Hamstring Joe Lieberman. He's useless now that he's no longer the 60th vote.

i would like the option "roll over and die because all this high drama prime time bantering is only more divisive brainwashing designed to keep us bickering, them in power, corporate interests running the show and the status quo mostly intact"

but i figured "replaced by a real left wing party" was the closest option.
though im kind of starting to really despise the idea of a "party" which is only a nice word to make "factions" sound like fun.

fuck you semantics.

Or 6, Democrats should recognize the executive branch was never designed to be as powerful as it has become, reduce the executive branch's powers and once again give the majority of power back over to congress, stop signing statements, end the wars, revoke the Patriot Act completely without simply altering its text, cut military spending drastically, close (at least a majority of) military bases abroad, recognize income tax is a direct tax therefore unconstitutional and revoke the 16th Amendment, and recognize I'm an adult and no longer need a "nanny".

There. I'd vote for that one.

>> ^Ornthoron:
Hamstring Joe Lieberman. He's useless now that he's no longer the 60th vote.


Lieberman was useless when he was the 60th vote. I think Jon Stewart put it best when, speaking about the effects on health care legislation if Brown won, said "Democrats will only have an eighteen vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whatever the fuck he wanted to." But Democrats can't stand for anything on principle, because even making a motion to debate something that doesn't have the support to move forward without a possibility of filibuster is political suicide! Idiots.

>> ^blankfist:
Or 6, Democrats should recognize the executive branch was never designed to be as powerful as it has become, reduce the executive branch's powers and once again give the majority of power back over to congress, stop signing statements, end the wars, revoke the Patriot Act completely without simply altering its text, cut military spending drastically, close (at least a majority of) military bases abroad, recognize income tax is a direct tax therefore unconstitutional and revoke the 16th Amendment, and recognize I'm an adult and no longer need a "nanny".
There. I'd vote for that one.


That's option one. You don't seem to understand that hiding behind Constitutional originalism doesn't fool most people. It's a roundabout way of saying that no matter how many people want progressive policy, it's all unconstitutional and people who try to enact it are in violation of the supreme law of the land.

In other words, roll over and die, because conservatives deserve permanent rule.

I think trying to pin expansion of executive power on Democrats is quite the overreach. I'd agree that they haven't done anything to reduce it, but that's a wholly different critique. I'd also agree that they should do about half of what you say (stop signing statements, end wars, revoke patriot act, cut military spending).

You do need a nanny pretty badly though.

Are you alluding that I may be a Conservative, NetRunner? You're trying to paint me as a Conservative any time I bring up the Constitution based on its original meaning? I guess you get your reasons for doing so based on my comment above right?

I didn't know conservatives were for ending the war, reducing the strength of the executive branch, ending signing statements, revoking the Patriot Act, cutting military spending, and closing military bases abroad. It's a new one on me!

It's just a song and dance.

The Dems just aren't anything to scream about, and it's easy to predict that in order to "save face" or "gain votes" that they'll move even further away from the left, and by doing so become an even less believable or effective opposition party.

It's nothing new. It's the same old shit and they've been doing it for almost twenty years.

Now the cons can go back to fucking up the country and the dems can go back to blaming true progressives like myself for their shit-headed ineptitude.

The 2-party system sucks ass. Grow up and join the rest of the world.

^ I hear that one a lot. I think too many people who say that think the way to make that happen is to just keep voting for 3rd party candidates, and hope it sticks one day.

I think people who hold that view should focus on things like eliminating the filibuster and implementing instant runoff elections (i.e., all candidates must achieve 50%, and if no one from the first vote achieves 50%, there's an automatic runoff election for the top two vote-getters).

If we just did those two things, I suspect we'd see our number of parties holding House and Senate seats would rise.

Mostly though, I get the impression that people who say that are really trying to say something more akin to "I'm so much smarter than people who get involved in real-world politics, so much better to vote for people who never get a chance to disappoint me!"

"Real world politics."

That's almost funny. As if only two parties could possibly exist in the "real world."

As if the Democrats were the only hope for all American liberals, like it or not.

Just sit down, shut up, and do it our way, right? Be "real," right?

Be patient. I've heard that quite a few times.

Vote Democrats! The "Someday Party."

You know where the dem's great white hope, Coakley, was during the campaign?

She was in Washington hob-nobbing with the lobbiests, especially the pharma-cons.

This is the same kind of "choice" that the dems offer us every election.

This whole healthcare thing has been so pathetic, so half-assed from the very beginning, that I honestly hope it doesn't pass.

You think that passing a compromise bill when we have a clear majority power will someday magically morph into something better? You know, when the cons get back in control? You think we'll improve on the bill then? Or maybe we'll have to wait until the dems are back in power again? And we know how often that happens.

"Roll over and play dead" would imply that something was alive and kicking to begin with, you know, and I've hardly seen any evidence of that.

As a progressive, I don't care whether they force votes on the health bills taht people want, or upset the fillibuster with a procedural process. I have a third option... pass a bill before the republican is seated.

Actually I was drinking yesterday and this whole thing upset me beyond belief. Now I'm still sour and I don't think the Democrats will do any of the above, rather they will put the cart before the horse and screw the pooch yet again.

This whole whining about 60 or 59 votes is a crock. I remember 4-5 years ago, the repubs were going to use the 'nuclear option' and shut down the filibuster. They did what the fuck they wanted to (like Jon Stewart said), including Bush, Delay, Frist, and Lott, with nowhere near 60 votes.

The thing is, they don't care. Because the same money interests have them by the balls.

I just watched Obama explain his position in an interview with george stephanopoulous. Now i'm more confused than ever. Is he going to do healthcare or not? It's almost like he's signalling that he doesn't want to lead on health care.

What's wrong with the filibuster? Why are people so interested in getting more laws on the books? I'm more curious than anything else.

I think Congress works too much. Get ready to roll your eyes and say "hear he goes again." But, Article 1 Section 4.2 of the Constitution reads as if the original intent for Congress was to be minimal and do very little: "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."

I know, I know, I just took an Originalist stance therefore I must be a Conservative even though the principles of the Constitution were built upon Liberalism.

I'd like to address this in a more bipartisan fashion. What should representatives elected by the people, for the people do?

Their goddamn jobs.

I prefer the NPA on my voter registration card because I dislike the whole "you are either with us or you are against us!" that boils down to the two party system. I've also grown tired of the whole "Democrat libtard" or "Republican conservatard" that at least around where I live is seen far too often. Certainly, its within your free speech rights but when you disagree on principle solely of political party that brings in a whole truckload of stupid.

As far as the election goes, I dont even live in the damn state and it is pretty obvious that Martha Coakley lost because she ran a weak ass campaign. Democrats, stop fidgeting with twisting the healthcare reform bill around for the sake of appeasement. Wake up as a political party, since if we can't get rid of the two-party system at least prove to the rest of us you are different!

Option #2 or #4 could easily apply, but I don't think #5 is a good idea at all. If they can hold out, so can you.

>> ^marinara:
I just watched Obama explain his position in an interview with george stephanopoulous. Now i'm more confused than ever. Is he going to do healthcare or not? It's almost like he's signalling that he doesn't want to lead on health care.


Totally agree. He's had a hands-off attitude about this from the start.

The Democrats should calm down, have a nice drink, then either pass the Senate bill along with procedures for fixing it via reconciliation, or rapidly finish negotiations on the merged bill and pass that, all before Brown is in office.

By the way, if you're in the U.S., now would probably be a more effective time than ever to call your representative and encourage them to take one of those paths (the first one is probably more feasible). Right now, none of the Democrats have any idea what to do, and they could really use some guidance in a direction away from caving to the Republicans again.

>> ^Fjnbk:
The Democrats should calm down, have a nice drink, then either pass the Senate bill along with procedures for fixing it via reconciliation, or rapidly finish negotiations on the merged bill and pass that, all before Brown is in office.
By the way, if you're in the U.S., now would probably be a more effective time than ever to call your representative and encourage them to take one of those paths (the first one is probably more feasible). Right now, none of the Democrats have any idea what to do, and they could really use some guidance in a direction away from caving to the Republicans again.


Oh, yeah!

That's always worked wonders.

"Hi, I'm the thousandth person whose name is nobody and who is worth nothing."

Neigh...

We must steal their heart.

It might not work. But believe me, they truly have NO plans right now. Now looks to be the time when a phone call would be most effective. I'm not saying it will be, but at least the odds seem to be better... What does "steal their heart" mean?

>> ^rougy:
Oh, yeah!
That's always worked wonders.
"Hi, I'm the thousandth person whose name is nobody and who is worth nothing."
Neigh...
We must steal their heart.

>> ^Fjnbk:
It might not work. But believe me, they truly have NO plans right now. Now looks to be the time when a phone call would be most effective. I'm not saying it will be, but at least the odds seem to be better... What does "steal their heart" mean?
>> ^rougy:
Oh, yeah!
That's always worked wonders.
"Hi, I'm the thousandth person whose name is nobody and who is worth nothing."
Neigh...
We must steal their heart.



You're a good guy.

But the right thing should have been done about nine months ago.

And, to do the right thing, a real leader doesn't have to depend on somebody bitching on the phone.

I'm not ready to give up and go Galt just yet . Ask me in a week or so. Perhaps I'll be more cynical then.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Fjnbk:
It might not work. But believe me, they truly have NO plans right now. Now looks to be the time when a phone call would be most effective. I'm not saying it will be, but at least the odds seem to be better... What does "steal their heart" mean?
>> ^rougy:
Oh, yeah!
That's always worked wonders.
"Hi, I'm the thousandth person whose name is nobody and who is worth nothing."
Neigh...
We must steal their heart.


You're a good guy.
But the right thing should have been done about nine months ago.
And, to do the right thing, a real leader doesn't have to depend on somebody bitching on the phone.

Scott Brown has the ability to centralize every issue around himself now, as the representative that 'mericans are sick of Obamanazim.

I think the democrats fold. Unless Obama brings out something that has popular domestic support as a dues ex machina, something the GOP can't sling poo at without risking losing it's own people. I mean they still would because they are GOP, who strike me the kind of people who'd tell any democracy president that they wipe their ass the unamerican way.

Still fold. Demos have no balls to filibuster nor do they have any cohesive strategy that unifies them as much as the GOP.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Scott Brown has the ability to centralize every issue around himself now, as the representative that 'mericans are sick of Obamanazim.
I think the democrats fold. Unless Obama brings out something that has popular domestic support as a dues ex machina, something the GOP can't sling poo at without risking losing it's own people. I mean they still would because they are GOP, who strike me the kind of people who'd tell any democracy president that they wipe their ass the unamerican way.
Still fold. Demos have no balls to filibuster nor do they have any cohesive strategy that unifies them as much as the GOP.


If the Dems had love like the Cons have greed, we might stand a chance.

>> ^Fjnbk:
I'm not ready to give up and go Galt just yet . Ask me in a week or so. Perhaps I'll be more cynical then.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^Fjnbk:
It might not work. But believe me, they truly have NO plans right now. Now looks to be the time when a phone call would be most effective. I'm not saying it will be, but at least the odds seem to be better... What does "steal their heart" mean?
>> ^rougy:
Oh, yeah!
That's always worked wonders.
"Hi, I'm the thousandth person whose name is nobody and who is worth nothing."
Neigh...
We must steal their heart.


You're a good guy.
But the right thing should have been done about nine months ago.
And, to do the right thing, a real leader doesn't have to depend on somebody bitching on the phone.



Going "Galt" is the delusion of a victim of the upheaval that turned Russia into the Soviet Union.

I'm still here, pard. Like the talk.

Wolfman.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Force votes on real reform measures, and make conservatives oppose it on record.

I did not vote because "Rapidly deprogram entire population of the United States in short order, march on washington collectively, and annihilate the puppet government declaring the United States a safe-zone from inbred, empire-seeking, motherfuckers...was not an option.

...Bastille-styley. Wake up from the American nightmare, NetRunner....it's becoming truer every day-

Maybe the renaming of the poll would do service to all concerned..."What Should WE do now?"

Republicrats and Demicons???...simply labels-Team Spirit is what humans being are accountable for...Most politicians are a malevolent, irrational, out-for-self brand of the most delusional segment of humans, akin to gnats or bedbugs....irritating and ever fucking present, but controllable with the proper salves and hygiene.