"One Party Rule"

[gipper]

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.

We have one party rule now masquerading as two party rule, but few Americans know it. Thanks to a media that purposely divides them.

The voting system itself divides them as well. We need ranked choice voting.

Ranked choice voting is sort of stupid.

America went to war TWICE against England and TWICE against Germany to protect our precious 2 party system.

We get up to 2 valid choices in every election, or if you want to, you can throw your vote away on a 3rd party.

Nothing could be fairer.

Is this sarcasm?

If it’s not, then we can go straight to CRAZY TOWN!

 

[Mac1958]

I've never pretended to be impartial.

OH MY GOD!!!!

 

[Votto]

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.

I think what he means the the Joe Biden checks in the mail and balancing massive spending with imminent fiscal destruction.

 

[gipper]

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.

I think what he means the the Joe Biden checks in the mail and balancing massive spending with imminent fiscal destruction.

You might be right, which is exactly what dumb Don was doing.

 

[Votto]

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.

Your democrat ass would ask this retarded question.

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

(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?

Orange man bad. Anyone better than Orange man

Besides, January 6th.

 

[Mac1958]

America went to war TWICE against England and TWICE against Germany to protect our precious 2 party system.

 

[Mac1958]

The USA needs a strong, sane, and reasonable GOP. Trumps Republican cult of personality is not and will never be a strong, sane or reasonable opposition.

Yep. We need two strong and sane parties to protect the country from the excesses of the other.

Three or four would be even better.

Right now we have two realities. That won't work for much longer, obviously.

 

[Polishprince]

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

(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.

 

[Mac1958]

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

(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.

 

[Dragonlady]

The USA needs a strong, sane, and reasonable GOP. Trumps Republican cult of personality is not and will never be a strong, sane or reasonable opposition.

Yep. We need two strong and sane parties to protect the country from the excesses of the other.

Three or four would be even better.

Right now we have two realities. That won't work for much longer, obviously.

To be fair, you have one party that lives in reality, and another party which denies reality.

If you can’t agree upon a basic set of facts, how can you have a reasonable discussion on solving the problems?

 

[Polishprince]

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

(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?

Why not push to get a reasonable Republican like Gen. Powell on the ticket so the GOP can keep it respectable in 2024?

 

[Mac1958]

The USA needs a strong, sane, and reasonable GOP. Trumps Republican cult of personality is not and will never be a strong, sane or reasonable opposition.

Yep. We need two strong and sane parties to protect the country from the excesses of the other.

Three or four would be even better.

Right now we have two realities. That won't work for much longer, obviously.

To be fair, you have one party that lives in reality, and another party which denies reality.
If you can’t agree upon a basic set of facts, how can you have a reasonable discussion on solving the problems?

Yep. I don't want to go hyperbolic, but this is not far from being an existential problem.

Somebody here needs to make the first, BIG, move. This cannot continue with us remaining intact.

 

[Mac1958]

Why throw your vote away on a 3rd Party?
Why not push to get a reasonable Republican like Gen. Powell on the ticket so the GOP can keep it respectable in 2024?

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.

We're in a place right now that I talked about even before Trump was elected:

August 13, 2016:

I guess it will depend on the fallout from Trump. What these people don't see (because talk radio never mentions this) is that their behavior is making it easier for the Dems to move the country Left. They're so proud of the smoking rubble they can't see the big picture.

May 18, 2017:

My personal nightmare scenario is playing out in real time: Trump is in such trouble so quickly that the Democrat party won't even NEED to go through its badly-needed Reformation. The Regressive Left is now waiting in the wings, licking its chops.

December 18, 2016:

Well, we'll see. For better or worse, it's pretty much on Trump in the short term. If he ***** up, the power in the Dems, the Regressive Left, will be able to grab it all back, every last crumb.

June 17, 2016:

What concerns me is that, in response to him, the country knee-jerks too far.

 

[sparky]

The focus should be on other things besides destroying the opposing parties.

b-b-b-ut then...they'd have to be accountable.......~S~

 

[WinterBorn]

The focus should be on other things besides destroying the opposing parties.

b-b-b-ut then...they'd have to be accountable.......~S~

Perish the thought!!!!

 

[schmidlap]

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.

The American electorate, as an expression of democratic self-governance, chose to dump trumpery at its first opportunity as well as accordant Republican control of the House and Senate.

The Cry Baby Sore Loser's trifecta was not indicative of a public yearning for one, two, or three party sovereignty, but was a pragmatic assessment of the performance of the incumbents vs the promise of the alternative.

Just because the electorate places one Party in control of the executive, senate, and house does not mean it is embracing single-party dominion. It is a pragmatic judgment that does not eliminate an option but, rather, insists upon it.

No political party can be impervious to the will of the People as long as the People have an alternative and the vote of the People is not suppressed.

Incumbency does not confer tenure, and all individuals elected, regardless of having a "D" or and "R" after their name, are on permanent probation.

 

[schmidlap]

It’s all wasted energy, since both parties (really criminal gangs) are owned and controlled by the same people.

A cynic might express the same sentiment with far greater justification concerning a professional football or baseball game. The essential difference is that the politicians are fielded by the People.

 

[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.

The American electorate, as an expression of democratic self-governance, chose to dump trumpery at its first opportunity as well as accordant Republican control of the House and Senate.

The Cry Baby Sore Loser's trifecta was not indicative of a public yearning for one, two, or three party sovereignty, but was a pragmatic assessment of the performance of the incumbents vs the promise of the alternative.

Just because the electorate places one Party in control of the executive, senate, and house does not mean it is embracing single-party dominion. It is a pragmatic judgment that does not eliminate an option but, rather, insists upon it.

No political party can be impervious to the will of the People as long as the People have an alternative and the vote of the People is not suppressed.

Incumbency does not confer tenure, and all individuals elected, regardless of having a "D" or and "R" after their name, are on permanent probation.

What concerns me (well, among other things) is that the Founders must have made some assumptions when they put this thing together. Chief among them would have been the (otherwise) simple and obvious assumption that the people and the electorate would be operating under the same reality.

That isn't meant to be sarcastic or snarky or funny. I think that's where we have arrived, and I'm not assuming that we're going to find our way out of this. I don't know that we have the capacity to. I remain hopeful, and looking for signs of light.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

The American electorate, as an expression of democratic self-governance, chose to dump trumpery at its first opportunity as well as accordant Republican control of the House and Senate.

The Cry Baby Sore Loser's trifecta was not indicative of a public yearning for one, two, or three party sovereignty, but was a pragmatic assessment of the performance of the incumbents vs the promise of the alternative.

Just because the electorate places one Party in control of the executive, senate, and house does not mean it is embracing single-party dominion. It is a pragmatic judgment that does not eliminate an option but, rather, insists upon it.

No political party can be impervious to the will of the People as long as the People have an alternative and the vote of the People is not suppressed.

Incumbency does not confer tenure, and all individuals elected, regardless of having a "D" or and "R" after their name, are on permanent probation.

But the real question is when the Never Trumpers are going to present an alternative, and push for the GOP to nominate General Powell, Liz Cheney or someone else who will be able to run and finish respectfully?

 

[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.

The American electorate, as an expression of democratic self-governance, chose to dump trumpery at its first opportunity as well as accordant Republican control of the House and Senate.

The Cry Baby Sore Loser's trifecta was not indicative of a public yearning for one, two, or three party sovereignty, but was a pragmatic assessment of the performance of the incumbents vs the promise of the alternative.

Just because the electorate places one Party in control of the executive, senate, and house does not mean it is embracing single-party dominion. It is a pragmatic judgment that does not eliminate an option but, rather, insists upon it.

No political party can be impervious to the will of the People as long as the People have an alternative and the vote of the People is not suppressed.

Incumbency does not confer tenure, and all individuals elected, regardless of having a "D" or and "R" after their name, are on permanent probation.

But the real question is when the Never Trumpers are going to present an alternative, and push for the GOP to nominate General Powell, Liz Cheney or someone else who will be able to run and finish respectfully?

The never Trumpsters have no chance right now. None.

The GQP civil war lasted about 7 minutes. Trumpism won. Everyone else is on the outside, hopelessly looking in.