+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: Republicans, World You Like to Live in a One Party System?

  1. Default Republicans, World You Like to Live in a One Party System?

    Imagine that Republicans keeps winning elections, and Democrats fall to maybe 15% of the voting population. They win some State Governors here and there, But ultimately Republicans control almost everything. And at some point to be a successful politician you simply have to be a Republican. There is still voting but it's really unlikely that a democrat will ever win. And let's say this actually goes on for the couple of decades. Would you like this?

    Same question to the Democrats. But obviously the Democrats are in power.
    Last edited by atheiststories; Jan 10 2017 at 08:09 PM.

  2. Default

    I personally think 2 parties is too few
    “When it can be said by any country in the world, my poor are happy, neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them, my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars, the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive, the rational world is my friend because I am the friend of happiness. When these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and government" - Thomas Paine

  3. Likes ellesdee liked this post
  4. Default

    Id rather have two parties hard right party and harder right party.

  5. Likes ButterBalls, Brewskier liked this post
  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atheiststories View Post
    Imagine that Republicans keeps winning elections, and Democrats fall to maybe 15% of the voting population. They win some State Governors here and there, But ultimately Republicans control almost everything. And at some point to be a successful politician you simply have to be a Republican. There is still voting but it's really unlikely that a democrat will ever win. And let's say this actually goes on for the couple of decades. Would you like this?

    Same question to the Democrats. But obviously the Democrats are in power.
    No. And America is a centrist nation. Plus, Americans usually get tired when one party is in power too long.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by navigator2 View Post
    Wait WUT? Just a couple of years ago leftards claimed no Republican would ever be President again? Whenever one party abuses power and ignores the cries of the populace, that party will get it's collective azz kicked in elections. Left wing nut jobs got entirely too confident, now they are shocked and awed that they are reduced to rubble again. The current party in power better do it's best to serve or things can and will change on a dime again.
    So your answer to the question is no?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by RiseAgainst View Post
    Id rather have two parties hard right party and harder right party.
    Perhaps 100 years from now it will look like it was that way now.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atheiststories View Post
    Imagine that Republicans keeps winning elections, and Democrats fall to maybe 15% of the voting population. They win some State Governors here and there, But ultimately Republicans control almost everything. And at some point to be a successful politician you simply have to be a Republican. There is still voting but it's really unlikely that a democrat will ever win. And let's say this actually goes on for the couple of decades. Would you like this?

    Same question to the Democrats. But obviously the Democrats are in power.
    There is a reason I keep trying to explain to the leftist here that they need to change tactics. Your current tactics of screaming racist at everyone who disagrees with you has now passed into the "Crying Wolf" stage. Worse it has clearly become self defeating.
    Socialism is completely insane and communism is impossible.

    When the government chooses winners and losers you can bet your bottom dollar that the winner will be the government and everyone else will lose.

  9. #7
    sweden
    Location: Somewhere in southern Sweden
    Posts: 484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atheiststories View Post
    Imagine that Republicans keeps winning elections, and Democrats fall to maybe 15% of the voting population. They win some State Governors here and there, But ultimately Republicans control almost everything. And at some point to be a successful politician you simply have to be a Republican. There is still voting but it's really unlikely that a democrat will ever win. And let's say this actually goes on for the couple of decades. Would you like this?

    Same question to the Democrats. But obviously the Democrats are in power.
    I prefer both side. Democrat 2017 or 2020 first women as president. If one Party system must rise it must was Communist Party. National Socialist isn't right for black humanity. Whole USA changes they strukture from none Communism to real Communism unlikely of Belarus in Europe.

  10. Default

    I don't see a difference in the two parties.
    RonPaulForums.com - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forum.php

  11. Likes Curious Always liked this post
  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TCassa89 View Post
    I personally think 2 parties is too few
    Generally, this is what I believe: Either a multi-tier party(like England) or a one-party system. The name of the game in government, is to get things done. In a multi-polar government, the factions would inevitably understand that even with a slight majority, they wouldn't have enough to pass the bill. So they'd have to compromise(parish the thought!) in order to get legislation passed(and I'm not one of those Libertarians who think the most effective government is an empty building lol)

    However, if we recognize that to be the true utility of government then the one-party State is clearly superior. There would still be arguments in such a system, but along ideological instead of party lines(IE: Let's say it's a conservative one-party state. You'd have the battle between fiscal and social conservatives). But in the end, the fissure would diffuse and the solution would pass.

    And on the issues where no fissure even exists, the measure would pass easily and simply. Government moves faster, more efficient without opposition. That's what Trump is learning now. The ideology of what government should be, and what it actually is: Muddled by fools, makes it a really tasking thing.

    That's why the one-party state is clearly superior. At best, they try to argue the validity of the argument itself. But the argument is a deterrent to government, and thus a deterrent to the country.
    "Fascism is against the destructiveness of the left and the backwardness of the right" - Benito Mussolini

    "It originated as a movement in which one man alone believed, then a band of martyrs, then finally a population and then a Nation!"-Benito Mussolini.

    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life,
    nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
    Isaac Asimov
    `

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanNationalist View Post
    Generally, this is what I believe: Either a multi-tier party(like England) or a one-party system. The name of the game in government, is to get things done.


    In a multi-polar government, the factions would inevitably understand that even with a slight majority, they wouldn't have enough to pass the bill. So they'd have to compromise(parish the thought!) in order to get legislation passed(and I'm not one of those Libertarians who think the most effective government is an empty building lol)

    However, if we recognize that to be the true utility of government then the one-party State is clearly superior. There would still be arguments in such a system, but along ideological instead of party lines(IE: Let's say it's a conservative one-party state. You'd have the battle between fiscal and social conservatives). But in the end, the fissure would diffuse and the solution would pass.

    And on the issues where no fissure even exists, the measure would pass easily and simply. Government moves faster, more efficient without opposition. That's what Trump is learning now. The ideology of what government should be, and what it actually is: Muddled by fools, makes it a really tasking thing.

    That's why the one-party state is clearly superior. At best, they try to argue the validity of the argument itself. But the argument is a deterrent to government, and thus a deterrent to the country.
    What you're recommending is an oligarch. Rule by Omnipotent Majority.

    By the model that you offer...

    Government moves faster, more efficient without opposition.
    ...The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, would have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority.

    What do you think the role of government is in America?
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; Jan 11 2017 at 04:55 AM.
    RonPaulForums.com - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forum.php

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Would you like to see a world united by the year 2040?
    By Cleisthenes, in forum Opinion POLLS
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: Jan 01 2017, 09:09 PM
  2. What world do you want to live in?
    By maxault in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 19 2014, 05:39 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: Jan 28 2012, 01:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks