Are Democrats flaky?

[SirJosephPorter]

I read the link you gave Machjo, and he couldn’t give even a single example of non partisan democracy. It is practiced at lower levels (lower than federal) in isolated instances, but that is it.

He gave example of Louisiana, hardly the role model for anybody. In Canada, Nunavut has non partisan system, but last I heard they are thinking of switching over to partisan system.

The non partisan system may well be unworkable at the federal level, seeing that there isn’t even a single working model in the world.

 

[Machjo]

Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why could we not take something that works at a lower level and apply it to a higher level of government? The League of Nations didn't exist at one point either, nor did even the Parliamentary system. Would you have been among those who would have argued that they could never be because they'd never yet been? I'm sure you can see the illogicality in that. Do you think people following that logic are the ones who'd established these new systems, or rather people capable of thinking in the abstract and bring it into reality?

 

[Machjo]

Or we'd think at a minimum that party names could be removed from the ballot. It would save ink, paper and trees,and force people to actually go out and get to know whom they'r voting for. What a revolutionary concept.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

I'm not talking about the typical run of the mill person who generally votes Democrat but the card carrying, dyed in the wool Democrat. Do they tend to be more interested in personal popularity than moral principle? Are they more interested in personal appearance, than the average "red neck". Do they tend to be wishy washy? I don't believe in tarring everyone with the same brush as there is an exception to every rule, but do Democrats by and large have certain traits? Or do I have the wrong impression?

Both are equally flaky. Democrats have the birkenstock liberals who pay lip service to helping those less fortunate than themselves but in reality suffer from NIMBYitis - or believe totally in the 'theory', not understanding that pure theory does not always work.
and then you have the 'Tea Party' Republican types. they listen to the sound bites that the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins put forth but never do any actual research.

Dyed in the wool Democrats and dyed in the wool Republicans are no different. They rarely think of the bigger, more long term picture. Each is equally as narrow minded in their own way. they both make me ill.

 

[Liberalman]

American Republicans and Democrats is the very reason George Orwell wrote 1984

 

[JLM]

Both are equally flaky. Democrats have the birkenstock liberals who pay lip service to helping those less fortunate than themselves but in reality suffer from NIMBYitis - or believe totally in the 'theory', not understanding that pure theory does not always work.
and then you have the 'Tea Party' Republican types. they listen to the sound bites that the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins put forth but never do any actual research.

Dyed in the wool Democrats and dyed in the wool Republicans are no different. They rarely think of the bigger, more long term picture. Each is equally as narrow minded in their own way. they both make me ill.

That ties in with my philosophy and is probably the best response here so far. :smile:

 

[JLM]

I think the value of voting for the best local candidate is far underrated. If you want a swimming pool built in your neighbourhood and candidate A promises a swimming pool and B promises a golf course and C promises a pool hall, you don't give a damn what the guys calls himself or who the leader is. None of those leaders in Ottawa are going to care what was promised in Spuzzum.

 

[AnnaG]

I don't give a crap which party is which. Most politicians are jerks regardless of whatever party they claim to be from.
Partisanship is just a roadblock to good politics. It keeps people from thinking objectively.
I agree with DHW.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

American Republicans and Democrats is the very reason George Orwell wrote 1984

I think he wrote it as a commentary against the Bolsheviks.

 

[JLM]

I don't give a crap which party is which. Most politicians are jerks regardless of whatever party they claim to be from.
Partisanship is just a roadblock to good politics. It keeps people from thinking objectively.
I agree with DHW.

Yep, you hang around me long enough you're gonna get wise....................:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why could we not take something that works at a lower level and apply it to a higher level of government? The League of Nations didn't exist at one point either, nor did even the Parliamentary system. Would you have been among those who would have argued that they could never be because they'd never yet been? I'm sure you can see the illogicality in that. Do you think people following that logic are the ones who'd established these new systems, or rather people capable of thinking in the abstract and bring it into reality?

Nobody came up with the Parliamentary system; it evolved slowly over a period of centuries, since Magna Carta. American system was devised in a short time. But Parliamentary system evolved over very long period of time. I suspect Americans came up with the new system since they had just fought a war with the British, and they didn’t want to copy the system of their enemies. Interestingly, very few countries copied American system; most democracies are a variant of the British system.

So it is not that easy to establish a new system. And one or two citizens most certainly cannot do it. For the new system to come into existence, I assume first we would need a referendum. If it passes by a sufficient majority, then we would have to dissolve the constitution and come up with a new constitution.

 

[AnnaG]

Nobody came up with the Parliamentary system; it evolved slowly over a period of centuries, since Magna Carta. American system was devised in a short time. But Parliamentary system evolved over very long period of time. I suspect Americans came up with the new system since they had just fought a war with the British, and they didn’t want to copy the system of their enemies. Interestingly, very few countries copied American system; most democracies are a variant of the British system.

There was no parliamentary system before the Magna Carta? Nuts. There's evidence that parliamentarism is as old as Mesopotamia.

 

[taxslave]

I think a large part of the problem is that politicians are more concerned with getting re-elected so they can collect a cushy pension rather than serving their constituents. If there was no golden parachute at the end of the ride perhaps they would be more concerned with the problems in their ridings and the gold diggers would not bother running.

 

[JLM]

There was no parliamentary system before the Magna Carta? Nuts. There's evidence that parliamentarism is as old as Mesopotamia.

Actually the oldest parliament in the world predates the Magna Carta by 285 years in Iceland. So maybe even the "Great I am" has learned something today..........:lol::lol::lol:

 

[AnnaG]

Actually the oldest parliament in the world predates the Magna Carta by 285 years in Iceland. So maybe even the "Great I am" has learned something today..........:lol::lol::lol:

There you go, it is still operating. Mesopotamia is kaputsky. lol

 

[AnnaG]

I think a large part of the problem is that politicians are more concerned with getting re-elected so they can collect a cushy pension rather than serving their constituents.

And don't forget the part about kissing the asses of the rich buddies who fund their campaigns.

If there was no golden parachute at the end of the ride perhaps they would be more concerned with the problems in their ridings and the gold diggers would not bother running.

Mass chaos! I bet lawyers would be a dime a dozen within a year. lol (Anna pictures Iggy and Petey MacKay as ambulance chasers with part time jobs as McD burger flippers).

 

[JLM]

And don't forget the part about kissing the asses of the rich buddies who fund their campaigns. Mass chaos! I bet lawyers would be a dime a dozen within a year. lol (Anna pictures Iggy and Petey MacKay as ambulance chasers with part time jobs as McD burger flippers).

You've just hit on one of the really rottenest parts of Gov't. These bastards qualify for a pension after 6 years of service and in most cases bigger than mine (after the 6 years) and I worked as a public employee for 35 before I got mine (and I was more useful than any of those bastards)

 

[Curiosity]

You've just hit on one of the really rottenest parts of Gov't. These bastards qualify for a pension after 6 years of service and in most cases bigger than mine (after the 6 years) and I worked as a public employee for 35 before I got mine (and I was more useful than any of those bastards)

JLM getting some great posts here...what a potpourrie of ideas.

When I was in college I worked for a government agency during one of my semesters at various branches one of which was the top office. Rarely do empty seats last long in government ....I learned a great deal but something still
remains with me (and this is California govt' I am speaking of not Canadian)....
By the time the elected official finds his/her way around guvspeak....they often move on or up or out. It takes about ten years to find your place if you want to
be effective and make some good law, but by then being jaded has set in and the
old "stay til I retire" stuff sets in.

It's a terrible situation....I saw good ideas shelved or thrown out faster than a trip to the coffee pot...."any new ideas" are hammered down and the old ways remain the rule of law.

There has to be a better way - elections are so expensive - retirement is guaranteed here so we add to the group every election cycle.... whoever planned it
was a master in the art of deception.

I slid off topic - my apologies but regardless of political affiliation, I saw no difference between the two major groups only the words they spoke before microphones were different. Carrying out the words was another story.

 

[JLM]

JLM getting some great posts here...what a potpourrie of ideas.

When I was in college I worked for a government agency during one of my semesters at various branches one of which was the top office. Rarely do empty seats last long in government ....I learned a great deal but something still
remains with me (and this is California govt' I am speaking of not Canadian)....
By the time the elected official finds his/her way around guvspeak....they often move on or up or out. It takes about ten years to find your place if you want to
be effective and make some good law, but by then being jaded has set in and the
old "stay til I retire" stuff sets in.

It's a terrible situation....I saw good ideas shelved or thrown out faster than a trip to the coffee pot...."any new ideas" are hammered down and the old ways remain the rule of law.

There has to be a better way - elections are so expensive - retirement is guaranteed here so we add to the group every election cycle.... whoever planned it
was a master in the art of deception.

I slid off topic - my apologies but regardless of political affiliation, I saw no difference between the two major groups only the words they spoke before microphones were different. Carrying out the words was another story.

You wouldn't be referring to "old boy's clubs"? :lol::lol:

 

[Curiosity]

JLM

I guess that's a good a name as any - however many of them weren't old nor were they boys....:smile:

The majority were university professors who had time to toy with politics and still retain tenure with the educational system. People assumed they were bright because of their degrees and education (say compared with one wise fella who was a farmer and bright as the sun who looked after his constituents as family)....

Left me disappointed in what I thought would be yet another learning experience about state/county government. I learned but not what I was hoping to.