Posted by all3 on 8/26/2020 9:52:00 AM (view original):
bob, serious question I'd appreciate if you answered honestly. Would eliminating (or at least greatly limiting) Parties be part of your changes to our Democracy?
You know I feel they are far, far too powerful today, and totally control how 98% of Politicians vote 98% of the time, so I'm just wondering.

Fair question, decently expressed.

I (do) think you know (already) that I agree with your basic point. The "two Parties" (the major/dominant two) we NOW have........HAVE been able to put a stranglehold on OTHER "assemblies" based on differing ideologies. AND they've passed exceedingly restrictive RULES on the process to make it VERY DIFFICULT for another "assembly" to thrive/grow into a legitimate alternative to the TWO we have.

I also know (History!) that many of our founders were dead set AGAINST political parties (formation).
I also KNOW that (while they may have felt that way) they instituted the ABILITY for parties to form when they drafted the US Constitution and then made that LAW when the Congressional Congress adopted it 12 years later. FACT is, the PEOPLE have the RIGHT to assemble.

THUS, you can't outlaw parties.

BUT, we can re-group. Reform. Reassemble.
Leave the 2 parties that exist and re-assemble into NEW Parties based on our differing ideologies.
And (hopefully) end up with MORE and better focused Parties. MORE democracy, not less, but still within the Representative Democratic Republic we HAVE!

Is that a fair and honest enough answer?
Hope so, because I'm not smart enough to do any better than that!

Posted by tangplay on 8/26/2020 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 8/26/2020 9:26:00 AM (view original):
It's not fair to pick on folks that aren't around to defend themselves.

OR put words in others mouths.

I don't believe for a moment that Boris would "agree" that police should "target" black kids over white ones.
In my neighborhood, MOST of the crime is committed by rich white kids!

I distinctly remember that in a debate I had with him on race and police a long time ago, he ended up defending hotspot policing in black communities and stop and frisk because black people commit more crime.

I also remember him arguing that it's good the police arrest more innocent black people because black people commit more crime.

Idk if he still holds these positions, but he definitely did hold them around 2018 or so.

Tangy, I don't doubt that. And I think that it's fair for you to point it out.

BUT, from time to time, we ALL post sheit now and then. Exagerate our REAL opinion to make a point, etc.
It's the freaking internet on a SIM sports website. We argue/debate amongst what? about 8 or 10 of OURSELVES?

I'm not gonna crucify (or hold somebody to the LETTER of any single post/statement) a poster over something stupid they post.
As you know, on most things political I disagree with Boris. BUT, I know him to be A Husband, a Dad, a REAL person living in a complicated time trying to raise children in a chaotic world.

Thus, I don't REALLY believe that (at the basest moment of determination) that HE would actually support arresting/hassling/harming ANYONE just based on their skin tone/color.

BTW. While I'm ranting. Here's something sure to rile up somebody.

How the Hell does Nikki Haley get off calling herself a "person of color"??? She's whiter than I am!!
There is no freaking WAY in hell in Modern So. Carolina that SHE would have suffered ANY discrimination BASED ON COLOR!!!
That is, without wearing one of them dot India scarves!!
Her Parents? Sure, I can believe that, She did point out that HE wore a Turban.
But SHE, herself??? BULLSHEIT!!!

She's as white as any of us Caspers!

Ya think "Nikki Haley" would've made it far in the Repuglikan party under her real name, Nimrata Randhawa?


lol

Posted by laramiebob on 8/26/2020 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 8/26/2020 9:52:00 AM (view original):
bob, serious question I'd appreciate if you answered honestly. Would eliminating (or at least greatly limiting) Parties be part of your changes to our Democracy?
You know I feel they are far, far too powerful today, and totally control how 98% of Politicians vote 98% of the time, so I'm just wondering.

Fair question, decently expressed.

I (do) think you know (already) that I agree with your basic point. The "two Parties" (the major/dominant two) we NOW have........HAVE been able to put a stranglehold on OTHER "assemblies" based on differing ideologies. AND they've passed exceedingly restrictive RULES on the process to make it VERY DIFFICULT for another "assembly" to thrive/grow into a legitimate alternative to the TWO we have.

I also know (History!) that many of our founders were dead set AGAINST political parties (formation).
I also KNOW that (while they may have felt that way) they instituted the ABILITY for parties to form when they drafted the US Constitution and then made that LAW when the Congressional Congress adopted it 12 years later. FACT is, the PEOPLE have the RIGHT to assemble.

THUS, you can't outlaw parties.

BUT, we can re-group. Reform. Reassemble.
Leave the 2 parties that exist and re-assemble into NEW Parties based on our differing ideologies.
And (hopefully) end up with MORE and better focused Parties. MORE democracy, not less, but still within the Representative Democratic Republic we HAVE!

Is that a fair and honest enough answer?
Hope so, because I'm not smart enough to do any better than that!

You are plenty smart.

Posted by bronxcheer on 8/26/2020 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Ya think "Nikki Haley" would've made it far in the Repuglikan party under her real name, Nimrata Randhawa?


lol

Precise

Careful now.......... lol.

Every time I see Melania give a speech I can't help but think of that old cartoon, Bullwinkle? Was that the name of it?

Had a moose as this character Bullwinkle and a little whiny voiced character, (I could NEVER figure out just what it was---maybe a racoon or something) whose name was Rocky I think.

And there was their nemesis Boris Badenouf and his gal Natasha..................
Anyways, Melania always makes me think of Natasha..............until me mind wanders and I decide to go online and see the 1st ladies' ****.

Waddya think?
There's the old "put pig on a lipstick but it's still a pig" logic

Melania looked real nice.
But then, you can put lipstick on a skank and it's still a skank, no?

That was some lipstick gloss can you imagine the backlash if she was a Democrat First Lady.

i do think she should wear fish net stockings.

Btw we know the world will come to an end if Biden gets in.

didnt that happen with Obama?
give me a break

going on 185,000
and the cdc wing of the trump partiers say less testing is fine and dandy.

Right wing terrorism is one of the greatest national security threats facing our country today.

Yes it is.
and what trump has done with stopping testing stopping mail encouraging no masks and large crowds is the type of terrorism that brings a smile to our enemies because he causes multitudes oif thousands of deaths.

I consider him a mass murderer

Posted by laramiebob on 8/26/2020 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 8/26/2020 9:52:00 AM (view original):
bob, serious question I'd appreciate if you answered honestly. Would eliminating (or at least greatly limiting) Parties be part of your changes to our Democracy?
You know I feel they are far, far too powerful today, and totally control how 98% of Politicians vote 98% of the time, so I'm just wondering.

Fair question, decently expressed.

I (do) think you know (already) that I agree with your basic point. The "two Parties" (the major/dominant two) we NOW have........HAVE been able to put a stranglehold on OTHER "assemblies" based on differing ideologies. AND they've passed exceedingly restrictive RULES on the process to make it VERY DIFFICULT for another "assembly" to thrive/grow into a legitimate alternative to the TWO we have.

I also know (History!) that many of our founders were dead set AGAINST political parties (formation).
I also KNOW that (while they may have felt that way) they instituted the ABILITY for parties to form when they drafted the US Constitution and then made that LAW when the Congressional Congress adopted it 12 years later. FACT is, the PEOPLE have the RIGHT to assemble.

THUS, you can't outlaw parties.

BUT, we can re-group. Reform. Reassemble.
Leave the 2 parties that exist and re-assemble into NEW Parties based on our differing ideologies.
And (hopefully) end up with MORE and better focused Parties. MORE democracy, not less, but still within the Representative Democratic Republic we HAVE!

Is that a fair and honest enough answer?
Hope so, because I'm not smart enough to do any better than that!

Appreciate the rational, honest (as far as I know) response.
How about limiting Party (and all other) contributions to each candidate, so the candidate isn't "tied" to the Party-line (or anyone else) if/when elected?

Yeah and the incumbent automatically wins.
us dems have a platform and agenda we are proud of no shame in our politicsz

get lost.

Mike Pence’s law-and-order ode in his speech tonight just happened to leave out that an officer he praised was allegedly killed by a far-right extremist, not a mob of protesters.

They were both very fine people