mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

Um, yeah... although all that said, I think that TOO much of the population is so-called moderate, which means, among other things, that they basically favour the status quo. The problem with that is that in some cases the status quo absolutely cannot be maintained. I especially think this about environmental issues. We're at CRISIS levels as far as that goes, and that issue spreads far and wide economically, in government, in business, etc. America and the rest of the world literally cannot afford to be moderate when it comes to the environment, because moderate won't do shit. What moderates might consider extreme is actually what's absolutely and immediately necessary.

I agree with that. Which is why I said I'm glad AOC and her faction are there. I certainly have some progressive leanings myself, and know we need to do something drastic about health care in this country, so the status quo clearly isn't working for me. But without support of the base, elections aren't won. And without support of the more established players, legislation doesn't get passed. The net effect of non-action is also status quo. I want progressive ideas with real life sensibilities and a chance to see change happen. I don't want people with fantastic ideas that go nowhere. I don't want people with no fresh ideas that keep us where we are. It is a balance that I hope the Dems can find.

You know what sticks in my craw? The fact that the Dems may need to find that perfect balance now to win 2020, which frankly seems like a nearly impossible task, all things considered, and not because they are incompetent. And meanwhile, the Reps could hang onto power as COMPLETE fucking failures at this point, and causing true harm on a daily basis, just because the Dems can't manage the impossible. It just seems to unjust!!! Obviously the Democrats are held up to WAY higher standards than their opposition is, to the point where the expectations aren't even realistic right now, and THAT might be what keeps America from righting itself. It's all fucked up man!

If the Democrats show up,  they win.  It's really that simple.  That's why the articles that are purity driven are so damaging.  If HuffPo doesn't get their preferred candidates,  they just doesn't six months damaging the nominee.  

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJ_Soul said:

I totally agree that term limits should be applied to levels of government... I'm not sure what they should be - certainly not the same as they are for the POTUS. But something. And for the SCOTUS, too. And actually, the entire nomination/appointment system for the SCOTUS should be changed. It is supposed to be NON-PARTISAN. The current method of a POTUS nominating SCOTUS judges, and other politicians approving... Fuck, I can't believe that is what's done!! And we see the result: too many partisan SCOTUS judges absolutely NOT doing their jobs properly.

Disagree, elections are the term limits. Citizens United needs to be overturned. The dems need to exercise their power of the purse strings by funding progressive causes in repub districts and withholding funding for stupid ideas in same. Give progressive voices something to cheer about and take credit for. It needs to be targeted and smart.

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJ_Soul said:

I totally agree that term limits should be applied to levels of government... I'm not sure what they should be - certainly not the same as they are for the POTUS. But something. And for the SCOTUS, too. And actually, the entire nomination/appointment system for the SCOTUS should be changed. It is supposed to be NON-PARTISAN. The current method of a POTUS nominating SCOTUS judges, and other politicians approving... Fuck, I can't believe that is what's done!! And we see the result: too many partisan SCOTUS judges absolutely NOT doing their jobs properly.

Disagree, elections are the term limits. Citizens United needs to be overturned. The dems need to exercise their power of the purse strings by funding progressive causes in repub districts and withholding funding for stupid ideas in same. Give progressive voices something to cheer about and take credit for. It needs to be targeted and smart.

my2hands said:

mickeyrat said:mo

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJ_Soul said:

I totally agree that term limits should be applied to levels of government... I'm not sure what they should be - certainly not the same as they are for the POTUS. But something. And for the SCOTUS, too. And actually, the entire nomination/appointment system for the SCOTUS should be changed. It is supposed to be NON-PARTISAN. The current method of a POTUS nominating SCOTUS judges, and other politicians approving... Fuck, I can't believe that is what's done!! And we see the result: too many partisan SCOTUS judges absolutely NOT doing their jobs properly.

Disagree, elections are the term limits. Citizens United needs to be overturned. The dems need to exercise their power of the purse strings by funding progressive causes in repub districts and withholding funding for stupid ideas in same. Give progressive voices something to cheer about and take credit for. It needs to be targeted and smart.

hows that no limits election thing working out.

No pension past present or future, that shits over.  5 terms for house. 3 for senate. 2 for pres. 18 for scotus.

corporate money out. pacs out. super pacs out. congressional leadership pacs out.

k street shut down.

your time is done. go the fuck home.

Pass what you're smoking 

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJ_Soul said:

I totally agree that term limits should be applied to levels of government... I'm not sure what they should be - certainly not the same as they are for the POTUS. But something. And for the SCOTUS, too. And actually, the entire nomination/appointment system for the SCOTUS should be changed. It is supposed to be NON-PARTISAN. The current method of a POTUS nominating SCOTUS judges, and other politicians approving... Fuck, I can't believe that is what's done!! And we see the result: too many partisan SCOTUS judges absolutely NOT doing their jobs properly.

Disagree, elections are the term limits. Citizens United needs to be overturned. The dems need to exercise their power of the purse strings by funding progressive causes in repub districts and withholding funding for stupid ideas in same. Give progressive voices something to cheer about and take credit for. It needs to be targeted and smart.

hows that no limits election thing working out.

No pension past present or future, that shits over.  5 terms for house. 3 for senate. 2 for pres. 18 for scotus.

corporate money out. pacs out. super pacs out. congressional leadership pacs out.

k street shut down.

your time is done. go the fuck home.

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

Um, yeah... although all that said, I think that TOO much of the population is so-called moderate, which means, among other things, that they basically favour the status quo. The problem with that is that in some cases the status quo absolutely cannot be maintained. I especially think this about environmental issues. We're at CRISIS levels as far as that goes, and that issue spreads far and wide economically, in government, in business, etc. America and the rest of the world literally cannot afford to be moderate when it comes to the environment, because moderate won't do shit. What moderates might consider extreme is actually what's absolutely and immediately necessary.

I agree with that. Which is why I said I'm glad AOC and her faction are there. I certainly have some progressive leanings myself, and know we need to do something drastic about health care in this country, so the status quo clearly isn't working for me. But without support of the base, elections aren't won. And without support of the more established players, legislation doesn't get passed. The net effect of non-action is also status quo. I want progressive ideas with real life sensibilities and a chance to see change happen. I don't want people with fantastic ideas that go nowhere. I don't want people with no fresh ideas that keep us where we are. It is a balance that I hope the Dems can find.

You know what sticks in my craw? The fact that the Dems may need to find that perfect balance now to win 2020, which frankly seems like a nearly impossible task, all things considered, and not because they are incompetent. And meanwhile, the Reps could hang onto power as COMPLETE fucking failures at this point, and causing true harm on a daily basis, just because the Dems can't manage the impossible. It just seems to unjust!!! Obviously the Democrats are held up to WAY higher standards than their opposition is, to the point where the expectations aren't even realistic right now, and THAT might be what keeps America from righting itself. It's all fucked up man!

If the Democrats show up,  they win.  It's really that simple.  That's why the articles that are purity driven are so damaging.  If HuffPo doesn't get their preferred candidates,  they just doesn't six months damaging the nominee.  

Dems worry race for ideological purity will fracture field

Rank-and-file Democrats are increasingly concerned that the 2020 nominating contest is turning into a race toward ideological purity that could fracture the party before any candidate has the chance to take on President Trump.

The worry was made clear on Saturday when former President Obama warned at an event in Berlin that the expectation of ideological “rigidity” among Democratic hopefuls would ultimately weaken the Democratic Party’s political capital.

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States ... is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Ah, I’m sorry, this is how it’s gonna be,’ ” Obama said at a town hall event with emerging European leaders.

“Then we start sometimes creating what’s called a circular firing squad, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues.”

I'm with Obama on this one, which is the concern I was trying to express, although he did it more eloquently.

Meltdown99 said:

There absolutely should be term limits on politicians.  Mandatory voting has 0 places in a free society.  I know people who never vote, have no interest and have no interest in politics...do you want these people voting?  They would just blindly pick candidates.  Just because you make something mandatory, it does not mean those same people will suddenly become informed.

benjs said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Not voting is also a vote.

I have always said that.  There are people who have absolutely no interest in politics...and what's wrong with that?  You are better off with these people not voting.

I also think that showing up to vote no confidence is also important - that's the only way you get in the "voted that all candidates are shitty" cohort instead of just the "didn't vote", and that's a message I feel needs to be known to the schmucks in charge.