of the purse" only works when funds are needed to initiate or continue the program in question. In regards to immigration, the immigrants are already here and doing nothing (including defunding) just permits all of them to stay indefinitely. The Republicans have no immigration policy. Their policy has been to simply oppose everything proposed by Obama or any other Democrat. Immigration legislation has been proposed, but remains unacted upon due to petty squabbling between the two parties. Republican intransigence is costing them dearly in the Hispanic community. Democrats have no motivation to compromise. If anything, the Democrats benefit from the unwillingness of the Republicans to allow even one immigrant to remain in the country.

Both parties are relying on the "politics of fear". The Republicans suggest the immigrants are mostly criminals and a threat to the American Way of Life. The Democrats suggest that the Republicans are racist and anti-Hispanic.

In reality, it is the two parties we should fear. Neither party has the best interests of the American people as a priority. They are concerned only with their own survival in the next election. What we need is a referendum on the two-party system. Give "We, the People" an opportunity to vote them out of existence.

 

[wizards8507]

Not a response to you connor_in, just musing.

As much as Obama had no authority to do what he did and as much as I hate "amnesty" in principle, I honestly haven't seen any suggestions from either political party (or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher) regarding a plausible solution. Obviously, securing the border and cleaning up the legal immigration system is step one. Other than that, what's the honest-to-goodness "conservative" approach to dealing with millions of people here illegally? Deportation on that magnitude just isn't going to happen. It can't be done from a logistical / manpower perspective, nor would it be economically feasible. I honestly have no idea what you do.

 

[phgreek]

I question the logic of putting your hate for Obama on the hypothetical outcome of a program you don't even remotely understand. Neither do I, for the record. Few people do, and that's a legitimate reason why it sucks. But 99.9% of Americans are basing their opinion on statements from talking heads and spin doctors. Simply saying, I know I don't know what Obamacare will actually do. History tells me Presidents don't pass laws that are intentionally (and/or obviously) awful though, so we'll see.

I think it'll probably be a bad policy, but I'm not about to go around saying Obama is literally the worst President ever until it actually does what GOP talking heads say it'll do.



Is it the amnesty or the Executive Orders that you hate? Take your pick and we can find the same item while shopping down the Reagan aisle too. Amnesty? Oh yeah, 1986's Simpson-Mazzoli Act--a complete and total failure to solve immigration. But we'll give Reagan a pass, I guess.



A decade to fix foreign policy blunders? You mean like buddying up with Saddam Hussein and funding "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan and creating a whole series of power vacuums around the world?

What if I told you there was an administration responsible for giving Saddam Hussein weapons-grade "biological materials that were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction"...would that be a foreign policy blunder? Check out the Riegle Report from 1994. But yeah I guess we can give Reagan a pass.

Good thing we're definitely not dealing with a decades-old foreign policy of Middle Eastern whack-a-mole today...it's Obama's fault because he sucks.



Best modern day President to commit treason and get away with it. But I guess we can give another pass to Reagan for ignoring Congress' Boland Amendments and selling weapons to fucking Iran. Yeah I guess we can forget about that.



Maybe not on Syria, but you are aware that ol' Ronald completely ignored Congress' actions against funding Latin America terrorists who were doing the CIA's bidding....so Reagan sold weapons to Iran and gave the cash to said terrorists in a little ordeal called the Iran-Contra affair? An offense so absurdly more egregious that what Obama has done (and actually treasonous) that's it's a joke to not bring up and constantly keep in mind when discussing who is ignoring Congress and who isn't.

I assume you think I meant "Syria" the Nation not our pal and contributor who I was speaking to...maybe??? otherwise this is a red herring in a discussion of EOs as relates to immigration...

 

[phgreek]

So I have a question...

CBO's review of the Bill S.744,( ie the Senate Immigration Bill the house mindlessly sat on (supposedly)) mentions a "goal" of border security.

Border Security—S. 744 also would establish a goal for DHS to maintain
“effective control” of the border in all sectors along the southern boundary of the
United States. To achieve that goal, the bill would direct the department to deploy
sufficient security personnel, border fencing, and related infrastructure to ensure
that at least 90 percent of those who attempt to cross the border illegally are
apprehended or turned back. To finance that effort, the bill would appropriate
$6.5 billion for the 2014–2018 period. In addition, CBO estimates that the
legislation would authorize the appropriation of an additional $15 billion to bolster
the existing personnel, facilities, and equipment used for border security. Under
the bill, the cost of all of those border security efforts are intended to be offset by a
variety of new fees and penalties imposed on individuals seeking to adjust their
immigration status and certain other people.

ok, sounds good when you say it fast. But take those statements in context of the President, DOJ, and DHSs willingness to selectively enforce laws, and in a word lie about border security stats, and this is really not an assurance of anything but more audacious lies. No one believes them. For instance what about the law calling for the building of a fence that is already there? how much of it has been completed since Mr. Obama took office? The better approach here would have been for Mr. Obama to make good faith efforts to enforce the laws already there, and transparent and accurate stats related to border crossings as assurances of his willingness to implement the entire law...specifically the border security part.

Also, one of the key selling points is tax revenue...ie this would increase it. Is it safe to say many are below the level of income where they'd be a net payer. Also, they've found systems of generating revenue that are not traceable and that they do not report (cash)...am I to believe these folks will change that??? Am I to believe resources would be applied to force that??? COME ON!!! This is TOTAL bullshit!

would you just push the bill through?

EDIT:

forgot to add CBO's view of this bill's ability to stem illegal flow...now referred to as unauthorized residents (RMFE)

The enforcement and employment verification
requirements in the legislation would probably reduce the size of the U.S. population by
restricting the future flow of unauthorized residents. Unauthorized residents would find it
harder both to enter the country and to find employment while unauthorized. However,
other aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized
residents—in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for
temporary workers. CBO estimates that, under the bill, the net annual flow of
unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur
under current law, resulting in a reduction in the U.S. population (including a reduction in
the number of children born in the United States) relative to that benchmark of
1.6 million in 2023 and 2.5 million in 2033.

so would you jump on board???

 

[IrishinSyria]

The "power of the purse" only works when funds are needed to initiate or continue the program in question. In regards to immigration, the immigrants are already here and doing nothing (including defunding) just permits all of them to stay indefinitely. The Republicans have no immigration policy. Their policy has been to simply oppose everything proposed by Obama or any other Democrat. Immigration legislation has been proposed, but remains unacted upon due to petty squabbling between the two parties. Republican intransigence is costing them dearly in the Hispanic community. Democrats have no motivation to compromise. If anything, the Democrats benefit from the unwillingness of the Republicans to allow even one immigrant to remain in the country.

Both parties are relying on the "politics of fear". The Republicans suggest the immigrants are mostly criminals and a threat to the American Way of Life. The Democrats suggest that the Republicans are racist and anti-Hispanic.

In reality, it is the two parties we should fear. Neither party has the best interests of the American people as a priority. They are concerned only with their own survival in the next election. What we need is a referendum on the two-party system. Give "We, the People" an opportunity to vote them out of existence.

There already is a referendum on the two party system. It happens once every two years. It's called an election and "we, the people" always end up forgetting to vote for the independents. Not sure that you could design a better mechanism than that for breaking up the two party system without running head first into the 1st Amendment.

 

[wizards8507]

There already is a referendum on the two party system. It happens once every two years. It's called an election and "we, the people" always end up forgetting to vote for the independents. Not sure that you could design a better mechanism than that for breaking up the two party system without running head first into the 1st Amendment.

You're exactly right. We don't even have a two party SYSTEM per se. There's nothing in the Constitution or statute that says we must have Republicans and Democrats and nothing else. I could create the Constitutional Party of Central Connecticut tomorrow if I wanted to and I'd have the same opportunity to get candidates on the ballot as those other parties. For some reason, those parties are the ones people keep supporting with their votes and their wallets.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Very interesting article on the effect Obama's amnesty action will have on the Republican Party heading into the next election cycle.

 

[wizards8507]

Very interesting article on the effect Obama's amnesty action will have on the Republican Party heading into the next election cycle.

Headline: Obama just kneecapped Jeb Bush and Chris Christie's 2016 prospects

Perfect! Thanks, Prez.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I have a quick question for those that are for the President's executive amnesty plan.

If in 2016 (or anytime in the future) a Republican President is elected and he decides to vacate this order retoractive to the date that President Obama started this, will you argue that he can't?

Absolutely not. I might disagree with the decision, but I believe in the principle of executive discretion. Also, there's nothing in the order that suggests permanence.

 

[Buster Bluth]

There already is a referendum on the two party system. It happens once every two years. It's called an election and "we, the people" always end up forgetting to vote for the independents. Not sure that you could design a better mechanism than that for breaking up the two party system without running head first into the 1st Amendment.

I would love a Congressional/Election reform thread. I think it's the single most important issue we have. There is so much bipartisan support from people (not politicians though).

Fix Congress and you fix just about all of the problems in my opinion. They are the root of all (federal) political evil.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Since immigration is the topic of the day, I'll chop your post down to that piece and comment directly.

Reagan's executive orders on immigration were AUTHORIZED by Simpson-Mazzoli, Simpson-Mazzoli being a statute created through the constitutionally mandated channel of congressional vote and executive approval. Obama's actions last night were completely outside of the constitutional authority of the president of the United States. There was no statute that gave him the authority to do what he did, none whatsoever.

Before you cry "prosecutorial discretion," that's not what prosecutorial discretion is or how it works. Picking and choosing which illegal immigrants to deport would be acceptable under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, but that's not what he did last night. He went beyond "we will not prosecute your illegal action" to flat-out saying "your illegal action is NO LONGER illegal." That's now how it works. Driving 75 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is still violating the speed limit even if a cop chooses not to pull you over. Dealing drugs is still illegal even if the district attorney chooses to let you walk in exchange for testimony against your supplier.

Buster is towing the line of the left wing liberals who tend to quote Reagan did on immigration as the basis for Obama acting as he has. I would think Buster is smarter than that as a first year law school student could tell one the difference. Maybe Buster should quote our current president and exactly what he has said in the past numerous times on his authority with immigration. Even Obama knows he acted out of pure politics.

Buster wasn't around when Reagan was President so his criticism of Reagan doesn't meam much to me. Those of us that were here know exactly what Reagan did... and did not do... as President. History has been kind to him and will be moreso in the decades to come.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

I think Reagan is the worst president of the modern era so we agree there. However, i would argue that LBJ was the last good president. His major flaw was Vietnam which I do not excuse, however it was mainly the fault of Ike and JFK. LBJ was the last President to offer good domestic policy. I do like your Meh rating for Old Man Bush, as he was far better than Clinton or Obama, both of whom get respect from people who claim to be liberals but are both actually governed as right of center presidents who did a horrible job. I would say Bush I was the best president of my lifetime. FDR was the last good president and LBJ was the last respectable president.

EDIT: As to the Nixon LOL he may have had no ethics and been a scumbag but on many issues he was to the left of Obama, healthcare for one.

LBJ? Wow. He acually "quit" on national TV. Didn't he also filibuster against Eisenhower's Civil Rights act which had no teeth in it by the time Congress got hold of it. He was the original pol to be against it before he decided to be for it. CONTROVERSY ALERT: His Great Society IMO; is one of the major reasons of 70+% fatherlessness in the black community. Before the Liberal guilt kicks in, ask yourself WHY is the black community the only segment of the population w/ that insanely high fatherlessness rate? Sure, any fatherless rate is too high, but white, Latino & Asian pale in comparison to the black population. Answer that before you bash my comments.

 

[phgreek]

Headline: Obama just kneecapped Jeb Bush and Chris Christie's 2016 prospects

Perfect! Thanks, Prez.

kumbaya my lord...kumbaya...SMACK!

At least this is honest about the obvious motivation here...even if the jackass who scribed it was clearly rooting for this...dumbass.

I'm kinda of the mindset that now that he's done it...step back and watch all the ways they screw this up...I'm betting all the real negative consequences that will come of this will make it end up looking like ACA in the execution...they can't help it. They remind me of an adolescent trying to come to grips with a wish and how to make it a plan someone can execute....monkeys and footballs coming up.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Gotta hand it to the leftists. They really do outsmart the conservatives. When they're in power and want to do damage, they make it long term: social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare, immigration.

They think long term. Conservatives have mindsets like, "how we win the next election" or "how we repeal obamacare." Policies like tax breaks and wars don't last forever. Easily reversible. Leftist policies on the other hand...damn near impossible.

 

[irishog77]

LBJ? Wow. He acually "quit" on national TV. Didn't he also filibuster against Eisenhower's Civil Rights act which had no teeth in it by the time Congress got hold of it. He was the original pol to be against it before he decided to be for it. CONTROVERSY ALERT: His Great Society IMO; is one of the major reasons of 70+% fatherlessness in the black community. Before the Liberal guilt kicks in, ask yourself WHY is the black community the only segment of the population w/ that insanely high fatherlessness rate? Sure, any fatherless rate is too high, but white, Latino & Asian pale in comparison to the black population. Answer that before you bash my comments.

Too bad Connect the Dots was banned before a reply to this could be made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Buster Bluth]

Buster is towing the line of the left wing liberals who tend to quote Reagan did on immigration as the basis for Obama acting as he has. I would think Buster is smarter than that as a first year law school student could tell one the difference. Maybe Buster should quote our current president and exactly what he has said in the past numerous times on his authority with immigration. Even Obama knows he acted out of pure politics.

Can you read? I wasn't defending Obama. I was calling you out for not holding dear lord Reagan to the same standards you hold Obama.

Buster wasn't around when Reagan was President so his criticism of Reagan doesn't meam much to me. Those of us that were here know exactly what Reagan did... and did not do... as President. History has been kind to him and will be moreso in the decades to come.

Just a ridiculous stance. I'm at a loss for words.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Gotta hand it to the leftists. They really do outsmart the conservatives. When they're in power and want to do damage, they make it long term: social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare, immigration.

They think long term. Conservatives have mindsets like, "how we win the next election" or "how we repeal obamacare." Policies like tax breaks and wars don't last forever. Easily reversible. Leftist policies on the other hand...damn near impossible.

I feel like this is beautiful trolling but I'm still not touching it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

LBJ? Wow. He acually "quit" on national TV. Didn't he also filibuster against Eisenhower's Civil Rights act which had no teeth in it by the time Congress got hold of it. He was the original pol to be against it before he decided to be for it. CONTROVERSY ALERT: His Great Society IMO; is one of the major reasons of 70+% fatherlessness in the black community. Before the Liberal guilt kicks in, ask yourself WHY is the black community the only segment of the population w/ that insanely high fatherlessness rate? Sure, any fatherless rate is too high, but white, Latino & Asian pale in comparison to the black population. Answer that before you bash my comments.

I won't defend Johnson but I will say that Eisenhower's freeways damaged inner cities (taking black communities down with them) as much as any awful welfare program. The current status of the penal system (ie obviously racist drug penalties) has huge negative effects too.

Just saying, it's not all on Johnson.

 

[EddytoNow]

There already is a referendum on the two party system. It happens once every two years. It's called an election and "we, the people" always end up forgetting to vote for the independents. Not sure that you could design a better mechanism than that for breaking up the two party system without running head first into the 1st Amendment.

Well, if we are judging support of the two parties by the elections held every two years, then we have already decided that we don't want either party in office. When is the last time over 50% of the eligible voters (not registered voters) actually registered and turned out for one of these elections. Well over 50% of the eligible electorate decides to sit out these elections. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the two-party system. If we had anything approaching 100% participation in the electoral system, the Republican party would cease to exist. There's a reason Republican legislatures make it more difficult to vote, and it isn't to increase participation and get a trully representative government. Democrats aren't much better. Their interest in helping the poor and less fortunate ends with each election and doesn't pick up again until the next election cycle.

Elections are bought and sold, and the recent Supreme Court ruling just legalized the whole process.

For all elections going forward, I would suggest at least three choices:

1. The Republican Candidate
2. The Democratic Candidate
3. None of the Above

 

[IrishinSyria]

Well, if we are judging support of the two parties by the elections held every two years, then we have already decided that we don't want either party in office. When is the last time over 50% of the eligible voters (not registered voters) actually registered and turned out for one of these elections. Well over 50% of the eligible electorate decides to sit out these elections. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the two-party system. If we had anything approaching 100% participation in the electoral system, the Republican party would cease to exist. There's a reason Republican legislatures make it more difficult to vote, and it isn't to increase participation and get a trully representative government. Democrats aren't much better. Their interest in helping the poor and less fortunate ends with each election and doesn't pick up again until the next election cycle.

Elections are bought and sold, and the recent Supreme Court ruling just legalized the whole process.

For all elections going forward, I would suggest at least three choices:

1. The Republican Candidate
2. The Democratic Candidate
3. None of the Above

I see what you're saying, but I don't think anarchy (choice 3) is an acceptable alternative. Low voter turnout in midterm elections is definitely a sign of apathy, but it's not a sign that anybody has a better idea. If there were an obvious alternative to the 2 parties, you'd think that Americans would be extremely excited to vote for it, given their disgust with politicians. The type of money involved in political campaigns these days is definitely a factor in perpetuating the two party system, but bi-polar politics has been a feature of American politics since Washington left office. Not sure why 2 parties is so ingrained in our system.

 

[Bluto]

LBJ? Wow. He acually "quit" on national TV. Didn't he also filibuster against Eisenhower's Civil Rights act which had no teeth in it by the time Congress got hold of it. He was the original pol to be against it before he decided to be for it. CONTROVERSY ALERT: His Great Society IMO; is one of the major reasons of 70+% fatherlessness in the black community. Before the Liberal guilt kicks in, ask yourself WHY is the black community the only segment of the population w/ that insanely high fatherlessness rate? Sure, any fatherless rate is too high, but white, Latino & Asian pale in comparison to the black population. Answer that before you bash my comments.

Yeah, blatantly racist public policy and corporate practices that lasted well into the 1980's on top of blatantly racist law enforcement practices that are still present have nothing to do with that. Did they not teach history at any of the schools you happened to attend?

 

[pkt77242]

Republican-led report debunks Benghazi accusations - CNN.com

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Yeah, blatantly racist public policy and corporate practices that lasted well into the 1980's on top of blatantly racist law enforcement practices that are still present have nothing to do with that. Did they not teach history at any of the schools you happened to attend?

You do realize that racism doesn't just apply to the black race? History is based on facts, so please answer the fact why ONLY the black race has a 70+% fatherlessness rate.

 

[pkt77242]

You do realize that racism doesn't just apply to the black race? History is based on facts, so please answer the fact why ONLY the black race has a 70+% fatherlessness rate.

You mean besides the obvious ones such as that we incarcerate more of them and they get disproportionately longer sentences then white individuals (which makes it pretty hard to be a father) for the same crime? About 20% longer in fact. How bout the fact that black individuals are more likely (3 to 5 times) to be arrested for drug offenses than white individuals even though they use drugs at about the same rate. How about hiring http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/business/wells-fargo-to-settle-mortgage-discrimination-charges.html?_r=0hernstudies.org/2013/09/bank-of-america-ordered-to-pay-22-million-for-raci.html"]http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/09/bank-of-america-ordered-to-pay-22-million-for-raci.html[/URL] How about home loans.

The truth is that there is lots of reasons why they have such a high rate of fatherless households but if you don't believe that racism (more likely to go to jail, get longer sentences, discrimination for jobs, loans, etc) plays a part then you are just ignoring the facts. It isn't the whole picture by any means but it is definitely a significant portion of it.

Wide Racial Divide in Sentencing - WSJ
US: Drug Arrests Skewed by Race | Human Rights Watch