I can't imagine being a democrat

[Votto]

I mean really. They have really shown their butts of late, trashing everyone that they disagree with and plotting to overthrow a sitting President.

But if that were not bad enough, they have to defend the following:

1. Open border? Who in their right mind does not want a secure border? Who gets in is another topic altogether.
2. Higher taxes? Who wants higher taxes? It's not like the higher the taxes, the more free stuff we get. They make it sound like we have to obtain the funds first to redistribute when the reality is all they do is run deficits regardless.
3. Single payer system? The ink is not even dry on Obamacare and the same people that sold us those lies are not trying to sell us a Single payer system? Really?
4. There are really 56 some sexes? Using the term "man" and "woman" is offensive? You people are insane.
5. You miss Obama's foreign policy? Really? Mass genocide in Syria and subsequent mass immigration as Obama and the UN just watch? Libya was turned into an ISIS stronghold with a US ambassador murdered? North Korea making threats and flying missiles all over the Pacific with impunity? Drawing red lines in the sand with Syria that you back down from? Pulling completely out of Iraq and letting that become an ISIS stronghold? Giving Iran billions of dollars despite the fact they chant death to the US every day and spread terrorism all over the Middle East?
6. Legalize drugs? Really? In a country where about 200 people drop dead every day, you want it to be legalized and have more of it?

About the only thing I give Obama credit for is killing Bin Laden.

There, run on that Dims.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I try to troll another board as an ultra Liberal Democrat, it's a pain in the butt to stoop so low, but I have had a lot of pointers reading rderps, old rocks, Billy and the rest over the years... I always need a shower when I am done .lol.

 

[Votto]

I try to troll another board as an ultra Liberal Democrat, it's a pain in the butt to stoop so low, but I have had a lot of pointers reading rderps, old rocks, Billy and the rest over the years... I always need a shower when I am done .lol.

Damn. Why do you do that to yourself?

Doesn't it give you nightmares?

Do you have to go to a consoler?

 

[fncceo]

Being a Democrat is actually pretty easy ...

... Start as a Republican, then remove all sense of personal responsibility. Add a heaping, helping of outrage on everything.

Finally, never abandon the fervent belief that you, and only you, can save the world.

 

[SweetSue92]

I mean really. They have really shown their butts of late, trashing everyone that they disagree with and plotting to overthrow a sitting President.

But if that were not bad enough, they have to defend the following:

1. Open border? Who in their right mind does not want a secure border? Who gets in is another topic altogether.
2. Higher taxes? Who wants higher taxes? It's not like the higher the taxes, the more free stuff we get. They make it sound like we have to obtain the funds first to redistribute when the reality is all they do is run deficits regardless.
3. Single payer system? The ink is not even dry on Obamacare and the same people that sold us those lies are not trying to sell us a Single payer system? Really?
4. There are really 56 some sexes? Using the term "man" and "woman" is offensive? You people are insane.
5. You miss Obama's foreign policy? Really? Mass genocide in Syria and subsequent mass immigration as Obama and the UN just watch? Libya was turned into an ISIS stronghold with a US ambassador murdered? North Korea making threats and flying missiles all over the Pacific with impunity? Drawing red lines in the sand with Syria that you back down from? Pulling completely out of Iraq and letting that become an ISIS stronghold? Giving Iran billions of dollars despite the fact they chant death to the US every day and spread terrorism all over the Middle East?
6. Legalize drugs? Really? In a country where about 200 people drop dead every day, you want it to be legalized and have more of it?

About the only thing I give Obama credit for is killing Bin Laden.

There, run on that Dims.

Their policies suck and are terrible--which is redundant but I felt the need to say both. All they have left is character assassination and mobs. So that's what they do. They can't let America know where they really stand on issues because it's all horrible.

Even the FEW issues that sounds good at first blush--higher minimum wage, for example--a little scratch beneath the surface and that too is horrid. It's just all losing.

So, they mob and insult in hopes to distract. Truly awful. If Trump could stop tripping over his own shoelaces he'd win 2020 in a landslide.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Someone is obsessed.

 

[there4eyeM]

Yes, there is no defending the Democratic Party's performance. It, and the Republican Party, have brought America to an awful place.
If only there were an alternative!

 

[fncceo]

If only there were an alternative!

There are always alternatives. For the most part much worse than whatever they intend to replace.

 

[there4eyeM]

If only there were an alternative!

There are always alternatives. For the most part much worse than whatever they intend to replace.

Evidently, for the precision necessary to be sufficiently understood, 'genuine' should have been inserted before "alternative" in the quoted sentence.
The two party dictatorship must end if anything of value is to be done for America.

 

[fncceo]

If only there were an alternative!

There are always alternatives. For the most part much worse than whatever they intend to replace.

Evidently, for the precision necessary to be sufficiently understood, 'genuine' should have been inserted before "alternative" in the quoted sentence.
The two party dictatorship must end if anything of value is to be done for America.

Party isn't really the problem. In all systems, parties are less about political ideology and more about allocating resources for election. The range of political positions among members of both parties runs from radical firebrand to tepid moderate, most members of both parties tend to be moderates. Among the moderates of both parties, political ideologies tend to be the same ... get elected, pander to your base to stay elected ... rinse ... repeat ... cash the check.

The divisive rhetoric on both sides is rarely translated into political action ... it's merely pandering to a base to stay in power.

In countries with multiple political parties, moderate parties are always in power, just like here. But, in a multi-party parliamentary system, the moderate parties must make alliances (coalitions) with more radical parties in order to hold power.

In America, we have two parties that, despite the rhetoric, believe essentially in on fundamental thing ... holding on to power.

Adding a dozen or so splinter parties that end up creating tangled, incestuous relations between radical and moderate factions would lead to the kind of screwed up, morally and fiscally bankrupt, system with which Europe is currently saddled.

 

[there4eyeM]

If only there were an alternative!

There are always alternatives. For the most part much worse than whatever they intend to replace.

Evidently, for the precision necessary to be sufficiently understood, 'genuine' should have been inserted before "alternative" in the quoted sentence.
The two party dictatorship must end if anything of value is to be done for America.

Party isn't really the problem. In all systems, parties are less about political ideology and more about allocating resources for election. The range of political positions among members of both parties runs from radical firebrand to tepid moderate, most members of both parties tend to be moderates. Among the moderates of both parties, political ideologies tend to be the same ... get elected, pander to your base to stay elected ... rinse ... repeat ... cash the check.

The divisive rhetoric on both sides is rarely translated into political action ... it's merely pandering to a base to stay in power.

In countries with multiple political parties, moderate parties are always in power, just like here. But, in a multi-party parliamentary system, the moderate parties must make alliances (coalitions) with more radical parties in order to hold power.

In America, we have two parties that, despite the rhetoric, believe essentially in on fundamental thing ... holding on to power.

Adding a dozen or so splinter parties that end up creating tangled, incestuous relations between radical and moderate factions would lead to the kind of screwed up, morally and fiscally bankrupt, system with which Europe is currently saddled.

So, with democracy, we are either phuqued or skrude?
Opps, can't say "democracy"...republican government?
What genuine alternative, then, is there?

 

[LoneLaugher]

If only there were an alternative!

There are always alternatives. For the most part much worse than whatever they intend to replace.

Evidently, for the precision necessary to be sufficiently understood, 'genuine' should have been inserted before "alternative" in the quoted sentence.
The two party dictatorship must end if anything of value is to be done for America.

Yeah! I’d LOVE a viable third party! Maybe it could consist of white supremacists and anti-choice religious fanatics. Imagine a close 3 party race where only 34% of the vote is enough to win. That’s doable! We could be governed by proud boys!

 

[LoneLaugher]

For how many of America’s 222 years has it been a “2 party dictatorship”?

 

[there4eyeM]

For how many of America’s 222 years has it been a “2 party dictatorship”?

Since at least 1945.

 

[fncceo]

If only there were an alternative!

There are always alternatives. For the most part much worse than whatever they intend to replace.

Evidently, for the precision necessary to be sufficiently understood, 'genuine' should have been inserted before "alternative" in the quoted sentence.
The two party dictatorship must end if anything of value is to be done for America.

Party isn't really the problem. In all systems, parties are less about political ideology and more about allocating resources for election. The range of political positions among members of both parties runs from radical firebrand to tepid moderate, most members of both parties tend to be moderates. Among the moderates of both parties, political ideologies tend to be the same ... get elected, pander to your base to stay elected ... rinse ... repeat ... cash the check.

The divisive rhetoric on both sides is rarely translated into political action ... it's merely pandering to a base to stay in power.

In countries with multiple political parties, moderate parties are always in power, just like here. But, in a multi-party parliamentary system, the moderate parties must make alliances (coalitions) with more radical parties in order to hold power.

In America, we have two parties that, despite the rhetoric, believe essentially in on fundamental thing ... holding on to power.

Adding a dozen or so splinter parties that end up creating tangled, incestuous relations between radical and moderate factions would lead to the kind of screwed up, morally and fiscally bankrupt, system with which Europe is currently saddled.

So, with democracy, we are either phuqued or skrude?
Opps, can't say "democracy"...republican government?
What genuine alternative, then, is there?

Eventually, intelligent men and women will come to the realization that we don't require to be 'led' by leaders.

We will decide for ourselves that the functions of legislators should be limited to those required to maintaining of a legislative branch and not trying to steer our society in one direction or another.

Take power away from politicians and you remove their ability to be corrupt.

Of course, this alternative, will require a massive change in how we run our own lives when we can no longer depend on our 'leaders' to run them for us.

 

[Tehon]

If only there were an alternative!

There are always alternatives. For the most part much worse than whatever they intend to replace.

Evidently, for the precision necessary to be sufficiently understood, 'genuine' should have been inserted before "alternative" in the quoted sentence.
The two party dictatorship must end if anything of value is to be done for America.

Party isn't really the problem. In all systems, parties are less about political ideology and more about allocating resources for election. The range of political positions among members of both parties runs from radical firebrand to tepid moderate, most members of both parties tend to be moderates. Among the moderates of both parties, political ideologies tend to be the same ... get elected, pander to your base to stay elected ... rinse ... repeat ... cash the check.

The divisive rhetoric on both sides is rarely translated into political action ... it's merely pandering to a base to stay in power.

In countries with multiple political parties, moderate parties are always in power, just like here. But, in a multi-party parliamentary system, the moderate parties must make alliances (coalitions) with more radical parties in order to hold power.

In America, we have two parties that, despite the rhetoric, believe essentially in on fundamental thing ... holding on to power.

Adding a dozen or so splinter parties that end up creating tangled, incestuous relations between radical and moderate factions would lead to the kind of screwed up, morally and fiscally bankrupt, system with which Europe is currently saddled.

So, with democracy, we are either phuqued or skrude?
Opps, can't say "democracy"...republican government?
What genuine alternative, then, is there?

The only genuine alternative is to look beyond the political and see what economic relations form the basis for the political. That is where the true answer lies.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If only there were an alternative!

There are always alternatives. For the most part much worse than whatever they intend to replace.

Evidently, for the precision necessary to be sufficiently understood, 'genuine' should have been inserted before "alternative" in the quoted sentence.
The two party dictatorship must end if anything of value is to be done for America.

Party isn't really the problem. In all systems, parties are less about political ideology and more about allocating resources for election. The range of political positions among members of both parties runs from radical firebrand to tepid moderate, most members of both parties tend to be moderates. Among the moderates of both parties, political ideologies tend to be the same ... get elected, pander to your base to stay elected ... rinse ... repeat ... cash the check.

The divisive rhetoric on both sides is rarely translated into political action ... it's merely pandering to a base to stay in power.

In countries with multiple political parties, moderate parties are always in power, just like here. But, in a multi-party parliamentary system, the moderate parties must make alliances (coalitions) with more radical parties in order to hold power.

In America, we have two parties that, despite the rhetoric, believe essentially in on fundamental thing ... holding on to power.

Adding a dozen or so splinter parties that end up creating tangled, incestuous relations between radical and moderate factions would lead to the kind of screwed up, morally and fiscally bankrupt, system with which Europe is currently saddled.

So, with democracy, we are either phuqued or skrude?
Opps, can't say "democracy"...republican government?
What genuine alternative, then, is there?

Eventually, intelligent men and women will come to the realization that we don't require to be 'led' by leaders.

We will decide for ourselves that the functions of legislators should be limited to those required to maintaining of a legislative branch and not trying to steer our society in one direction or another.

Take power away from politicians and you remove their ability to be corrupt.

Of course, this alternative, will require a massive change in how we run our own lives when we can no longer depend on our 'leaders' to run them for us.

Man. You sure do have thoughts. They are off base, but you sure have them.

Take the money away from politicians and you at once remove their ability to be corrupt and ensure that their primary focus is to serve those they represent.

That whole “dependency” argument is just too damned tired. Have more faith in your fellow man.

 

[LoneLaugher]

For how many of America’s 222 years has it been a “2 party dictatorship”?

Since at least 1945.

I’d say.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Both parties to me are totally corrupt. I voted for Obama in 2008 but by 2010, I blew off him and the democrats. Republican has never been an option for me. I was for Bernie Sanders until he backed Hillary. I voted for Jill Stein of the green party in 2012 and 2016 until I saw this image;
`

`​

Apparently the Greens are just as corrupt as the other two parties. At this point, I'll vote for the best candidate available, including any independents.
`

 

[Mac1958]

`
Both parties to me are totally corrupt. I voted for Obama in 2008 but by 2010, I blew off him and the democrats. Republican has never been an option for me. I was for Bernie Sanders until he backed Hillary. I voted for Jill Stein of the green party in 2012 and 2016 until I saw this image;
`

`​

Apparently the Greens are just as corrupt as the other two parties. At this point, I'll vote for the best candidate available, including any independents.
`

Yeah, this is a shit show. I'll vote mostly Democrat locally and state-wide, but I'm done with the party nationally.

It'll be third party there. Whomever comes closest to my views, I'll just forgive the stuff I don't like.

Fuckin' horror movie.
.