One party control

[JakeStarkey]

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.

That is solved by constitutional, electoral process, Redfish, and my party had to suffer through many years of JFK, LBY, JC, and GOP minorities in Congress.

Yet we survived.

And we will survive this as well.

The tyranny of minority in Congress may never rule. Ever.

 

[ilia25]

I absolutely prefer the "plodding along" of our system as compared to the system that is now being bandied about by liberals - a one party dictatorship

Do you have a specific example of a "one party dictatorship"? What I mean by a better system is something like what they have in UK (or in most European democracies, though the British model is the best). I don't think Canada can be described as a one party dictatorship. But they do allow one party to take full control over the government, so the party agenda can be properly implemented and its vision tested.

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

 

[Vox]

I absolutely prefer the "plodding along" of our system as compared to the system that is now being bandied about by liberals - a one party dictatorship

Do you have a specific example of a "one party dictatorship"? What I mean by a better system is something like what they have in UK (or in most European democracies, though the British model is the best). I don't think Canada can be described as a one party dictatorship. But they do allow one party to take full control over the government, so the party agenda can be properly implemented and its vision tested.

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

we neither are the UK or any other European country, so you can not provide them as an example. Not to even mention that they are not single party ruled ( except Eastern European countries under socialistic regimes before 1989)

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

Whattya talkin' about? You ever heard of a place called the USSR?

Not to mention, South Africa is reportedly not doing so hot lately because the ruling ANC has not strong alternative, at least at the moment. Without decent competition, there's no real reason to fear failure.

Erik, you're a fucking hypocrite. You wholeheartedly support permanent one party Leftist rule in the US. you are not fooling anyone.

And you're a fucking stupid wingnut, which is why you come to that conclusion. As usual, you know what you can do with it.

No, shit for brains. I am telling the truth about Liberals.

 

[ilia25]

I absolutely prefer the "plodding along" of our system as compared to the system that is now being bandied about by liberals - a one party dictatorship

Do you have a specific example of a "one party dictatorship"? What I mean by a better system is something like what they have in UK (or in most European democracies, though the British model is the best). I don't think Canada can be described as a one party dictatorship. But they do allow one party to take full control over the government, so the party agenda can be properly implemented and its vision tested.

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

we neither are the UK or any other European country, so you can not provide them as an example. Not to even mention that they are not single party ruled ( except Eastern European countries under socialistic regimes before 1989)

You mean Canadians are some kind of different species? And no, they are not single party ruled -- that is also my point. You don't have to choose between an often paralyzed government and a "one party rule" dictatorship.

There is third way -- a parliamentary democracy that makes it much easier for one party to take full control over government while allowing the voters to elect the opposition party if they so choose.

 

[ilia25]

And you're a fucking stupid wingnut

Please stop feeding it.

 

[Contumacious]

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

After reading , among others the CATO Journal, the Founding Fathers determined that gridlocks were best.

6,000,000 millions Jews would be alive today if Hitler had to pass his Final Solution by a congress.

.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I absolutely prefer the "plodding along" of our system as compared to the system that is now being bandied about by liberals - a one party dictatorship

Do you have a specific example of a "one party dictatorship"? What I mean by a better system is something like what they have in UK (or in most European democracies, though the British model is the best). I don't think Canada can be described as a one party dictatorship. But they do allow one party to take full control over the government, so the party agenda can be properly implemented and its vision tested.

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

Sure! The USSR. China. Iran. North Korea.

You equate a "better system" as the UK. I disagree. I (personally) prefer the system that America has and would fight - tooth and nail - those who "believe they know better" about the ways to "change" our system of government. And, yes, there are those reactionaries in this country who would love to change America to fit their "needs"; as the bolsheviks did in Russia.

As to having it BOTH ways - we have had it BOTH ways from our inception until recently (30 or so years) when our "leaders" began to circumvent our very laws at will, in order to further their hidden agendas. They tell us that our "Constitution is a dated document". This, coupled with the social engineering that has been taking place in our public schools has led to a generation that is looking to "change" a perfect system, rather than dumping these so-called "leaders" who are seeking to destroy from within.

In other words, they put party above country. They put agenda's above country, They put ideology above patriotism. They put the needs of the few over the needs of the many.

No. I'll stick with the system that has been the envy of the world for well over 200 years. And you know, I think that - bottom line - that is what what bothers so many people today. They despise the fact that America, with all it's faults, is still the envy of the world. It grates on them (collectively) and they do what "little people do"; they strike out, They don't want to be great. Being great requires responsibility and frankly, these small-minded people just can't handle it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

After reading , among others the CATO Journal, the Founding Fathers determined that gridlocks were best.

6,000,000 millions Jews would be alive today if Hitler had to pass his Final Solution by a congress.

.

Bravo!

 

[francoHFW]

After the BOOOSH and Reaganomics disaster, there should be Dem rule for a while- Only through un-American propagandizing and fear mongering, extortion by ruining the economy, and radical gerrymandering have new bs, no compromise Pubs avoided the will of the majority. A disgrace.

 

[EriktheRed]

And you're a fucking stupid wingnut

Please stop feeding it.

I shouldn't.


But he is.

 

[Seawytch]

One party control is working in California.

http://rackjite.com/new-rules-bill-maher-california-exceptionalism-sept-27-2013/

Tea Party Free works.

 

[Vox]

Do you have a specific example of a "one party dictatorship"? What I mean by a better system is something like what they have in UK (or in most European democracies, though the British model is the best). I don't think Canada can be described as a one party dictatorship. But they do allow one party to take full control over the government, so the party agenda can be properly implemented and its vision tested.

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

we neither are the UK or any other European country, so you can not provide them as an example. Not to even mention that they are not single party ruled ( except Eastern European countries under socialistic regimes before 1989)

You mean Canadians are some kind of different species? And no, they are not single party ruled -- that is also my point. You don't have to choose between an often paralyzed government and a "one party rule" dictatorship.

There is third way -- a parliamentary democracy that makes it much easier for one party to take full control over government while allowing the voters to elect the opposition party if they so choose.

yes, they are. they have the different government set up and we, Americans, could care less about it
and we do not want parliamentary democracy.
we are a Constitutional Republic. Period.

 

[Vox]

I absolutely prefer the "plodding along" of our system as compared to the system that is now being bandied about by liberals - a one party dictatorship

Do you have a specific example of a "one party dictatorship"? What I mean by a better system is something like what they have in UK (or in most European democracies, though the British model is the best). I don't think Canada can be described as a one party dictatorship. But they do allow one party to take full control over the government, so the party agenda can be properly implemented and its vision tested.

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

Sure! The USSR. China. Iran. North Korea.

You equate a "better system" as the UK. I disagree. I (personally) prefer the system that America has and would fight - tooth and nail - those who "believe they know better" about the ways to "change" our system of government. And, yes, there are those reactionaries in this country who would love to change America to fit their "needs"; as the bolsheviks did in Russia.

As to having it BOTH ways - we have had it BOTH ways from our inception until recently (30 or so years) when our "leaders" began to circumvent our very laws at will, in order to further their hidden agendas. They tell us that our "Constitution is a dated document". This, coupled with the social engineering that has been taking place in our public schools has led to a generation that is looking to "change" a perfect system, rather than dumping these so-called "leaders" who are seeking to destroy from within.

In other words, they put party above country. They put agenda's above country, They put ideology above patriotism. They put the needs of the few over the needs of the many.

No. I'll stick with the system that has been the envy of the world for well over 200 years. And you know, I think that - bottom line - that is what what bothers so many people today. They despise the fact that America, with all it's faults, is still the envy of the world. It grates on them (collectively) and they do what "little people do"; they strike out, They don't want to be great. Being great requires responsibility and frankly, these small-minded people just can't handle it.

well said.

 

[RandallFlagg]

we neither are the UK or any other European country, so you can not provide them as an example. Not to even mention that they are not single party ruled ( except Eastern European countries under socialistic regimes before 1989)

You mean Canadians are some kind of different species? And no, they are not single party ruled -- that is also my point. You don't have to choose between an often paralyzed government and a "one party rule" dictatorship.

There is third way -- a parliamentary democracy that makes it much easier for one party to take full control over government while allowing the voters to elect the opposition party if they so choose.

yes, they are. they have the different government set up and we, Americans, could care less about it
and we do not want parliamentary democracy.
we are a Constitutional Republic. Period.

Few years back, I walked out on my front porch to enjoy a glass of sweet tea and enjoy the sunshine. My Son had his radio on and I heard the most God-Awful noise that I have ever heard....granted, I grew up on Charlie Parker, Aretha Franklin, Motown and whatnot...anyway, I yell at the kid, "What the hell is that horrible sound!?!"

He says "It's a Canadian band called 'Rush".

Told me all I needed to know about Canadians.....

 

[ilia25]

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

After reading , among others the CATO Journal, the Founding Fathers determined that gridlocks were best.

6,000,000 millions Jews would be alive today if Hitler had to pass his Final Solution by a congress.

.

That is beside the point -- by the time Hitler ordered the Final Solution the democracy in Germany was long gone.

But we are not debating democracy vs dictatorship. I am arguing that there are better system of government than what we have in the US -- just as good at preserving democracy, but much better at allowing the government to function.

 

[Contumacious]

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

After reading , among others the CATO Journal, the Founding Fathers determined that gridlocks were best.

6,000,000 millions Jews would be alive today if Hitler had to pass his Final Solution by a congress.

.

That is beside the point -- by the time Hitler ordered the Final Solution the democracy in Germany was long gone.

Why was "democracy" gone?

Wasn't it because the Bismarck and Weimar administrations convinced Germans that they could let their guard down because paternalistic bureaucrats had their best interest at heart?

Isn't that the same bullshit that is being advocated today here in the US....chill because the Obama-Reid-Pelosi axis will take care of us ?

But we are not debating democracy vs dictatorship. .

Oh, yes we are.

Tyranny by the majority is tyranny nevertheless.

.

 

[RandallFlagg]

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

After reading , among others the CATO Journal, the Founding Fathers determined that gridlocks were best.

6,000,000 millions Jews would be alive today if Hitler had to pass his Final Solution by a congress.

.

That is beside the point -- by the time Hitler ordered the Final Solution the democracy in Germany was long gone.

But we are not debating democracy vs dictatorship. I am arguing that there are better system of government than what we have in the US -- just as good at preserving democracy, but much better at allowing the government to function.

You will most likely take this as an attack - it is not. However, I can't help but wonder that if there are so many "better systems of government" as you are claiming, why not relocate to one of those "perfect" countries?

Look. I'm a black man. I grew up in the 50s and 60s. I KNOW what discrimination looks like. I KNOW what repression looks like. I went through my teens with a pretty large chip on my shoulder. However, funny thing happened. I joined the Army and went to VietNam. When I came home, I retrained as a CI operative and worked in that field for the next 20 years. I lived in the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Albania.

I began to see that EVERYONE in those countries was going through the same repression, discrimination, criminalization, demonization and demoralization as blacks were going through in the 60s. The ONLY people in those countries that were above reproach were the politically elite. The political "kings and queens" lived very, very well while everyone else picked up the tab for their lifestyle.

Again - I'll stick to this system, thank you. As much as I detest our current crop of politicians (on both sides), I will take these incompetent fools any day of the week and three times on Sunday over the alternative.

 

[ilia25]

I absolutely prefer the "plodding along" of our system as compared to the system that is now being bandied about by liberals - a one party dictatorship

Do you have a specific example of a "one party dictatorship"? What I mean by a better system is something like what they have in UK (or in most European democracies, though the British model is the best). I don't think Canada can be described as a one party dictatorship. But they do allow one party to take full control over the government, so the party agenda can be properly implemented and its vision tested.

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

Sure! The USSR. China. Iran. North Korea.

Those are not democracies.

No. I'll stick with the system that has been the envy of the world for well over 200 years.

No, it hasn't. Those trying to implement presidential system end up with either similar gridlocks -- like France -- or, more often, the gridlocks are resolved when the President simply usurps all the power, like Putin did in Russia.

This system was bad from the start. Its drawback are showing up lately because the pace of change is accelerating. Sure you can fight for it tooth and nail, just as you may jump from the roof -- it's your choice, but it is bad for you.

 

[Vox]

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

After reading , among others the CATO Journal, the Founding Fathers determined that gridlocks were best.

6,000,000 millions Jews would be alive today if Hitler had to pass his Final Solution by a congress.

.

That is beside the point -- by the time Hitler ordered the Final Solution the democracy in Germany was long gone.

But we are not debating democracy vs dictatorship. I am arguing that there are better system of government than what we have in the US -- just as good at preserving democracy, but much better at allowing the government to function.

Nope. They are not.
otherwise there won't be constant corruption scandals in Europe or economic problems there as well.
And this is pointless as we are quite happy with the way things are set up here.
Despite what the leftard loons want you to believe - nobody sane wants to change the Constitution in any other way as it is designed.
Does it mean we have it all nice and peachy?
Of course, not.
We have this atrocity called "zero tolerance policies" which is a nazi-style grip of the lazy administrators over our kids and other people, we have an overzealous police enforcement and so on and so on.
But you have that too, so those problems can be discussed.
The way our county is designed - no.