The Dems & the GOP - Peas in a pod, again

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I think you are a winger...Pol Pot was to the left of you true...and most Americans to the right. But there you are.

Okay thanks!
.

Dont mention it. I do this for free.

Being an idiot has no value.

 

[Mac1958]

So anyway, to wrap this puppy up...

It sure is funny when wingers behave like those they despise!

And then get so pissy and so defensive when something THAT OBVIOUS is pointed out!

So often!


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So anyway, to wrap this puppy up...

It sure is funny when wingers behave like those they despise!

And then get so pissy and so defensive when something THAT OBVIOUS is pointed out!

So often!


.

But again...this is human behavior...so what you are pointing out is humans behaving like humans. So the thread is pap.

 

[Tehon]

A vote for a third party candidate doesn't go to anyone else

100% wrong. Only 1 of 2 people can possibly win the presidency. And if you dont vote for one of them, the net result is that you cast a vote for the 1 of the 2 you least prefer.

Sorry, my man. That is a simple, mathematical reality that you are just not going to talk your way out of.

So all the eligible people who don't vote are actually voting?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So all the eligible people who don't vote are actually voting?

If they have a preferred candidate...yep. Net result is a vote for their least preferred candidate of the only two possibilities. So yes, the sleepy liberal who stayed home instead of vote for Hillary, for instance, essentially cast a vote for trump.

 

[Tehon]

So all the eligible people who don't vote are actually voting?

If they have a preferred candidate...yep. Net result is a vote for their least preferred candidate of the only two possibilities. So yes, the sleepy liberal who stayed home instead of vote for Hillary, for instance, essentially cast a vote for trump.

When I vote third party it's generally due to the fact that I don't have a preferred candidate among the mainstream choices. As was the case in 2016.

I may not vote in 2020 for the same reason.

 

[imawhosure]

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

I have never known an adult who talks more about BEHAVIOR than you do, Mac. Except special education teachers. Oh, and the Church Lady.

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

Well, true....we're from the same planet....but that's as far as it goes.
This is a typical libertarian thread.
Tries to compare Democrats with Republican while ignoring the obvious differences.

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

There’s been an effort to purge Deep State from the GOP going back to the Tea Party. Democrats have just openly embraced their old friend Communism. Pelosi is playing you, she loves the direction of the Dem party, she gave all the extremists the best appointments in DC.

Mac, you are so, so, wrong!

Throughout our history until probably, the last 16 to 25 years, both parties agreed on what needed to be done, just disagreed on how to do it. The debates were always over the METHOD to achieve the goals that both parties, and Americans en mass wanted. There was NEVER any discussion whatsoever by party officials, of breaking laws to get their way.

No longer! Now it is "break the law," instead of "change the law!"

Look at the laws currently on our books, and I mean laws that people want enforced. When the law can not be changed through legislation because of its unpopularity, some people insist the law should be ignored. How do you run a civil society by doing that? A congress can change the law(s) at any time, IF they have the votes to do it. The President is to ENFORCE those laws, under the constitution, and it makes no difference if agrees, or disagrees with them. And if he doesn't, should that not be grounds for impeachment?

Realize for an instant, what you are asking Trump to do-------------------->ignore the law set forth by congress, break his oath to the constitution, and allow other people to dictate a new set of laws that congress refuses to, or are unable to pass! Pass the laws YOU want, then force him under the constitution, to ENFORCE the law, and we may not like it, but will be right there with you, grumbling of course, lol. But THAT IS how it works.

IF the Left had the votes, and the support to change the laws, do you think for an instant, they would not have already done it? And if they do not have the support to do it, what does that tell you? And yet, Trump is a evil for enforcing laws in force?

The 2 ends of the spectrum are totally different! We enforce current laws, challenging your side to change them. Your side demands a change, even as it has not the votes to change the law!

That is a huge difference, like it or not!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When I vote third party it's generally due to the fact that I don't have a preferred candidate among the mainstream choices.

Okay, but I find that to be a cowadly copout (I have done it myself in the past). One of the two major candidates is going to win. Adulting is about making hard choices. Surely an adult can find a way to prefer one possible winner 0.0000001% more than the only other.

 

[Tehon]

When I vote third party it's generally due to the fact that I don't have a preferred candidate among the mainstream choices.

Okay, but I find that cowadly copout (I have done it myself in the past). One of the two major candidates is going to win. Adulting is about making hard choices. Surely an adult can find a way to prefer one possible winner 0.0000001% more than the only other.

I'd rather stay true to my own principles, even if it means being called childish by an "adult".

The simple fact of the matter is that my vote for my preferred candidate in 2016 had no bearing on the outcome in my state. Meaning my vote for a third party candidate was just that and nothing else.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

I have never known an adult who talks more about BEHAVIOR than you do, Mac. Except special education teachers. Oh, and the Church Lady.

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

Well, true....we're from the same planet....but that's as far as it goes.
This is a typical libertarian thread.
Tries to compare Democrats with Republican while ignoring the obvious differences.

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

And, as if to illustrate the point yet again, the Democrats are jumping in by essentially splitting into two pieces for our amusement.

Remember about four and eight years ago, when the the Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

We'll here we go again, from the kids on the the other side!

Democrats threatening to primary each other:
Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats

Democrat leaders losing tough with their new whacked-out base:
'Members are looking over their shoulders': Democrats spooked by new primary threats
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Know Who The Democratic Party Is Anymore | HuffPost

Seriously, this is almost unfair, it's so easy. The two ends of the spectrum can be so damn similar in their behaviors!


.

There’s been an effort to purge Deep State from the GOP going back to the Tea Party. Democrats have just openly embraced their old friend Communism. Pelosi is playing you, she loves the direction of the Dem party, she gave all the extremists the best appointments in DC.

Mac, you are so, so, wrong!

Throughout our history until probably, the last 16 to 25 years, both parties agreed on what needed to be done, just disagreed on how to do it. The debates were always over the METHOD to achieve the goals that both parties, and Americans en mass wanted. There was NEVER any discussion whatsoever by party officials, of breaking laws to get their way.

No longer! Now it is "break the law," instead of "change the law!"

Look at the laws currently on our books, and I mean laws that people want enforced. When the law can not be changed through legislation because of its unpopularity, some people insist the law should be ignored. How do you run a civil society by doing that? A congress can change the law(s) at any time, IF they have the votes to do it. The President is to ENFORCE those laws, under the constitution, and it makes no difference if agrees, or disagrees with them. And if he doesn't, should that not be grounds for impeachment?

Realize for an instant, what you are asking Trump to do-------------------->ignore the law set forth by congress, break his oath to the constitution, and allow other people to dictate a new set of laws that congress refuses to, or are unable to pass! Pass the laws YOU want, then force him under the constitution, to ENFORCE the law, and we may not like it, but will be right there with you, grumbling of course, lol. But THAT IS how it works.

IF the Left had the votes, and the support to change the laws, do you think for an instant, they would not have already done it? And if they do not have the support to do it, what does that tell you? And yet, Trump is a evil for enforcing laws in force?

The 2 ends of the spectrum are totally different! We enforce current laws, challenging your side to change them. Your side demands a change, even as it has not the votes to change the law!

That is a huge difference, like it or not!

200 points to Griffindor

 

[Weatherman2020]

When I vote third party it's generally due to the fact that I don't have a preferred candidate among the mainstream choices.

Okay, but I find that to be a cowadly copout (I have done it myself in the past). One of the two major candidates is going to win. Adulting is about making hard choices. Surely an adult can find a way to prefer one possible winner 0.0000001% more than the only other.

Adults don’t foam at the mouth when they see a red hat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'd rather stay true to my own principles, even if it means being called childish by an "adult".

Voting for the preferred of the only two possible winners, if even preferred only .0000001% more, would still be staying true to your principles.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The simple fact of the matter is that my vote for my preferred candidate in 2016 had no bearing on the outcome in my state.

Yeah, same here, in 2016. But it can have bearing in the future. Look at what is happening in Texas. That's not "conversion" by missionaries, that's concentrated effort to get people out to vote, as Texas gets more in play every year. Obama won my state in 2008.

But you do have a point, in that the all or nothing EC can discourage voting.

 

[Papageorgio]

^^^^^Can this nut get any further from reality?

I'd rather stay true to my own principles, even if it means being called childish by an "adult".

Voting for the preferred of the only two possible winners, if even preferred only .0000001% more, would still be staying true to your principles.

I disliked both the choices in 2016, the two worst choices in American history. If you don’t like it, I’m good with that. I’d rather vote for who I want, not the lesser of two evils.

 

[Tehon]

I'd rather stay true to my own principles, even if it means being called childish by an "adult".

Voting for the preferred of the only two possible winners, if even preferred only .0000001% more, would still be staying true to your principles.

That may be true for you. Maybe that is how you justify holding your nose while you vote. Not me.

If the country isn't capable of putting up a candidate worth voting for, then I won't vote. And you can blame me all you want.

 

[FA_Q2]

A vote for a third party candidate doesn't go to anyone else

100% wrong. Only 1 of 2 people can possibly win the presidency. And if you dont vote for one of them, the net result is that you cast a vote for the 1 of the 2 you least prefer.

Sorry, my man. That is a simple, mathematical reality that you are just not going to talk your way out of.

So all the eligible people who don't vote are actually voting?

TWICE even.

Why are they not being prosecuted

 

[dblack]

It does not as long as what mudwhistle said is true, and it is. The last part that is.

People tend to vote because they fear or hate the other side. As long as we vote based on the lesser of two evils because the other guy eats babies every night Trump is what we will end up with.

I used to think it was a core problem of having parties but I am not so sure that is where the problem lies. I think it is more a problem with how the parties select their candidates. The primaries, by FAR the most important time to vote, are ignored by almost anyone that is not a partisan 'winger' leaving the rest of us to chose from candidates that have done nothing but play to the extremes and have been vetted by them. By then, it is just a matter of convincing the rest of us that the other guy is more extreme than they are.

We get what we deserve and an apathetic electorate deserves Trump.

I couldn't agree more. The primaries are hard swings to the extreme and then the summer of the election is trying to win the middle. The extremists on both sides are dictating who we get in office and leads to the lesser of two evils. I went third party because I hate voting for the lesser of two evils, why in the hell would anyone vote for evil?

Well, here's hoping a new option shows up soon.

I just don't know how.
.

Public financing of elections!

I really, really hope you're kidding.

Someone debated me on this a few dyears ago here and they put up a damn good argument. Cant say I am against publicly funded elections anymore - I just do not see how that would be less effective than what we are doing now.

There are better solutions, like the one you mentioned, but that does not mean publicly funded elections would not improve what we currently have.

Public financing of elections means government financing of elections. Aspiring candidates would first please the powers that be - qualify by their rules - before they can score government funds for their election campaign. What this is attempting to do is transfer power from wealth in society to government, and I think that's a bad thing in general.

 

[dblack]

A vote for a third party candidate doesn't go to anyone else

100% wrong. Only 1 of 2 people can possibly win the presidency. And if you dont vote for one of them, the net result is that you cast a vote for the 1 of the 2 you least prefer.

Sorry, my man. That is a simple, mathematical reality that you are just not going to talk your way out of.

So all the eligible people who don't vote are actually voting?

Yeah, see - it works like this: If you voted for a third party, or didn't vote at all, who you actually voted for depends on you are talking to. If you are talking to a Republican partisan then you voted for the Democrats (you rat bastard!) and if you are talking to a partisan Democrat, you're vote (or lack thereof) counted for the Republicans!

Clear as mud, right?

 

[Papageorgio]

A vote for a third party candidate doesn't go to anyone else

100% wrong. Only 1 of 2 people can possibly win the presidency. And if you dont vote for one of them, the net result is that you cast a vote for the 1 of the 2 you least prefer.

Sorry, my man. That is a simple, mathematical reality that you are just not going to talk your way out of.

So all the eligible people who don't vote are actually voting?

Yeah, see - it works like this: If you voted for a third party, or didn't vote at all, who you actually voted for depends on you are talking to. If you are talking to a Republican partisan then you voted for the Democrats (you rat bastard!) and if you are talking to a partisan Democrat, you're vote (or lack thereof) counted for the Republicans!

Clear as mud, right?

I wonder if Fort Fun will have the same thought after he sobers up, which could be any year now.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I couldn't agree more. The primaries are hard swings to the extreme and then the summer of the election is trying to win the middle. The extremists on both sides are dictating who we get in office and leads to the lesser of two evils. I went third party because I hate voting for the lesser of two evils, why in the hell would anyone vote for evil?

Well, here's hoping a new option shows up soon.

I just don't know how.
.

Public financing of elections!

I really, really hope you're kidding.

Someone debated me on this a few dyears ago here and they put up a damn good argument. Cant say I am against publicly funded elections anymore - I just do not see how that would be less effective than what we are doing now.

There are better solutions, like the one you mentioned, but that does not mean publicly funded elections would not improve what we currently have.

Public financing of elections means government financing of elections. Aspiring candidates would first please the powers that be - qualify by their rules - before they can score government funds for their election campaign. What this is attempting to do is transfer power from wealth in society to government, and I think that's a bad thing in general.

I can see how this could be abused as well. The thing is most "solutions" to this graft in govt problem can be corrupted, there is no foolproof solution. We can at least try to make graft as hard as possible, instead of easy as pie like it is now.

The way to do that..........