60

[Farnhamia]

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

Sure, just ask Tom Delay and Karl Rove.

It's been said that, had Stalin not had the power to micro-manage everything in the Soviet Union, they would not have lasted through WWII. That said, single-party states tend to be highly oppressive.

Oh, I agree, just saying that our friends in the GOP have longed for an unassailable majority, too.

[DMistan]

i can has healthcare now?

You can has health care... or a cheeseburger

Choose Wisely

[Maurepas]

i can has healthcare now?

You can has health care... or a cheeseburger

Choose Wisely

OH god!...um, uh....*panics* UH...I CANT TAKE IT!!!! CHEESEBURGER!!!



....um, did I win?

[Vetalia]

It's been said that, had Stalin not had the power to micro-manage everything in the Soviet Union, they would not have lasted through WWII. That said, single-party states tend to be highly oppressive.

Nah, he bungled it so bad that he ended up backing off to prevent any more disasters.

[Delator]

Republicans threaten to filibuster and Reid folds like a house of cards.

I am of the opinion that Harry Reid is the biggest obstacle to actual progress on the issues right now. The sooner he is replaced as Senate majority leader, the better.

Considering there are ten Democratic senators with more seniority, (thirteen if you count Byrd, Kennedy and Specter), it shouldn't be that fucking hard.

[Pope Joan]

yay!

coleman conceded

ITS OVER!

I honestly never thought he would.

Maybe he figures paying Franken $95k is enough already?

[Cannot think of a name]

Republicans threaten to filibuster and Reid folds like a house of cards.

I am of the opinion that Harry Reid is the biggest obstacle to actual progress on the issues right now. The sooner he is replaced as Senate majority leader, the better.

Considering there are ten Democratic senators with more seniority, (thirteen if you count Byrd, Kennedy and Specter), it shouldn't be that fucking hard.

I'm inclined to agree at this point. I mean, I don't want the Democratic Party to ram anything through anymore than I wanted the Republican Party to (alright, I object more strongly to the latter than the former), but at the same time, sometimes you gotta let the baby cry until it comes up with a more productive way to get what it needs.

[Grave_n_idle]

Going to have to give this a resounding "meh". Single party control isn't a good thing.

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

so now we are advocating single party rule?

whats next, hnh?

You're a bit hysterical about my posts, for some reason.

It seems like any argument I make, in any thread, can be expected to have you turn up fairly rapidly and smack your own forehead and claim some hyperbolic nonsense.

I didn't say I was advocating single party rule. Someone made a universal claim, which I can immediately see functions fine as a general rule, but obviously can't deal with every circumstance. That's very different to me actually endorsing single party politics.

[Milks Empire]

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

so now we are advocating single party rule?

whats next, hnh?

You're a bit hysterical about my posts, for some reason.

It seems like any argument I make, in any thread, can be expected to have you turn up fairly rapidly and smack your own forehead and claim some hyperbolic nonsense.

I didn't say I was advocating single party rule. Someone made a universal claim, which I can immediately see functions fine as a general rule, but obviously can't deal with every circumstance. That's very different to me actually endorsing single party politics.

Everything that we mortals have put on God's green earth is a mixed bag.

On one hand, single-party rule is, by and large, oppressive to an unacceptable level.
On the other hand, a single-party state can quickly rally its citizens behind it in the event of a catastrophe that requires quick and fine-tuned coordination of actions to get the nation back on its feet.

[Grave_n_idle]

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

so now we are advocating single party rule?

whats next, hnh?

Next, there needs to be a viable option in the opposing party...

Unfortunately, there isnt one...

I really think the best thing that could happen between now and 2012 is the fracturing of both the Democratic AND Republican parties. SOme kid of proportional representative arrangement would be pretty neat too.

There's no call for moderation in American politics, as is - since no one needs to work a powershare. Both parties can, therefore, cater to the extreme and moderates will STILL tend to pick one of the two. If there were moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans acting as new parties in their own right, you might actually see a trend towards centrism, with the moderate parties making powershare deals.

[Jello Biafra]

While one-party rule is bad, it's pretty bad that the only thing the Republicans have to recommend them is to prevent one-party rule.

There's no call for moderation in American politics, as is - since no one needs to work a powershare. Both parties can, therefore, cater to the extreme and moderates will STILL tend to pick one of the two. If there were moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans acting as new parties in their own right, you might actually see a trend towards centrism, with the moderate parties making powershare deals.

The Democrats are already fairly centrist. You're not going to get much more centrist than that.

[Opola]

Here's another link:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31667236/ns ... itol_hill/

And we all know Gore WON; that's why the case where the SCOTUS rolled over was entitled "Bush V. Gore" and not vice versa.

Its over now, anyway anyone who thinks Gore won is a sore loser. Bush sucked too.

[Neo Art]

I am left to wonder one thing. Where were all these republicans and neocons who are now moaning about "one party rule" back in the 2002 and 2004 elections? Did they throw in their ballots for democrats, to try and avoid this one party rule they so obviously hate now?

Tell me Grays Harbor, who did YOU vote for those years?

[Ashmoria]

yay!

coleman conceded

ITS OVER!

I honestly never thought he would.

Maybe he figures paying Franken $95k is enough already?

its time for him to start focusing on defending himself against whatever kind of corruption charges are pending against him. he has stalled long enough eh? i hope the party appreciates it.

[Free Soviets]

single-party rule is, by and large, oppressive to an unacceptable level

how so?

i think people are conflating systems in which you have one party who happens to have been elected into all the positions of power vs ones in which one party that uses force to prevent any others from gaining power. it's the freeness of the elections that make the difference, and so a system with two parties sharing power is no less oppressive than that same system after one of those parties has so thoroughly destroyed itself that they cannot get elected dog catcher. in fact, it would be more oppressive for people to be forced to put up with that discredited party having any power at all.

now it is possible that one party will begin behaving more oppressively. but it is just as possible that multiple parties will do so - see the past 8 years of USian history. luckily in semi-democratic systems there are ways to fight back. for example, chasing a bunch of oppressive retards out of power and instead giving it all to the other guys in the hopes they might be marginally better.

[Secruss]

It defeats the purpose of democracy if you can only vote for who the government/party allows. And party leaders will not fund, support, or acknowledge those that differ greatly from their views.

One party systems: USSR, Nazi Germany.

[Free Soviets]

It defeats the purpose of democracy if you can only vote for who the government/party allows. And party leaders will not fund, support, or acknowledge those that differ greatly from their views.

One party systems: USSR, Nazi Germany.

um...

i think people are conflating systems in which you have one party who happens to have been elected into all the positions of power vs ones in which one party that uses force to prevent any others from gaining power.