Tuberville failed to mention that he’s personally prevented hundreds of officers from being promoted because he disagrees with a 2022 Pentagon policy.
Tuberville failed to mention that he’s personally prevented hundreds of officers from being promoted because he disagrees with a 2022 Pentagon policy.
Why would competition continue to exist if the precedent of being able to abolish the competing party ever holding office were already set?
Nobody said that, quit arguing with things in your head honey
Read the first comment in the thread. Or learn reading comprehension.
Or I suppose you can continue spouting random shit and appending honey at the end.
honey you are seriously reaching if you choose to interpret “should not be allowed into office” as “we must abolish them”
should not vs shall not, ironic telling someone else to practice reading comprehension
Dude it was right there
A political party which should not be allowed into office, is what? Turning a major political party into your high school group is not abolishing. Trolling has to have a limit man.
Edit: as I was typing this, I reread your comment and realized you have chosen option 2. Well played, and good luck.
the loser, the statement was encouraging a voting position
“everyone I disagree with is trolling”
the phrasing didn’t indicate that. “Should never win an election” would be much more clear than “should not be allowed” which implies prohibition.
the phrasing certainly didn’t indicate that they wish for the abolition of the GOP, you came up with that on your own
you’re thinking of “shouldn’t be able” bud, at the end of an election there can only be one party allowed into office
Actually, I view it as the opposite. Really this is subjective language differences. But should not be allowed to me implies there is rules prohibiting, where’s shouldn’t be able to implies that they should just fail to.
Hmm, it seems one of us has misinterpreted the statement. I interpreted the should not be allowed in office as, “a law should be passed saying that”.
While you, perhaps correctly assumed that it means people should not vote for them. Sorry I thought you were being willfully obtuse. Still, I am not completely convinced my interpretation of statement was wrong.
But regardless, we are both apparently in agreement on this point.
But, my second point stands, that you are an unpleasant person using intimate and friendly words as an attack.
What’s the value of a party that refuses to represent the people they’re charged to, restructures the economy to let them ransack it for personal enrichment, remove rights from people, refuse to do their job, remove protections, allowing businesses to run roughshod over the people, and manufacturing a panic about
CRT,ANTIFA,immigrant caravans,Jewish space lasers, stolen elections, Trans people?Wouldn’t replacing that with a party that represents voters better than the Democrats - let alone the Republicans be nice? It’s not as though the GOP is even popular - it’s only gerrymandering that gives them a shot at power - when did they last win the popular vote in a federal election?
That people votes for them, and we cannot remove them because we dislike them.
No, because only the voters can decided who represents them, not us.
Majority? No. Popular, yes, its just wrong to say otherwise. They still get 10s of millions of votes.
They should get a majority to govern though. Nobody awards people who participate.
That is not how a representative legislature works. If it were just about majority rule than the executive and the legislature would be put in one office that is elected by a simple majority.
Nobody but you said anything about abolishing a party.
They said “should never be allowed to hold office again” which implies legal prohibition of them holding office.
Or it implies people not choosing to vote for them. Which they shouldn’t, ever, for any office.
Because we currently have two right-wing parties and no left-wing parties that are competitive.
That depends how you define left and right wing, which is not really something that has entirely agreed upon definitions.
Lol, according to whom? They’ve been clearly defined for decades. Political scientists don’t like it as it’s a two dimensional axis that lacks the ability to more accurately describe political views, but there’s no question on what it means.
That’s not entirely true. The definition of left and right wing generally isn’t followed when actually applied. My personal way of defining it, is that most people consider left-wing = socialism, so imo the more socialist it is the more left it is, the more free market it is the further right it is.
Oxford says this for right wing:
So, how exactly, is Nazism far-right? They did not advocate free enterprise at all. Same with fascists that are corporatist. Yet, people like Richard Spencer are called far-right, because they’re racist? That makes a term like far-right a pejorative and not actually describing an ideology.
Look, as an non American I want to try and explain to you that at this point if you don’t have more then two parties there is almost no chance that you will after it is reduced to one. You needed to have more then two parties all the way back when the bull mouse was a thing. It is too late now.
Imo, US parties essentially act as coalitions of major factions within the parties.
I don’t think a one party state with internal factions can be called a democracy. I think you are describing something like China.
The different factions within the CCP are not based on ideology but instead on power.(Generally with the exception of maybe some like Zhao Ziyang) Furthermore, the major factions repress minority factions.
Yes, and you think a one party system in the US would somehow operate differently?
No? I oppose a one party system in the US?
Then why the odd explanation of the CCP factions? I am lost on how this is a poor analogy for a one party US. Just like in China you would have some sort of fake vernier of democracy (or communism for china) that is just objectively not true. I would imagine the US would make their one party something stupid like the freedom party or keep the democrat party name (even though by definition you can’t be one in a one party system).
Both national parties have factions big enough in them to be parties on their own. Your country and others need to stop consolidating under bigger and bigger tents with the sole goal of maintaining power.
That’s not the precedent though. The precedent is that parties that try to subvert the U.S. citizens should be disqualified immediately. That includes the current republican and democratic parties.
Do you think, by your measure, that America will ever achieve the same level of democracy as Russia?
Or is it possible that your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise?
I never said more parties means more democracy. I did say prohibiting the primary opposition party from holding office was less democracy.
You mean we should tolerate insurrectionists because we must hold up the principles of democracy until the bitter end, at which point they will eviscerate them?
It’s a wildly bad take, I’ll be honest. And hopefully you see how you missed my point.
You should ditch the electoral collage and legally dissolve both parties allowing the formation of new parties.