lol Pretty simple SPF.  Some of us understand it's just someone else's opinion and they have their right to their opinion. Other folks believe their opinion should be shared by everyone; if you disagree, they feel you're wrong or ill informed. At that point, they feel the need "educate" you on what's right. lol Unlike certain forum member(s) who use the ploy of educating us that everything PSU sucks, when they're actually only posting to agitate folks.

When it comes to politics I think we've gotten to a point in this country where the fringe left and fringe right both believe they are right, and the other is ACTIVELY trying to sabotage the country.

Everyone else is caught in the middle and wondering what all the fuss is about, and can have civil agreements. However, those fringe parts are the loudest mofos out there and they are what the news focuses on. 

I think the major cause of the problem with politics is the elitist talking heads (both liberal & conservative) who feel the need to convert the other side to their way of thinking.  As far as religion, I think there is a firm conviction (held by the vast majority of "believers") that there is only one true God as portrayed by their particular faith.  Again, they feel the need to convert the others to their way of believing.  Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Man that’s a great point Roam and that might be the reason why the forefathers made it so hard to get anything done. Rather it’s Democrats or Republicans it’s like pulling teeth to get anything done but that might be a good thing.

It's more than just elitists.

In the 1980's, Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal would go over to the White House and have dinner with the Ronald Reagan. After dinner, they would have a few belts and before long they would be singing old Irish songs together. On Monday, they would be back at each other, but they knew how to let their guard down and appreciate each other as people. 

Several years ago when the movie "Lincoln" came out, Barack Obama invited the Republican leaders in the House and Senate over to watch the movie together. Nobody showed up. That says a lot about how far we've regressed in 30 years. 

If two politicians of the opposite party are seen having as much as cup of coffee together in a public place today, they are ostracized. If we want to actually solve problems in this country, we need to find some middle ground. That is how it was done in the past. Finding that middle ground starts with respect and tolerance. 

There was a perfect opportunity a few years ago when Steve Scalise was shot practicing for the annual baseball game. If they really want to show more bipartisanship, the congress could have done what we did when we were kids and played a pick-up game where the two teams contained members of both parties. I don't think that sort of idea enters their minds. 

That's my two cents. 

Posted by: Who's on first

It's more than just elitists.

In the 1980's, Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal would go over to the White House and have dinner with the Ronald Reagan. After dinner, they would have a few belts and before long they would be singing old Irish songs together. On Monday, they would be back at each other, but they knew how to let their guard down and appreciate each other as people. 

Several years ago when the movie "Lincoln" came out, Barack Obama invited the Republican leaders in the House and Senate over to watch the movie together. Nobody showed up. That says a lot about how far we've regressed in 30 years. 

If two politicians of the opposite party are seen having as much as cup of coffee together in a public place today, they are ostracized. If we want to actually solve problems in this country, we need to find some middle ground. That is how it was done in the past. Finding that middle ground starts with respect and tolerance. 

There was a perfect opportunity a few years ago when Steve Scalise was shot practicing for the annual baseball game. If they really want to show more bipartisanship, the congress could have done what we did when we were kids and played a pick-up game where the two teams contained members of both parties. I don't think that sort of idea enters their minds. 

That's my two cents. 

I believe our politicians in the House have gotten this way because of the ridiculous Gerrymandering which escalated in the late 90s, leading to the House electing more and more extreme candidates. Even the moderates adapted by moving either left or right, because they were threatened with being primaried by their own party if they didn't adopt more extreme views.

Honestly, I think a lot of this stuff could be handled if we just stopped the Gerrymandering nonsense. Many of our districts are 90% republican or 90% democrat, with their boundaries making zero sense at all. Getting back to natural, common sense boundaries would cut down on such overloaded districts and bring candidates back to more common ground, because they would need the support in the middle to win.

When things are so tilted to one side or the other, usually bad things start to happen. IMO

Get rid of the two party system. It’s corrupt and preventing the country from getting things accomplished. Go back and look at elections like when Lincoln won. There were multiple candidates on the ticket. There was even several different versions of Republican candidates. It will never happen because the two party system is so money driven, but something has to change. Too many people simply vote one way or another based on if the candidate has an R or a D behind their name. 

I agree with Roam that gerrymandering is a big part of the problem. I disagree that a majority of the districts are 90% anything. A well-planned gerrymander has districts that are made up of individuals who vote slightly more than 50% for one party (maybe 53-58%?). That way you can make a whole bunch of those districts and a few districts that vote 90% for the other party. In the computer age, the district lines can be placed with surgical precision. That is why North Carolina, where 53% of the ballots were cast for Republican candidates for US House seats statewide in 2016, has 10 Republican and 3 Democratic representatives. The person responsible for the gerrymander said the reason why it is 10-3 is because they haven't yet figured out how to make it 11-2. But they still had to resort to playing games to win the 9th district in the last election. The problem is Maryland is with Democratic gerrymandering. This won't change  until the Supreme Court decides to do something about it. 

As far as ending the two party system, 99 you make it sound as if this is something that was planned or legislated. It actually grew over time. People run for office to win. They know that third party candidates don't win. Also, if you have multiple parties, what do you do in a situation when no candidate receives a simple majority of the vote for president. For most elections, you go to a runoff with the two top vote getters. But it takes time to print ballots or setup voting machines. That is why we have the Electoral College for presidential elections. But the Electoral College has other drawbacks. The parliamentary system used by other countries has problems with coalition governments. 

Money is the biggest culprit. Look at how much is spent for elections. The Supreme Court has said that financial controls violate individuals' freedom of speech. The Super PACs run everything. And the identities of the individuals paying for them is fairly well-hidden. Perhaps a law requiring every Super PAC to publicly disclose a list of contributors and how much they contributed would be helpful. Politicians from both parties don't want that kind of transparency. 

I’ve done pretty good under all presidents since Ronald Reagan and my life is great right now so IMO the 2 party system works pretty good but regardless who the president is I’m pulling for him to do good. I’d rather Trump win in 2020 but if he loses I’ll be pulling  for the next president. You really have to be an idiot to want your president to do bad even if you don’t believe in everything he does. I honestly believe it’s the media that’s the problem not the presidents because if you look at the lives we get to live in the country it’s pretty dang good but we can also thank out great military and the men and women that serve. 

How about all primaries on the same day followed by the general election 45 days later??

Shortening the campaign season would certainly get my vote. US House members spend more time campaigning for the next election than doing their jobs. 

Posted by: Southern psu fan

I’ve done pretty good under all presidents since Ronald Reagan and my life is great right now so IMO the 2 party system works pretty good but regardless who the president is I’m pulling for him to do good. I’d rather Trump win in 2020 but if he loses I’ll be pulling  for the next president. You really have to be an idiot to want your president to do bad even if you don’t believe in everything he does. I honestly believe it’s the media that’s the problem not the presidents because if you look at the lives we get to live in the country it’s pretty dang good but we can also thank out great military and the men and women that serve. 

I agree with all your saying, Southern, especially the part about the media.  These elitist talking heads are heck bent on telling us what we should think and if we don't see it their way, we are just stupid deplorables!

Posted by: Who's on first

I agree with Roam that gerrymandering is a big part of the problem. I disagree that a majority of the districts are 90% anything. A well-planned gerrymander has districts that are made up of individuals who vote slightly more than 50% for one party (maybe 53-58%?). That way you can make a whole bunch of those districts and a few districts that vote 90% for the other party. In the computer age, the district lines can be placed with surgical precision. That is why North Carolina, where 53% of the ballots were cast for Republican candidates for US House seats statewide in 2016, has 10 Republican and 3 Democratic representatives. The person responsible for the gerrymander said the reason why it is 10-3 is because they haven't yet figured out how to make it 11-2. But they still had to resort to playing games to win the 9th district in the last election. The problem is Maryland is with Democratic gerrymandering. This won't change  until the Supreme Court decides to do something about it. 

As far as ending the two party system, 99 you make it sound as if this is something that was planned or legislated. It actually grew over time. People run for office to win. They know that third party candidates don't win. Also, if you have multiple parties, what do you do in a situation when no candidate receives a simple majority of the vote for president. For most elections, you go to a runoff with the two top vote getters. But it takes time to print ballots or setup voting machines. That is why we have the Electoral College for presidential elections. But the Electoral College has other drawbacks. The parliamentary system used by other countries has problems with coalition governments. 

Money is the biggest culprit. Look at how much is spent for elections. The Supreme Court has said that financial controls violate individuals' freedom of speech. The Super PACs run everything. And the identities of the individuals paying for them is fairly well-hidden. Perhaps a law requiring every Super PAC to publicly disclose a list of contributors and how much they contributed would be helpful. Politicians from both parties don't want that kind of transparency. 

90% was more of an exaggeration to make my point. I know they are loaded to the point that no one has a chance of winning except the party in power.

To your other point, I'd love to see the House of Representatives go to a 4 or 6 year term... this would allow them to get more done without worrying about re-election every single cycle.

Also, get it over with and make this a full-time job. It's pretty ridiculous that in this day and age it's still treated as part-time, like they have other jobs that they do in the meantime. They should be working full-time on the country, no months off or any other of this nonsense. of course they could take holidays and sick leave, but just like any other full-time job.

About the two party system, I know it's not legislated but I would like to point out that there are things in place that keep the two party system in place. one major one is the current authority on presidential debates, where a conglomerate of the two parties are responsible for putting it all together. there's also a threshold where third parties have to get a certain amount in the polls in order to get on stage, and those thresholds are set by the two parties in charge. kind of a stacked deck