Page 13 of 16 [ 250 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,000
Location: US

29 Nov 2016, 12:02 am

auntblabby wrote:
Evam wrote:
yelekam wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
it's the fault of these bigoted identitarian maniacs who hate democracy. This has been brewing for a long time.


True democracy wouldn't have someone who got nearly 2m more votes losing an election.


Under this nation's constitution it does. Its a composite of 51 state popular votes transmitted into apportioned representatives for the aggregate total.


A two-party system is less democratic than a system with 3 to 10 parties. It is polarizing, which is disfunctional for a democracy, and leading to anxieties and radicalization.

I wonder what it is about amuurica that makes it so allergic to a viable 3rd party?

It's too entrenched . Neither side wants to lose, and that's exactly what'll happen if they go to a 3rd party and thline other side doesn't. The last 3rdish party cost the democrats the election and put a republican Lincoln in office. There hasn't been a serious 3rd choice that I know of since. I bet that's also what brought about the current primary situation here only one person can run per party.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,907
Location: Aux Arcs

29 Nov 2016, 12:12 am

Skippy?LOL


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 94,702
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Nov 2016, 12:14 am

if there was a liberal party here, I believe it would free the centrists to be centrists.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,000
Location: US

29 Nov 2016, 12:42 am

auntblabby wrote:
if there was a liberal party here, I believe it would free the centrists to be centrists.

Centrists wouldn't want to be with liberals . We like our freedoms



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 94,702
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Nov 2016, 12:54 am

sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
if there was a liberal party here, I believe it would free the centrists to be centrists.

Centrists wouldn't want to be with liberals . We like our freedoms

that was my point, the liberals would have their own party and the centrists would have their own party. no more tug of war within the party as to go left or right.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,052
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Nov 2016, 3:16 am

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Democrats should of heeded the warnings from people about unchecked executive power and the rights of the minority in our democracy because they were told then that it would all come back to bite them. I think Trump will have a working majority and will be able to peel off vulnerable Democratic Senate votes many of which are up for reelection in 2018, he might not need to invoke the 'nuclear option' but he certainly has all the leverage to. Obstruction and simply not working with Trump is not an option, at least not a very intelligent one going forward considering the potential looming GOP super majority.

Obamacare was passed by a simple majority thru the budget process of reconciliation so it seems fair that it could be used in it's repeal & replacement. Fair is fair. Lets see how cooperative they are with judges because I would support the 'nuclear option' being applied to the SCOTUS as it has been so reduced under Obama with everything else, this is a unique time for the for the court with the amount of potential openings in the next 4 years to 8 years so it is an opportunity of cementing in justices who believe and uphold the constitution as it is written for the next generation. America really was at threat under Hillary Clinton, she despises the constitution and wishes to erode our most basic freedoms and while there is much work to be done it should be known how close we were to losing this country permanently.

We are much better off now than if we had elected non-functioning divided government and I think the markets have reflected that, those looking for retribution for the way they believe Obama was treated I think are foolish since Obama came in not needing a single Republican vote for anything and the concessions he made were strictly to moderates in their own party. Elections matter, majorities matter, I would not have much tolerance for attention seekers or ideological grand standers when it comes to filibusters and I feel this is all justified given how Obama abused the slim majorities that he had and lost(started with a super majory in both houses)

I am encouraged by some of the things I've heard from the incoming Democratic minority in the Senate(not hard to do considering they were under the leadership of Harry Reid before), Chuck Schumer has signaled that he will work with Trump on things that they agree about and that he wanted to force Trump to decide between his populist rhetoric and the free market principles of his party. I think this is where some of those vulnerable Democrats can really come into to play, infrastructure is something Democrats agree with and it's something that tangible that can be brought back home which there has not been much doing the last few yours with all the gridlock


Obama had to depend solely on Democratic votes in congress because the Republicans had made a concerted effort to block anything he wanted. And no, it wasn't necessarily because they disagreed with Obama, but due to total vindictiveness on their part.


Obama had such big majorities that he did not need to compromise or include Republicans in anything at the beginning of his presidency, I think he might of gotten more done if he never had a supermajority like that since of course the GOP would not cooperate if it is not even included in the process but their opposition really meant nothing the elections in 2010 and even when the GOP won Ted Kennedy's seat they still passed Obamacare thru with reconciliation. I think Democrats would be very foolish to think the voters will reward them obstruction.


Thing is, though, on the night of Obama's inauguration, the Republican house and senate leadership had met to conspire to slow government to a snail's pace in order to make Obama's Presidency a single term.

Thank gosh for that ord we'd not have the 2nd amendment. Obama would of regulated it away to nothing if the republicans hadn't stood up and said no!! ! !


Only according to said Republicans.


Yeah no according to the democrats. Who constantly talk about how the republicans are in the way of their gun control plans and throw tantrums over it.
I pay very close attention to congress and politicians when it comes to gun control. I search google every day for gun control, I even have it as a favorite on my apple news app. It's mostly news about some democrat pushing for gun control, or throwing a tantrum cause they can't get guns banned. You turn a blind eye to it cause you either do support it and just trying to put out you dont(I think it's this) or you support evil actions as long as they democrats.

Kinda like the Cold War "yeah he's a ruthless murdering dictator, but he's our ruthless murdering dictator" evil actions are not ok just cause their your side. You should call them out and vot them out of office for violating their oaths to the constitution. Then elect constitutional democrats and reshape the party, until then I'll continue to vote republican


Gun control, or gun rights, just isn't a passion of mine, so that issue doesn't even register with me when I vote. I'm more concerned about health care, civil rights, workers rights, as well as a dependable social safety net, which is why I vote Democrat.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 94,702
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Nov 2016, 3:25 am

east is east, west is west, and never the twain shall meet.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,000
Location: US

29 Nov 2016, 10:56 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Democrats should of heeded the warnings from people about unchecked executive power and the rights of the minority in our democracy because they were told then that it would all come back to bite them. I think Trump will have a working majority and will be able to peel off vulnerable Democratic Senate votes many of which are up for reelection in 2018, he might not need to invoke the 'nuclear option' but he certainly has all the leverage to. Obstruction and simply not working with Trump is not an option, at least not a very intelligent one going forward considering the potential looming GOP super majority.

Obamacare was passed by a simple majority thru the budget process of reconciliation so it seems fair that it could be used in it's repeal & replacement. Fair is fair. Lets see how cooperative they are with judges because I would support the 'nuclear option' being applied to the SCOTUS as it has been so reduced under Obama with everything else, this is a unique time for the for the court with the amount of potential openings in the next 4 years to 8 years so it is an opportunity of cementing in justices who believe and uphold the constitution as it is written for the next generation. America really was at threat under Hillary Clinton, she despises the constitution and wishes to erode our most basic freedoms and while there is much work to be done it should be known how close we were to losing this country permanently.

We are much better off now than if we had elected non-functioning divided government and I think the markets have reflected that, those looking for retribution for the way they believe Obama was treated I think are foolish since Obama came in not needing a single Republican vote for anything and the concessions he made were strictly to moderates in their own party. Elections matter, majorities matter, I would not have much tolerance for attention seekers or ideological grand standers when it comes to filibusters and I feel this is all justified given how Obama abused the slim majorities that he had and lost(started with a super majory in both houses)

I am encouraged by some of the things I've heard from the incoming Democratic minority in the Senate(not hard to do considering they were under the leadership of Harry Reid before), Chuck Schumer has signaled that he will work with Trump on things that they agree about and that he wanted to force Trump to decide between his populist rhetoric and the free market principles of his party. I think this is where some of those vulnerable Democrats can really come into to play, infrastructure is something Democrats agree with and it's something that tangible that can be brought back home which there has not been much doing the last few yours with all the gridlock


Obama had to depend solely on Democratic votes in congress because the Republicans had made a concerted effort to block anything he wanted. And no, it wasn't necessarily because they disagreed with Obama, but due to total vindictiveness on their part.


Obama had such big majorities that he did not need to compromise or include Republicans in anything at the beginning of his presidency, I think he might of gotten more done if he never had a supermajority like that since of course the GOP would not cooperate if it is not even included in the process but their opposition really meant nothing the elections in 2010 and even when the GOP won Ted Kennedy's seat they still passed Obamacare thru with reconciliation. I think Democrats would be very foolish to think the voters will reward them obstruction.


Thing is, though, on the night of Obama's inauguration, the Republican house and senate leadership had met to conspire to slow government to a snail's pace in order to make Obama's Presidency a single term.

Thank gosh for that ord we'd not have the 2nd amendment. Obama would of regulated it away to nothing if the republicans hadn't stood up and said no!! ! !


Only according to said Republicans.


Yeah no according to the democrats. Who constantly talk about how the republicans are in the way of their gun control plans and throw tantrums over it.
I pay very close attention to congress and politicians when it comes to gun control. I search google every day for gun control, I even have it as a favorite on my apple news app. It's mostly news about some democrat pushing for gun control, or throwing a tantrum cause they can't get guns banned. You turn a blind eye to it cause you either do support it and just trying to put out you dont(I think it's this) or you support evil actions as long as they democrats.

Kinda like the Cold War "yeah he's a ruthless murdering dictator, but he's our ruthless murdering dictator" evil actions are not ok just cause their your side. You should call them out and vot them out of office for violating their oaths to the constitution. Then elect constitutional democrats and reshape the party, until then I'll continue to vote republican


Gun control, or gun rights, just isn't a passion of mine, so that issue doesn't even register with me when I vote. I'm more concerned about health care, civil rights, workers rights, as well as a dependable social safety net, which is why I vote Democrat.

Then why are you always super active in pushing for gun control in such related threads?



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

29 Nov 2016, 11:00 am

auntblabby wrote:
Evam wrote:
yelekam wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
it's the fault of these bigoted identitarian maniacs who hate democracy. This has been brewing for a long time.


True democracy wouldn't have someone who got nearly 2m more votes losing an election.


Under this nation's constitution it does. Its a composite of 51 state popular votes transmitted into apportioned representatives for the aggregate total.


A two-party system is less democratic than a system with 3 to 10 parties. It is polarizing, which is disfunctional for a democracy, and leading to anxieties and radicalization.

I wonder what it is about amuurica that makes it so allergic to a viable 3rd party?


When a third party gets enough corporate sponsors and is the same as the other two, there will be a 'viable' third party.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Evam
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Posts: 309

29 Nov 2016, 1:40 pm

I didnt mean just a third party, Germany had that for 30 years, and that was not enough. The smallest party in between had a disproportionate influence. It is in fact better to have most of the times more than just 3 parties, that enlarges the possibility for coalitions .

We have two votes: one is for the party (that has a list with candidates) and the other one is a direct mandate. The 2nd votes still count also for the party the candidate represents (if he has any). A party has to gain at least 5 percent of the the votes in order to enter parliament.

Advantage: the individual candidate is less bound to the party that supports him, and in a certain sense also less to the electorate.
If you might be in the same coalition government in the next term, you avoid being unnecessarily confrontative, so the system has a depolarizing and pacifiying effect.
Shifts in policies and programms are much easier to make.
If the establishment is neglecting certain points, a new party has the chance to respond to it (e.g. Green party for the environement, AfD for immigration policy).



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,052
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Nov 2016, 4:02 pm

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Democrats should of heeded the warnings from people about unchecked executive power and the rights of the minority in our democracy because they were told then that it would all come back to bite them. I think Trump will have a working majority and will be able to peel off vulnerable Democratic Senate votes many of which are up for reelection in 2018, he might not need to invoke the 'nuclear option' but he certainly has all the leverage to. Obstruction and simply not working with Trump is not an option, at least not a very intelligent one going forward considering the potential looming GOP super majority.

Obamacare was passed by a simple majority thru the budget process of reconciliation so it seems fair that it could be used in it's repeal & replacement. Fair is fair. Lets see how cooperative they are with judges because I would support the 'nuclear option' being applied to the SCOTUS as it has been so reduced under Obama with everything else, this is a unique time for the for the court with the amount of potential openings in the next 4 years to 8 years so it is an opportunity of cementing in justices who believe and uphold the constitution as it is written for the next generation. America really was at threat under Hillary Clinton, she despises the constitution and wishes to erode our most basic freedoms and while there is much work to be done it should be known how close we were to losing this country permanently.

We are much better off now than if we had elected non-functioning divided government and I think the markets have reflected that, those looking for retribution for the way they believe Obama was treated I think are foolish since Obama came in not needing a single Republican vote for anything and the concessions he made were strictly to moderates in their own party. Elections matter, majorities matter, I would not have much tolerance for attention seekers or ideological grand standers when it comes to filibusters and I feel this is all justified given how Obama abused the slim majorities that he had and lost(started with a super majory in both houses)

I am encouraged by some of the things I've heard from the incoming Democratic minority in the Senate(not hard to do considering they were under the leadership of Harry Reid before), Chuck Schumer has signaled that he will work with Trump on things that they agree about and that he wanted to force Trump to decide between his populist rhetoric and the free market principles of his party. I think this is where some of those vulnerable Democrats can really come into to play, infrastructure is something Democrats agree with and it's something that tangible that can be brought back home which there has not been much doing the last few yours with all the gridlock


Obama had to depend solely on Democratic votes in congress because the Republicans had made a concerted effort to block anything he wanted. And no, it wasn't necessarily because they disagreed with Obama, but due to total vindictiveness on their part.


Obama had such big majorities that he did not need to compromise or include Republicans in anything at the beginning of his presidency, I think he might of gotten more done if he never had a supermajority like that since of course the GOP would not cooperate if it is not even included in the process but their opposition really meant nothing the elections in 2010 and even when the GOP won Ted Kennedy's seat they still passed Obamacare thru with reconciliation. I think Democrats would be very foolish to think the voters will reward them obstruction.


Thing is, though, on the night of Obama's inauguration, the Republican house and senate leadership had met to conspire to slow government to a snail's pace in order to make Obama's Presidency a single term.

Thank gosh for that ord we'd not have the 2nd amendment. Obama would of regulated it away to nothing if the republicans hadn't stood up and said no!! ! !


Only according to said Republicans.


Yeah no according to the democrats. Who constantly talk about how the republicans are in the way of their gun control plans and throw tantrums over it.
I pay very close attention to congress and politicians when it comes to gun control. I search google every day for gun control, I even have it as a favorite on my apple news app. It's mostly news about some democrat pushing for gun control, or throwing a tantrum cause they can't get guns banned. You turn a blind eye to it cause you either do support it and just trying to put out you dont(I think it's this) or you support evil actions as long as they democrats.

Kinda like the Cold War "yeah he's a ruthless murdering dictator, but he's our ruthless murdering dictator" evil actions are not ok just cause their your side. You should call them out and vot them out of office for violating their oaths to the constitution. Then elect constitutional democrats and reshape the party, until then I'll continue to vote republican


Gun control, or gun rights, just isn't a passion of mine, so that issue doesn't even register with me when I vote. I'm more concerned about health care, civil rights, workers rights, as well as a dependable social safety net, which is why I vote Democrat.

Then why are you always super active in pushing for gun control in such related threads?


I don't. It's just when certain individuals on WP push me - and if the subject at hand is gun rights, or any other for that matter - I push back.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,979
Location: Reading, England

29 Nov 2016, 4:28 pm

sly279 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
if there was a liberal party here, I believe it would free the centrists to be centrists.

Centrists wouldn't want to be with liberals . We like our freedoms

Liberals are the sorts of people who like freedom. Centrists are the sorts of people who believe in a mixed economy (usually roughly as mixed as the country they are in) and generally lack extreme beliefs. You can be liberal and centrist, or you can be neither, or you can be either on its own.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

29 Nov 2016, 6:04 pm

You can be a

- Right leaning centrist liberal with sympathetic republican traits.
- Overbearing leftist social Marxist/economic conservative Maoist.
- Pacifist centrist with Stalinist principles combined with Leninist Himmlerisms.
- Democratic independent with tendencies to have sympathy with Hitler like Communism, though leaning right of center left.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

29 Nov 2016, 6:09 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
BTDT wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
"repeal and replace" is turning out to be just "repeal" with nothing of substance that would actually cover the working class. and any senator of mine or congressman who votes for that, will not get my vote next time, I will be voting socialist.


Perhaps this will inspire true Americans to figure out clever solutions on their own instead of hoping that big government will come to the rescue. People will save for their retirement instead of relying on big government.

Aspies will have more time to explore and develop their unique talents--with the absence of government programs that try to force them to be "normal"--like it used to be.


I won't mention names, lest I be accused of trolling, but you'll find some people who have proven they can hold a full time job but for whatever reason have given up. They no longer even try to improve their own lot in the traditional way (e.g. work) and look solely to big government for all forms of wellbeing.


What do you know about anyone else's situation, skippy?

1. How did I get the name Skippy?
2. You certainly have no reservations about telling people about thier situations.

Quote:
All that shows is how lacking in sympathy you are for others, because of your own prejudices.

I'm sympathetic when and where it's due. For those whom it's not due I tell them sympathy is in the dictionary between shi+ and syphilis.
Quote:
Yeah, right, I'm the one who brings negative emotions out of other people.

Where's this coming from?


I tell people about their situations?

You do make assumptions about people based on little to no actual information.

Quote:
Other than sticking up for the needy, disabled, and marginalized, and condemning those that attack the aforementioned groups, I fail to see what you mean.

Because you are poor and have confessed to it before.

Quote:
And if skippy hits a nerve, then it fits.

Oh, trust me it doesn't hit a nerve.
You have demonstrated time and again that I have that power over you, though...

Yours truly,
Skippy


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

29 Nov 2016, 6:23 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Gun control, or gun rights, just isn't a passion of mine, so that issue doesn't even register with me when I vote. I'm more concerned about health care, civil rights, workers rights, as well as a dependable social safety net, which is why I vote Democrat.

Then why are you always super active in pushing for gun control in such related threads?


I don't. It's just when certain individuals on WP push me - and if the subject at hand is gun rights, or any other for that matter - I push back.

So you're admitting that you let "certain individuals" get to you.
You're either pro gun, anti gun, or totally neutral on the subject regardless of any mild jesting that you let get to you.

Best regards,
Skippy


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

29 Nov 2016, 6:30 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Liberals are the sorts of people who like freedom.

No they don't.
They only like certain approved politically correct freedoms.
Conservatives have this same selective freedom flaw which is why in real life I'm more of a libertarian leaning conservative.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley