The Dems' obsession

[PanzerJaeger]

Why would you oppose single party rule if that is the will of the nation? I could understand if it was some sort of dictatorship, but why would you want to subvert democracy just to give some token power to an unpopular rival party? They should earn their power the hard way.. you know, get elected to something.

[Goofball]

Why would you oppose single party rule if that is the will of the nation?

You would have a point if the Republican agenda was the will of your entire nation, but it isn't. The Republican agenda is the will of a thin majority. To simplify the numbers (and I'm probably even being a bit generous to the Republicans here), for every 55 Americans who approve of the Republican agenda, there are 45 who don't approve.

The purpose of the opposition is to ensure that even though those 45 people out of a hundred don't have the ability to push their own agenda, they shouldn't get steamrolled by the other 55. It's sad that the Republicans seem to think that an opposition party that's doing its job is counterproductive.

[PanzerJaeger]

I understand that Goof, but what I dont understand is Red Harvest "opposing single party rule".

Single party rule is simply the result of one party being dominant over another. Red seems to be suggesting that Republicans, or any party that has had such successes at the election booth, are bad or to be opposed simply for having control of all houses.

And by his opposition, it seems he supports giving an unelected party power that doesnt belong to it, for the sake of not having a single party system.

As long as the democratic process is kept intact by the ruling party, then the country will choose to go multi-party when it wants to, not have it forced upon them.

[drone]

As long as the democratic process is kept intact by the ruling party, then the country will choose to go multi-party when it wants to, not have it forced upon them.

That's a big assumption. The "ruling" party is already attempting to circumvent some of the rules and conventions of the democratic process. The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster being a good example of this. Fortunately that got shot down. Grid-lock is a good thing at times, it ensures that the government doesn't do anything too stupid. If the roles were reversed, and the Dems controlled all three branches (God help us...), I doubt you would have the same opinion.

You would have a point if the Republican agenda was the will of your entire nation, but it isn't. The Republican agenda is the will of a thin majority. To simplify the numbers (and I'm probably even being a bit generous to the Republicans here), for every 55 Americans who approve of the Republican agenda, there are 45 who don't approve.

I doubt that the current Republican agenda is even the will of 30%. Bush is our president because the last two Democratic presidential candidates were unelectable morons (politically). The Democratic party is currently flailing about, disorganized and idealogically bankrupt.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's a big assumption. The "ruling" party is already attempting to circumvent some of the rules and conventions of the democratic process. The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster being a good example of this. Fortunately that got shot down. Grid-lock is a good thing at times, it ensures that the government doesn't do anything too stupid. If the roles were reversed, and the Dems controlled all three branches (God help us...), I doubt you would have the same opinion.

"The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster"? Hmm, could you explain what you mean by that because the filibuster to me has always seemed like an attempt to circumvent the normal governmental process... I mean, look at what it actually is.

Also if the dems controlled all branches of government I would certainly be against it but I wouldnt advocate giving republicans power they didnt earn.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster"? Hmm, could you explain what you mean by that because the filibuster to me has always seemed like an attempt to circumvent the normal governmental process... I mean, look at what it actually is.

Also if the dems controlled all branches of government I would certainly be against it but I wouldnt advocate giving republicans power they didnt earn.

By being elected they earn the right to try and block legislation that goes against their beliefs.

[drone]

"The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster"? Hmm, could you explain what you mean by that because the filibuster to me has always seemed like an attempt to circumvent the normal governmental process... I mean, look at what it actually is.

What it is is normal governmental process:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...er_Cloture.htm

Attempting to remove the filibuster capability was fairly short-sighted of the GOP. Not very long ago, they used it themselves, one day they will need it again. The whole affair just reminded me of children whining because they couldn't get their way.

[drone]

I find this article pretty disgusting. It's another slur, another smear, another blanket. Not all Democrats are like that, but this article would seek to put all democrats under a bad blanket regardless.

This was brought up in the buzzwords thread, and something that the GOP does very well right now.