One party control

[Vox]

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?

This idiot doesn't understand the potential pitfalls (or the absolute dangers) of a one party regime. Ask anyone who lived in the former Soviet Union - or North Korea - or Iran

Idiot liberals.

he is an idiot, that's why he is a leftard.

if one has a brain one can not be a leftie. If he or she is also honest and humane, because a tyrant-to be climbing to power can be smart and a leftie.
There used to be a wide-known truism behind the iron curtain - one can not simultaneously be smart, decent and a communist. If you are a commie/leftie and smart you can not be decent, if you are decent and a leftie, you can not be smart and if you are both smart and a decent human being - no way can you be a leftie/commie.

Turns out this ultimate truth has a new life on the other side of the globe.
Who would ever imagine?

 

[deaddogseye]

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.

We very much need a viable two party system.

The problem is the GOP is losing viability.

Then why are some of you celebrating the assumed demise of the GOP? Which I don't think is happening by the way.

You are correct of course. People who fall for that stuff are foolish. After the 2008 election we were swamped with the MSM led drivel of the new permanent Democratic majority that according to James Carville would last for 40 years (read his book if you dont beleive me). It didnt. It lasted 2 and that long only because you couldnt have another election any sooner and the republican takeover of the house survived the next presidenatial election.

Also the GOP is thriving at the state level (which is not to say it is doing so badly at the Federal level with control of the house and it will add a few senate seats in 2014 - but it wont take control).

This stuff about the GOP not being viable is just nonsense.

 

[Nyvin]

The OP's stance is this:

"Hey guys, the GOP really sucks, but imagine if the United States only had 1 party!"

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

While I am not afraid of one party having majorities in both houses and the WH for a term or two....we need at least two viable parties. The absence of loyal opposition would not be desireable. It would create a situation where overreach could become too easily realized.

Please keep in mind that it is the people who ultimately control the government in our country. The vote will make needed corrections so long as it is carried out fairly.

That said.....disloyal opposition is not worth a shit.

 

[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.

no it would not. We are never better off when we are subjected to the excesses of either party and that is what you get when you have one party control. It is inherently good IMO for it to be extemely hard for government to act which is why i dont share the view of so many that the current "crisis" is a crisis at all.

Presently you only have the ILLUSION of a two party system.

Secondly, if we STILL had a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC you would not have to be concerned about party excesses.

.

 

[BDBoop]

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, absolutely not. But the Republicans need to regain control of their party.

 

[BDBoop]

Redfish, leave off your TeaP talking point.

Many in our GOp think the TeaPs have gone off the deep end, warned you what would happen, and now it is happening.

And NOW you want a conversation?

That an unprincipled socialist scumbag like starkiev can claim membership in the GOP is telling. We do have one party control.

.

fakey has NOTHING to do with GOP. even with it's statist part.

he is a payed leftard troll.

For fuck's sake, there is no "Y" in "PAID."

 

[Vox]

That an unprincipled socialist scumbag like starkiev can claim membership in the GOP is telling. We do have one party control.

.

fakey has NOTHING to do with GOP. even with it's statist part.

he is a payed leftard troll.

For fuck's sake, there is no "Y" in "PAID."

that's all you have to say?
I will survive

however, for the ignorant leftard NATIVE English speakers:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pay

'American Heritage Dictionary' does state that payed is the same as paid

http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=payed

English borrowed the verb “pay” in the 13th century from an Anglo-Norman word spelled various ways, including paier, paer, and paaer, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

[Nyvin]

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?

This idiot doesn't understand the potential pitfalls (or the absolute dangers) of a one party regime. Ask anyone who lived in the former Soviet Union - or North Korea - or Iran

Idiot liberals.

he is an idiot, that's why he is a leftard.

if one has a brain one can not be a leftie. If he or she is also honest and humane, because a tyrant-to be climbing to power can be smart and a leftie.
There used to be a wide-known truism behind the iron curtain - one can not simultaneously be smart, decent and a communist. If you are a commie/leftie and smart you can not be decent, if you are decent and a leftie, you can not be smart and if you are both smart and a decent human being - no way can you be a leftie/commie.

Turns out this ultimate truth has a new life on the other side of the globe.
Who would ever imagine?

This sums up 90% of the post by conservatives on this forum:

"BLARGH! LIBTARDS LIE! LYING STUPID LEFTIES LIE! ALL YOU DO IS LIE! THAT'S ALL LIES! DUMB STUPID COMMUNIST LIBS LYING AGAIN! YOUR TOO STUPID AND COMMUNIST TO SEE IT'S DUMB STUPID AND COMMUNIST LIBERAL STUPID DUMB! LEFTIE LIBERALS ARE STUPID AND LYING!!! LEFT WING MEDIA BIAS!"

 

[BDBoop]

fakey has NOTHING to do with GOP. even with it's statist part.

he is a payed leftard troll.

For fuck's sake, there is no "Y" in "PAID."

that's all you have to say?
I will survive

Selective much? I have a post directly above the one you quoted, troll.

 

[BDBoop]

This idiot doesn't understand the potential pitfalls (or the absolute dangers) of a one party regime. Ask anyone who lived in the former Soviet Union - or North Korea - or Iran

Idiot liberals.

he is an idiot, that's why he is a leftard.

if one has a brain one can not be a leftie. If he or she is also honest and humane, because a tyrant-to be climbing to power can be smart and a leftie.
There used to be a wide-known truism behind the iron curtain - one can not simultaneously be smart, decent and a communist. If you are a commie/leftie and smart you can not be decent, if you are decent and a leftie, you can not be smart and if you are both smart and a decent human being - no way can you be a leftie/commie.

Turns out this ultimate truth has a new life on the other side of the globe.
Who would ever imagine?

This sums up 90% of the post by conservatives on this forum:

"BLARGH! LIBTARDS LIE! LYING STUPID LEFTIES LIE! ALL YOU DO IS LIE! THAT'S ALL LIES! DUMB STUPID COMMUNIST LIBS LYING AGAIN! YOUR TOO STUPID AND COMMUNIST TO SEE IT'S DUMB STUPID AND COMMUNIST LIBERAL STUPID DUMB! LEFTIE LIBERALS ARE STUPID AND LYING!!! LEFT WING MEDIA BIAS!"

Tell me about it!

"BUNCHA LYING LIARS WHO LIE! LYING MCLIAR, THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE!"

 

[mamooth]

When the Whigs disintegrated, the USA didn't end up becoming a one-party state. If the Republicans somehow totally vanished, the Democrats would quickly split into conservative and liberal wings, and there would be two parties again.

 

[Nyvin]

When the Whigs disintegrated, the USA didn't end up becoming a one-party state. If the Republicans somehow totally vanished, the Democrats would quickly split into conservative and liberal wings, and there would be two parties again.

Yep...as long as there is a "yes" and "no" option on each ballet people will disagree on yes or no.

As long as people disagree on yes and no, there will be at least two parties.

There will never been more then two (mainstream) parties due to the electoral college.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This idiot doesn't understand the potential pitfalls (or the absolute dangers) of a one party regime. Ask anyone who lived in the former Soviet Union - or North Korea - or Iran

Idiot liberals.

he is an idiot, that's why he is a leftard.

if one has a brain one can not be a leftie. If he or she is also honest and humane, because a tyrant-to be climbing to power can be smart and a leftie.
There used to be a wide-known truism behind the iron curtain - one can not simultaneously be smart, decent and a communist. If you are a commie/leftie and smart you can not be decent, if you are decent and a leftie, you can not be smart and if you are both smart and a decent human being - no way can you be a leftie/commie.

Turns out this ultimate truth has a new life on the other side of the globe.
Who would ever imagine?

This sums up 90% of the post by conservatives on this forum:

"BLARGH! LIBTARDS LIE! LYING STUPID LEFTIES LIE! ALL YOU DO IS LIE! THAT'S ALL LIES! DUMB STUPID COMMUNIST LIBS LYING AGAIN! YOUR TOO STUPID AND COMMUNIST TO SEE IT'S DUMB STUPID AND COMMUNIST LIBERAL STUPID DUMB! LEFTIE LIBERALS ARE STUPID AND LYING!!! LEFT WING MEDIA BIAS!"

Yeah - you pretty much have it right you communist clown.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters never......and I mean never.......make any real effort to have a decent discussion, Redfish. You do not listen.

 

[Vox]

For fuck's sake, there is no "Y" in "PAID."

that's all you have to say?
I will survive

Selective much? I have a post directly above the one you quoted, troll.

you idiot, BOTH forms are correct, though one is used more often, than the other.

but what do you single-language leftard morons know?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Nutters never......and I mean never.......make any real effort to have a decent discussion, Redfish. You do not listen.

Your "discussion" always precludes the other side. Hardly grounds for a reasonable, well thought discussion. Your "discussion" scoffs at, laughs at, sits smugly - as though you are some sort of "educated" pseudo-intellectual who knows the answer before the question is asked.


Typical liberal.

 

[Vox]

This idiot doesn't understand the potential pitfalls (or the absolute dangers) of a one party regime. Ask anyone who lived in the former Soviet Union - or North Korea - or Iran

Idiot liberals.

he is an idiot, that's why he is a leftard.

if one has a brain one can not be a leftie. If he or she is also honest and humane, because a tyrant-to be climbing to power can be smart and a leftie.
There used to be a wide-known truism behind the iron curtain - one can not simultaneously be smart, decent and a communist. If you are a commie/leftie and smart you can not be decent, if you are decent and a leftie, you can not be smart and if you are both smart and a decent human being - no way can you be a leftie/commie.

Turns out this ultimate truth has a new life on the other side of the globe.
Who would ever imagine?

This sums up 90% of the post by conservatives on this forum:

"BLARGH! LIBTARDS LIE! LYING STUPID LEFTIES LIE! ALL YOU DO IS LIE! THAT'S ALL LIES! DUMB STUPID COMMUNIST LIBS LYING AGAIN! YOUR TOO STUPID AND COMMUNIST TO SEE IT'S DUMB STUPID AND COMMUNIST LIBERAL STUPID DUMB! LEFTIE LIBERALS ARE STUPID AND LYING!!! LEFT WING MEDIA BIAS!"

you can make it RED but it won't change the ultimate truth - if you are a leftard you are either stupid or a liar.
you can not be honest, smart and a leftard

 

[Contumacious]

When the Whigs disintegrated, the USA didn't end up becoming a one-party state. If the Republicans somehow totally vanished, the Democrats would quickly split into conservative and liberal wings, and there would be two parties again.

True.

Just like the socialists, fascists and "progressives" found a home in the 1935 democratic party.

The only problemo dude is that under socialism the Commissar rules and the opposition is in jail.

But in theory we shall have a two party system.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

Well, personally I think we currently are under the control of a single party, which is the "Party of People who Have a lot of Money and Influence" (PPWHMI). Both the Democrats and Republicans are backed by BIG TIME MONEY, all with strings attached. Let's get real; we are humans, and this is how we operate.

It would be nice to see more representation of folks who can't donate or are able to move millions of dollars at any given moment, but I don't see that happening any time in the near future. It's simply much more sensible for a candidate to give an ear to a person with money (given our current system).

So to answer your question, no I would not like a single party to control the gov't (because that's what we already have), and instead I would prefer that more voices and ideas had a legitimate shot at making to office.

.