PDA

View Full Version : So is the best we can hope for is gridlock?




JXL78
01-20-2010, 01:25 PM
I was watching an old video Rand Paul made to the Montana GOP about why the Clinton era was good. I think it convinced me that, if we can't get Johnson, Paul or someone in on our side, the best we should hope for is gridlock.

Having said that I'm actually considering Obama for 2012 and all Republicans for House and Senate. Is this wrong to think that way?

The alternative seems to backfire as evidenced from 2006. When a liberal neocon like Bush is in power, then they make deals with the Pelosi democrats. Bush gets the war spending he wants as the house/senate dems get the spending they want.

Texan4Life
01-20-2010, 01:31 PM
I'd imagine there are about a half dozen people hammering out replies letting you know your cheese has slid off your cracker.

JXL78
01-20-2010, 01:34 PM
I'd imagine there are about a half dozen people hammering out replies letting you know your cheese has slid off your cracker.

From a strategic point of view it is is the only thing that makes sense to me. If you concern yourself with preserving what little is left of the Republic, I can't see why no one else would come to the same conclusion.

When they are fighting, less gets done. They can't pass bills. And when they can't pass bills they can't fuck things up any more than they already have.

ItsTime
01-20-2010, 01:37 PM
The less the government does the better off we are.

Kludge
01-20-2010, 01:38 PM
No. The current course is set toward national collapse. Stopping NEW legislation, hoping for gridlock is NOT ENOUGH.

rvkpa
01-20-2010, 01:45 PM
They took our country away through incremental change not large sweeping changes like the healthcare and cap/trade bills. I think it's more appropriate for us to be looking at this more tactically. Individual races will make a difference in the long run. Do you really think the country that elected Barack Obama can even understand a word candidates like Ron Paul are saying? Look at the impact Ron has had with just one house seat. Changing the mind of 300 million people won't happen in a single congressional term. Gridlock buys time for these changes, the less they do the freer the market and the people are.

klamath
01-20-2010, 02:02 PM
gridlock is a good thing when you have a congress and president that are trying to expand government.

jmdrake
01-20-2010, 02:16 PM
I was watching an old video Rand Paul made to the Montana GOP about why the Clinton era was good. I think it convinced me that, if we can't get Johnson, Paul or someone in on our side, the best we should hope for is gridlock.

Having said that I'm actually considering Obama for 2012 and all Republicans for House and Senate. Is this wrong to think that way?

The alternative seems to backfire as evidenced from 2006. When a liberal neocon like Bush is in power, then they make deals with the Pelosi democrats. Bush gets the war spending he wants as the house/senate dems get the spending they want.

Yes. It's wrong. Bipartisanship can work for evil. Lot's of really bad stuff has been passed with both parties working together. NAFTA. The "Patriot" Act. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act. Medicare part D. Homeland "security" etc. The argument can be made that when both sides are forced to "work together" they are more likely to come up with "compromise" and actually pass stuff. Maybe the stuff that gets passed isn't as ambitious, but that doesn't make it "good".

This is the "lesser of two evils" idea done in a different way. Best thing to do is to support the best possible candidates at every level. You want real gridlock? Get good people elected at the state and local levels. People who are willing to tell the feds where to go whether it's a "D" or an "R" in the Whitehouse.

JXL78
01-20-2010, 05:01 PM
Yes. It's wrong. Bipartisanship can work for evil. Lot's of really bad stuff has been passed with both parties working together. NAFTA. The "Patriot" Act. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act. Medicare part D. Homeland "security" etc. The argument can be made that when both sides are forced to "work together" they are more likely to come up with "compromise" and actually pass stuff. Maybe the stuff that gets passed isn't as ambitious, but that doesn't make it "good".

This is the "lesser of two evils" idea done in a different way. Best thing to do is to support the best possible candidates at every level. You want real gridlock? Get good people elected at the state and local levels. People who are willing to tell the feds where to go whether it's a "D" or an "R" in the Whitehouse.

But aside from NAFTA being modified, most of what you listed was an R in the whitehouse.

It seems to me that more gridlock is created with a D in the whitehouse and R's in the house / senate. the rush limbaugh mouth pieces get the public riled up and they hold their feet to the fire making sure they don't go along with the big D at the top.

When there is a big R at the top the rush limbaughs give them a free pass and as such the moronic republican listening audience doesn't care what gets passed either.

This is just how I've witnessed things unfold.