Results 61 to 71 of 71
With the exception of NGNM85, you guys aren't sufficiently capable of cooperating with others to be part of "the charge", much less lead it. That's why you're on the margins of political reality, which in turn explains why your tactics (which would be ... what, again?) aren't working.
That's actually overstating it. People like the Greens and the Constitutionalists are at least "on the margins."
There is no "two-party framework", though. Actually, there is much partidary freedom in the US; you can vote for practically anything, and if you are not happy with the existing options, you are perfectly free to create a new one.
The Demo-Republican grip over the American vote isn't institutionalised into law, it is overwhelmingly ideological.
You are fundamentally wrong here. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the slightest interest to change the present system. Much on the contrary, it is perfect for them, each side being able to scare half of the electorate by using the other party as a bogeyman.
To put an end to the two-party system, yes, Citizens United would have to be overturned. But more importantly, you would need to put an end to the Electoral college and institute an actual direct election, require a majority for election of the president and institute a second electoral round in the case no candidate reaches it, put an end to the First Past the Post districtal voting system and replace it with a proportional representation system, limit terms incumbent representatives and senators can serve. None of these actions is likely to be proposed by the Democrats; indeed, they simply ignore such issues, and instead base their electoral campaigns on the assumption that the electoral system is immutable.
And why do they do that?
Because they haven't the leastest interest to change the two-party system - because the two-party system allows them a practical monopoly of all vote from the center-right to the extreme left, while at the same time making them completely unnacountable for all that electorate, except the center-right.
It is better to get sucked into that than into the two-party logic.
What I am saying is very simple: even a new right-wing party would be an improvement in the American scenario (if only because it would divide the Republicans, ensure the Democrats don't need to pander to the right, and free the center and left-of-center voters from the Democratic grip by loosening the fear that the Republicans would win).
Do you disagree?
Sure, but this is a cop-out. To put an end to capitalism and nation-States, it is necessary to organise opposition to them. The two-party system in the United States makes it impossible, by constraining all the non-right-wing vote into supporting a party that has no interest in putting an end to either nation-States or capitalism, by creating a permanent scare that the lunatic right can win elections.
It is clearly not. For it is in the best interests of the Democratic Party to keep the Republicans alive, strong, and increasingly more radical, because this allows them to win elections with a left-sounding discourse (or a center-sounding one, which is increasingly misidentified as left), and then implement rightist policies once elected. And indeed, the more the Republican Party moves to the right, the more the Democrats are able to move to the right themselves without loosing their grip on the left-of-center vote.
The Democratic party may be the less evil side of the coin, and when it is flipped, it is understandable that people will hope they fall on the upper side. But the problem is the coin, the fact that it is flipped, and the way it is flipped.
Luís Henrique
PS. And just to make it clear, not voting and claiming that not voting is some kind of special superior conscious action is as bad as voting Democrat, and helps to perpetuate the two-party system so very much as voting Democrat. It is actually necessary to put up a program that consciously seeks to destroy the two-party system. It doesn't even need to be a leftist, much less a socialist program; just a purely political program that calls for the democratisation of American electoral system to allow the free political expression of all political tendencies from the far left to the far right.
Last edited by Luís Henrique; 26th October 2012 at 12:06.
That's technically correct. You can even vote for yourself for the Presidency, but this serves about as much purpose as jacking off, or playing Halo. In swing states, or in contested districts, stuff like this is actually probably counterproductive.
That might be true, but if the structural hurdles make it logistically impossible for third parties to mount any kind of serious competition; it doesn't make any difference.
Both parties want to maximize their representation in the government. However; the Democratic party is much more open to election reform.
.......Essentially; yes. Although; I'd add transfer voting to that list, as well.
Again; the Democratic party has been much more supportive of election reform. The Democratic leadership; Reid, Pelosi, and the President, have all criticized the Citizens' ruling, I know Pelosi has expressed support for a Constitutional amendment, which is what really needs to happen. I wouldn't expect any real leadership on this, that needs to take place in the state legislatures, anyhow, but these sentiments can certainly be exploited.
That's not a wholly inaccurate characterization, however, my primary disagreement with this is that you seem to be suggesting that this is a deliberate strategy, as opposed to an unsconscious phenomena arising from a complex intersection of underlying economic, and political forces.
I'd just really like to avoid invoking the Third Reich, I don't think it's at all helpful.
That depends on the specifics of the individual races. It could be good, bad, or irrelevent. The bigger point is that this is highly unlikely, not simply because of the aforementioned structiral limitations, but because the Republican party has slid about as far to the Right as humanly possible, without sliding into neo-Fascism. This is, in part, the result of districting, where the lines are drawn as such where there is no viable Democratic opposition, therefore; the only danger to Republican candidates is being outflanked on the Right. This has happened, a number of times, recently with Sen. Richard Lugar being defeated by Richard Murdouck, that's how a number of these Tea Party freshmen got elected, the party has been purging itself of moderates.
It's necessary to criticize them, certainly. However; political abstentionism is not the answer.
Again; that's not a wholly inaccurate characterization, however, my primary disagreement with this is that you seem to be suggesting that this is a deliberate strategy, as opposed to an unsconscious phenomena arising from a complex intersection of underlying economic, and political forces.
Of course. That's a given. The question is, given that these are the circumstances; what is the most prudent course of action?
It's totally bogus. I agree.
...and here is where we diverge. In the absence of a viable alternative, in a swing state, or a contested district; this may be the most prudent course of action. For example; if you live in Missouri, and you care about reproductive rights, you should vote for Claire McCaskill, over Todd 'Legitimate Rape' Akin. There's no other way to see it. Otherwise you're saying you really don't care about reproductive rights, or, at the very least, that it's not a top priority.
No, it doesn't. Voting does not, in any way, necessitate internalizing, or perpetuating any illusions.
That's a fucking fantastic idea. I couldn't agree more. In fact; I've been saying so, for some time now. What I want to know, is if you have any ideas about how to explain this in language the others can understand.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
To put it more precisely, the logic of the American electoral system prevents third parties from being any thing but marginal.
Maybe; what electoral reforms would the Democratic party (not individual Democrats) support?
It certainly isn't an exhaustive list. I would add also transfering the control of elections from the Legislative and Executive branches to the Judiciary (and this would quite probably require also a reform of the Judiciary, ending elections for jugdes, justices, and public prosecutors), and closed list voting.
I fear they express these sentiments because they don't feel pressured at all to transform them into actual legislation.
I don't think it is a deliberate strategy; it is simply the logic of the situation.
Whatever the political positions of US representatives and Senators, they all have one thing in common: they have all been elected through the existing electoral system, which means, this system works for them. They are consequently unlikely to question that system, unless they are strongly pressured from below, or unless they are quite exceptional politicians.
(This works in every direction. At the end of the dictatorship in Brazil, the pro-dictatorship party discovered that it would no longer be able to win elections unless the rules were changed; so they started discussing an electoral reform that would boost their chances. The main proposal was districtal vote with FPTP vote. But they couldn't get their representatives to agree with that proposal, because many of them would never be elected by a district, depending on the contrary on statewide disperse vote. One of the most vocal oponents of the measure was indeed one of the politically most conservative and right-wing among their representatives; but he depended on the votes of policemen, and policemen aren't concentrated in one particular town or region. And so their proposed reform never became legislation, and their party dwindled as it had to be.)
I was not invoking the Third Reich. I was merely putting a limit to what would be desirable in terms of political changes in the US.
Which evidently doesn't happen to the Democrats; if they are purging themselves from anything, it is from their more democratic politicians.
But yes, it is unlikely that a third party takes hold. Those to the right of the mainstream Republicans know how to manipulate the party so that it becomes increasingly radical; those to the left of the mainstream Democrats cannot do the same to the Democratic Party.
And it must be noted that such dynamics results also in the Democrats not challenging the Republican grip over constituencies they deem unwinable; this, as you say, entrenches the more radical GOPers. The contrary is the rule where the Republicans are unelectable; they will oppose any slightly more left-sounding Democrat, and only leave uncontested those that are very conservative and right of the center.
It is not.
I agree with you that it is not a deliberate strategy, but I don't think it makes a difference. Their objective interests play against them questioning the electoral system, and so, quite logically, they won't question it.
There are two possibilities that I can see. One, to build a political party to the aim of reforming the electoral system, with a political program that points more or les to what I have sketched above (put an end to the Electoral college and institute an actual direct election, require a majority for election of the president and institute a second electoral round in the case no candidate reaches it, put an end to the First Past the Post districtal voting system and replace it with a proportional representation system, limit terms incumbent representatives and senators can serve). As you say, such party will have a difficult task, but it can exploit the frailties of the system, too - mainly the existence of unopposed incumbents.
The other is to put that program into paper, get a lot of signatures, take it to the Democrats, and telling them we won't vote for them unless they agree with it, sign a public compromise with it, and transform it into legislative initiatives. And yes, to tell them we are serious when we say we won't vote for them - even if it means more wars in the Middle East, prohibition of abortions, or mandatory teaching of creationism in the educational system. In other words, that we are not afraid of their Republican bogeyman.
But to vote for the Democrats unconditionally only helps to move the American political scene to the right.
Revleft is an interesting place, that defines itself as "revolutionary" but only actually bans/restricts people on the subject of reforms. Yes, reproductive rights are important. No, they shouldn't be a top priority on themselves; as you say in a previous post,
Of course Ms. McCaskill is a better human being, and a much more "progressive" politician than Mr. Akin, and the world is a better place if she is the Missouri Senator rather than Mr. Akin. But by accepting that those are the only two options, we actually reinforce Mr. Akin and his political party; he, or people like him, will eternally remain The Enemy to Be Beaten; and reproductive rights will remain forever at risk. When what we need is to change the political discussion. We need to make reproductive rights a given, and to change the acceptable political discourse to the left. We need to put things like unemployment, or poverty, or workers' control over production, back into the public discourse, and we cannot do this if we accept to be blackmailed on the issue of abortion (or of teaching evolution, or of military aggression abroad, or whatever).
The far right knows exactly how to do it, and has actually been moving the public discourse to the right; they have not only kidnapped the GOP and radicalised it to the right, they have changed the Democratic Party to the right, and, worse, they have been changing the electorate as a whole to the right. The left, instead, worries about loosing elections, while pretending they don't care.
C. G. P. Grey has a few short You Tube videos about electoral systems that are fun, easy to understand, and make the point quite well.
For instance,
The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
I am sure they aren't perfect, but they can be used to explain what is wrong with the American electoral system - or other, better, propaganda material can be designed.
But it can't help if at least some people don't stand up to the task of building a political force, be it an independent political party, or a pressure group to counter-scare the Democrats, that puts electoral reform as a pivotal goal to their political action.
Luís Henrique
It varies, obviously, I think the general preference is to return to the way it used to be, under McCain-Feingold, of course; this is impossible. Some, notably Sen. Pelosi, have expressed support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens', presumably replacing it with public campaign financing, which would be the ideal. Although; again, I wouldn't expect any leadership on this battle, which really needs to be fought in the individual state legislatures. However; I believe that this can be exploited, if we can summon sufficient political pressure.
We can debate about some of that, I don't think all of that is immediately necessary. Transfer voting, is, however, I think. I mean, one of the primary reasons people don't vote for third partiesw, beyond the lack of visibility, or identification with one of the two establishment parties, is that they don't want to waste their vote, which is, incidentally, a fairly sound point. With transfer voting, you remove this impediment. Voters would be free to vote for Jill Stein, or whomever, without risking a repeat of the 2000 debacle.
I think in many cases it's genuine, although; as I've said, I wouldn't expect any bold action.
Ok, well I think that's an important distinction.
That's fairly accurate.
The general wisdom among the talking heads, and political insiders, since Dukakis lost, is that the party had become too Left wing, and this was the reason for their losses at the polls. This heralded Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Leadership council, which Jesse Jackson used to call; 'Democrats For the Leisure class.' President Obama is not a part of this faction, but tends toward the Right end of his party. This isn't surprising; his tenure in the Senate was similarly very cautious, and conservative.
Unfortunately.
Yeah; in a nutshell.
Ok; but, obviously, unfortunately, that's where most of the Radical Left is; just look at this thread.
See above.
Frankly; I think both of these are deeply flawed, but the former moreso than the latter. First; this second idea, again, misconstrues the facts on the ground by implying deliberate collusion between the parties. Second; threatening to abstain from the vote is not likely to produce any kind of positive effect. First of all; the Radical Left doesn't have the numbers to tilt any election that isn't already very close. We aren't sufficiently numerous, and we don't have enough public support. Look at what's happening, right here, in Massachusetts, about the bluest of the blue states, we've got Elizabeth Warren who's well to the Left end of the party, getting her ass kicked, (in Massachusetts!!!) by Scott Brown. If it weren't for the presidential race, she'd be totally underwater. If she manages to win the election, it'll be by the skin of her teeth, and only because a lot of people are going to turn out to vote for the President. In order for this threat to have any meaning requires a Left-leaning majority, or large minority, that probably doesn't exist, in most cases. Also; this tactic is actually counterproductive, first; because, at best, it ensures increased Republican control over Congress, and the state legislatures, second; if anything, it sends the message that the Democrats need to move further to the Right. No; what we should be doing, among other things, is voting for the furthest Left, of the viable candidates, (Emphasis on; 'viable.') without illusions, and put consistent pressure to push them further leftward. This is a model that was used very successfully by the Civil Rights movement.
Politicians can only govern if they get elected.
That's very generous...
Oh, people get Banned, here, for a lot more than that. You can get Banned simply because a moderator dislikes you. Expressing support for social reform, or promoting reforms is met with extreme contempt, here, however; niether are actually prohibited by the forum rules.
The top priority would be advancing the interests of the working class whenever possible, defending the interests of the working class whenever necessary. Defending reproductive rights is just one facet of that. An attack on reproductive rights is an attack on the working class. My point is, again; if you won't stand in line for ten minutes, and check a box to protect reproductive rights; you really don't give a shit about it.
Yes.
They are the only two options, in that race. That's just an empirical fact. It's like the atomic weight of cobalt. There's simply no other answer that corresponds with reality.
Reproductive rights will be at risk as long as a portion of the population opposes reproductive rights, and is able to foist it's agenda on the rest of the population, be it by force of numbers, or arms, etc.
....Then you're going to have to change the religious beliefs of a very large, and passionate strata of the American public. I'm not saying that's not a good idea, but it's not happening in any kind of immediate future.
None of these goals are advanced by allowing Reactionaries to dominate our political, and legislative systems.
The primary focus should be overturning Citizens', and there's no shortage of material on the subject.It's not a particularly hard sell. The American people, the ones who understand it, absolutely despise it. While the political party leaderships are devided on this issue, the electorate is not. It transcends ideological boundries. I read one poll showing 80% of registered Democrats opposed to it, and 79% of Republicans, also, opposed. That's within the margin of error. That's a huge wellspring of popular anger just waiting to be capitalized on. This is what Occupy should have done. We missed a golden opportunity. (Again.)
In order to build a political force, we need to either come up with resources comperable to that of the establishment parties, in terms of finances, infrastructure, etc., (Which, obviously, is impossible.) or we have to break down the structural barriers to level the playing field. This should be accomplished by building a broad-based, bipartisan coalition, as you were saying, before, to remove these structural barricades.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Can we have more on the "pathology" of the radical right?
Where to begin really? Delusional projection ("the Left is so intolerant and mean-spirited"), imagined victimhood ("everyone sneers at conservatives", "Christians are persecuted in this country"), rhetorical sleight of hand ("YOU are the bigot [for criticising me]"), complete absence of self-awareness ("the Left just use the word 'racist'/'homophobe'/'islamophobe' to demean and intimidate people", "LIBTARD!!!", "DEMORAT!!!", "ANTI-SEMITE!!!", "I HATE the enemies of free speech", "string up traitors like Julian Assange by their scrota!"), jawdropping ability to cling to any conviction regardless of the conflicting evidence or how self-evidently fuckwitted it is ("Obama is still hiding his muslim past", "OMG Obama is the most far left, socialist president in all American history"), obnoxious lack of empathy for marginalised groups ("Robert Spencer is not Islamophobic, Islam isn't race", "black welfare mothers have it so easy under Obama", "it's the woman's fault being a whore if she has an unwanted preganancy", "why do the gay lobby hate me so much? I love homosexuals [obviously]", "why do Arabs hate Israel and America? those fanatical brutes"), laughable cognitive bias ("Most hard-working decent Americans/Brits agree with me"), splitting ("*insert small, militarily feeble, politically neutral country/population here* is the greatest existential threat to Israel in 65 years!!!") etc
Any psychoanalyst could have a field day.
Last edited by GerrardWinstanley; 2nd November 2012 at 18:17.
All of this is true, of course. However; there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on this point. The sentiments you refer to are widely recognized, in this community, as totally bogus. That's pretty much a given. The pathology of the Radical Left that is the subject of this thread, whatever you want to call it; 'impossibilism', 'ultra-Radicalism', etc., is, clearly, epidemic in proportion, and, more importantly, predictably, most of those suffering from this pathology are unable to recognize it as pathological.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Yes, that is an important point. Whether other points are immediately necessary, I don't know, but if people start bickering about what is and what is not immediately necessary, I fear you will be back to the "pathology of the radical left", splitting unnecessarily about tactical issues.
What Democrats have even heard of "transfer vote", much less publicly defended it, not even to talk putting it into paper and presenting it at legislative bodies for discussion and decision?
Which would be the Democrats to the left of Mr. Obama, and what actual power do they hold within the party?
There is a practical collusion, determined by the situational logic and the immediate interests of both parties. I very much doubt it is deliberate, but I don't think it makes much of a difference.
That being the reason the radical left shouldn't do it. The proposal however would be to build a movement for political reform, and have that movement to threat abstention (or splitting).
The problem then is to build a left-leaning majority or large minority. Evidently you can't do that by pretending that elections aren't important, by abstaining in an apolitical way, or by supporting fractious candidates of no political import. But you cannot also build it by supporting the present situation.
I don't think it sends the message that Democrats should move further to the right, much on the contrary.
I don' think this would result in any way in an electoral reform.
And the Civil Rights movement certainly did not support the Democratic Party en masse; it put its political aims before the Democrats and asked them to support them. There were lots of racist Democrats at the time, and they weren't supported by the Civil Rigths movement.
Certainly, but they usually have to at least pretend a political motive. If an admin bans a poster and justifies it like, "because I don't like him", this would quite probably result in some questioning of his or her misuse of administrative tools.
I disagree with that. Suppporting certain social reforms is practically mandatory here. I mean you can safely say that you don't care if workers get a wage rise or not, because a wage rise doesn't change the capitalist nature of the State or economy; but if you say something vaguely similar about abortions you will be quite certainly immediately banned or restricted.
I think you overstate a bit the extent to which reproductive rights are really dependent on legislative majorities or executive heads. The Republicans have many times held the US Presidency and State governorships, as well as majorities in House and Senate, but were not able to overturn Roe vs Wade (and I frankly am not sure if they want to; it would remove a major rallying cry for them).
On the other hand, I agree that reproductive rights are an integral part of the working class' interests. But they cannot substitute for such interests as a whole. A bourgeois politician that upholds reproductive rights but also supports budget cuts in order to restore balance is still an enemy of the working class.
That race ends next Tuesday, which is to say in three days. Nothing can be really done regarding it anymore. There is going to be another race in 2014, though, and still another in 2016, and so on. What are we doing to prevent the 2014 race to have only two options again (or in so many cases, indeed, only one option)?
Which again means parliamentary majorities aren't that decisive when it comes to reproductive rights.
No, but it is not going to happen in any kind of distant future either, unless we start working for it now.
Your political and legislative system are dominated by reactionaries, and will continue to be so. The only difference is whether they are blue reactionaries or red reactionaries.
I fear this brings us back to the radical left pathology - struggling about tactical issues as if they were the center of a strategy.
Well, which Democrats are campaigning on grounds of overturning Citizens United? Which of them have actual bills prepared for bringing to the floor?
To remove such structural barricades you need a political force, though.
Luís Henrique
That happens, sure, but I don’t see that as the biggest problem. The way I see it, the pathology I’m referring to, is that of ‘impossibilism’, or ‘ultra-Radicalism’; a fuzzy-minded puritanical rejection of any sort of incrementalism. This has the effect of rendering the Radical Left increasingly irrelevant, an ineffectual, and, paradoxically, only serves to reinforce the status quo.
'Single-Transferrable Vote', or; 'STV', for short.
I'm unaware of any specific examples of politicians who have introduced such measures. However; this is not unprecedented in American law, this process is used, here, in Cambridge, MA, for example. Moreover; I don't see any practical reason why there would be any immense opposition to it. This is a suggestion that could appeal to both the Left, and the Right. I think this could be fairly easy to introduce, and pass, as a ballot initiatives, in states where one can do that.
The President is, of course, the leader of his party. To his Left, I would count all 76 members of the Progressive Caucus, for starters, Nancy Pelosi, who left the caucus when she became house minority leader, the Secretary of Labor, etc., etc. It's harder to find Democrats to his Right, than to his Left.
It may not make much of a difference in the outcvome, but it makes a difference in our evaluation of the political landscape, because one is true, and the other is not.
I tend to agree, for the most part.
Participating in the political system does not, in any way, by itself, reinforce illusions, or maintain the status quo. Abstention, and self-marginalization, of the kind that is oh-so-popular around these parts, on the other hand, absolutely does.
It's a numbers game. The sliver of Leftist voters, be they Radicals, or disenfranchised Liberals, simply will not compare, numerically, to the number of voters who vote for the Republicans. Therefore; this sends Democrats to the Right, hoping to grab some of the votes from that larger pool of voters.
Only if that's part of the mandate.
Yes; and as a result of the political pressure exerted by the Civil Rights movement, which was enormously successful in winning real reforms, and concessions, split that wing of the party off, that's when the Democrats lost the South, why the South is still overwhelmingly dominated by the Republicans. (See; ‘Southern Strategy.’) The point is that they acheived real victories. Thankfully; they didn't suffer from the pathology of the modern Radicals, otherwise Jim Crow laws might still be in effect.
Well, yeah,; there's always an excuse, but, in a number of cases, this is very clearly just obviously transparent bullshit.
I'm not going to get started on the abortion policy. That's a whole different can of worms.
My point is that almost universally, anyone who expresses the slightest bit of support for social reforms, or any kind of incrementalism, is attacked, and demonized.
First of all; the only way this could be accomplished is by electing a sufficient number of Reactionaries to the Supreme Court, (Which may very well happen.) or by having a Constitutional Convention, and having a sufficient number of states vote for a Constitutional Amendment. (Which will very probably never happen.) Those are the only ways by which this could be accomplished. Also; you're not considering the ideological shift over the last 40 years, or so. All three of Nixon's appointees were in the majority in Roe. The Republican party of 2012 is not the Republican party of 1973. Look at the party platforms from the late seventies, the eighties, they used to take no official position on abortion, they used to express support for organized labor, etc. I'm not sure when, exactly, the change happened, but it did. Today; the party is unequivocally Pro-Life, the official platform for 2012 explicitly called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, which, i think, is the same as the last one, etc.Again; the only possibility of this happening, and it is a possibility, is if the Republicans are able to get one more Reactionary, someone like Robert Bork, for example, on the bench, then it could be overturned. That's, unfortunately, quite possible. Abortion would be up to the states, we can safely say in much of the South, and Midwest, it would be outlawed, there would be massive protests, and social upheaval, and, I think, ultimately, there would be an Amendment, or something, to overturn it. I think you're probably right in that the social fallout could very well be very damaging, in the long run, to the Republicans, if this eventuality were to occur.
Granted. However; if we have to live under bourgeois rule, anyhow, I would prefer one that protects reproductive rights, to one that does not.
Granted, but I'm talking about something much more than just Presidential elections. I'm talking about Senate races, House races, ballot initiatives, etc.
What is being done, presently? Absolutely nothing. We could be doing all sorts of productive things, but I’m not holding my breath…
No; it means that Congress can't overturn Supreme Court decisions. Like I said; that can only be done by changing the ideological composition of the court, or by a Constitutional Amendment. What they can do, however, is introduce all sorts of measures, in the state legislatures, to disenfranchise women seeking abortions, or to make abortion much less accessible. This has been used very effectively, predominantly in the South, and Midwest, with the result being that abortion is much less available than it was, just a few years ago. I think that sucks. I'm trying to say, among other things, that seeing as we supposedly care so much about reproductive rights, that we have a dog in this fight, that this is something we should be paying attention to, and doing something about.
Ok, that means, among other things, overcoming the intransigence of much of the Radical Left.
No, no, no. I use the word; 'Reactionary', (Meaning; 'extreme Rightism in social, and political views.’) very literally, and very deliberately. Harry Reid, or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are not Radicals, by any stretch of the imagination, but they aren't Reactionaries, either. They are Liberals. Rick Santorum is a Reactionary. Paul Ryan is a Reactionary.
I don't see that as being the central issue, I see it as dispute between pragmatism, and impossibilism. It isn't that we're debating over which action to take, so much as one side opposing any action, at all. Much of the Radical Left, today, it seems, paradoxically, is deeply committed to maintaining the status quo.
As I've said elsewhere, something like 11 states have already passed resolutions to overturn Citizens', I don't know the names of the individual politicians involved, in these states, I haven't studied it that closely. Also; Russ Feingold, for example, has started a political action committee toward that end, of course, he's no longer in Congress.
Yes; absolutely. I’ve been arguing for this for quite some time, now.
Last edited by NGNM85; 16th November 2012 at 16:20.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Well, the game is over; the boogie-woogie was duly defeated. Now you have two years, instead of two weeks, to do something, electorally speaking.
Luís Henrique
Here is a google search for "unopposed incumbents".
What are we doing so that these people no longer run unopposed?
Luís Henrique
