He quoted my comment with something completely different than what was in my comment. Thus I commented with a photo that was completely different from what he wrote.Really? You sure you didn't talk about them as if they are the same? You sure you didn't, once again, attempt your idiotic "both sides" BS? Let's go to the tape:
Speaking of a turd sandwich...
Horseshit. But that's all you've got. And yes...idiots piss me off. Stop being an idiot.
Well, Republicans of character need to abandon that piece of shit party and start a new one. The problem is, there are so few of them.
Would it really be a disaster? I think the new party would likely have very limited influence on most issues but would become the deciding votes in the closely contested issues. If the party showed good results in the next elections cycles they would add seats and make their positions and votes stronger while weakening the traditional parties. I think this would force both traditional parties to compromise in order to get work done... either with the 3rd party or with each other to limit the 3rd party.
Three presidential candidates. No one gets an EC majority. The election goes to the House. Each state delegation gets a single vote. The GOP controls the most state delegations. Wyoming gets exactly the same weight as California. The GOP candidate is president. He or she could literally finish third in the popular vote and still take the WH.
But but but what about the cult members from both sides. That’s not fair.
Historically, every time a legit 3rd party has emerged, it has eventually been co-opted by one of the major parties. It’s become increasingly difficult to do so today, due in large part to the extensive gerrymandering we see today.
That would be possible, but I really don't know that a 3rd party would emerge with a president, but rather it would emerge with a movement and $$$ to support congressional candidates. Then after a few election cycles if they perform well their influence would grow and the 12th amendment would need to be addressed to allow a legit 3rd party candidate for president.
Once again revealing a depth of critical thinking that wouldn't endanger a wading flea.
The only cult here is the MAGA cult. The ones with the shirts and signs and hats and flags and on and on and on.
The United States System wasn’t built for parties. The founding fathers wanted factions .
He's just not intelligent.Really? You sure you didn't talk about them as if they are the same? You sure you didn't, once again, attempt your idiotic "both sides" BS? Let's go to the tape:
Speaking of a turd sandwich...
A turd by any other name would smell as rancid. They built it for two, whatever we call them.
I'm not sure how often this needs to be said, but the Republican Party as you remember it no longer exists.
No they didn't. I literally just read two books on the early politics of the constitution and our Founding Father's views on representative democracy. The biggest reason they didn't want parties was because they valued independent thought.
Yeah, its crazy that some think the founders were perfect and that we should stick with ideas and systems from hundreds of years ago. The world has changed dramatically... we need to revisit systems periodically to ensure they serve the needs of the people and the world that we live in.
If you mean to say the Founding Fathers wanted the House to decide every election, you'd be correct. They didn't trust the people to choose. The idea that there wouldn't be parties was solidly trashed as soon as the first elections were scheduled - the FF's belonged to parties. They weren't gods and they got a lot of shit wrong. The EC is one example. It's built for two parties.
Agree to disagree, I think a 3rd party that was middle of the road and pragmatic would work. Look at what Ross Perot did back in 92.
Amen. The Bible and the Constitution make a lot of people really stupid in this respect. Allowing for amendments was their own admission that they didn't have all the answers and expected it to evolve over time.
They could have done that after Jan 6th but they doubled down on him. They’re doubling down on him again now that he’s a felon.
I don’t disagree, but penalty in different ways. I think the founders would have capped immigration sooner than later, not been as cool with Islamic faithful immigrating here. The freedom of religion the pilgrims sought was the freedom to worship the judeochristian god in the way they wanted to. I think they would have been more specific with the 2nd amendment too.
Perot didn’t win a single state despite the limited success he had. He also had no down ballot races where candidates aligned with him won. 4 years later, when he ran again, he fell flat on his face.
Until the Electoral College is changed.a 3rd party has no chance.
What did Ross Perot do? He took votes primarily from Bush. He changed nothing regarding the politics of the country. Had he done better and actually won some EC votes, the House would have chosen the president and Perot would have had an exactly zeropointzero chance of being chosen. His influence on the next election or national politics as a whole matched that number.
Which is fair.
They were both written by people a long long time ago who were no different than anyone else of their era. There are a lot of Republicans in power who regularly quote the Bible and believe that it should form the basis of secular law in this country.
I don't purport to speak for Chis, but I believe what he is saying is that the current Republican Party needs to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced with an actual conservative party replacement. The GOP post-Trump hijacking is unsalvageable.
I disagree with nearly all of her policy aims and general beliefs, but I don't doubt for a second she is patriotic and loves her country.
Very well said.
I think Trump tried to win the reform nomination in 2000. Mostly a publicity stunt.
Until Republicans stand up to Trump, they have zero business talking about much of anything else where politics is concerned. The MAGAts are taking control of the apparatuses of state parties all the way down to precinct committees. They're taking school boards (with notable pushback). Until they clean out the incredible rot in their own house - if that's even possible - nothing they can say about Democrats has any relevancy.
She has seen other countries fall to Trump types while in the state department. When people dismiss her. They dismiss her experience.
His 2016 run was a publicity stunt until it wasn't. The best part is, you could have shown him the future up to this day and he's such a raging narcissist, he would still run.
The guy loves drama. Especially if he’s the center of it. Guarantee when all the election stuff hit the fan around Jan. 6th. That was him at his happiest.
