"One Party Rule"

[Lesh]

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?

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

With ranked choice voting you don't throw your vote away. Your second choice can be the "lesser of two evils"

 

[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?

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.

Rubbish.

The Never Trumpers have an excellent chance. The morale of the tens of millions of Little Trumpsters is low, right now if they can be discouraged enough to lose interest in politics, the Establishment GOP can change the party's rules and ensure the nomination of Gen. Powell or Liz Cheney in 2024 and beyond.

 

[Jets]

Those who prefer “one party rule” are not going to happy when it’s the opposition in charge.

Yours truly
Captain Obvious.

 

[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.

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.

The primary bifurcation today appears to be between the essentially rational and predominantly emotional, and I doubt that the intellectual progeny of the Enlightenment would have ever anticipated such an Apollonian vs Dionysian contretemps. They operated within a realm of reason, in which passion might be called upon in championing such abstract concepts as federalism or confederalism, but the prospect of emotion vanquishing intellectual faculties would have been inconceivable. The master of lunacy would be summoned as soon as such a perverse symptom rudely intruded upon governance.

​

 

[Mac1958]

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.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

If the Never Trumpers drove the Trumpsters out of the GOP, they would be willing to reach across the aisle to the Democrats and help push through the agenda.

 

[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.

 

[Jets]

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.

As long as compromise is synonymous with capitulation, that philosophy will not change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let me know when the Republicans first priority is to pass their HR1 that limits voting to property owners, military personnel and taxpayers.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

As long as compromise is synonymous with capitulation, that philosophy will not change.

That's exactly the problem. I don't know when we crossed that line.

 

[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.

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.

 

[schmidlap]

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?

Humbugs all have an expiratory dates, and the Cry Baby Sore Loser's vapid bluster will ignite an inevitable apotheosis, hastened by his eminent civil and criminal prosecutions, those of his January 6 goons, and his multiple financial reckonings.

His failed Trump® University, Trump® Airlines, Trump® Steaks, Trump® Vodka, Trump® Magazine, Trump® Mortgage, Trump® Wine, Trump® Ice, four Trump® Casinos, a couple of Trump® trophy wives, Trump® blog, and that Trump® presidency all evoke the reassuring adage that "This too shall pass."

​

 

[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.

 

[Polishprince]

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?

Humbugs all have an expiratory dates, and the Cry Baby Sore Loser's vapid bluster will ignite an inevitable apotheosis, hastened by his eminent civil and criminal prosecutions, those of his January 6 goons, and his multiple financial reckonings.

His failed Trump® University, Trump® Airlines, Trump® Steaks, Trump® Vodka, Trump® Magazine, Trump® Mortgage, Trump® Wine, Trump® Ice, four Trump® Casinos, a couple of Trump® trophy wives, Trump® blog, and that Trump® presidency all evoke the biblical reassurance that "This too shall pass."

View attachment 502368
​

I thought Trump was defeated? If indeed, the 75 million Little Trumpsters have lost and are irrelevant, I don't see why the Establishment Republicans aren't taking control and moving to nominate Gen. Powell 3 years from now?

 

[gipper]

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.

That’s laughable. The people have no power. They are easily deceived. See Trump. See Obama. See W. See Congress. See Biden and Kamala.

The ultra wealthy oligarchy run things. This is evident to those of us not blinded by partisanship and MSM propaganda.

 

[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.

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.

 

[schmidlap]

I thought Trump was defeated? If indeed, the 75 million Little Trumpsters have lost and are irrelevant, I don't see why the Establishment Republicans aren't taking control and moving to nominate Gen. Powell 3 years from now?

Patience. Allow for the weaning process.

I see no reason that the post-trumpie GOP will revert to the pre-trump GOP.

Don't forget that the pre-trumpy GOP was vulnerable to trumpery.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

.

One party rule corrupts the ability to provide proper checks and balances between all three branches of our government.

Our current governance has come closer to a point that a simple majority pretends to create what they choose to view as better policy.
If we want better policy that addresses the concerns of more Americans, and to stop the partisan fighting on Capitol Hill ...
Go to a 75% supermajority vote on anything that comes out of Congress.

It will reduce some of the infighting, unnecessary garbage in legislation, and destructive poorly supported policy,
if we make the two major parties work together to get anything done.

That possibility in itself could fracture the two major parties and create an environment more conducive to
the establishment of more effective third (or more) party alternatives.

.​

 

[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,

That's not our system. That's a presumption. A presumption that the major parties promote. They are lying. We don't have to vote for evil. Lesser, or otherwise.

 

[CletusSnow]

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.

Both parties would prefer they have the "majority rule". But only extremists want solely "one party rule".
Currently, Democrats are trying to pass enough legislation to destroy the two-party system in place for there to be serious concerns.