The prophesied demise of the Democrat Party

[Mr. Perfect]

unfortunately, one of the aspects that make a political system that ONLY has two parties work, is the two parties have to be of opposing ideologies.

How so.

[Mr. Perfect]

The fanaticism about destroying parties and drinking the blood of enemies is way out of line. It's inviting the mountains to fall on oneself. But "he" didn't start it.

the current "not my president" conditional loyalty game starts with with the new left over and over again. When people demonstrate that they hate you for sixty odd years, it's battered wife syndrome to just sit there and take it.

I would state it is only tolerating spoilt brat little kids for so long, but same concept.

[Mr. Perfect]

To roll all this back, to the point I apparently didnt make.

the current model of 2 party democracy requires everyone to believe that technocrat compromises between 2 opposite forces gets the best long term outcomes and having one party in complete control is the better outcome for getting things done.

No

One of the long term outcomes of this has been people not believing that so much anymore, because an all powerful government is only fun when your side has control, when the other side has control its paranoid madness.

No

Seeing as my goal is a distant father type government rather than a smothering mother type government, I was considering a multi party democracy which spends most of its time squabbling for consensus a potential step forward.

We have those and they are mostly big government left. 3rd party salvation is a red herring.

[Simple Minded]

unfortunately, one of the aspects that make a political system that ONLY has two parties work, is the two parties have to be of opposing ideologies.

How so.

When both parties resemble each other to a large degree, the current scenario occurs. The Deep State reigns over both.

Not much surprise there, survival of the institution Trump supposed party ideological differences.

[Mr. Perfect]

When both parties resemble each other to a large degree, the current scenario occurs. The Deep State reigns over both.

I guess the root cause is you may not understand the word resemble.

The following things do not resemble each other.

Not much surprise there, survival of the institution Trump supposed party ideological differences.

You also may not understand the meaning of the word complex.

[Mr. Perfect]

and what of a government of brotherhood?

Government of freedom and natural rights is what we have and what we need to protect. You guys can join in any time.

[crashtech66]

^ The Piehole is pretty good,especially if you end up hungry late at night.

[Mr. Perfect]

When both parties resemble each other to a large degree, the current scenario occurs. The Deep State reigns over both.

If the Deep State rules over both, why do they always work to get Democrats in power and Republicans out of power. Answer this question.

Not much surprise there, survival of the institution Trump supposed party ideological differences.

You didn't answer the question.

[Simple Minded]

When both parties resemble each other to a large degree, the current scenario occurs. The Deep State reigns over both.

If the Deep State rules over both, why do they always work to get Democrats in power and Republicans out of power. Answer this question.

Not much surprise there, survival of the institution Trump supposed party ideological differences.

You didn't answer the question.

Your vague statements make this too much fun Mr. P. Easy to ID the democrats who are trying to remove Trump.

Let's get down to you, specifically, naming each republican senator and representative who is not a member of the Deep State. Easy to ID those people. List below, all the names of republican senators and congressmen who have called press conferences since the impeachment inquiries began, and publicly announced in front of the TV cameras and microphones "I am opposed to the members of the Deep State overturning the 2016 election. I stand by the president and the will of the American people. I will not vote to impeach this president!" (or words to that effect)

Complete the list below, and I will agree with you 110% that each republican on your list is not a member of the Deep State. As for the Repubs who have not yet called press conferences, and are not on your list below, the jury is still out.

1.
2.
3.

[Mr. Perfect]

I asked you first.

[Simple Minded]

I asked you first.

[Doc]

My only questions at this point are:
"Does the Democrat Party get gutted by the fire or does it get burned to the ground?"

And

"Is the number of people that get criminally charged closer to a dozen or 500?"

6FOzRVoPE94

Oh then there is this:

h2h_vSn8Ktg

[Simple Minded]

My only questions at this point are:
"Does the Democrat Party get gutted by the fire or does it get burned to the ground?"

And

"Is the number of people that get criminally charged closer to a dozen or 500?"

The fascinating aspect of this will be, assuming the dem house votes to impeach, does the repub senate take this all the way to trial, and expose all the misdeeds of the career politicians and bureaucrats involved?

Everything that has happened to date is all for public/media consumption. Any desire to clean house, or actually start draining the swamp will have to begin in the senate. It will be interesting to see how many DC insiders are interested in draining the swamp.

A couple talking heads I've heard this morning claim that is a historic opportunity for the repubs to seriously, if not fatally wound the dems. Not to having a senate will allow much of the shenanigans to be swept under the rug forever. Supposedly Trump wants a senate trial, McConnell says no.

I'd guess that the larger the number of guilty parties, the greater the probability the senate trial will not happen. Other factor is, how many repubs in the senate can Trump trust? Even one repub senator (Mitt Romney?) voting to remove Trump from office will allow the MSM to spin this as a bi-partisan, and therefore, a fair by definition effort to remove Trump.

[Doc]

My only questions at this point are:
"Does the Democrat Party get gutted by the fire or does it get burned to the ground?"

And

"Is the number of people that get criminally charged closer to a dozen or 500?"

The fascinating aspect of this will be, assuming the dem house votes to impeach, does the repub senate take this all the way to trial, and expose all the misdeeds of the career politicians and bureaucrats involved?

Everything that has happened to date is all for public/media consumption. Any desire to clean house, or actually start draining the swamp will have to begin in the senate. It will be interesting to see how many DC insiders are interested in draining the swamp.

A couple talking heads I've heard this morning claim that is a historic opportunity for the repubs to seriously, if not fatally wound the dems. Not to having a senate will allow much of the shenanigans to be swept under the rug forever. Supposedly Trump wants a senate trial, McConnell says no.

I'd guess that the larger the number of guilty parties, the greater the probability the senate trial will not happen. Other factor is, how many repubs in the senate can Trump trust? Even one repub senator (Mitt Romney?) voting to remove Trump from office will allow the MSM to spin this as a bi-partisan, and therefore, a fair by definition effort to remove Trump.

Personally I think all the Senators sitting in the Senate chambers and not being allowed to say anything would be worth watching.

There is some speculation I have seen that the number of criminally indicted will be smaller out of fear that a large number would crash the stock markets. Whether that fear is true or not (and I expect not) is to be seen.

[Simple Minded]

Personally I think all the Senators sitting in the Senate chambers and not being allowed to say anything would be worth watching.

There is some speculation I have seen that the number of criminally indicted will be smaller out of fear that a large number would crash the stock markets. Whether that fear is true or not (and I expect not) is to be seen.

At this point, I'd bet on no senate trial. Dismiss the impeachment on a party line vote and call it a win. Senate trial with maximum transparency might be very risky personally to many. Many individual senators may be afraid that pulling on any threads might lead back to them.

Would be cool to see the senate tie down with this trial during an election year though when those who are up for re-election would rather be out campaigning.

Still haven't seen much evidence that Trump is being accepted by the repubs yet. The enemy of my enemy is my friend holds much more true for career politicians than for a POTUS limited to two terms.

[Doc]

Personally I think all the Senators sitting in the Senate chambers and not being allowed to say anything would be worth watching.

There is some speculation I have seen that the number of criminally indicted will be smaller out of fear that a large number would crash the stock markets. Whether that fear is true or not (and I expect not) is to be seen.

At this point, I'd bet on no senate trial. Dismiss the impeachment on a party line vote and call it a win. Senate trial with maximum transparency might be very risky personally to many. Many individual senators may be afraid that pulling on any threads might lead back to them.

Would be cool to see the senate tie down with this trial during an election year though when those who are up for re-election would rather be out campaigning.

Still haven't seen much evidence that Trump is being accepted by the repubs yet. The enemy of my enemy is my friend holds much more true for career politicians than for a POTUS limited to two terms.

It all about money. Michael Bloomberg donated $100 million to Democrat Party run PACs in 2018. Otherwise big donors are bypassing the middleman IE Democrat party to fund candidates directly and thus winning their Dem politicians loyalty.

They say twitter is not reality. The fact is money talks to politicians in very special ways. Where most people find cat videos entertaining politicians look at money videos.

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-vow-no ... nough-left

Dems Vow To Learn From Labour Party's Mistake Of Not Going Far Enough Left
December 13th, 2019

[Simple Minded]

It all about money. Michael Bloomberg donated $100 million to Democrat Party run PACs in 2018. Otherwise big donors are bypassing the middleman IE Democrat party to fund candidates directly and thus winning their Dem politicians loyalty.

They say twitter is not reality. The fact is money talks to politicians in very special ways. Where most people find cat videos entertaining politicians look at money videos.

Amen Bro. You are way ahead of the unthinking masses. Especially the partisan hacks. Sometimes dems and repubs oppose each other based on ideology, but it is often about money or turf. Neither party congeals well when they are the majority.

The line of demarcation in the deep state vs. democracy battle is not "left" vs. "right" camps, or the "Repub" vs. "dem" camps; it is the "Drain the swamp idealists" vs. "I got a boat payment and this is a sweet gig with excellent health care. WTF? drain the swamp? but I don't want to retire yet!" camps.

More like the guys in the unions vs. the scabs. "Ideology, what's that? I'm just protecting my source of income." Party labels are just muddying the waters. If the parties were important in this battle, the repubs would have circled the wagons around Trump a couple years ago like the dems circled the wagons around Bill Clinton at that time.

That has not happened for a reason. Boat payments are personal.

[Doc]

It all about money. Michael Bloomberg donated $100 million to Democrat Party run PACs in 2018. Otherwise big donors are bypassing the middleman IE Democrat party to fund candidates directly and thus winning their Dem politicians loyalty.

They say twitter is not reality. The fact is money talks to politicians in very special ways. Where most people find cat videos entertaining politicians look at money videos.

Amen Bro. You are way ahead of the unthinking masses. Especially the partisan hacks. Sometimes dems and repubs oppose each other based on ideology, but it is often about money or turf. Neither party congeals well when they are the majority.

The line of demarcation in the deep state vs. democracy battle is not "left" vs. "right" camps, or the "Repub" vs. "dem" camps; it is the "Drain the swamp idealists" vs. "I got a boat payment and this is a sweet gig with excellent health care. WTF? drain the swamp? but I don't want to retire yet!" camps.

A draining swamp doesn't float DC boats.
A beached boat makes johnny swamp creature a dull boy.

More like the guys in the unions vs. the scabs. "Ideology, what's that? I'm just protecting my source of income." Party labels are just muddying the waters. If the parties were important in this battle, the repubs would have circled the wagons around Trump a couple years ago like the dems circled the wagons around Bill Clinton at that time.

That has not happened for a reason. Boat payments are personal.

There is one way to end this. I have said it before -- Ban all political contributions from outside an elected official's political district. People have the right to have representation not the right to have their elected officials bought by interest that do not have their interest at heart.

Then suddenly thing would change drastically. Professional lobby firms would close shop and disappear over night.

[Simple Minded]

There is one way to end this. I have said it before -- Ban all political contributions from outside an elected official's political district. People have the right to have representation not the right to have their elected officials bought by interest that do not have their interest at heart.

Then suddenly thing would change drastically. Professional lobby firms would close shop and disappear over night.

Agree 100%. Imagine if the above were implemented, how many congressmen would be absolute nobodies on the national scale.

Can you say AOC? I knew you could.

I would also recommend repealing the 17th Ammendment. It would make senators much less influenced by ephemeral phases and fads. Also, most senators would remain unknown on the national scale.

Also eliminate gerrymandering. All congressional districts are periodically redrawn (every 4 years?) via computer algorithm with the only goal being the shortest total perimeter length of all districts in each state. Imagine how quickly and cheaply this could be done.

Not all issues are one party against the other. Some are insider vs the plebs. That's why Trump is so hated in DC.

[Doc]

There is one way to end this. I have said it before -- Ban all political contributions from outside an elected official's political district. People have the right to have representation not the right to have their elected officials bought by interest that do not have their interest at heart.

Then suddenly thing would change drastically. Professional lobby firms would close shop and disappear over night.

Agree 100%. Imagine if the above were implemented, how many congressmen would be absolute nobodies on the national scale.

Can you say AOC? I knew you could.

I would also recommend repealing the 17th Ammendment. It would make senators much less influenced by ephemeral phases and fads. Also, most senators would remain unknown on the national scale.

Also eliminate gerrymandering. All congressional districts are periodically redrawn (every 4 years?) via computer algorithm with the only goal being the shortest total perimeter length of all districts in each state. Imagine how quickly and cheaply this could be done.

Not all issues are one party against the other. Some are insider vs the plebs. That's why Trump is so hated in DC.

I agree about Senators being representatives of state governments as long as political contributions not being allowed across district lines. At the time the constitution was changed the reason was that the robber barons controlled enough state legislatures to control the senate.

There needs to be an absolute law that campaign contributions of any kind cannot cross district lines. It needs to have a real penalty for violating it Like politicians that accept such contributions being permanently banned from public office along with a jail term. Call it a violation of public trust. The politician needs to be held responsible as if you have noticed to date they rarely if ever are held responsible for taking illegal contributions.

In this age of social media a democracy whose elected officials do not represent the interests of their constituents will destroy itself in short order.

[Mr. Perfect]

I asked you first.

And you still won't answer the question.

Such a simple question, yet you tremble in fear. Very revealing.

[Simple Minded]

.....

[Simple Minded]

I agree about Senators being representatives of state governments as long as political contributions not being allowed across district lines. At the time the constitution was changed the reason was that the robber barons controlled enough state legislatures to control the senate.

There needs to be an absolute law that campaign contributions of any kind can cross district lines.It needs to have a real penalty for violating it Like politicians that accept such contributions being permanently banned from public office along with a jail term. Call it a violation of public trust. The politician needs to be held responsible as if you have noticed to date they rarely if ever are held responsible for taking illegal contributions.

In this age of social media a democracy whose elected officials do not represent the interests of their constituents will destroy itself in short order.

The other change I would make is incumbents can run for only their second term while in office. Anyone who wishes to be in office for more than two terms must resign their office for at least one term first.

If their current jobs are important and necessary, how can they find the time while still in office? Aren't they shortchanging the people in their districts? Why should their constituents pay them to campaign?

[Simple Minded]

If the Deep State rules over both, why do they always work to get Democrats in power and Republicans out of power. Answer this question.

I asked you first.

And you still won't answer the question.

Such a simple question, yet you tremble in fear. Very revealing.

Mr. P, You seem to have forgotten the deep state repubs that tried to impeach Bill Clinton......

Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

The flip side of "If they get to do it, you gotta let us do it too!" is "If your side gets to do it, you gotta let the other side do it too!"

On the cosmos level, it might not be anything more than bad Karma.

[Doc]

I agree about Senators being representatives of state governments as long as political contributions not being allowed across district lines. At the time the constitution was changed the reason was that the robber barons controlled enough state legislatures to control the senate.

There needs to be an absolute law that campaign contributions of any kind can cross district lines.It needs to have a real penalty for violating it Like politicians that accept such contributions being permanently banned from public office along with a jail term. Call it a violation of public trust. The politician needs to be held responsible as if you have noticed to date they rarely if ever are held responsible for taking illegal contributions.

In this age of social media a democracy whose elected officials do not represent the interests of their constituents will destroy itself in short order.

The other change I would make is incumbents can run for only their second term while in office. Anyone who wishes to be in office for more than two terms must resign their office for at least one term first.

If their current jobs are important and necessary, how can they find the time while still in office? Aren't they shortchanging the people in their districts? Why should their constituents pay them to campaign?

I agree with incumbents taking a break as well. It would be good for them to take a break and join the real world.

I would also add that losing an election should ban a politician from ever running for public office again. For congress especially. The founding fathers did not anticipate political parties and career politicians.

Another thing that could be done is remove the AC from the US capital building. It was installed in the 1930's because it was too hot inside. Before that congress could only meet 6 months of the year.

The excuse to do it in the mist of the great depression, was that congress would write much better laws if they met year round.