Old Trapper
Verified User
The system is built on compromise, and differing opinions. And that requires different groups, or parties.
BE Advised!
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
The system is built on compromise, and differing opinions. And that requires different groups, or parties.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
No, it doesn't rely on Parties at all. Does the Constitution mention Parties?
BTW, I can save you some time. No, it doesn't.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Why should it? The Constitution itself was written based upon compromise (slavery issue as one example), and parties. Federalists on one side, anti-federalists on the other.
BTW, if the Constitution addressed everything you right wingers seem to feel it should (e.g "Does the Constitution mention Parties?") in order for it to be relevant it would be 10,000 pages long.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Bullshit. The Constitution was not a negotiation between political parties.
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
That's because she's a russian spy troll.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
so...who are you?
Old Trapper
Verified User
The ignorance you right wingers consistently demonstrate is amazing, and yet you seem to feel intellectually superior while lacking the IQ of a piss ant:
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
https://www.scholastic.com/teachers...tent/origins-and-functions-political-parties/
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Oh OK, let me dumb it down for you since you apparently can't follow such a simple line of thought.
1. Your assertion that one must be in a political party in order to have an opinion is asinine. You think with two major political parties, who cooperate with each other by the way, we're going to have diversity of thought? That's stupid. Not only does it not make sense from a theoretical viewpoint we've had your preferred system in place for over 200 years and know for a fact it doesn't result in what you think it does. Scrape the fringe elements off of each party and look at what's left...do you see diversity of thought there? I don't, they look alike to me.
2. Not only is your take on this asinine, it's also insulting. Some of the most out-of-the-box thinking we're getting right now is from people who aren't members of those two parties but because the D's and R's legislated themselves as many poll advantages as possible we don't get to see those ideas implemented. You dismiss all of that by saying that people won't have an opinion without a Party. Maybe you won't but that's not on the rest of us, it's on you and only you. Just because you can't think on your own doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
3. Payola. Centralized Party structures are good for two things and two things only...distributing payola and issuing marching orders.
Keep thinking you've got it all figured out but I think people who think like you are a cancer.
Robo
Verified User
Why? Because it's based and dependent on Special Interest "BRIBERY" money contributed to the duopoly parties?
Robo
Verified User
You'll of course present the evidence of such someday, right?
Robo
Verified User
I don't post juvenile insults at you. Have you a credible reason to do it at me?
You do agree it was a "criminal prosecution," right?
Actually no, I saw a female prosecutor who's expertise is prosecuting sexual crimes in a over-the-top sensitivity for the feelings of the accuser. The Republican Senators only took over when the Democrats arrogance and vile toward the judge was so appalling that to NOT speak up for the judge would have been watching a pure lynching of his good name and personality.
Even you had to be laughing when you wrote that! If that was "hammering" I'd be interested in your definition what you determine the Democrats were doing to Kavanaugh and Ford. Type that out for me please.
Well friend, we saw two different things. I saw an attempted lynching and outrageous contempt of a judge by a gang of snobbish partisan evil Democrat hypocrites hell bent on delay, delay, delay of the conformation of this judge and all without a smidgen of actual evidence to deny him a seat on the court.
Robo
Verified User
Not voting for a third party because they can't win because you don't vote for them is like tattooing "I'm the definition of insane" on your forehead.
Robo
Verified User
Unless you understand readin and riten.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Be advised!
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Be advised!
Robo
Verified User
Third parties have little funding because the duopoly Ds & Rs have a corner on every dime of special interest loot. Their corner is facilitated by the "BRIBERY" system they have created to keep them in power As long as they hold the power they control the bribery and thus the loot, no others need apply.
Robo
Verified User
We already have the Seinfeld party, we call it the Republicans. We also have the Stalin party, it's called Democrats.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
We have one major party that's center-right and a second major party that is center-right. Seems to me there's a lot of room to move here.
Robo
Verified User
When it turns into a sexual prosecution, it's unconstitutional and thereby illegal. Criminal prosecution demand "DUE PROCESS" by constitutional authority. The Kavanaugh hearings became a Kabuki Theater lynching by Democrats.