Math has a liberal bias

[Ryantology]

That brings me to the third thing that I see said on here that drives me crazy. That's when people wish for the death of the Republican party. I don't mean that they just lose this or that election, but that the part literally have no power. Do you guys not think beyond one step? Are you honestly advocating single party rule? Do you guys have any clue how well that has worked out in the world.

Do you honestly think that the collapse of the Republican Party would lead to single-party rule? I mean, because that pretty much never happens, anywhere, unless steps are take by the dominant party to forcibly prevent the formation of new parties (and I never see any leftists advocating this). In the absence of that, new parties will always form from the corpses of old. The Republican Party formed from the corpse of the Whigs in the 1850s. There's a chance we might even see a drift away from the bipartisan existence we've had to accept forever.

No party is entitled to have an equal say in things. If their politics no longer represent the views of the mainstream, and it's clear that they do not, but they still hold enough power and the willingness to deadlock and regress the political process just because it's all they are capable of, then yes, I advocate the active marginalization of that party.

[Something completely different]

Good now that we know that you dont think that a fotoshoped picture is an actual resemblence of relity we can continue.

How is Barack Obama a nazi?

[A Theist]

Good now that we know that you dont think that a fotoshoped picture is an actual resemblence of relity we can continue.

How is Barack Obama a nazi?

In the same way that leftwingers compare Conservatives and Libertarians to the Ku Klux Klan.

[Something completely different]

In the same way that leftwingers compare Conservatives and Libertarians to the Ku Klux Klan.

And is that a general theme persisting throughout the entire political landscape?

Does every single representative of the leftleaning political field in the US participate in such behavior?




And are you basicaly saying: "If you draw a giant cock on my schoolbook I will paint a giant cock into yours!"

?

Awwwww how cute.

[A Theist]

That brings me to the third thing that I see said on here that drives me crazy. That's when people wish for the death of the Republican party. I don't mean that they just lose this or that election, but that the part literally have no power. Do you guys not think beyond one step? Are you honestly advocating single party rule? Do you guys have any clue how well that has worked out in the world.

Do you honestly think that the collapse of the Republican Party would lead to single-party rule? I mean, because that pretty much never happens, anywhere, unless steps are take by the dominant party to forcibly prevent the formation of new parties (and I never see any leftists advocating this). In the absence of that, new parties will always form from the corpses of old. The Republican Party formed from the corpse of the Whigs in the 1850s. There's a chance we might even see a drift away from the bipartisan existence we've had to accept forever.

No party is entitled to have an equal say in things. If their politics no longer represent the views of the mainstream, and it's clear that they do not, but they still hold enough power and the willingness to deadlock and regress the political process just because it's all they are capable of, then yes, I advocate the active marginalization of that party.

The history of this country has shown that the electorate has always been fickle, and the party in power is subject to the electorate...the left may have the majority now, but that's always subject to change from one election to the next.

[Anymouse]

The history of this country has shown that the electorate has always been fickle, and the party in power is subject to the electorate...the left may have the majority now, but that's always subject to change from one election to the next.

I am not sure I would call the Democrats "the Left." I think a more accurate representation of the Democrats are "the slightly less Right."
And as for the Dems having the majority, they do not, at least in the House.
Moreover, because of the way electoral votes are apportioned (one for each representative and one for each senator), the red states (GOP) get additional electoral votes (because there are more red states). The blue states (those with the majority of the population) do not get as many electoral votes for senators (because there are less states, though they have more people).
As the system is currently set up, the GOP red states therefore have an advantage going in (assuming no states flip parties) because there are more of them. Not more people or votes, just more (sparsely populated) states (like mine). The GOP can occasionally afford to lose a red state (because there are so many red states), while the Dems cannot afford to lose blue states (because there are so many people).

[A Theist]

The history of this country has shown that the electorate has always been fickle, and the party in power is subject to the electorate...the left may have the majority now, but that's always subject to change from one election to the next.

I am not sure I would call the Democrats "the Left." I think a more accurate representation of the Democrats are "the slightly less Right."
And as for the Dems having the majority, they do not, at least in the House.
Moreover, because of the way electoral votes are apportioned (one for each representative and one for each senator), the red states (GOP) get additional electoral votes (because there are more red states). The blue states (those with the majority of the population) do not get as many electoral votes for senators (because there are less states, though they have more people).
As the system is currently set up, the GOP red states therefore have an advantage going in (assuming no states flip parties) because there are more of them. Not more people or votes, just more (sparsely populated) states (like mine). The GOP can occasionally afford to lose a red state (because there are so many red states), while the Dems cannot afford to lose blue states (because there are so many people).

As the system is currently set up, the GOP red states therefore have an advantage going in (assuming no states flip parties) because there are more of them.

Well now...that is encouraging. The Republicans should take back the Congress in the mid term elections then!

[CapnAwesome]

Do you honestly think that the collapse of the Republican Party would lead to single-party rule? I mean, because that pretty much never happens, anywhere, unless steps are take by the dominant party to forcibly prevent the formation of new parties (and I never see any leftists advocating this). In the absence of that, new parties will always form from the corpses of old. The Republican Party formed from the corpse of the Whigs in the 1850s. There's a chance we might even see a drift away from the bipartisan existence we've had to accept forever.

No party is entitled to have an equal say in things. If their politics no longer represent the views of the mainstream, and it's clear that they do not, but they still hold enough power and the willingness to deadlock and regress the political process just because it's all they are capable of, then yes, I advocate the active marginalization of that party.

The views of the mainstream are not what's actually healthy for the country. The mainstream wants low taxes and lots of social services. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see what's wrong with that.

I personally don't think that that the collapse of the Republican party would mean single party rule, but I think that basically people who mindlessly support one party are encouraging that. I also don't think the Republican party is going to collapse. Younger Republicans are more secular, more Libertarian etc. Likely it'll evolve rather than collapse. Also there can only be two major parties in the US, it's just a result of the way our electorate is set up.

I recall a member of these boards saying that Republicans are reluctant to change their position, which basically ignores the entire history of the party.

Ugghhhh, it annoys me to defend a party that I am not a part of, but some people sometimes say some stupid shit, and I doubt they are putting the thought into it that you express there.

[znk666]

Sharing is caring except when it come to politics then it's treason,theft,socialism and you should be publicly executed for even suggesting it.
-The American Right.

[TaraJo]

How is Barack Obama a nazi?

In the same way that leftwingers compare Conservatives and Libertarians to the Ku Klux Klan.

As stated, the Nazi party is hated because they killed millions, many for having 'inferior genes' and they started the most destructive war in human history. Obama has never done this. Neither has Bush or the Republican party. The comparison doesn't fit.

On the other hand, the KKK is hated for their racism and racism has become alarmingly acceptable within the Republican party, especially since Obama got elected. This is a comparison that fits.

No, not all Republicans are racist, I'll willingly admit that. But there are a lot who are and they're damaging the image of the Republican party. Even moderates are being hurt at the voting box because of some of the crazy things their fringe say.