Why Republians can't pull away in the election

[JakeStarkey]

Pound sand, guys: it's over for the far right. Rush and Mark know far more than you squids.

Mark Levin 8220 The Republican Party is a liberal neo-statist party 8221 Mofo Politics

They talk about repealing Obamacare out of one side of their mouth, and on the other side, even if we win the House back– likely– win the Senate back– likely– they’re already telling you they can’t do anything!

…

They’re intellectual cowards.

Republican victory is conservative defeat.

A Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will guarantee:

1. Obamacare will never be repealed
2. Amnesty

 

[Rikurzhen]

America didn't manage to establish a third party, and we are paying for it now really.

Three is a very unstable number in a social realm in that it allows two parties to gang up on the third and erase it.
Also, the only viable way to any sort of 3rd party equilibrium is to have the party be the party of the center. If at any time the party veered off center it would result in a splitting of the vote on the side it veered to and thus make the other party relatively more competitive. Even at center, the two other parties would be chipping away at the borders.

when us patriots rebuild after the collapse, I hope our new nation will use proportional representation to correct what has happened here...

...all three branches of government have been infiltrated and corrupted and neither party is any different.
They work hand in hand with each other to undermine our country.
Corrections will be made, though.

What we need is a King of sorts, or some institutional mechanism which mimics the interests of a King. What are the interests of a King? The long term asset value of the nation. A King owns his country like a person owns a home. Our present system puts a President in charge but the President, representing the will of the voters (theoretical) doesn't give a damn about the long term asset value of the nation, he only cares about maximizing his influence during time in office and then he hands off the nation to the next President. This is like being given a credit cards and passing the bill onto the next guy. How do you imagine that this affects the choices made and the decisions made on mundane affairs and programs?

After a collapse it would be idiocy to repeat the mistakes which led us to the collapse. There needs to be a balance between the will of the people and the interests of future generations. Robbing future generations, by burdening them with debt, so that the present generation can live beyond its means, it a disastrous freedom to give to people. We've shown that we're not responsible enough to manage our own affairs responsibly, so we really need to find a way to limit our options. A King, or institutions which mimic the function, absolutely need to be implemented. A homeowner manages his real estate for the long run, he doesn't skip paying the mortgage for 4 years and then have his Dad come in and bail him out.

 

[Rotagilla]

whatever system is adopted, the politicians will be watched VERY closely.
I propose that any public servant that is convicted of corruption AUTOMATICALLY receives DOUBLE the max sentence that a citizen would receive.
THAT will cool their jets...I also like the chinese method where they immediately march them outside and "term limit" them with a 9mm...but we'll keep that in reserve in case double sentences don't work.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Close the damned border and rigidly enforce all immigration laws immediately.

Yeah, all those brown people are ruining America. That'll surely fix everything......

It'll stop illegal immigration, won't it?

Why do you think it's a good idea to have open borders?

This country has always welcomed anybody who wanted to come here and build a better life for themselves. If there are no jobs here for them they won't come.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How could a male vote democrat?

They're obsessed with education, science, and infrastructure.

 

[Pete7469]

Everything is in your favor. Midterm for a lame duck who's unpopular and has a six year track record of failure. The only people who like Obamacare were going to vote for him anyway. The allure of the first black President is over and people feel free now to oppose him without being labeled a racist.

Best case for you is you win a lot of close elections and take the Senate. It shouldn't be this hard, but you're doing it to yourself. How to right the ship.

1) Your obsession with abortion. Stop with the government solution. Take responsibility for it yourself. Offer counseling and alternatives and preach morality, don't run to government to do it for you with force.

2) The endless wars. We're tired of it, it never ends. It's draining our economy and killing our children. The fracking boom is a great chance to be the focus on home party. Say we don't need middle east oil and let the extremists know they leave us alone, we leave them alone. They attack us, we'll open a can of whoop ass. Then let the Euroweenies get their own oil.

3) Money. People are fiscally conservative when they understand the issues. When you get power, you try to outspend the liberals. Explain the issues, don't act like Democrats.

It really is that simple. You don't offer any clear alternative to the Democrats. Except abortion, which you won't shut up about.

The only point I would take issue with you on is #2. We're at war with these flea bitten psycopaths whether we want to be or not. We can't "just leave them alone". I don't know what the solution to jihad is, that most people would find palateable.

 

[hipeter924]

America didn't manage to establish a third party, and we are paying for it now really.

Three is a very unstable number in a social realm in that it allows two parties to gang up on the third and erase it.
Also, the only viable way to any sort of 3rd party equilibrium is to have the party be the party of the center. If at any time the party veered off center it would result in a splitting of the vote on the side it veered to and thus make the other party relatively more competitive. Even at center, the two other parties would be chipping away at the borders.

I would disagree, as a third (or even fourth party) is what would keep the political system honest, and motivate Republicans and Democrats to do a good job - or lose their jobs to a third party.

As for their political vitality, there are plenty of countries with third parties that also have two dominant big parties - such as the UK having the Conservatives and Labour as two major parties, with the Liberal Democrats as well as UKIP as the third and fourth parties.

 

[Rotagilla]

Close the damned border and rigidly enforce all immigration laws immediately.

Yeah, all those brown people are ruining America. That'll surely fix everything......

It'll stop illegal immigration, won't it?

Why do you think it's a good idea to have open borders?

This country has always welcomed anybody who wanted to come here and build a better life for themselves. If there are no jobs here for them they won't come.

This country didn't welcome anybody who wanted to come.
Legal immigrants were screened for disease, sanity, literacy, criminal record, etc...


...but you try to divert the conversation and change the subject.
Let's focus.

I didn't ask you if this country "welcomed" anybody.
I didn't ask for your assessment of why you think they come.
I didn't ask about imaginary jobs or lack of them.

I asked you why you think it's a good idea to have open borders.

 

[Rotagilla]

America didn't manage to establish a third party, and we are paying for it now really.

Three is a very unstable number in a social realm in that it allows two parties to gang up on the third and erase it.
Also, the only viable way to any sort of 3rd party equilibrium is to have the party be the party of the center. If at any time the party veered off center it would result in a splitting of the vote on the side it veered to and thus make the other party relatively more competitive. Even at center, the two other parties would be chipping away at the borders.

I would disagree, as a third (or even fourth party) is what would keep the political system honest, and motivate Republicans and Democrats to do a good job - or lose their jobs to a third party.

As for their political vitality, there are plenty of countries with third parties that also have two dominant big parties - such as the UK having the Conservatives and Labour as two major parties, with the Liberal Democrats as well as UKIP as the third and fourth parties.

..and it's harder to corrupt three parties..ONE of them would ALWAYS be acting as a "watchdog" over the others is the way I can see it...but hell..let's have 5...8...10 parties each with proportional representation in some sort of central parliament or whatever...
As it is now in our broken, dysfunctional 2 party electoral system it's "winner take all".

If one side wins 51-49 it leaves 49% of the people out of the process essentially because the other side will ram through all the unpopular laws/policies it wants. ..and the typical attitude these past 6 years has been "We won. Get over it"...well, great..that's a fine way to run a country...and a part of the reason the end is in sight.

Theoretically we have congressmen and senators who would oppose and prevent that but in reality we all know it's just controlled opposition and political theater...
Government gets bigger, more intrusive, more oppressive, more expensive and more out of control no matter which side wins.

Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction.

 

[Pete7469]

America didn't manage to establish a third party, and we are paying for it now really.

Three is a very unstable number in a social realm in that it allows two parties to gang up on the third and erase it.
Also, the only viable way to any sort of 3rd party equilibrium is to have the party be the party of the center. If at any time the party veered off center it would result in a splitting of the vote on the side it veered to and thus make the other party relatively more competitive. Even at center, the two other parties would be chipping away at the borders.

I would disagree, as a third (or even fourth party) is what would keep the political system honest, and motivate Republicans and Democrats to do a good job - or lose their jobs to a third party.

As for their political vitality, there are plenty of countries with third parties that also have two dominant big parties - such as the UK having the Conservatives and Labour as two major parties, with the Liberal Democrats as well as UKIP as the third and fourth parties.

..and it's harder to corrupt three parties..ONE of them would ALWAYS be acting as a "watchdog" over the others is the way I can see it...but hell..let's have 5...8...10 parties each with proportional representation in some sort of central parliament or whatever...
As it is now in our broken, dysfunctional 2 party electoral system it's "winner take all".

If one side wins 51-49 it leaves 49% of the people out of the process essentially because the other side will ram through all the unpopular laws/policies it wants. ..and the typical attitude these past 6 years has been "We won. Get over it"...well, great..that's a fine way to run a country...and a part of the reason the end is in sight.

Theoretically we have congressmen and senators who would oppose and prevent that but in reality we all know it's just controlled opposition and political theater...
Government gets bigger, more intrusive, more oppressive, more expensive and more out of control no matter which side wins.

Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction.

The reason I don't support 3rd parties for the most part is this.

40% of the voters are complete imbeciles or parasites and they're controlled by the media/entertainment complex.

You will not divide that voting block easily or anytime soon. The remaining 30/30 split are struggling with how much freedom and responsibility they're willing to assume for themselves. Selling freedom is easy, reminding people of consequences is easy also. Divide the 30/30 into 2 parties and we will be as fucked up as the UK in 5 years.

The goal should be to persuade the 30% that are scared of the responsibility individual liberty brings, that it's worth the consequences of not having a nanny state to come in and blow kisses at them.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The reason I don't support 3rd parties for the most part is this.

40% of the voters are complete imbeciles or parasites and they're controlled by the media/entertainment complex.

You will not divide that voting block easily or anytime soon. The remaining 30/30 split are struggling with how much freedom and responsibility they're willing to assume for themselves. Selling freedom is easy, reminding people of consequences is easy also. Divide the 30/30 into 2 parties and we will be as fucked up as the UK in 5 years.

The goal should be to persuade the 30% that are scared of the responsibility individual liberty brings, that it's worth the consequences of not having a nanny state to come in and blow kisses at them.

Alternatively, work to introduce structural prohibitions on generating dependency. Return government back to it primary mission of providing common goods and make it legally impossible for government to engage in charity.

 

[Pete7469]

The reason I don't support 3rd parties for the most part is this.

40% of the voters are complete imbeciles or parasites and they're controlled by the media/entertainment complex.

You will not divide that voting block easily or anytime soon. The remaining 30/30 split are struggling with how much freedom and responsibility they're willing to assume for themselves. Selling freedom is easy, reminding people of consequences is easy also. Divide the 30/30 into 2 parties and we will be as fucked up as the UK in 5 years.

The goal should be to persuade the 30% that are scared of the responsibility individual liberty brings, that it's worth the consequences of not having a nanny state to come in and blow kisses at them.

Alternatively, work to introduce structural prohibitions on generating dependency. Return government back to it primary mission of providing common goods and make it legally impossible for government to engage in charity.

Indeed.

If we had constitutional amendments that prevented political whores from making laws that favor donors it would be a step in the right direction as well.