"One Party Rule"

[dblack]

Do you want Dem 1-party rule, you commie fuck?

(1) I could never be a Democrat, (2) I'm not a "commie", I'm a better capitalist than you could ever dream of being, and (3) no, I don't want third party rule.

Is that simple enough for you, Trumpster?

Then you guys need to be getting behind Colin Powell or Liz Cheney to primary the President in 2024. That's our system, if there is enough disdain for President Trump by the time of the primaries, why wouldn't the party be willing to dump him and nominate someone who has really paid his due like the 4-star General? Those Republicans who oppose Powell could be literally crucified as "racists", as Gen. Powell's ability to get along with the media during the campaign are well known.

I'll let the Dems decide that. I'm hoping to be able to go back to voting third party.

Why throw your vote away on a 3rd Party?

Because it's better than voting dishonestly. It's better than throwing away my vote on shitty candidates just because fools like you say we must.

 

[schmidlap]

The people have no power. They are easily deceived.

You are authorized to speak for yourself, of course.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

If you have an alternative to democracy, you are free to proselytize.

 

[dblack]

I don't know what the GOP is right now, but I know it's ugly. And I disagree on too many issues.

I have intractable differences with the other party, too, and I see it getting worse because the GOP is giving it room with the madness it's currently experiencing.

That's the thing. With the GOP going "full retard", we have no legitimate push back against the Democrat's agenda. This will continue until the Republicans pull their pants back up and compose themselves. Or people get a clue and stop wasting their votes validating the duopoly.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know what the GOP is right now, but I know it's ugly. And I disagree on too many issues.

I have intractable differences with the other party, too, and I see it getting worse because the GOP is giving it room with the madness it's currently experiencing.

That's the thing. With the GOP going "full retard", we have no legitimate push back against the Democrat's agenda. This will continue until the Republicans pull their pants back up and compose themselves. Or people get a clue and stop wasting their votes validating the duopoly.

I have no idea how we get there from here.

 

[dblack]

Please explain why you're pointing at this as a bad thing.

Single party rule is bad because it does away with the need for consensus.

I know that, but it sure seems to me like both parties would like absolutely as much power as possible.

It's not like we hear a lot of talk about moderation or collaboration.

Of course. Neither party cares about government having too much power when they are in power. And they're too shortsighted to recognize that when they grab more power for themselves, the "other side" will eventually be in charge and have that extra power at their disposal.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I prefer checks and balances

That’s nice sixth grade civics material, but checks and balances don’t exist and haven’t for a long time.

In your deranged world that is true. At a the local town level they certainly do exist and work well.

I certainly wasn’t speaking of local governments, as you well know.

And hence they can exist on the federal level if the people actually voted correctly.

Lol. Voted correctly. Oh brother. You mean vote R and vote for dumb Don. Oh please.

I mean voted for people who aren't career politicians, regardless of party. No one in their right mind should vote for Liz Warren or AOC.

 

[Polishprince]

I don't know what the GOP is right now, but I know it's ugly. And I disagree on too many issues.

I have intractable differences with the other party, too, and I see it getting worse because the GOP is giving it room with the madness it's currently experiencing.

That's the thing. With the GOP going "full retard", we have no legitimate push back against the Democrat's agenda. This will continue until the Republicans pull their pants back up and compose themselves. Or people get a clue and stop wasting their votes validating the duopoly.

I have no idea how we get there from here.

It isn't that difficult at all. Just have the Republican Establishment tell the 75 million Little Trumpsters to beat it and change the rules to prevent upstarts from exerting pressure on their thing in the future.

A new, more moderate and compromising Republican Party that will get along with and cooperate with the Democrats will emerge.

 

[dblack]

It isn't that difficult at all. Just have the Republican Establishment tell the 75 million Little Trumpsters to beat it and change the rules to prevent upstarts from exerting pressure on their thing in the future.

I still think you're being sarcastic.

A new, more moderate and compromising Republican Party that will get along with and cooperate with the Democrats will emerge.

The last thing I want to see is a Republican Party that is more moderate and compromising. When I advocate for consensus in government, it's not because I want D's and R's to collaborate and pass legislation. In my view, each should be roadblocking the other as much as possible. The point I'm making is that no legislation should be passed unless there is broad consensus. Legislation passed by party line vote is bad for our country. We shouldn't be passing laws that half the country wants to repeal.

 

[dblack]

I mean voted for people who aren't career politicians, regardless of party. No one in their right mind should vote for Liz Warren or AOC.

After the last four years, I'm much more appreciative of "career politicians".

I certainly understand the downsides - I've complained about them plenty. But are "amateur hack politicians" to be preferred?

Seriously, if you get sick, would you rather have a "career doctor", or the guy who plays one on TV?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I mean voted for people who aren't career politicians, regardless of party. No one in their right mind should vote for Liz Warren or AOC.

After the last four years, I'm much more appreciative of "career politicians".

I certainly understand the downsides - I've complained about them plenty. But are "amateur hack politicians" to be preferred?

Seriously, if you get sick, would you rather have a "career doctor", or the guy who plays one on TV?

If the career doctor keeps allowing patients to die, I'll take a young doctor who just graduated from Harvard Medical School. We have plenty of young and bright politicians. I prefer Sinema over Romney for example.

 

[dblack]

I mean voted for people who aren't career politicians, regardless of party. No one in their right mind should vote for Liz Warren or AOC.

After the last four years, I'm much more appreciative of "career politicians".

I certainly understand the downsides - I've complained about them plenty. But are "amateur hack politicians" to be preferred?

Seriously, if you get sick, would you rather have a "career doctor", or the guy who plays one on TV?

If the career doctor keeps allowing patients to die, I'll take a young doctor who just graduated from Harvard Medical School. We have plenty of young and bright politicians. I prefer Sinema over Romney for example.

That's fine, and reasonable. Hopefully we're over the idea that colorful TV personalities and sports heroes make good civil servants.

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers ban me from threads the most for believing them the least.

 

[Dana7360]

I keep seeing this coming from the Right -- the notion that the Democrats are bad because they want "One Party Rule".

So, I'm curious: Does this mean the GOP does not want one-party rule, with them in charge of the White House, House and Senate?

If so, which one of those three would you be fine having the Democrats running?

Please explain why you're pointing at this as a bad thing.

They had total one party rule in the first 2 years of the trump administration.

They controlled the White House, the House of Reps, The Senate and the Supreme Court.

They had absolutely no problem with it. In fact they were overjoyed and believed that they would always have that control.

They believe they should always have full control of our government and nation.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I mean voted for people who aren't career politicians, regardless of party. No one in their right mind should vote for Liz Warren or AOC.

After the last four years, I'm much more appreciative of "career politicians".

I certainly understand the downsides - I've complained about them plenty. But are "amateur hack politicians" to be preferred?

Seriously, if you get sick, would you rather have a "career doctor", or the guy who plays one on TV?

If the career doctor keeps allowing patients to die, I'll take a young doctor who just graduated from Harvard Medical School. We have plenty of young and bright politicians. I prefer Sinema over Romney for example.

That's fine, and reasonable. Hopefully we're over the idea that colorful TV personalities and sports heroes make good civil servants.

People just wanted something different. We have good young politicians out there. Connor Lamb, the aforementioned Sinema, Dan Crenshaw, Joe Kennedy (instead we put Markey back in here in MA). I am not as concerned about party as I am that we elect the same people over and over again. Elijah Cummings RIP, served Baltimore for 40 years and it remains a giant mess and zero students were proficient in math out of its 13 High Schools. ZERO. Yet the voters kept electing the same person. You reap what you sow.

 

[Dana7360]

I keep seeing this coming from the Right -- the notion that the Democrats are bad because they want "One Party Rule".

So, I'm curious: Does this mean the GOP does not want one-party rule, with them in charge of the White House, House and Senate?

If so, which one of those three would you be fine having the Democrats running?

Please explain why you're pointing at this as a bad thing.

I'm not a Republican, but I see one party rule - in our system - as a horrible thing, regardless of who is in charge. The reason - I don't much like majority rule. Or, rather, we give far too much power to the majority. I'd much rather see government reach for real consensus, support that crosses party lines and respects the rights of everyone, not just supporters of the party in charge.

Tell that to the republicans.

They don't believe in bipartisanship when they are in the majority.

When they are in the minority, they use the filibuster to stop all legislation. They have destroyed democracy in our senate.

I wish we could have consensus and bipartisanship but that is very impossible with today's republicans.

 

[Dana7360]

I prefer "No Party Rule". Outlaw all political parties. Have a primary to narrow the field down to the top 2 or 3 candidates. And be done with this constant bickering and battling between parties. It does nothing good for the nation or the people. The focus should be on other things besides destroying the opposing parties.

From what I'm seeing here, it appears that when they say "One Party Rule", they're saying the Communist Party, which is what their universe has told them is represented by the Democrats. So "One Party" equals "commie". I guess they're just mixing it up to keep it fresh.

We had one party rule for 6 of the 8 bush boy years with the republicans being the one party that ruled.

The republicans had no problem with it. In fact, they celebrated it and said that it would stay that way for many years to come.

We had one party rule for 2 of the trump years. The republicans had no problem with it. In fact called it a mandate and said it would last for years.

They didn't call themselves communists.

In fact, they claimed everyone who doesn't agree with them are communists.

The only way to get the legislation that our nation so badly needs and wants is for the republicans to be in the minority.

They've had years to do the right thing for our nation. All they did was destroy our nation.

I don't want more of what republican economics and social policy does to our nation. The only way to stop their destruction is to keep them out of any majority in our government.

 

[dblack]

I keep seeing this coming from the Right -- the notion that the Democrats are bad because they want "One Party Rule".

So, I'm curious: Does this mean the GOP does not want one-party rule, with them in charge of the White House, House and Senate?

If so, which one of those three would you be fine having the Democrats running?

Please explain why you're pointing at this as a bad thing.

I'm not a Republican, but I see one party rule - in our system - as a horrible thing, regardless of who is in charge. The reason - I don't much like majority rule. Or, rather, we give far too much power to the majority. I'd much rather see government reach for real consensus, support that crosses party lines and respects the rights of everyone, not just supporters of the party in charge.

Tell that to the republicans.

They don't believe in bipartisanship when they are in the majority.

When they are in the minority, they use the filibuster to stop all legislation. They have destroyed democracy in our senate.

I wish we could have consensus and bipartisanship but that is very impossible with today's republicans.

When I advocate for consensus, I'm not calling for cooperation or collaboration. The minority party has a responsibility to oppose the other side, to be a stalwart check on single-party ambition. What I'm saying, instead, is that no law should be passed unless it has broad support. Unless it's so obviously necessary and desirable that any candidate, on either side, will risk losing support from their constituency if they vote against it.

The filibuster hasn't destroyed democracy. If anything, it's save it from itself.

 

[Polishprince]

It isn't that difficult at all. Just have the Republican Establishment tell the 75 million Little Trumpsters to beat it and change the rules to prevent upstarts from exerting pressure on their thing in the future.

I still think you're being sarcastic.

A new, more moderate and compromising Republican Party that will get along with and cooperate with the Democrats will emerge.

The last thing I want to see is a Republican Party that is more moderate and compromising. When I advocate for consensus in government, it's not because I want D's and R's to collaborate and pass legislation. In my view, each should be roadblocking the other as much as possible. The point I'm making is that no legislation should be passed unless there is broad consensus. Legislation passed by party line vote is bad for our country. We shouldn't be passing laws that half the country wants to repeal.

Not "sarcastic" at all, at least not here.

If Gen. Powell were the nominee or Mitt Romney, they would go on the Sunday morning programs and not embarrass the establishment never-trumpers. The Party would become a lot more respected within the beltway

 

[Mac1958]

I keep seeing this coming from the Right -- the notion that the Democrats are bad because they want "One Party Rule".

So, I'm curious: Does this mean the GOP does not want one-party rule, with them in charge of the White House, House and Senate?

If so, which one of those three would you be fine having the Democrats running?

Please explain why you're pointing at this as a bad thing.

I'm not a Republican, but I see one party rule - in our system - as a horrible thing, regardless of who is in charge. The reason - I don't much like majority rule. Or, rather, we give far too much power to the majority. I'd much rather see government reach for real consensus, support that crosses party lines and respects the rights of everyone, not just supporters of the party in charge.

Tell that to the republicans.

They don't believe in bipartisanship when they are in the majority.

When they are in the minority, they use the filibuster to stop all legislation. They have destroyed democracy in our senate.

I wish we could have consensus and bipartisanship but that is very impossible with today's republicans.

When I advocate for consensus, I'm not calling for cooperation or collaboration. The minority party has a responsibility to oppose the other side, to be a stalwart check on single-party ambition. What I'm saying, instead, is that no law should be passed unless it has broad support. Unless it's so obviously necessary and desirable that any candidate, on either side, will risk losing support from their constituency if they vote against it.

The filibuster hasn't destroyed democracy. If anything, it's save it from itself.

I look at it in a different way.

Broad support is great, and I'm all for it. That requires at least a little give and take. But what I'm after most of all is innovation, the creation of new ideas, and that can only come from dropping the egos at the door and collaborating.

All news idea. Like our Constitution. America used to be able to do that.

 

[Dana7360]

Please explain why you're pointing at this as a bad thing.

Single party rule is bad because it does away with the need for consensus.

When the republicans filibuster almost every piece of legislation that will help our nation, how can there be a consensus?

When republicans come out to say they will work hard to make Biden a half term president, how can there be a consensus?

When republicans happily and proudly announce they will not vote for or work with Democrats on all legislation, how can there be consensus?

No one can work with people who refuse to work with you.

There can't be consensus when one party refuses to compromise or work with the other party.