Maybe its time for a right wing military style dictatorship

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: carewemust

Don't know. So what you are saying is having Democrats and liberals in government prevents rapes, robberies, and corruption. Hmmmm...

No..in the USA, ordinary people commit the crimes..and get punished if caught.

In places run by the military, it seems like the military people commit most of the crimes, and are rarely punished.

You seem to be operating under the false delusion that no one is above the law in this country with our system of governance.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

What will you admit that the Democrats have done that is positive?

They kept Bernie Sanders out of the White House.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm not a Republican. Do you want me to say Liberals are necessary? For things like clean air and water, and spending tax money on things besides the military and corporate handouts? Cuz I can say that, but I'm not your target audience.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: dfnj2015

It’s always more government or much more government for you guys, am I right?

When is it ever time to have government with you guys?

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm not a Republican. Do you want me to say Liberals are necessary? For things like clean air and water, and spending tax money on things besides the military and corporate handouts? Cuz I can say that, but I'm not your target audience.

I did not know I had a target audience.

I don't think the American people really care about clean air and water. I think the American people prefer spending tax money on the military and corporate handouts. Otherwise, the Democrats would not have been so spanked in the 2016 election.

This country have been moving right for 30 years now. It will continue to move right. It's just a matter of time.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Vague? It can't be more specific. Democrats are the minority party right now in Congress.

They are also being obstructionists for personal purposes. They are currently representing their personal feelings and pocketbooks, not their constituents. That is a hindrance to a functional government and serves zero purpose, so no, currently their is no purpose to the current minority party.

There also is no need for extremism, but there definitely is a need for more political parties.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: dfnj2015

Vague? It can't be more specific. Democrats are the minority party right now in Congress.

They are also being obstructionists for personal purposes. They are currently representing their personal feelings and pocketbooks, not their constituents. That is a hindrance to a functional government and serves zero purpose, so no, currently their is no purpose to the current minority party.

There also is no need for extremism, but there definitely is a need for more political parties.

Please, I'm trying to understand your position. What do you mean by, "currently representing their personal feelings and pocketbooks, not their constituents." Please give me an example if possible where Congressmen should have voted differently to represent their constituents. I guess I just don't see where you are coming from with this statement. Can you explain what you mean by how obstructing getting things done serves a purpose. Thanks.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: dfnj2015

Not a single Republican has said Democrats serve a purpose in our society.

You are advocating fascism. It is transparent and pathetic.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini

Corporations ARE the government. I'm not advocating anything. I have no power to change who is in power.

What is pathetic is people are not willing to say why having Democrats in government matters.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No, I mean each question literally. ?

Seriously? If you're actually serious, I might humor you and respond to each... wait, seriously??? This feels weird... I'll just answer this upcoming question then we can go from there.

Why do we have two parties in government?

National political parties came about because elected politicians realized that it's quicker and more efficient to work in groups than to try to pass legislation independently. If every Senator were independent & trying to get their own selfish laws passed on their own, nothing would pass. And even if they could somehow pass something, there's no guarantee that the 400+ members of the House of Representatives would care about that legislation (the same bill has to pass both chambers of Congress before it can go to the President, who signs it into law).

But by joining together as political parties, national politicians are able to pool common ideas and improve the chances that their preferred legislation will get passed. Members of Congress also team up in small groups called "caucuses" that basically pledge to work together on specific issues, but voters have no say in who joins what caucus. National political parties provide a brand that serves to unite both the voters and politicians behind a specific set of goals (called a platform).

There are only 2 major political parties because of the way presidential elections and the rules of Congress work. Constitutionally, the presidential candidate needs a majority of the Electoral College votes for it to be decided by the public's vote. Dividing that by 2 virtually guarantees that one candidate will win, which completely bypasses the process of what happens if no candidate gets a majority (check the 12th Amendment for that).

As for Congress, each chamber constitutionally only requires a majority of votes for legislation to pass a vote. If you have 51% of the members of either chamber on your "side", you're normally guaranteed to be able to get your priorities passed in that chamber. It's even better in the Senate since they're also in charge of the confirmation process for many other federal positions. And once again, having at least half of the members of the Senate should give your party the power to confirm whoever you want. (Plus, the team/political with the majority of members in each chamber of Congress gets to select the leadership of that chamber, & every subcommittee in that chamber will have a majority of members from that team/political party.)

In other words, having a bunch of different political parties dilutes the potential power of each party at the national level. But 2 separate parties seems to be the most efficient number in practice, even though there's nothing to my knowledge barring us from having a single party (other than the population's disdain for itself).

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Vector99

I am agreeing with you that socialism is the problem.

Why is socialism a problem?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Just think of it like pro-wrestling...

The concept of opposites is nothing but an illusion and a distraction to keep people thinking that we really do have freedom.

The end result is that instead of becoming a united and collaborating civilization, we are divided and conquered.

Keep the human herd ignorant and fighting with each other. Divide and conquer – it’s the oldest tactic in the book. ~ Jim Marrs

The Ruling Elite are in conflict with the citizens in America. They simply don’t represent us. These elected officials use the Left v. Right battle to keep the citizens distracted with partisan politics to keep us from holding them accountable for their self-serving decisions. For far too long, Americans have been told they exist only as members of warring camps—as Republican or Democrat, red state or blue, conservative or liberal, right or left, religious or secular, urban or rural, majority, minority and even minority/majority. It’s no coincidence that we are described by these labels—as if these labels defined us—by elites who alone stand to benefit from the very divisions they promote.

If they can convince the rest of us that we are at each others throats, on the verge of civil strife, these elites can make us believe our own neighbors are our enemies and that we have nothing in common but our hatred of each other. By herding us into these warring camps, by pitting us against one another, these elites can also distract us from the real forces tearing this society apart—the unaccountable, irresponsible political establishment that now presumes to govern in our name, with no concern for anything but its own interests. By sowing these seeds of distrust, they divide and conquer, and for too long, they have succeeded.

selfgovern.com...

Would-be global rulers cannot physically control six and a half billion humans. Therefore, they must use secrecy and deceit. Keep the human herd ignorant and fighting with each other. Divide and conquer – it’s the oldest tactic in the book. And it’s relatively easy if you control the major academic institutions, the political parties and the major mass media (a mere five multinational corporations with interlocking directorships today control everything we see and hear. ~ Jim Marrs

Do The Global Elite Conceal Ancient Aliens?

The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision for the future.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. nord.twu.net...

The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. ~ Niki Rapaana

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Nice post. But I'm not sure you answered the questions I was asking. If people support the Democrat's platform then why is Congress approval rating so low? I don't disagree with your assessment of how power is divided in this country. I'm just not sure the two party's have platforms. It seems to me both parties are controlled by lobbyists.

I'm not sure about the "51%" you quoted. I thought you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything.

a reply to: Murgatroid

So Democrats exist for the Hegelian dialectic by keeping us divided. Are you saying if we had one party rule in this country the Republicans would get more or less done?

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Vector99

I am agreeing with you that socialism is the problem.

Why is socialism a problem?

Because we all know laissez faire capitalism is the best system of economics.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Vector99

I am agreeing with you that socialism is the problem.

Why is socialism a problem?

Because we all know laissez faire capitalism is the best system of economics.

Right, so therefore all forms of social politics and economics is a problem? I can think of several issues with capitalism as well. Seems like you're being a little biased.

a reply to: dfnj2015

It's Neitzsche's Apollonian-Dionysian pendulum. We're not moving permanently to the right.

Dionysian: economic boom, everyone living large, corporations and plutocrats gain power, we go right. See: Gold Rush, Carpet Baggers, Manifest Destiny, Roaring Twenties, Reagan.

Then, a crash or cataclysm. Economic, or a war, or something that causes loss of faith in The Man. Call it bacchanalia, if you want to stick with the metaphor.

Then, we swing left, usually with a leader as a standard bearer. See the labor movement. See both Roosevelts. The first of whom was a trust busting environmentalist Republican. We go Apollonian, basing policies off morals, ideals for the greater good, science, etc.

Then it swings back as people get complacent.

Now, this current Dionysian momentum that's been going since Reagan will not end until there's a crash, or some sort of break between the public and the politicocorporate powers. The powers that be have shrewdly stalled any BIG crashes so that the Dionysian trend continues as long as possible. The wars we've had are distant, vague, and there's no draft. The recession wasn't big enough to affect the zeitgeist in the long term. Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Sanders and Black Lives Matter scare the crap out of TPTB, because they could be the seeds of the crash, but they have learned how to distract us.

Liberals aren't only necessary, they're existentially part of our culture.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I literally only answered the one question I quoted about why there are 2 major political parties. I wanted to see where you were going with this.

It's not 51%, it's just a majority that's needed. Not sure what I was proverbially smoking when I typed that lol. But no, 60 votes is only needed to break a filibuster in the Senate to force a vote. And even that can change if Senate leadership wants it to change (they call it the "nuclear option").

ETA: Here's the roll call for 2017's Senate votes to get the point across (HERE).

a reply to: dfnj2015

It is amazing how easily so many right-wingers are manipulated by Q into thinking that a police state and arresting Democrat politicians is the way to go. Really? Arrest people based on what someone on 4Chan said?

I am pretty sure the O.P. is satire, but I wonder sometimes if it isn't accurate. I'm glad Republicans on this thread are arguing against the idea.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Really? Trolling in political ideology? Move this to the pit where it belongs.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: dfnj2015

It is amazing how easily so many right-wingers are manipulated by Q into thinking that a police state and arresting Democrat politicians is the way to go. Really? Arrest people based on what someone on 4Chan said?

I am pretty sure the O.P. is satire, but I wonder sometimes if it isn't accurate. I'm glad Republicans on this thread are arguing against the idea.

Arresting any wrong-doing politician is the way to go
Outside , lookin in huh ?