How is it legally possible to undermine the will of the people? Isn’t Democracy about the will of the masses, not the few when it’s for the benefit of all? I’m just so confused by these supposed Patriots, the Teap Party, and what they’re doing is the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in this country.
But, didn’t we vote for this already? And if we did, doesn’t undermining that elections AND Supreme Court-vote amount to treason or a coup, coup via extortion as opposed to military force. Treason as in, trying to destabilize our country and destroy it from within. We’re held hostage by a minority, and I’m really sad it apears we the people are powerless. Are we powerless “right now”?
And the endgame is the left will eventually respond in kind. There is no other choice.
This is why I think our system of government is going to end up a tyranny of the majority at some point- when years of gridlock are decided, the winning side is going to want blood, or at least some show trials.
What we’re witnessing is the tantrum of the perpetually-aggrieved white male: “all these poor people are sucking me dry!”. It’s been a pathetic display, but demography and mortality will eventually take care of these people.
Eventually more and more folks will get outraged and vote for a radicalized left, eventually they dominate government enough to impose their will on the rest of the country. They just need 60% (throw NC and TX blue and you’ve got it)
Wrong. It’s not democracy. It is extortion. There are enough votes in the house to pass a CR. Boehner won’t bring it to the floor because he is a weak Speaker and needs the votes of the lunatic fringe to remain in power. It is the failure of the GOP party leadership to reign in their assclowns who represent 18% of the electorate.
Here’s an example of the so called people they are representing. Keynote speech by Ted Cruz’s father:
RAFAEL CRUZ: So Barack Obama said: If the winds shift, I will side with the Muslims.
IN CROWD: He is Muslim!
CRUZ: [Exclamation] McCain couldn’t say that, because it’s not politically correct. It is time to stop being politically correct! [Pols emphasis]
CRUZ: Our lives? Well, look at what’s happening with our lives. From the cradle, 55 million babies have been murdered by abortion since 1973. At the other end, Obamacare, with denying care to the elderly, with care being rationed, with care being postponed for 12 to 18 months, with care being controlled by a group of bureaucrats, that on the basis of cost/benefit, will decide whether you get a medical procedure or not, they’re destroying our end of life. As a matter of fact, one of the things in Obamacare is that the elderly, every five years you must have end-of-life counseling. Translation: suicide counseling! [Pols emphasis]
CRUZ: I know I am in a Republican Party meeting. If you want to throw tomatoes at me, throw tomatoes at me. But unfortunately, you cannot say that the Republican Party is without blame. We have too many RiNOs in the Republican Party!
CRUZ: They have their minds made up, and basically their idea is this: you’re too stupid and I know what I’m doing. Well I’ll tell you what, we the people are not stupid. We the people ought to be smart enough to throw them out of office, or primary them, and put constitutional conservatives in their place!
Yes, we are powerless. The 80 Tea Party members are in unassailable, gerrymandered districts. Until and unless the rest of the GOP refuses to be kowtowed by the towering idiocy of the far right, nothing will change. This is America for the foreseeable future.
What’s especially irritating is that your so-called Obamacare pales greatly in comparison to what we have in Canada, and to what is available in first-world countries in general, and you still have people complaining that it does too much. Really, if someone dared to propose single-payer health care, I wonder if they’d get their rifle and go marching on Washington, citing Jefferson all the way:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
As for tyranny of the majority, Tocqueville was right on target more than 150 years ago.
What “radicalized left”? Would that be the Republicrats or the Demoblicans? These two were interchangeable and now the only difference is that one is more to the right than the other. So, where would you find a “radicalized left” with sufficient clout (and wherewithal) to win elections? Inside the liberal left Democrats, assuming they can control the party?
No, I think your country is screwed. “Hope and Change” didn’t exactly turn out the way the Obama supporters were expecting, but it has nothing to do with the Democrats, or even with Obama, but with your political mores, your stupid electoral traditions, your partisan judiciary, your entire Protestant-Work-Ethic bootstrap mentality (now stretched enough from all that pulling to fit around your country’s neck), your failure to understand that a successful democracy does not mean sitting back and doing nothing to restrain it when it falls into excess.
The United States, as a country, is done for. It is no longer a force for good, if it ever was one. It cannot reform itself. But there is one thing it can do, and it is to collapse, so that the rest of the world may be provided with a cautionary tale.
Well, those Quebecois need some country they can call their own. How better to acheive it than trying to drive the US to mass suicide?
Now I appreciate a good trolling as much as the next guy, but I do want to point out one minor issue so as to help in future attempts:
“Protestant work ethic” and “bootstrap work ethic” (or more commonly “bootstrapping”) are two very different things, having only hard work in common. To clarify:
The “Protestant work ethic” is a notion that hard work is a part of being observant. The idea is that the Protestant faith expects it of the faithful, and so working hard is akin to giving praise to god and being mindful of ones teachings. This comes from the concept that life is a gift and not doing your best with your time is spitting upon that gift and being disrespectful of who gave it.
A “bootstrap work ethic” is a notion that you have to elevate yourself through hard work, and that nobody else can do much for you - it’s a shout out to those who believe doing so is the sign of true character and by implication those who do not find themselves in a poor state due to a lack of that character. The irony is that it originally was used as a way to imply an impossible action (as one cannot actually pull themselves up by their bootstraps).
The two beliefs can be exclusive or shared at any point, but I’d hazard a guess that you won’t find a majority of U.S. citizens who actually fully believe in the concepts behind either of those terms. Rather, you’ll get a majority of people who believe that working hard is good, but working smarter is better. Likewise, there won’t be much of a belief that working hard brings you closer to god (unless you might mean “it makes you more stressed out and therefore closer to death”). You’ll also find a great many of us more than happy to take a handout. Thus, a possessing a “Protestant bootstrap work ethic” is probably not a very apt description of the nation. 60 or 70 years ago, and you would have been more likely to be on target.
This may not be the right place for it, but I was wondering whether it’s even possible for the Republican majority (i.e. the non Tea Party) to replace the Speaker with someone with balls. Does anyone know what the procedures are for replacing the party leadership?
The leadership doesn’t really matter, it’s not a question of his willingness to punish them or withhold perks. He’s tried that, and it didn’t work. They are secure in their funding, and need nothing from him. He doesn’t have a card to play, nor would his successor.
Actually, from what I’ve read, it’s the abolishing of earmarks that may have actually put a big hurt on leadership. Back in the “good ol’ days,” when leadership wanted something, they offered or threatened precious precious earmarks. That kept the troops in line. But when they abolished earmarks, they literally threw away the carrot and the stick. At this rate, I’m all for voting for the damn things back again if it prevents shit like this.