One party control

[RandallFlagg]

Do you have a specific example of a "one party dictatorship"? What I mean by a better system is something like what they have in UK (or in most European democracies, though the British model is the best). I don't think Canada can be described as a one party dictatorship. But they do allow one party to take full control over the government, so the party agenda can be properly implemented and its vision tested.

In other words, you don't have to suffer from government gridlocks in order to avoid a dictatorship -- that is a false choice. You can have it both -- a strong democracy AND a functioning government.

Sure! The USSR. China. Iran. North Korea.

Those are not democracies.

No. I'll stick with the system that has been the envy of the world for well over 200 years.

No, it hasn't. Those trying to implement presidential system end up with either similar gridlocks -- like France -- or, more often, the gridlocks are resolved when the President simply usurps all the power, like Putin did in Russia.

This system was bad from the start. Its drawback are showing up lately because the pace of change is accelerating. Sure you can fight for it tooth and nail, just as you may jump from the roof -- it's your choice, but it is bad for you.

This conversation is over. I have nothing but pity for you.

 

[Contumacious]

Sure! The USSR. China. Iran. North Korea.

Those are not democracies.

No, they were not.

For the First time in the world's history free people elected to enslave themselves.

In their quest to get free stuff and invade every country on the face of mother earth we have created a gargantuan tyrannical welfare/warfare state !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our democracy for the US is the best way for the US.

We are not parlementarian by nature or narrative.

Both parties do need to do much better in reining in the extremist weirdos to the left and the right.

 

[ilia25]

After reading , among others the CATO Journal, the Founding Fathers determined that gridlocks were best.

6,000,000 millions Jews would be alive today if Hitler had to pass his Final Solution by a congress.

.

That is beside the point -- by the time Hitler ordered the Final Solution the democracy in Germany was long gone.

But we are not debating democracy vs dictatorship. I am arguing that there are better system of government than what we have in the US -- just as good at preserving democracy, but much better at allowing the government to function.

Nope. They are not.
otherwise there won't be constant corruption scandals in Europe or economic problems there as well.

Again, that is beside the point. The political system can't solve those problems. Nor can the democracy -- it only does what the voters want. If the voters don't care about corruption, or they don't know what can be done about economy, the democracy itself cannot do it for them.

The system of government can be evaluated by two criteria:
1) its ability to preserve democracy
2) its ability to maintain a functioning government

The rest is up to the voters.

And this is pointless as we are quite happy with the way things are set up here.

You are in denial.

 

[ilia25]

Our democracy for the US is the best way for the US.

We are not parlementarian by nature or narrative.

Oh, common. You can make the same argument for slavery or anything else. And it is wrong, because Americans are no different -- when it comes to making democracy and government work -- than other nations.

I mean seriously, what make us so different from Canadians that parliamentary democracy would not work for us the way it works for them?

 

[thanatos144]

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.

Why you enjoying the fascism we have now?

 

[Contumacious]

The rest is up to the voters.

And Americans have elected a welfare/warfare state . If you don't like it they will crush you like a bug. You have no rights the parasitic majority has to recognize.

The new " Battle Hymn of the Republic" is [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmngHziLrs"]FEED ME SEYMOUR[/ame]

.

 

[francoHFW]

The onlychange is not a welfare state, brainwashed dupe, but the Pub Great Recession and the many victims. The world is aghast at the stupidity and arrogance of the Tea Party GOP... ie, YOU.

 

[Contumacious]

The onlychange is not a welfare state, brainwashed dupe, but the Pub Great Recession and the many victims. The world is aghast at the stupidity and arrogance of the Tea Party GOP... ie, YOU.

STFU, memorize this


Feed Me Seymour Lyrics

Feed me! Feed me! Feed me!
Feed me, Seymour
Feed me all night long
That's right, boy
You can do it
Feed me, Seymour
Feed me all night long
'Cause if you feed me, Seymour
I can grow up big and strong

Would you like a Cadillac car?
Or a guest spot on Jack Paar?
How about a date with Hedy Lamarr?
You gonna git it.

How'd you like to be a big wheel,
Dinin' out for every meal?
I'm the plant that can make it all real
You gonna git it

I'm your genie, I'm your friend
I'm your willing slave
Take a chance, just feed me and
You know the kinda eats,
The kinda red hot treats
The kinda sticky licky sweets
I crave

Come on, Seymour, don't be a putz
Trust me and your life will surely rival King Tut's
Take some initiative, work up the guts
And you'll git it

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our democracy for the US is the best way for the US.

We are not parlementarian by nature or narrative.

Oh, common. You can make the same argument for slavery or anything else. And it is wrong, because Americans are no different -- when it comes to making democracy and government work -- than other nations.

I mean seriously, what make us so different from Canadians that parliamentary democracy would not work for us the way it works for them?

Who cares about what the Canadians do? I mean even the Canadians don't care. What, they say, spoil my weekend?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

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.

Based on your comment, can I assume that you would also like to do away with the other checks and balances in our government? Like, let's just do away with the congress and the SC and let a dictator decide everything? Let me guess, you were disagreeing with everything GW did, but said nothing and didn't grumble about the dumbocrats not having a say during the first two years of his first term? The difference between then and now was we didn't have a president that would not negotiate spending and such to find the happy medium like we do now. Obama is so pompous that he thinks he is superior to everyone and know what is best. That is the definition of a socialist tyrant!!!!

 

[Contumacious]

The rest is up to the voters.

And Americans have elected a welfare/warfare state . If you don't like it they will crush you like a bug. You have no rights the parasitic majority has to recognize.

The new " Battle Hymn of the Republic" is [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmngHziLrs"]FEED ME SEYMOUR[/ame]

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Based on your comment, can I assume that you would also like to do away with the other checks and balances in our government? Like, let's just do away with the congress and the SC and let a dictator decide everything? Let me guess, you were disagreeing with everything GW did, but said nothing and didn't grumble about the dumbocrats not having a say during the first two years of his first term? The difference between then and now was we didn't have a president that would not negotiate spending and such to find the happy medium like we do now. Obama is so pompous that he thinks he is superior to everyone and know what is best. That is the definition of a socialist tyrant!!!!

No, light bird, that is not "the definition of a socialist tyrant!!!!". The checks and balances defeated the TeaPs, which is the definition of a constitutional republic.

Learn American civics, troop!

 

[Valox]

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.

.

You mean the Cons who were against SS, Medicare, child labor laws, the minimum wage, the Clean Water and Air Acts, etc?

Upton Sinclair wrote a book about your free market capitalism....

 

[Hoffstra]

No, one party control would be bad.

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

No, one party control would be bad.

Then why support it?

 

[candycorn]

Pfft; we already have one party rule. The connected and wealthy are the party however and they strive to keep those who are connected and wealthy....connected and wealthy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Single party control is terrible. I do not want a single party to control all or even a significant portion of government.

Personally though, I want to see an end to parties all together. They only corrupt the system without adding a single positive to it. Parties themselves should basically be illegal.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

At present, given the insanity that the GOP is presently exhibiting, yes, we would be better off for the Democrats to have full control for at least 2015 to 2017. That party needs a good woodshedding in order to get it's house back in order.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

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.

Based on your comment, can I assume that you would also like to do away with the other checks and balances in our government? Like, let's just do away with the congress and the SC and let a dictator decide everything? Let me guess, you were disagreeing with everything GW did, but said nothing and didn't grumble about the dumbocrats not having a say during the first two years of his first term? The difference between then and now was we didn't have a president that would not negotiate spending and such to find the happy medium like we do now. Obama is so pompous that he thinks he is superior to everyone and know what is best. That is the definition of a socialist tyrant!!!!

No, light bird, that is not "the definition of a socialist tyrant!!!!". The checks and balances defeated the TeaPs, which is the definition of a constitutional republic.

Learn American civics, troop!

OHHH, should we bow down to you as well? That is the exact definition of a socialist tyrant SHIT BIRD!!! " I will not negotiate!!" isn't that what Obama said? I know that has been our policy toward terrorists, but now it's this administrations' policy when dealing with congress.

By the way, are you an academic? A teacher or professor?