He's right.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in He's right.:
That's what I said 2 hours ago. Do try and keep up, grandad.
I was actually replying to Jolly, who brought up Great Britain.
There's a reason...In that system, a small faction of votes can be bartered for political gain. In the U.S. system, that is much, much more difficult.
There is a reason the two major parties have a Majority Whip and a Minority Whip in Congress, and it has nothing to do with Cat's handcuffs and ball gag.
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 19:10 last edited by@Jolly said in He's right.:
There is a reason the two major parties have a Majority Whip and a Minority Whip in Congress, and it has nothing to do with Cat's handcuffs and ball gag.
The two major parties in Britain have Whips in parliament, too.
It's pretty much a 2-party system in the UK too, despite what Nigel Farage might want to have us believe.
-
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 19:10 last edited by
@Jolly said in He's right.:
@Larry said in He's right.:
But the Welsh..... nah...
Hey, they can sing!
Ya -a - a - a - a - !.........
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in He's right.:
That's what I said 2 hours ago. Do try and keep up, grandad.
I was actually replying to Jolly, who brought up Great Britain.
There's a reason...In that system, a small faction of votes can be bartered for political gain. In the U.S. system, that is much, much more difficult.
There is a reason the two major parties have a Majority Whip and a Minority Whip in Congress, and it has nothing to do with Cat's handcuffs and ball gag.
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 20:07 last edited by@Jolly said in He's right.:
There's a reason...In that system, a small faction of votes can be bartered for political gain.
I am curious as to how you arrive at that observation about the British system. Can provide a specific example or two?
-
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 20:30 last edited by xenon
The US seems like it was designed, or at least started, as a non-party system (Washington’s two terms had no parties).
The CSA had no parties during its 4 years of existence either.
-
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 20:45 last edited by Loki
Seems like the Lincoln Project feels boxed in with no place to go.
Sorry not every start up works out. Now Fvck off and stop trying to take down others with you.
-
Seems like the Lincoln Project feels boxed in with no place to go.
Sorry not every start up works out. Now Fvck off and stop trying to take down others with you.
-
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 21:55 last edited by jon-nyc
Like most political operatives, high level ones anyway, they had interests in the media buying and production companies they used for their ads. So they got paid while working for a worthy cause.
Everybody wins. Well, except Trump. lol
-
Like most political operatives, high level ones anyway, they had interests in the media buying and production companies they used for their ads. So they got paid while working for a worthy cause.
Everybody wins. Well, except Trump. lol
wrote on 14 Nov 2020, 22:57 last edited by@jon-nyc said in He's right.:
Like most political operatives, high level ones anyway, they had interests in the media buying and production companies they used for their ads. So they got paid while working for a worthy cause.
Everybody wins. Well, except Trump. lol
The problem is, they are now radioactive.
-
@taiwan_girl said in He's right.:
@Jolly said in He's right.:
but it is treasonous to your party to start up crap like the Lincoln Project
No it’s not. As you have said, party philosophy changes.
What is considered Republic/Democrat today is different from Republic/Democrat from 20-40 years ago.
Nothing wrong with wanting change.
Do you simply do not understand politics? Or party discipline? If the party becomes nothing but a herd of cats, nothing can be accomplished. And if you aren't in power, you accomplish much less than if you are.
This is not Great Britain. There are no wild-ass factions that can carve out their own little 5% and be effective.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 02:07 last edited by@Jolly said in He's right.:
@taiwan_girl said in He's right.:
@Jolly said in He's right.:
but it is treasonous to your party to start up crap like the Lincoln Project
No it’s not. As you have said, party philosophy changes.
What is considered Republic/Democrat today is different from Republic/Democrat from 20-40 years ago.
Nothing wrong with wanting change.
Do you simply do not understand politics? Or party discipline? If the party becomes nothing but a herd of cats, nothing can be accomplished. And if you aren't in power, you accomplish much less than if you are.
This is not Great Britain. There are no wild-ass factions that can carve out their own little 5% and be effective.
Jolly,what I was thinking of was that the republican party of five years ago is probably different than the republican party of today.
Was President Trump responsible for that? Probably yes. Was he treasonous for trying to change the party? No, I don’t think so
There are current people within the Republican Party who don’t like the change. So they are going to change, or want to change what it has become. That is all
-
@Jolly said in He's right.:
@taiwan_girl said in He's right.:
@Jolly said in He's right.:
but it is treasonous to your party to start up crap like the Lincoln Project
No it’s not. As you have said, party philosophy changes.
What is considered Republic/Democrat today is different from Republic/Democrat from 20-40 years ago.
Nothing wrong with wanting change.
Do you simply do not understand politics? Or party discipline? If the party becomes nothing but a herd of cats, nothing can be accomplished. And if you aren't in power, you accomplish much less than if you are.
This is not Great Britain. There are no wild-ass factions that can carve out their own little 5% and be effective.
Jolly,what I was thinking of was that the republican party of five years ago is probably different than the republican party of today.
Was President Trump responsible for that? Probably yes. Was he treasonous for trying to change the party? No, I don’t think so
There are current people within the Republican Party who don’t like the change. So they are going to change, or want to change what it has become. That is all
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 02:12 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in He's right.:
... the republican party of five years ago is probably different than the republican party of today.
Was President Trump responsible for that? Probably yes.
Yes, and yes.
Link to video
This is a nice illustration for both: