Jump to content

How To Set Republican Hair On Fire


Recommended Posts

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an 'illegitimate president'


Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.

The former secretary of state, who lost the presidency to Trump, offered a scathing assessment of the president, his 2016 win and the latest allegations that he tried to obtain incriminating information from a foreign government about Joe Biden, a possible 2020 opponent, according to excerpts released by CBS from a wide-ranging pretaped interview for its “Sunday Morning” show,

Clinton was asked whether it angers her that none of the current Democratic candidates invoke her on the campaign trail while Trump’s rally crowds still break out into “lock her up” chants.

“No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

While I'm not at all happy with Trump as the US president, I'm happy she's not.

Oof.

Think about the possible differences in the last few years....

 Still think that way?

 She wasn't a great choice, but Trump is a fucking disaster.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

While I'm not at all happy with Trump as the US president, I'm happy she's not.

Oof.

I always think guys like you are hilarious. You're always really clear that you dislike Hillary. You're never clear about why. Was it Pizzagate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I always think guys like you are hilarious. You're always really clear that you dislike Hillary. You're never clear about why. Was it Pizzagate?

No.... It's because she has a shrill raspy voice, and sounds like a harping bitch..... But if she had a stentorian voice like..... Oh..... Say...... Reagan, she'd have been fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, justsomeguy! said:

Only marginally. It might have been the "drain the swamp" rhetoric that was never followed up on.

..... Like the swamp which is now infested with more snakes?.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I always think guys like you are hilarious. You're always really clear that you dislike Hillary. You're never clear about why. Was it Pizzagate?

pssst...I think its that "girl" thing,.  Ya know, "cooties".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

By voice, do you perchance, mean penis?

No. Personally I'm more in favor of vagina, but your choice doesn't bother me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

No. Personally I'm more in favor of vagina, but your choice doesn't bother me.

I find a finely honed sense of humour goes a long way when it comes to attracting vaginas.

And my choice doesn't bother me either....

 

 

You don't think part of the Hillary rabid hate is not based on her being an uppity woman who should be behind the scenes supporting the man instead of trying to be a man?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I find a finely honed sense of humour goes a long way when it comes to attracting vaginas.

And my choice doesn't bother me either....

 

 

You don't think part of the Hillary rabid hate is not based on her being an uppity woman who should be behind the scenes supporting the man instead of trying to be a man?

No.

I think the Hillary hate is that she's a woman being better at doing what many have considered "A MAN'S JOB" for a long time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It might have been obvious that drain the swamp was a euphemism for your pocket to mine, based on trumps past practice.....

No. The campaign promise was pretty clear, but still a campaign promise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I find a finely honed sense of humour goes a long way when it comes to attracting vaginas.

And my choice doesn't bother me either....

 

 

You don't think part of the Hillary rabid hate is not based on her being an uppity woman who should be behind the scenes supporting the man instead of trying to be a man?

Ironic that we never ended up with much of a man, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Da fuck did I just type?

Got me. I was interpreting the statement to be that Trump had drained the swamp, and Hillary would not have.

 Forgive me if I misinterpreted you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, justsomeguy! said:

No. The campaign promise was pretty clear, but still a campaign promise. 

The campaign promise...."....You silly woman, you knew I was a snake when you took me in!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

No.

I think the Hillary hate is that she's a woman being better at doing what many have considered "A MAN'S JOB" for a long time.

 

I've no doubt that Hillary would be better at the job than a number of apparently qualified men.

I also believe that a number of Trump supporters/republicans do believe a woman's place is as the rock, supporting the man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, justsomeguy! said:

I didn't. Nor did I believe Clinton would be sane.

Sane?

 

I'm an Australian. We have compulsory voting. We can't stay home and silently protest the election. It means that sometimes, or even everytime, you do end up voting for the least worst.

I cannot comprehend Trump being the "least worst".

 

Hillary is far from perfect. But a shitty penny in your hand is better than gold in trumps pocket.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

No, it's dynasties.

Trump’s eldest son, daughter and son in law all have highest level jobs in government for which they are totally unqualified. So you are content with blatant corrupt nepotism in order to avoid potential dynastic succession, which if Trump is re-elected again, is game over with USA becoming a one party dynastic state?

Ivanka clearly is being groomed.... possibly in more ways than one.....

8CECD3AB-CB10-45B8-B316-5C44ADF45CB8.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Who said I didn't vote?

Nobody

My point was that voting for the least worst option is totally an option.

 

Based on your last few posts, you believe Hillary wouldn't be sane. You believe dynasties should be avoided.

 

How's that working out for you? Because the reality is your vote got you both.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Agree.

Of course, I'd prefer a competent dynasty, even a slightly incompetent dynasty over a currupt outsider.

To be fair, we didn't know how corrupted things would turn out with this presidency. Funny, huh?

Good night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

To be fair, we didn't know how corrupted things would turn out with this presidency. Funny, huh?

Good night.

Not funny at all. How could any intelligent person not know that Trump would be the most corrupt, incompetent president. ever. I was not a big Hillary fan but with her it would have been another 8 years of Bill-like government, good for the really rich and OK for everyone else, but at least with an intelligent, knowledgeable person at the helm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

To be fair, we didn't know how corrupted things would turn out with this presidency. Funny, huh?

Good night.

You only didn't know that if you deliberately ignored everything that was known about Trump prior to 2015, and also ignored his primary campaign (bragging about the size of his dick? Really??)

Sorry, no passes

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, justsomeguy! said:

All y'all seem to think I voted for the guy.

Hey, it's a democracy.

IMHO Trump is just a symptom. I was reacting to your suggestion that nobody would really know just how bad Trump was going to be, how self-serving, how shallow, how lazy, how crooked...

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Hillary quote is fundamentally wrong.  Trump is sure he is legitimately the current president, and he "took over" the USA.  He is definitely a "ends justifies the means" sort of person.  There are a lot of people with that philosophy and he has given them justification.  Future politics has been exponentially weaponized.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bridhb said:

The original Hillary quote is fundamentally wrong.  Trump is sure he is legitimately the current president, and he "took over" the USA.  He is definitely a "ends justifies the means" sort of person.  There are a lot of people with that philosophy and he has given them justification.  Future politics has been exponentially weaponized.

Well put.  In the future, we can look forward to massive roll-backs of the previous administrations policies, abuse of executive privlege, and an ignoring of the proper channels and congressional oversight.

Essentially, they are consolidating power in the executive and daring the rest of the government to do anything about it.

We are seeing exactly how far the president's office can push the rest of the government and get away with it.  Or not get away with it, as the case may be.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an 'illegitimate president'


Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.

The former secretary of state, who lost the presidency to Trump, offered a scathing assessment of the president, his 2016 win and the latest allegations that he tried to obtain incriminating information from a foreign government about Joe Biden, a possible 2020 opponent, according to excerpts released by CBS from a wide-ranging pretaped interview for its “Sunday Morning” show,

Clinton was asked whether it angers her that none of the current Democratic candidates invoke her on the campaign trail while Trump’s rally crowds still break out into “lock her up” chants.

“No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said. “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

No hint of trying to negate the results of the election here, is there?    I suspect we'll see more of this, and it'll be like federal contract awards, never really decided until the protest lawsuits are over.   Kind of ironic - her campaign paying to dig up dirt on Trump from that same foreign government, and criticizing him for doing so.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I cannot comprehend Trump being the "least worst".

I'll try...

Pol Pot vs Trump?

Idi Amin vs. Trump?

Mao Zedong vs. Trump?

Vlad The Impaler vs. Trump?

If you consider what Trump would have been capable of in those countries at that time, it's a toss up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jules said:

I'll try...

Pol Pot vs Trump?

Idi Amin vs. Trump?

Mao Zedong vs. Trump?

Vlad The Impaler vs. Trump?

If you consider what Trump would have been capable of in those countries at that time, it's a toss up.

Least Worst among American politicians running for President on a major party ticket.

Pol Pot seized power and never ran in an election.

Idi Amin seized power and never ran in an election.

Mao Zedong seized power and never ran in a free multi-party election.

Vlad The Impaler and never ran in an election.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

   Kind of ironic - her campaign paying to dig up dirt on Trump from that same foreign government, and criticizing him for doing so.  

 

That has been well documented, are you sure you want to parrot that one? Wiki has a very detailed history on this if you want to read it.

Another take on that one https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/13/house-republicans-trump-foreign-dirt-comment-1364342

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Least Worst among American politicians running for President on a major party ticket.

That's cheating!  Do you know how far down the human sewer I had to go to find someone worse than Trump?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Sorry - the claims that "I didn't know" don't absolve her of responsibility for what she paid to have done.  From the wiki accounting: 
" In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016.[2] In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS"  

The Clinton campaign paid for dirt on Trump, and parts of it came from Russian sources: 

From the same WIki accounting: 

"At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months – during the first half of the year – Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down."

************************************************************************************************************

The behaviors aren't equal, but, they are close enough to claim an ironic comparison.   In Trump's case?   That he was using taxpayer $$ and the authority of the office of the Presidency for personal gain makes his behavior even more inappropriate, but, what is, is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

To be fair, we didn't know how corrupted things would turn out with this presidency. Funny, huh?

Good night.

In the famous words of Tonto after the Lone Ranger says "The Indians have us surrounded":

"What is this we of which you speak?"

How could any adult who could read NOT know Trump was and is utterly corrupt? What hint was there that he wasn't? Seriously? This is like acting surprised that Hulk Hogan was a wrestler :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry - the claims that "I didn't know" don't absolve her of responsibility for what she paid to have done.  From the wiki accounting: 
" In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016.[2] In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS"  

The Clinton campaign paid for dirt on Trump, and parts of it came from Russian sources: 

From the same WIki accounting: 

"At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months – during the first half of the year – Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down."

************************************************************************************************************

The behaviors aren't equal, but, they are close enough to warrant comparison.   In Trump's case?   That he was using taxpayer $$ and the authority of the office of the Presidency for personal gain makes his behavior even more inappropriate, but, what is, is. 

I guess it is lost on all the Elk that the FBI using a mob informant to get info is not quite the same as the FBI asking the Godfather for advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry - the claims that "I didn't know" don't absolve her of responsibility for what she paid to have done.  From the wiki accounting: 
" In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016.[2] In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS"  

The Clinton campaign paid for dirt on Trump, and parts of it came from Russian sources: 

From the same WIki accounting: 

"At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months – during the first half of the year – Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down."

************************************************************************************************************

The behaviors aren't equal, but, they are close enough to warrant comparison.   In Trump's case?   That he was using taxpayer $$ and the authority of the office of the Presidency for personal gain makes his behavior even more inappropriate, but, what is, is. 

OK, here's the comparison-

Hillary paid foreigners to dig up dirt on her opponent.

Trump used US tax dollars and a subversion of US foreign policy to get another country's government to dig up dirt on his opponent.

That clear enough for you? Seems like a YU-UU-uge difference to me, widely diverging on two axis.

Aside from that, Trump is President. Hillary is last week's fish leftovers. Trump committed a crime (well, lots actually). What do you think should be done about it?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, here's the comparison-

Hillary paid foreigners to dig up dirt on her opponent.

Trump used US tax dollars and a subversion of US foreign policy to get another country's government to dig up dirt on his opponent.

That clear enough for you? Seems like a YU-UU-uge difference to me, widely diverging on two axis.

Aside from that, Trump is President. Hillary is last week's fish leftovers. Trump committed a crime (well, lots actually). What do you think should be done about it?

- DSK

Except that didn't really happen. Her campaign paid an organization that paid another organization that paid a guy that had informants in various countries. The informant is working against his countries interests and has no idea what the end destination of the information is. There is no quid pro quo nor blackmail going on here.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, here's the comparison-

Hillary paid foreigners to dig up dirt on her opponent.

Trump used US tax dollars and a subversion of US foreign policy to get another country's government to dig up dirt on his opponent.

That clear enough for you? Seems like a YU-UU-uge difference to me, widely diverging on two axis.

Aside from that, Trump is President. Hillary is last week's fish leftovers. Trump committed a crime (well, lots actually). What do you think should be done about it?

- DSK

Actually the Hillary campaign paid the DC office of the law firm Perkins Coie.

Perkins Coie then contracted with Fusion GPS, a DC opposition research company, which then contracted with the ex-MI6 agent, Christopher Steele. Perkins Coie acted as a cutout so that the Hillary campaign didn't even know it was Fusion GPS, let alone Steele. Nor did Steele know who he was researching for.

Methinks the elk know this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

To be fair, we didn't know how corrupted things would turn out with this presidency. Funny, huh?

Good night.

actually, we knew exactly how this would turn out. There was hope from some that he would act Presidential, but that was just unfounded hope.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Actually the Hillary campaign paid the DC office of the law firm Perkins Coie.

Perkins Coie then contracted with Fusion GPS, a DC opposition research company, which then contracted with the ex-MI6 agent, Christopher Steele. Perkins Coie acted as a cutout so that the Hillary campaign didn't even know it was Fusion GPS, let alone Steele. Nor did Steele know who he was researching for.

Methinks the elk know this.

Of course they know that. That they choose to bullshit around it is just an illustration of their growing dishonesty. Just like their Führer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

No.... It's because she has a shrill raspy voice, and sounds like a harping bitch..... But if she had a stentorian voice like..... Oh..... Say...... Reagan, she'd have been fine.

I’d say Reagan had a mellifluous voice.  Now think on Hillary with a soft sexy voice, say like Mae West!  

OK, imagine Hillary, during 2nd debate- “ooooh, I think the Donald just looked at my Butt!  Get any closer Donald, and you’ll catch on.......fire!”

Stentorian is what gets accomplished women in trouble with insecure men, imho.

Now think again about Hillary with a soft sexy voice-  Ivanka would’ve been green with envy-  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

actually, we knew exactly how this would turn out. There was hope from some that he would act Presidential, but that was just unfounded hope.

I have no idea who the “some” were, but he has been a loud mouth, opinionated, obnoxious bully his entire adult life.  Leopards and spots.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

All y'all seem to think I voted for the guy.

Yeah, I get it, you antiduopolist, you.

That doesn't seem to be working out that we'll for you either.

 

 

Look. It doesn't matter who you vote for. The dems and repubs are the parties of presidents. You're gonna get one of their nominees whether you want then or not.

The question is, "do you vote for the better/least worst of the likely options?" Or do you vote for what you want?".

 

 

I'm mean, not everyone gets to marry a supermodel.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

The question is, "do you vote for the better/least worst of the likely options?" Or do you vote for what you want?".

 

I vote for whom I feel will do the most good, and that precludes Rs and Ds. I cannot vote r or d.

So it's "what I want".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

If the "can't win" groups' percentage of the vote goes up, it might spur some change in the duopoly. 

 

 

Until there is action and movement in local elections voting in nationals is akin to reserving your unicorn. Might show up. That the Ls, Greens, and whomever have done squat locally not holding my breath. I do vote for some of these folks in locals fwiw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a third party, vote for them in LOCAL elections. Vote them into Congress! A third party president would be better than Trump, but so would my dog. Other than that low bar, a third party president would be useless. Congress would more bipartisan than ever before, 100% united to make sure this new guy that is not part of the club gets nowhere.

Think about it, any win for President GreenLib is a loss for R and D both. You need a voting block in Congress and then go for a president.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
18 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Hillary paid foreigners to dig up dirt on her opponent.

Trump used US tax dollars and a subversion of US foreign policy to get another country's government to dig up dirt on his opponent.

...    ...

Except that didn't really happen. Her campaign paid an organization that paid another organization that paid a guy that had informants in various countries. The informant is working against his countries interests and has no idea what the end destination of the information is. There is no quid pro quo nor blackmail going on here.

Yes, you're right. The above is the over-simplified version so it might sink in for those who need the Bud-Lite summary. It's a relatively side issue how many intermediaries Hillary used, and it's not really sure (nor is it part of the issue) that Hillery thought of it and gave the orders herself.

What Trump has done, himself (and obviously on his own initiative) is outright criminal, it's against the law -AND- against the interests of the US, and it's equally clear that the majority of Trumpublicans are fine with it.

Even worse, this isn't a surprise. He's done so many similar things, and been applauded, we've been on this track for a long time.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yes, you're right. The above is the over-simplified version so it might sink in for those who need the Bud-Lite summary. It's a relatively side issue how many intermediaries Hillary used, and it's not really sure (nor is it part of the issue) that Hillery thought of it and gave the orders herself.

What Trump has done, himself (and obviously on his own initiative) is outright criminal, it's against the law -AND- against the interests of the US, and it's equally clear that the majority of Trumpublicans are fine with it.

Even worse, this isn't a surprise. He's done so many similar things, and been applauded, we've been on this track for a long time.

- DSK

Still one more thing - big diff between spying ON and spying FOR. Having a  spy from MI6 with sources inside Russia find things out at a third-hand remove from the hiring organization incurs no debt or obligation. Having *Putin* help you win an election gives one a debt to Putin and Putin leverage over you. You are now an asset, not a customer.

This is the reason that the FBI usually uses informants in the mob to make cases instead of just calling the local Don on the phone and asking who to arrest next. When this actually happened, see the infamous Whitey Bulger, the FBI ended up working for the Irish mob and not vice versa.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

If you are an anarchist, would you not be voting for the worst people in hopes they will destroy the government?

Well, certain anarchist philosophies might. There's a broad spectrum of anarchist thoughts on the utility of gov't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If you want a third party, vote for them in LOCAL elections. Vote them into Congress! A third party president would be better than Trump, but so would my dog. Other than that low bar, a third party president would be useless. Congress would more bipartisan than ever before, 100% united to make sure this new guy that is not part of the club gets nowhere.

Think about it, any win for President GreenLib is a loss for R and D both. You need a voting block in Congress and then go for a president.

Re 3rd party candidates winning the presidency.

Whatever the Ds and Rs disagree on they agree on one thing.  They don’t want anyone else winning.  They would prefer that no one other than a D or an R even get to play the game.  Take a look at the election laws in this country.  In some states the requirements for even getting on the ballot are near Herculean.  It is not just our winter-take-all, first past the post election system that results in a two party monopoly.  

For example, there are almost 7400 state legislators in the US.  Only 34 of them are Independent or support a political party other than Democrat and Republican parties.

https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Re 3rd party candidates winning the presidency.

Whatever the Ds and Rs disagree on they agree on one thing.  They don’t want anyone else winning.  They would prefer that no one other than a D or an R even get to play the game.  Take a look at the election laws in this country.  In some states the requirements for even getting on the ballot are near Herculean.  It is not just our winter-take-all, first past the post election system that results in a two party monopoly.  

For example, there are almost 7400 state legislators in the US.  Only 34 of them are Independent or support a political party other than Democrat and Republican parties.

https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures

This is true and why you need to work from the bottom up. Change the local and state conditions first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Re 3rd party candidates winning the presidency.

Whatever the Ds and Rs disagree on they agree on one thing.  They don’t want anyone else winning.  They would prefer that no one other than a D or an R even get to play the game.  Take a look at the election laws in this country.  In some states the requirements for even getting on the ballot are near Herculean.  It is not just our winter-take-all, first past the post election system that results in a two party monopoly.  

For example, there are almost 7400 state legislators in the US.  Only 34 of them are Independent or support a political party other than Democrat and Republican parties.

https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures

You're ignoring the habit of the two major parties absorbing the good (or popular) ideas of the third parties which would result in diminishing the third party.  It's not a conspiracy but a response to the demands of the voters.  An example would be the Republican adoption of the tenents of the Progressive party then rejecting them during the Klan surge of the '20's. 

Another explanation may be that the American electorate really IS now deeply binary. Looking at Nate Silver's The Myth of the Moderate Middle substantiates the idea that we really are this binary, with the real change being that we quit working together in the '90's. 

Still another may be that instead of coalitions of political PARTIES, we have coalitions of political REGIONS that result in electoral success. That's the thesis of Colin Woodard's American Nations, that the original settlers in a region brought their voting values with them and their descendants maintain those values.  Examples would be, again, the Progressive Party reflecting the values of the Calvinist Puritans and the Dixicrats reflecting the values of Southern English sons of nobility. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

You're ignoring the habit of the two major parties absorbing the good (or popular) ideas of the third parties which would result in diminishing the third party.  It's not a conspiracy but a response to the demands of the voters.  An example would be the Republican adoption of the tenents of the Progressive party then rejecting them during the Klan surge of the '20's. 

Another explanation may be that the American electorate really IS now deeply binary. Looking at Nate Silver's The Myth of the Moderate Middle substantiates the idea that we really are this binary, with the real change being that we quit working together in the '90's. 

Still another may be that instead of coalitions of political PARTIES, we have coalitions of political REGIONS that result in electoral success. That's the thesis of Colin Woodard's American Nations, that the original settlers in a region brought their voting values with them and their descendants maintain those values.  Examples would be, again, the Progressive Party reflecting the values of the Calvinist Puritans and the Dixicrats reflecting the values of Southern English sons of nobility. 

All true.  I was just citing one set of structural reasons. We have had the same two, not just any two, parties dominate the political scene for about a century.  And whatever the reasons they certainly predate Silver’s excellent work explaining the myth of the moderate middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Today's Republican Party isn't the Republican party of 60 years ago, i.e. before the Republicans started heavily courting white southerners that resented integration.

I don't think it is even the Republican party of 10 years ago but it's not hard to see the progression from Nixon to Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, learningJ24 said:

I don't think it is even the Republican party of 10 years ago but it's not hard to see the progression from Nixon to Trump.

I left in the late 90s when they started treating the other party as their enemy and wrapping themselves in the trappings of faith. I’m hoping that the Party might be able to rediscover some conservative principles from the rubble of whatever the Pride of New York leaves behind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Today's Republican Party isn't the Republican party of 60 years ago, i.e. before the Republicans started heavily courting white southerners that resented integration.

the current Republican party is trending towards a party of poor, rural, white identity. that's a position of perpetual minority so I'd expect changes but they really don't know how to change.

Don’t forget the oil & gas and WalMart oligarchy directing the plebiscite 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I left in the late 90s when they started treating the other party as their enemy and wrapping themselves in the trappings of faith. I’m hoping that the Party might be able to rediscover some conservative principles from the rubble of whatever the Pride of New York leaves behind. 

The phrase keeps being used but I'm afraid the definition seems to have slid around. Just how is "conservative principals" defined?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see the Pubs go nuts, just imagine Obama inviting Russian spies into the Oval office, saying, "Russia, if you're listening", withholding aid to a fledgling country for dirt on a political opponent, telling White House employees not to cooperate with Congressional investigations.  Or seeing Democrats stall and criticize Republicans on the investigation committees. 

Obama would already be impeached, convicted and jailed.   And his supporters would all be jailed so fast it would make your head spin.