After blocking hundreds of promotions, Tuberville said the US has 'the weakest military than we've probably had in my lifetime'
Tuberville failed to mention that he's personally prevented hundreds of officers from being promoted because he disagrees with a 2022 Pentagon policy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tuberville-said-us-has-the-weakest-military-in-his-lifetime-2023-11
This is why no Republicans should ever be allowed into office.
Ever.
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.
precedent of being able to abolish the competing party
Nobody said that, quit arguing with things in your head honey
Read the first comment in the thread. On learn to 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
A political party which should not be allowed into office, is what?
the loser, the statement was encouraging a voting position
“everyone I disagree with is trolling”
Hmm, it seems one of us has misinterpreted the statement. I interpreted the should not be allowed in office as, “a law should be passes 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.
the statement was encouraging a voting position
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 didn’t indicate that
the phrasing certainly didn’t indicate that they wish for the abolition of the GOP, you came up with that on your own
"should not be allowed” which implies prohibition.
you’re thinking of “shouldn’t be able” bud, at the end of an election there can only be one party allowed into office
you’re thinking of “shouldn’t be able” bud
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.
Or I suppose you can continue spouting random shit and appending honey at the end.
Dude it was right there
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?
What’s the value of a party
That people votes for them, and we cannot remove them because we dislike them.
Wouldn’t replacing that with a party that represents voters better than the Democrats - let alone the Republicans be nice?
No, because only the voters can decided who represents them, not us.
It’s not as though the GOP is even popular
Majority? No. Popular, yes, its just wrong to say otherwise. They still get 10s of millions of votes.
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:
the section of a political party or system that advocates free enterprise and private ownership, and typically favours socially traditional ideas; the conservative group or section.
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.
As of 2020, six parties have members in the federal parliament of Russia
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?
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.
I’m sorry, do members of each party not sit in all branches of government and judiciary?
Guess you were wrong.
Please inform yourself about how parliamentary systems work. More than 2 parties are viable in that system because parties can form a coalition government with other parties that may agree on some things, in order to keep the “greater evil” party out of power.
That’s not how it works in the US. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
stopthatgirl7
CharlesDarwin
aidan
M0oP0o
abbotsbury
Flying Squid
killeronthecorner
prole