The Right and the Left need each other - debate

[StCapps]

o one of the other two variants.

Generally though, the right is going to represent the tradition of success that has allowed a people to flourish and sustain themselves to the point where the left can finally spring into existence and make arguments for modifying society/government. Sure, the political right/conservatism can become outmoded, outdated, and obsolete. Yet this happens at a much slower pace than the speed at which the left can train-wreck their societies with ill-conceived or untested ideas.

LOL - that's the argument I'm making over in the SCOTUS thread. You said it more eloquently than I. *hat tip*

Stick with the status quo, fade into obsolescence and never improve anything then. Senate Filibuster is a good start on that front, cling to it and pretend it's saving you from all the bad laws though lulz. In America stopping bad laws is more important than passing good ones, even once there are already a shit ton of bad laws that need to be removed from the books and you are stopping them from being removed via filibuster, it's still more important to y'all apparently.

Clowns.

[K@th]

]Stick with the status quo, fade into obsolescence and never improve anything then. Senate Filibuster is a good start on that front, cling to it and pretend it's saving you from all the bad laws though lulz.

It's pretty much a done deal, at this point. We'll have a tyranny of the majority senate in a matter of a few years.

[StCapps]

It's pretty much a done deal, at this point. We'll have a tyranny of the majority senate in a matter of a few years.

I sure hope so. You Americans need to stop focusing on playing political defense so much, start playing some political offense and actually get some legislation passed that doesn't just kick the can down the road because all legislation has to be watered down so it doesn't get filibustered. That would be a good first step that would increase the flexibility of the American political system and decrease it's resistance to reform.

[K@th]

I think you are naive to not realize the kinds of legislation an unhindered majority would pass. Especially in a time of crisis. Imagine a congress filled with Trump-like bots.... we'll have Muslims & Mexicans in prison camps, the wall is 400 feet high and the top 1% gets freed from the burden of paying taxes.

Now, imagine that same congress but with Hillary-bots instead.... I can't even imagine the shit show that would ensue.

[StCapps]

I think you are naive to not realize the kinds of legislation an unhindered majority would pass. Especially in a time of crisis. Imagine a congress filled with Trump-like bots.... we'll have Muslims & Mexicans in prison camps, the wall is 400 feet high and the top 1% gets freed from the burden of paying taxes.

Now, imagine that same congress but with Hillary-bots instead.... I can't even imagine the shit show that would ensue.

More dumb legislation would get passed, but not that much more. Look at countries that don't have a Senate filibuster and have a similar standard of living to the US, they aren't flooded with retarded legislation that you expect to see in America if they no longer had the filibuster, so what makes you think America would be an exception to that? The amount of good legislation that you pass will also increase and it will more than make up for the extra bad legislation that makes it through.

You don't trust the Senate to pass good legislation, but you trust the Senate to block bad legislation? I'd recommend not trusting them to do either and not giving the Senate extra veto power just because you Americans have a thing for checks and balances, even when they are to the detriment of a well run political system. But that's me.

[DrYouth]

Well ... historically I guess I'd say it's possible for the two forces to work in tandem, or as a check upon eachother's agendas.
* Most western democracies

It's also possible for them not to.
* USSR
* Saudi Arabia
* Cuba
* Philipines
* etc.

Humanity can operate under all three conditions - Left only, Right only, or mixed.

All three systems have also failed at different times and morphed into one of the other two variants.

Generally though, the right is going to represent the tradition of success that has allowed a people to flourish and sustain themselves to the point where the left can finally spring into existence and make arguments for modifying society/government. Sure, the political right/conservatism can become outmoded, outdated, and obsolete. Yet this happens at a much slower pace than the speed at which the left can train-wreck their societies with ill-conceived or untested ideas.

Yet making beneficial progress requires actually attempting progress, right?
So it's tricky.

I'm counting that post in the affirmative.
The right and the left need each other.
It's not a perfect system... each plays their role... each is imperfect... but the one checking the other is far superior to the one without the other.

Thanks DB,
and welcome back!

Stick around.

[DrYouth]

Now if we can somehow lure Smitty back into this thread... it could get even more interesting...

[K@th]

[

You don't trust the Senate to pass good legislation, but you trust the Senate to block bad legislation?

Our Congress is filled with 3rd graders. Do I trust 100 3rd graders to make a better collective decision than 51 3rd graders? Yeah, I probably do. This is who we are, now. Frankly, I'd rather Congress pass no laws than a bunch of shitty ones. We haven't had any good legislation in well over a decade. Perhaps longer.

[StCapps]

[

You don't trust the Senate to pass good legislation, but you trust the Senate to block bad legislation?

Our Congress is filled with 3rd graders. Do I trust 100 3rd graders to make a better collective decision than 51 3rd graders? Yeah, I probably do. This is who we are, now. Frankly, I'd rather Congress pass no laws than a bunch of shitty ones. We haven't had any good legislation in well over a decade. Perhaps longer.

Maybe if you got rid of the filibuster you could actually pass some controversial legislation that will actually work, instead such bills failing to pass because they can't get passed a filibuster. The filibuster is not helping you pass any good legislation by forcing 60% of the Senate to sign on, it's preventing you from doing so. Increased popularity does not always to better legislation and needing 60% of the Senate on board is a high bar when it comes to popularity. Sometimes the best legislation is controversial legislation that 60% of the Senate would never support because it would hurt too many of them in the short term, and in such situations America simply kicks the can down the road while other countries with democratic accountability don't run into this issue.

[K@th]

The filibuster is not helping you pass any good legislation by forcing 60% of the Senate to sign on, it's preventing you from doing so. Increased popularity does not always to better legislation and needing 60% of the Senate on board is a high bar when it comes to popularity.

60 out of 100 is a failing grade. If you can't get 60% of the country to agree that something is good, it's probably not good.