For The People

John Morgan seen licking his chops at an infringement lawsuit.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Good Lord, these people just don't get it.

---

For The People

John Morgan seen licking his chops at an infringement lawsuit.

Just not the American people.

---

#WALKAWAY

---

For The People

MORE FREE STUFF!

---

About as empty as any of their other slogans.

With the D, resistance is futile. Assimilate or be destroyed.

"For the people" who have made life's mission to get rid of those other people who don't agree with "us people."

You ever notice that it's never about policy or substantive solutions with these campaigns of theirs? It's always about first segregating people into labeled group identities (thus dehumanizing the individual,) finding victims, and blaming the other party. There's never any viable policy, any serious ideas brought to the table. Only finger pointing at others and propping so-called "victims." Because, without a manufactured crisis, there can be no manufactured outrage. Without outrage their is no passion, and without passion there is no voter turnout.

If there was a single thing 0bama was effective at, it was bringing Saul Alinsky's radical community organizing tactics mainstream. That is the greatest threat to our great Republic, as they attempt to create a mob that could possibly overthrow and dismantle everything our country was founded on. No, we are not a democracy. We never were and were never intended to be one. We are a nation of states, through which we are represented.

This is why it's so important to understand the history of our country's founding. So few on the left understand it, and understand the undermining they themselves are participating in. If they truly did understand, they would simply #WalkAway. As much difficulty our two party system has today in getting along, it's truly the only way it works for us. The checks and balances we have are necessary, as is the disagreement. It's not intended to be an arm wrestling contest that it's become where winner takes all, and when the other side wins they return the favor. We were never intended to be mob rule (majority rule.) Our founders knew that would turn out to be a complete disaster, just as it became in the nations they studied to put ours together. It's why our version of democracy is an indirect one. Otherwise, the mob would overrun and destroy it.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

A thread entirely devoted to the projection of the reich wing morons. Neat. Not even a single conspiracy theory? Thumbs down.

---

A thread entirely devoted to the projection of the reich wing morons. Neat. Not even a single conspiracy theory? Thumbs down.

Neat.

---

About as empty as any of their other slogans.

With the D, resistance is futile.  Assimilate or be destroyed.

"For the people" who have made life's mission to get rid of those other people who don't agree with "us people."

You ever notice that it's never about policy or substantive solutions with these campaigns of theirs?  It's always about first segregating people into labeled group identities (thus dehumanizing the individual,) finding victims, and blaming the other party.  There's never any viable policy, any serious ideas brought to the table.  Only finger pointing at others and propping so-called "victims."  Because, without a manufactured crisis, there can be no manufactured outrage.  Without outrage their is no passion, and without passion there is no voter turnout.

If there was a single thing 0bama was effective at, it was bringing Saul Alinsky's radical community organizing tactics mainstream.  That is the greatest threat to our great Republic, as they attempt to create a mob that could possibly overthrow and dismantle everything our country was founded on.  No, we are not a democracy.  We never were and were never intended to be one.  We are a nation of states, through which we are represented.

This is why it's so important to understand the history of our country's founding.  So few on the left understand it, and understand the undermining they themselves are participating in.  If they truly did understand, they would simply #WalkAway.  As much difficulty our two party system has today in getting along, it's truly the only way it works for us.  The checks and balances we have are necessary, as is the disagreement.  It's not intended to be an arm wrestling contest that it's become where winner takes all, and when the other side wins they return the favor.  We were never intended to be mob rule (majority rule.)  Our founders knew that would turn out to be a complete disaster, just as it became in the nations they studied to put ours together.  It's why our version of democracy is an indirect one.  Otherwise, the mob would overrun and destroy it.

The only way to prevent a two-party system from devolving into winner takes all each election is to have a significant number of members of each party that buck their party's position on a few issues, or, are willing to do so if they get something they want in exchange.  Hard party discipline is what makes things winner-take-all.  Calling guys RINOs and DINOs pushes towards a winner-takes-all system.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

About as empty as any of their other slogans.

With the D, resistance is futile.  Assimilate or be destroyed.

"For the people" who have made life's mission to get rid of those other people who don't agree with "us people."

You ever notice that it's never about policy or substantive solutions with these campaigns of theirs?  It's always about first segregating people into labeled group identities (thus dehumanizing the individual,) finding victims, and blaming the other party.  There's never any viable policy, any serious ideas brought to the table.  Only finger pointing at others and propping so-called "victims."  Because, without a manufactured crisis, there can be no manufactured outrage.  Without outrage their is no passion, and without passion there is no voter turnout.

If there was a single thing 0bama was effective at, it was bringing Saul Alinsky's radical community organizing tactics mainstream.  That is the greatest threat to our great Republic, as they attempt to create a mob that could possibly overthrow and dismantle everything our country was founded on.  No, we are not a democracy.  We never were and were never intended to be one.  We are a nation of states, through which we are represented.

This is why it's so important to understand the history of our country's founding.  So few on the left understand it, and understand the undermining they themselves are participating in.  If they truly did understand, they would simply #WalkAway.  As much difficulty our two party system has today in getting along, it's truly the only way it works for us.  The checks and balances we have are necessary, as is the disagreement.  It's not intended to be an arm wrestling contest that it's become where winner takes all, and when the other side wins they return the favor.  We were never intended to be mob rule (majority rule.)  Our founders knew that would turn out to be a complete disaster, just as it became in the nations they studied to put ours together.  It's why our version of democracy is an indirect one.  Otherwise, the mob would overrun and destroy it.

How long were you in that coma? And who do you think you're kidding? You seem to be bemoaning the lack of bi-partisanship, yet you are perhaps the most partisan among us. The left this, the left that. Never the right this, the right that. Did you not witness the Tea Party antics? Did you not hear Cocaine Mitch declare his mission to make Obama a one term president? Did you not hear Trump do his Birther Lie?

You'd be a lot more believable if you weren't so phony.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

About as empty as any of their other slogans.

With the D, resistance is futile.  Assimilate or be destroyed.

"For the people" who have made life's mission to get rid of those other people who don't agree with "us people."

You ever notice that it's never about policy or substantive solutions with these campaigns of theirs?  It's always about first segregating people into labeled group identities (thus dehumanizing the individual,) finding victims, and blaming the other party.  There's never any viable policy, any serious ideas brought to the table.  Only finger pointing at others and propping so-called "victims."  Because, without a manufactured crisis, there can be no manufactured outrage.  Without outrage their is no passion, and without passion there is no voter turnout.

If there was a single thing 0bama was effective at, it was bringing Saul Alinsky's radical community organizing tactics mainstream.  That is the greatest threat to our great Republic, as they attempt to create a mob that could possibly overthrow and dismantle everything our country was founded on.  No, we are not a democracy.  We never were and were never intended to be one.  We are a nation of states, through which we are represented.

This is why it's so important to understand the history of our country's founding.  So few on the left understand it, and understand the undermining they themselves are participating in.  If they truly did understand, they would simply #WalkAway.  As much difficulty our two party system has today in getting along, it's truly the only way it works for us.  The checks and balances we have are necessary, as is the disagreement.  It's not intended to be an arm wrestling contest that it's become where winner takes all, and when the other side wins they return the favor.  We were never intended to be mob rule (majority rule.)  Our founders knew that would turn out to be a complete disaster, just as it became in the nations they studied to put ours together.  It's why our version of democracy is an indirect one.  Otherwise, the mob would overrun and destroy it.

How long were you in that coma? And who do you think you're kidding? You seem to be bemoaning the lack of bi-partisanship, yet you are perhaps the most partisan among us. The left this, the left that. Never the right this, the right that. Did you not witness the Tea Party antics? Did you not hear Cocaine Mitch declare his mission to make Obama a one term president? Did you not hear Trump do his Birther Lie?

You'd be a lot more believable if you weren't so phony.

You mean the birther lie that actually originated from Hillary Clinton supporters back in 2008?  

Tea Party antics?  What antics are you referring to exactly?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

How long were you in that coma? And who do you think you're kidding? You seem to be bemoaning the lack of bi-partisanship, yet you are perhaps the most partisan among us. The left this, the left that. Never the right this, the right that. Did you not witness the Tea Party antics? Did you not hear Cocaine Mitch declare his mission to make Obama a one term president? Did you not hear Trump do his Birther Lie?

You'd be a lot more believable if you weren't so phony.

You mean the birther lie that actually originated from Hillary Clinton supporters back in 2008?  

Tea Party antics?  What antics are you referring to exactly?

Yes, the Birther Lie that Donald used to become a darling of the racist right and assorted low information voters. But nice try, mentioning Hillary. You are apparently contractually obligated to mention Clinton in every post. I'd sure try to deflect if I were you.

You're very good at looking the other way. I don't blame you for being embarrassed about the Tea Party rallies. Try Google. Or perhaps you were there.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

How long were you in that coma? And who do you think you're kidding? You seem to be bemoaning the lack of bi-partisanship, yet you are perhaps the most partisan among us. The left this, the left that. Never the right this, the right that. Did you not witness the Tea Party antics? Did you not hear Cocaine Mitch declare his mission to make Obama a one term president? Did you not hear Trump do his Birther Lie?

You'd be a lot more believable if you weren't so phony.

You mean the birther lie that actually originated from Hillary Clinton supporters back in 2008?  

Tea Party antics?  What antics are you referring to exactly?

look if you want to say that the Democratic party is just a bunch of extremists, and that no reasonable person would work with them on anything, that at least is internally consistent. If that's how you really feel.
But you can't turn around after that and bemoan a lack of bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship takes two parties. If you want bipartisanship, behave like a party member that wants his party to reach out to the other side, before you complain that the other side is not reaching out.
Don't piss on people and blame them for the rain.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You mean the birther lie that actually originated from Hillary Clinton supporters back in 2008?  

Tea Party antics?  What antics are you referring to exactly?

look if you want to say that the Democratic party is just a bunch of extremists, and that no reasonable person would work with them on anything, that at least is internally consistent. If that's how you really feel.
But you can't turn around after that and bemoan a lack of bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship takes two parties. If you want bipartisanship, behave like a party member that wants his party to reach out to the other side, before you complain that the other side is not reaching out.
Don't piss on people and blame them for the rain.

Are you suggesting that the Tea Party movement was extremist? Do you even know what it was about?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

look if you want to say that the Democratic party is just a bunch of extremists, and that no reasonable person would work with them on anything, that at least is internally consistent. If that's how you really feel.
But you can't turn around after that and bemoan a lack of bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship takes two parties. If you want bipartisanship, behave like a party member that wants his party to reach out to the other side, before you complain that the other side is not reaching out.
Don't piss on people and blame them for the rain.

Are you suggesting that the Tea Party movement was extremist? Do you even know what it was about?

I'm not suggesting anything about the Tea Party. I'm not the one who brought them up. The point that I'm trying to make is much much broader.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Right now the parties are being fractured because the elites are pushing to the extreme left and right, or at least trying to create the illusion that those are the only 2 positions. Just as the middle class is disappearing, so is the moderate political stance. You are either a snowflake or a Nazi. Note that both sides are fighting for "freedom" and the "right to exist".

I wouldn't be too concerned if our 2-party (or 1-party) system fractured a bit and splintered into 3 or 4 parties. The Dems are pushing toward open socialism and open borders, which leaves millions of traditional Democrats without a platform. Same goes for Republicans. Tea Party types vs Neocon warmongers, and Trump doesn't seem to fit in either group.

If you look deeper, you see the extremes on both the right and left are globalist and both of the centers are nationalist. That's the real divide.

---

Next thing you know they'll want to change USA to PRA.. People's Republic of America. 

---

'02

Right now the parties are being fractured because the elites are pushing to the extreme left and right, or at least trying to create the illusion that those are the only 2 positions.  Just as the middle class is disappearing, so is the moderate political stance.  You are either a snowflake or a Nazi.  Note that both sides are fighting for "freedom" and the "right to exist".  

I wouldn't be too concerned if our 2-party (or 1-party) system fractured a bit and splintered into 3 or 4 parties.  The Dems are pushing toward open socialism and open borders, which leaves millions of traditional Democrats without a platform.  Same goes for Republicans.  Tea Party types vs Neocon warmongers, and Trump doesn't seem to fit in either group.  

If you look deeper, you see the extremes on both the right and left are globalist and both of the centers are nationalist.  That's the real divide.

By Duverger's rule, a "third" party can only last one election.  It might replace one of the two, but then there would be two parties again after that.
But Duverger's law suggests similar things about Mexico's system, and they have had three parties contesting their Presidency for a couple of cycles now.
In any case, it's bad enough to have a President get elected with only 43-46% of the popular vote.  The winner of Mexico's 2012 election got less than 40% of the popular vote.  There was no second round of voting. If you want more parties you need more rounds of voting, or a system where voters rank a first, second, and third choice.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Right now the parties are being fractured because the elites are pushing to the extreme left and right, or at least trying to create the illusion that those are the only 2 positions.  Just as the middle class is disappearing, so is the moderate political stance.  You are either a snowflake or a Nazi.  Note that both sides are fighting for "freedom" and the "right to exist".  

I wouldn't be too concerned if our 2-party (or 1-party) system fractured a bit and splintered into 3 or 4 parties.  The Dems are pushing toward open socialism and open borders, which leaves millions of traditional Democrats without a platform.  Same goes for Republicans.  Tea Party types vs Neocon warmongers, and Trump doesn't seem to fit in either group.  

If you look deeper, you see the extremes on both the right and left are globalist and both of the centers are nationalist.  That's the real divide.

By Duverger's rule, a "third" party can only past one election.  It might replace one of the two, but then there would be two parties.
But Duverger's law suggests similar things about Mexico's system, and they have had three parties contesting their Presidency for a couple of cycles now.
In any case, it's bad enough to have a President get elected with only 43-46% of the popular vote.  The winner of Mexico's 2012 election got less than 40% of the popular vote.  There was no second round of voting. If you want more parties you need more rounds of voting, or a system where voters rank a first, second, and third choice.

Instant run off ballots would be my preference.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ah, Democratic Socialism gaining steam.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democratic-so...ction.html

---