One party control

[Redfish]

Since not one of you would answer my earlier question on this, let me put it in a new thread.

Do any of you believe that the country would be better off with one party in full control of the government? Yes or no and why.

No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this.

 

[Nyvin]

When the alternative is republicans that listen to tea party crazies???? YES!!!

 

[bendog]

I would rather have one party control, where the one party reflects the will of a majority, than rule by a party that represents at most 25%, which is what the TPM just tried.

 

[g5000]

Since not one of you would answer my earlier question on this, let me put it in a new thread.

Do any of you believe that the country would be better off with one party in full control of the government? Yes or no and why.

No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this.

It is precisely my fear that the Democrats will end up controlling the Congress and the White House at the same time.

If they do so, it will be because the GOP steadfastly refuses to take out the trash. The GOP continues to run farther and farther into the extremes, embracing the in-house maniacs instead of kicking them to the curb.

We are now at the point where 30 percent of Republicans think the party is too extreme, compared to only 12 percent of Democrats thinking the same about their party.

And yet the retards think they are not being extreme enough!

 

[Redfish]

When the alternative is republicans that listen to tea party crazies???? YES!!!

as expected the first libtard posts bullshit.

lets try again:
No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this

 

[westwall]

Since not one of you would answer my earlier question on this, let me put it in a new thread.

Do any of you believe that the country would be better off with one party in full control of the government? Yes or no and why.

No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this.

No. I happen to like watching the House fuck up the Senates goals of destroying this country. That's their fucking job. That's why the Founders of this nation set this country up in that way. They are SUPPOSED to make things difficult for whatever ruling class would try and screw over the MINORITY.

 

[Redfish]

I would rather have one party control, where the one party reflects the will of a majority, than rule by a party that represents at most 25%, which is what the TPM just tried.

what if the one party does not reflect the will of the majority AFTER it takes power? What if they lie in order to get control?

 

[Contumacious]

Since not one of you would answer my earlier question on this, let me put it in a new thread.

Do any of you believe that the country would be better off with one party in full control of the government? Yes or no and why.

No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this.

But we DO have a one party system.

In 1935 the surrender caucus wing of the Republican party merged with the democrats.

The Republicans who still support capitalism, individual liberty and the free market are just a tiny fringe minority.

.

 

[Redfish]

Since not one of you would answer my earlier question on this, let me put it in a new thread.

Do any of you believe that the country would be better off with one party in full control of the government? Yes or no and why.

No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this.

It is precisely my fear that the Democrats will end up controlling the Congress and the White House at the same time.

If they do so, it will be because the GOP steadfastly refuses to take out the trash. The GOP continues to run farther and farther into the extremes, embracing the in-house maniacs instead of kicking them to the curb.

We are now at the point where 30 percent of Republicans think the party is too extreme, compared to only 12 percent of Democrats thinking the same about their party.

And yet the retards think they are not being extreme enough!

I did not ask why one party might take control, I asked if you think it would be good or bad.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, or we're simply who we fought against in the revolution.

 

[westwall]

I would rather have one party control, where the one party reflects the will of a majority, than rule by a party that represents at most 25%, which is what the TPM just tried.

Yeah, you should read what the Founders had in mind sometime. The purpose of the government was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the mob.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I would rather have one party control, where the one party reflects the will of a majority, than rule by a party that represents at most 25%, which is what the TPM just tried.

Yeah, you should read what the Founders had in mind sometime. The purpose of the government was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the mob.

Sadly, they do not understand that or the founders.

 

[Liberal]

When the alternative is republicans that listen to tea party crazies???? YES!!!

as expected the first libtard posts bullshit.

lets try again:
No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this

Ask most of America. They will probably give you the same answer involving the Tea Party.

Just because it violates your delicate sensibilities does not mean it is wrong. The truth hurts.

The TPM is highhandedly responsible for the condition of the GOP at this point, they are also going to be the ones that will make a single party system happen. The Dems learned how to control the vocal far far left, they shut them out of politics, GOP needs to do the same thing or they will be dust in the wind.

Is a single party system good? I don't know, not too many precedents there.

 

[Redfish]

No, or we're simply who we fought against in the revolution.

exactly, come on libs is LBT right?

 

[Nyvin]

Let's put it this way...Tea party stupids are elected in districts that cook has in the R+9 to R+28 range usually...

They are elected in overwhelmingly white, old, religious districts that have extremely conservative views. They represent about ~10% of the House.

I don't see why ~10% of the House that comes from VERY conservative districts should be forcing their views onto the other 90% of the congress. I know I don't live in a uber-conservative district and I know the majority of America doesn't live in an uber-conservative districts...why should they be forcing us all to live by their means?

 

[Redfish]

When the alternative is republicans that listen to tea party crazies???? YES!!!

as expected the first libtard posts bullshit.

lets try again:
No talking points please, lets see if we can have a civil rational discussion of this

Ask most of America. They will probably give you the same answer involving the Tea Party.

Just because it violates your delicate sensibilities does not mean it is wrong. The truth hurts.

The TPM is highhandedly responsible for the condition of the GOP at this point, they are also going to be the ones that will make a single party system happen. The Dems learned how to control the vocal far far left, they shut them out of politics, GOP needs to do the same thing or they will be dust in the wind.

Is a single party system good? I don't know, not too many precedents there.

no precedents???????? how about Germany under Hitler, Cuba under Castro, China under Mao, Venezuela under Chavez, Iran under the Ayatollah?

 

[hangover]

There has been one party control. Shrub Jr. had a republican House and Senate when he doubled the national debt.

FDR had a democratic House and Senate when he brought the country out of the Great Depression.

So it all depends on which party.

 

[Redfish]

Let's put it this way...Tea party stupids are elected in districts that cook has in the R+9 to R+28 range usually...

They are elected in overwhelmingly white, old, religious districts that have extremely conservative views. They represent about ~10% of the House.

I don't see why ~10% of the House that comes from VERY conservative districts should be forcing their views onto the other 90% of the congress. I know I don't live in a uber-conservative district and I know the majority of America doesn't live in an uber-conservative districts...why should they be forcing us all to live by their means?

Those representatives and senators have one vote each. If they are only 10% as you say, how are they controlling the entire govt?

and you are wrong about white, old, and religious. But I understand that you cannot restrain yourself for repeating the dem/lib talking points.

 

[Redfish]

There has been one party control. Shrub Jr. had a republican House and Senate when he doubled the national debt.

FDR had a democratic House and Senate when he brought the country out of the Great Depression.

So it all depends on which party.

when you use rhetoric like that you destroy what little crediblity you might have had. Grow up and discuss this like an adult or leave the thread.

 

[Nyvin]

Let's put it this way...Tea party stupids are elected in districts that cook has in the R+9 to R+28 range usually...

They are elected in overwhelmingly white, old, religious districts that have extremely conservative views. They represent about ~10% of the House.

I don't see why ~10% of the House that comes from VERY conservative districts should be forcing their views onto the other 90% of the congress. I know I don't live in a uber-conservative district and I know the majority of America doesn't live in an uber-conservative districts...why should they be forcing us all to live by their means?

Those representatives and senators have one vote each. If they are only 10% as you say, how are they controlling the entire govt?

and you are wrong about white, old, and religious. But I understand that you cannot restrain yourself for repeating the dem/lib talking points.

Because the House can't vote on any measure with Boehner's approval. Boehner won't bring up any bill to vote unless the tea party approves...the Tea Party won't approve of even VOTING on any bill that doesn't defund/delay ACA...as we just saw yesterday two days before we hit the debt ceiling!!

and yeah, actually the "old, white, religous" claim does have some backing...just change "religious" with "uneducated" and you get that here

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...efund-obamacare-suicide-caucus-geography.html

The members of the suicide caucus live in a different America from the one that most political commentators describe when talking about how the country is transforming. The average suicide-caucus district is seventy-five per cent white, while the average House district is sixty-three per cent white. Latinos make up an average of nine per cent of suicide-district residents, while the over-all average is seventeen per cent. The districts also have slightly lower levels of education (twenty-five per cent of the population in suicide districts have college degrees, while that number is twenty-nine per cent for the average district).