Tea Party Questions

Hi Jar, Yes, a couple meager suggestions for changes that would make things worse than today, in place of a plan that will make things better than today.Everything would cost more, especially for the working family, and the health\pharmaceutical executives would make even more obscene profits.Everyone bow down to the dollar.Enjoy.

Hi Rahvin, Yeah, and if I go back and work 2 more years I can qualify for full social benefits, retirement etc. ... so I may have a back door to get away from the disfunctional nut fraction.The Tea Party makes the neo-cons look good by comparison, just as Scrubbia made Nixon look good ... (though his face still looks like a foot⁽¹⁾).Enjoy

---

Notes:⁽¹⁾ - George Carlin comment

Amen brotha Rahvin amenbut you preachin to the choir, man. I pay $1,250.00 a month and cannot afford to NOT have health insurance because of my incurable cancer with annual cat-scans that run over $5,000.00 at shot if you don't have coverage ... if I banked my premium and went "self-pay" for a year I would break even -- as long as the cancer did not come back. So why not we organize all like minded people to form a non-profit organization\club\association that provides health care for all members (similar to AARP?). Get registered democrats, like minded libertarians and fiscal conservatives, small businesses etc to join ... maybe 100+ million strong and growing ...Joining is voluntary, there is a monthly fee, but membership has privileges.We don't need no steenken approval from TeaPee'ers and Evangelical GOPs, we meet the requirements of the Obama Care Plan for coverages.Change by evolution not revolution! (waves red banner with a footed fetish⁽¹⁾ ... ) Enjoy

---

Notes:
⁽¹⁾ - as opposed to a foot food fetid dish Edited by Zen Deist, : ..

Hi crashfrog, You do realize that there are more than two parties in the elections AND that there are independents in both house and senate, yes?You do realize that the reason that there are two party in dominant positions is because of flaws in the election process. Flaws that show up whenever there are more than two candidates representing sufficient numbers of people that the choice of which one is more difficult. You do know that mathematical analysis shows that one bad choice against to moderate choices can get elected when the votes for the moderate candidates are split, yes? If you need (or anyone else needs) edification on this look at the Governor of California election when Arnold was elected: the sheer number of democratic etc candidates made the single block of voters for the single GOP candidate a shoe in before the votes were counted -- not because he was a better candidate but because the rest of the vote was watered away.In elections like this, if we MUST stick to a single vote system, it would be better to be able to vote against the worst pick so that you get either a good enough or a better candidate.Personally I think the PRIMARIES should be run on a "vote them off the island" reality show basis, winnowing out the worst party pick at each one, to end up with the best two or three top choices, and the final vote be a single vote against the worst choice.It would also be interesting if any party with more than 30% of the nation membership would be required to put forward two candidates for each position. In the last election I could have voted for Obama and my wife could have voted for Hillary. Think what that would do for second term elections.But to make an election WORK when there are more than two viable candidates we would have to have at least a [first pick vote] AND a [second pick vote] or a [best candidate vote] and a [worst candidate 'veto'].⁽¹⁾ If they converge in PRACTICE - once in congress - on the construction and passage of legislation then we have compromises that, while not perfect to either party, DO accomplish the goals of legislation.The process of compromise was embraced by the founding fathers as a way to accomplish BETTER legislation than any one person alone could provide. This of course, was before parties arose and became fixed into a system where two parties dominate the elections. And when the polarization reaches the point where neither party is able to pass any legislation because they are held hostage by the other for amendments that are not acceptable to the party in power -- when nothing gets done year after year, president after president -- does THAT serve the people's interest?Do you think that if the GOP was reduced to 40% in the house and senate that they would stop their obstructionist at all cost behavior or would they become even more hostile and entrenched?Cognitive dissonance theory says they will become increasingly hostile and entrenched. And if both parties are full of obstructionist bums and the SYSTEM prevents good candidates from getting elected what do you do? Not vote and hope? Protest? Revolt?Vote for Pat Paulsen? (that would be a trick eh?)Or actively work within the system for positive change to a better system rather than just ACCEPT the system we have with all it's flaws? Enjoy

---

Notes:

​

⁽¹⁾ -
there are several mathematically tested ways of voting for multiple candidates that will result in the best candidate for all voters being selected -- we do not have such a system.