One party control

[Liberal]

no precedents???????? how about Germany under Hitler, Cuba under Castro, China under Mao, Venezuela under Chavez, Iran under the Ayatollah?

Quit being so ******* dramatic you baby. Our political climate, regardless of party will never result in that, Jesus.

Those circumstances are entirely different, you ask for an intelligent give/take conversation and then you immediately take any answer and jump off the deep end with it.

 

[Contumacious]

Since not one of you would answer my earlier question on this, let me put it in a new thread.

Do any of you believe that the country would be better off with one party in full control of the government? Yes or no and why.

No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this.

It is precisely my fear that the Democrats will end up controlling the Congress and the White House at the same time.

If they do so, it will be because the GOP steadfastly refuses to take out the trash. The GOP continues to run farther and farther into the extremes, embracing the in-house maniacs instead of kicking them to the curb.

We are now at the point where 30 percent of Republicans think the party is too extreme, compared to only 12 percent of Democrats thinking the same about their party.

And yet the retards think they are not being extreme enough!

I did not ask why one party might take control, I asked if you think it would be good or bad.

in 1787 , they believed that political parties were unnecessary because in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC rights are secured by the Constitution.

But that is no longer the case.

Our rights now depend on the will of the majority. So, until such time as the CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND ENFORCED we must try to defend our rights using the political system although I believe that eventually the people will necessarily conclude that violence is the only viable alternative.

.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Since not one of you would answer my earlier question on this, let me put it in a new thread.

Do any of you believe that the country would be better off with one party in full control of the government? Yes or no and why.

No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this.

Are you referring to a centralist government? No, of course not. I wish we had at least 4-5 well-organized national political parties instead of just two. That would result in even more Americans falling into the center and get rid of these far left and far right extremes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the People want a majority of one party in the House, and of the same party in the Senate, and of the same party as President,

what's your plan to thwart the will of the People, if you believe that doing so would serve some greater good?

 

[Redfish]

no precedents???????? how about Germany under Hitler, Cuba under Castro, China under Mao, Venezuela under Chavez, Iran under the Ayatollah?

Quit being so ******* dramatic you baby. Our political climate, regardless of party will never result in that, Jesus.

Those circumstances are entirely different, you ask for an intelligent give/take conversation and then you immediately take any answer and jump off the deep end with it.

Do you think that the average german in the 1930s didn't say that exact same thing? We are at a very critical time in the history of this nation. Denying it will speed up the destruction of everything that millions of americans died to protect.

 

[Redfish]

If the People want a majority of one party in the House, and of the same party in the Senate, and of the same party as President,

what's your plan to thwart the will of the People, if you believe that doing so would serve some greater good?

If the people vote for that kind of govt there is nothing that can be done. I asked if you thought it would be good or bad.

 

[Redfish]

Since not one of you would answer my earlier question on this, let me put it in a new thread.

Do any of you believe that the country would be better off with one party in full control of the government? Yes or no and why.

No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this.

Are you referring to a centralist government? No, of course not. I wish we had at least 4-5 well-organized national political parties instead of just two. That would result in even more Americans falling into the center and get rid of these far left and far right extremes.

The statists in power today want a centralist govt. I agree that the radicals on both sides should be minimized. I don't agree that the average tea party member is a radical.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

no precedents???????? how about Germany under Hitler, Cuba under Castro, China under Mao, Venezuela under Chavez, Iran under the Ayatollah?

Quit being so ******* dramatic you baby. Our political climate, regardless of party will never result in that, Jesus.

Those circumstances are entirely different, you ask for an intelligent give/take conversation and then you immediately take any answer and jump off the deep end with it.

It all starts out innocently enough....

 

[Redfish]

It is precisely my fear that the Democrats will end up controlling the Congress and the White House at the same time.

If they do so, it will be because the GOP steadfastly refuses to take out the trash. The GOP continues to run farther and farther into the extremes, embracing the in-house maniacs instead of kicking them to the curb.

We are now at the point where 30 percent of Republicans think the party is too extreme, compared to only 12 percent of Democrats thinking the same about their party.

And yet the retards think they are not being extreme enough!

I did not ask why one party might take control, I asked if you think it would be good or bad.

in 1787 , they believed that political parties were unnecessary because in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC rights are secured by the Constitution.

But that is no longer the case.

Our rights now depend on the will of the majority. So, until such time as the CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND ENFORCED we must try to defend our rights using the political system although I believe that eventually the people will necessarily conclude that violence is the only viable alternative.

.

good thoughts, how about if all elected representatives have to resign from any party once elected?

 

[Contumacious]

If the People want a majority of one party in the House, and of the same party in the Senate, and of the same party as President,

what's your plan to thwart the will of the People, if you believe that doing so would serve some greater good?

And who the **** defines "greater good"?

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the alternative is republicans that listen to tea party crazies???? YES!!!

as expected the first libtard posts bullshit. lets try again: No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this

Redfish, leave off your TeaP talking point.

Many in our GOP think the TeaPs have gone off the deep end, warned you what would happen, and now it is happening.

And NOW you want a conversation?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, you should read what the Founders had in mind sometime. The purpose of the government was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the mob.

Backwards, buddy.

The majority is trying to protect itself from the tyranny of the minority.

 

[cutter]

Let's put it this way...Tea party stupids are elected in districts that cook has in the R+9 to R+28 range usually...

They are elected in overwhelmingly white, old, religious districts that have extremely conservative views. They represent about ~10% of the House.

I don't see why ~10% of the House that comes from VERY conservative districts should be forcing their views onto the other 90% of the congress. I know I don't live in a uber-conservative district and I know the majority of America doesn't live in an uber-conservative districts...why should they be forcing us all to live by their means?

Those representatives and senators have one vote each. If they are only 10% as you say, how are they controlling the entire govt?

and you are wrong about white, old, and religious. But I understand that you cannot restrain yourself for repeating the dem/lib talking points.

Because the House can't vote on any measure with Boehner's approval. Boehner won't bring up any bill to vote unless the tea party approves...the Tea Party won't approve of even VOTING on any bill that doesn't defund/delay ACA...as we just saw yesterday two days before we hit the debt ceiling!!

and yeah, actually the "old, white, religous" claim does have some backing...just change "religious" with "uneducated" and you get that here

Where the G.O.P.'s Suicide Caucus Lives : The New Yorker

The members of the suicide caucus live in a different America from the one that most political commentators describe when talking about how the country is transforming. The average suicide-caucus district is seventy-five per cent white, while the average House district is sixty-three per cent white. Latinos make up an average of nine per cent of suicide-district residents, while the over-all average is seventeen per cent. The districts also have slightly lower levels of education (twenty-five per cent of the population in suicide districts have college degrees, while that number is twenty-nine per cent for the average district).

Do you like it better when Reed does it in the Senate?

 

[Nyvin]

Those representatives and senators have one vote each. If they are only 10% as you say, how are they controlling the entire govt?

and you are wrong about white, old, and religious. But I understand that you cannot restrain yourself for repeating the dem/lib talking points.

Because the House can't vote on any measure with Boehner's approval. Boehner won't bring up any bill to vote unless the tea party approves...the Tea Party won't approve of even VOTING on any bill that doesn't defund/delay ACA...as we just saw yesterday two days before we hit the debt ceiling!!

and yeah, actually the "old, white, religous" claim does have some backing...just change "religious" with "uneducated" and you get that here

Where the G.O.P.'s Suicide Caucus Lives : The New Yorker

The members of the suicide caucus live in a different America from the one that most political commentators describe when talking about how the country is transforming. The average suicide-caucus district is seventy-five per cent white, while the average House district is sixty-three per cent white. Latinos make up an average of nine per cent of suicide-district residents, while the over-all average is seventeen per cent. The districts also have slightly lower levels of education (twenty-five per cent of the population in suicide districts have college degrees, while that number is twenty-nine per cent for the average district).

Do you like it better when Reed does it in the Senate?

You see...in the senate there's this thing called a filibuster...

 

[Redfish]

When the alternative is republicans that listen to tea party crazies???? YES!!!

as expected the first libtard posts bullshit. lets try again: No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this

Redfish, leave off your TeaP talking point.

Many in our GOP think the TeaPs have gone off the deep end, warned you what would happen, and now it is happening.

And NOW you want a conversation?

the problem that the GOP rinos have is that a majority of republicans support what the tea party caucus is doing.

but back to the topic, is one party rule good or bad?----------theoretically, not based on what is going on today.

Would it be good or bad if one party controlled everything the govt did and the opposition was completely silenced?

 

[KGB]

ABSOLUTELY NOT! I have seen firsthand the effects of long term one party rule in my hometown of Pittsburgh. Pandering to special interests groups (in this case, Big Labor) caused the collapse of the steel industry. Even though the city has reinvented itself, it still hasn't reached its full potential due to 1 party rule. Plus, the Founders never intended for political parties in the first place. They wanted reps of the People, not the Parties.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Detroit

 

[Liberal]

OP asks for a rational discussion and focuses only on answers that stroke his talking points, but bashes others.

Gotta love the radical "we are headed in the same direction as *insert country here*" arguments and any answers involving violence as an option.

Give me a break, the republic is indirectly controlled by the will of the people. A society will always progress and change, just because a majority of the country has a changing opinion does not give you the right use violence to try and "conserve" your view that is becoming a minority.

Some win, some lose.. That's way the system works. Quit being babies.

 

[whitehall]

When the alternative is republicans that listen to tea party crazies???? YES!!!

There's your answer above. The nutty putty leftie dream. No argument and no checks and balances. How did it work out under Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini?

 

[Redfish]

OP asks for a rational discussion and focuses only on answers that stroke his talking points, but bashes others.

Gotta love the radical "we are headed in the same direction as *insert country here*" arguments and any answers involving violence as an option.

Give me a break, the republic is indirectly controlled by the will of the people. A society will always progress and change, just because a majority of the country has a changing opinion does not give you the right use violence to try and "conserve" your view that is becoming a minority.

Some win, some lose.. That's way the system works. Quit being babies.

Individual freedom and responsibility is not a minority view.

This is not about winning or losing an election. This is about whether the country is better or worse off if one party is given enough power to dictate its agenda on the entire country.

And remember, it might not be your party that is in control.