Plus, there is nothing in the constitution about political parties.
It would build a new governmental system.
Overnight? What happens between the collapse and then?
We need details please. You are advocating the collapse of the American government.
If you want us to take you seriously we need some evidence of serious thought on this matter. Or should we take it on faith?
Here’s your nominee for the US Senate from Indiana:
Or just rewind the last 3 years- Republicans decided on Inauguration Day to oppose everything that Obama proposed. Sometimes they wound up filibustering their own proposals just because Obama agreed with them.
Obviously not overnight.
Federal government system, as it exists today, definitely.
“Advocating”? Not really. Anticipating and hoping something better rises from it? Yes.
Typical of the magical thinking that infuses your type.
A collapse of our economy would involve millions of elderly losing their ability to pay rent, millions of medicare recipients having no access to medical care, tens of millions of children without school, millions of soldiers and government workers suddenly unemployed. There would be no controls on water, air or the environment. There would be no law, no defense, no safety.
It would lead to anarchy and it would take decades to come out of. It isn’t something to wish for, it’s something to be warded off.
The fish rots from the head, eh?
No, I’m afraid I can’t agree. I can support a brief cut in so-called non-essential service, because I believe that it will cause the recipients thereof to realize that most of them were more essential than they thought. But I cannot countenance any plan in which the goal is the destruction of the system. I think there are many flaws in our system. So does BPC, I feel sure. And he and I undoubtedly disagree on the flaws – many of the things I like, he sees as flaws; many of the things I like, he sees as flaws.
But that’s because we’re not ants. We’re not bees. We do not have a monolithic view of what works and what’s best. Instead, we have a system that allows us to bring multiple ideas to the table, advocate for them, and convince others of the correctness of our positions. The fact that we have many flaws (from my point of view) is not a bug: it’s a feature. It says that we have a system that reflects the joint sovereignty of all of us.
I’m still right, of course.
So, yeah, just cross our fingers and hope it all works out huh?
Wow. I’m really glad you are not at all in charge of anything related to me or my life whatsoever.
Something tells me Terr has Fernandoon permanent loop on his iPod.
Holy shit, you’re a barely functioning Turing bot. An XKCDexperiment gone horribly, horribly wrong.
I guess you have the individual words defined somewhere in your database and your network links the concepts, or maybe you’re an amazingly simplistic partisan hack with thinking skills that are sub-freeper.
There are people out there that would advocate major reforms to the governmental system. Removing the electoral college. Moving towards proportional representation. All sorts of things. But damn, you’re just a fucking idiot.
So, only the Republicans get to vote on the budget?
I’m not a hundred percent sure you understand what is going on here.
Essentially. They control the House and can use the filibuster to stymie whatever the Democrats in the Senate want to do. They vote as a block. Either give in to their blackmail or we all pay the consequence.
At some point the system becomes so flawed it is not repairable.
Correction - it was designed this way - with 50 (today) laboratories in which the multiple ideas would be tried, tested, and, if successful, incorporated in other places. That has been completely perverted, and the system is rolling faster and faster downhill towards monolithic autocratic federal government with no checks on it whatsoever.
“Joint sovereignty” is an oxymoron.
S Con Res 41 was defeated 0-99
S Con Res 37 was defeated 42-57
S Con Res 42 was defeated 16-83
S Con Res 44 was defeated 17-82
All were Budget Resolutions. This isnt just a Republican Smack down.
Just some of the nay voters
kaka (D-HI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
And the Cognitive Dissonance in Action Award goes to… Terr!
[QUOTE=dngnb8]
S Con Res 41 was defeated 0-99
S Con Res 37 was defeated 42-57
S Con Res 42 was defeated 16-83
S Con Res 44 was defeated 17-82
All were Budget Resolutions. This isnt just a Republican Smack down.
[/QUOTE]
Psst… the “S” stands for “Senate”.
I too support the collapse of the government. We’ll all move into the Colorado mountains, meet John Galt, see the appeal of property rights, eugenics and a hierarchical system and live in complete comfort with nil taxation or inflation for the rest of our life.
I’d say these two statements reflect a less-than-perfect understanding of the concept of federalism.
Setting aside the joint sovereignty shared by all members of the electorate for a moment, our system is precisely described by joint sovereignty: the federal government is supremely sovereign in its bailiwick, and the states have plenary power and sovereignty over themselves.
And “We the People” is not nonsense, either. The votes of the people elect representatives empowered to make law. You may not like the results. But the system is the second-best way to govern.
The best is my acclaimation as King Bricker I. But since there seems to be some foolish belief that I will not rule well, the second-best system must be accepted.
If you have vote totals, they weren’t filibustered.
Yes I realize that. Meant senate
Still doesnt change the fact that it isnt just republicans. One of the proposals didnt get 1 yae vote.
If I was a Democrat, I would be more concerned with zero partisan support then opposite the wall fillibuster