Hakeem Jeffries wins House Speaker Vote

[Cypress]

Most of that is party line BS. Also factor in a dislike for omnibus bills. Still, she stood by the Constitution when it counted even to her own political detriment. Most Republicans did not. Based on that, I think she'd always do the right thing.

I respect her for that

But Republicans aren't really known for being legislators. For all their occasional talk of protecting and improving health care, infrastructure, social security, Medicare, they actually don't do much. They are not a party of legislators the way the Democratic Party is. Almost all landmark legislation passed in our lifetimes were by Democats. If one prefers the government to do nothing, then Republicans are the superior choice.

 

[Diesel]

The House wants a Democrat to be the Speaker!

The Democrats want a Democrat to be Speaker.

 

[Diesel]

Apparently Democrats can't count.

And you can't understand the most obvious things.

 

[Diesel]

Will you think it is funny when a Republicans does win.

I think it's funny that Republicans are incapable of governing.

 

[Diesel]

And that is proof that the Republican party is utterly destroyed.

 

[Diesel]

I think it is funny you retards like popularity contests in government

Government is a popularity contest. What do you think an election is?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think it's funny that Republicans are incapable of governing.

Funny and very sad.

Part of the problem is that the Party of Trump is dismantling the very structure of government which would allow them to effectively govern. They are empowering our enemies by threatening to defund the FBI and CIA, defaulting on the US debt and dividing Americans against each other which deadlocks the Federal government.

 

[Diesel]

How do you propose to get rid of political parties?

The Founders never wanted political parties. It is, however, probably too late to ever eliminate them.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Not governing is simply the Republicans doing what they intended to do.
They hate government and are successfully shutting it down.
Meanwhile, on our side, we're crowing as if they were failing at their anarchist efforts.

As for no political parties, how would that ever work?
340,000,000 free agents, each going his/her own way?
Sounds very libertarian and very horrific to me.

 

[Diesel]

Ranked choice voting.

Here's some reading for ya! I did say that the primary system results in extreme candidates in both parties. You just want to rant sometimes. That's ok.

https://alaskapublic.org/2022/01/26/heres-how-alaskas-unique-new-election-system-will-work/

Dutch argues for the sake of arguing. He probably thinks he's debating, but he will take whatever position is contrary to the person he's talking to just to disagree. There's something sociopathic about that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The Founders never wanted political parties. It is, however, probably too late to ever eliminate them.

The fact the Constitution allows "freedom of association" allows political parties, unions and other peaceful groups to exist.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/freedom-of-association-overview
Amdt1.3.24.1 Overview
First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” 1 It appears from the Court’s opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition,2 although it has at times been referred to as an independent freedom protected by the First Amendment.3 The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association.

Freedom of association as a concept thus grew out of a series of cases in the 1950s and 1960s in which certain states were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the state. “Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.” 5 “[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,” 6 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the state had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Dutch argues for the sake of arguing. He probably thinks he's debating, but he will take whatever position is contrary to the person he's talking to just to disagree. There's something sociopathic about that.

I have a slightly different view.

Oom is clueless where it come to nuance,
is bereft of Aristotelian logic,
and extremely imprecise and careless in his use of words.

These are hardly the most egregious faults a person could have,
I'll readily admit,
but they happen to be the very faults for which
I personally have the least tolerance.

That's why efforts to sustain civil discourse between ourselves always fail.

 

[Diesel]

The fact the Constitution allows "freedom of association" allows political parties, unions and other peaceful groups to exist.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/freedom-of-association-overview
Amdt1.3.24.1 Overview
First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Founders never wanted political parties.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The Founders never wanted political parties.

The founders impress me less than they do most.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I respect her for that

But Republicans aren't really known for being legislators. For all their occasional talk of protecting and improving health care, infrastructure, social security, Medicare, they actually don't do much. They are not a party of legislators the way the Democratic Party is. Almost all landmark legislation passed in our lifetimes were by Democats. If one prefers the government to do nothing, then Republicans are the superior choice.

Not in the Party of Trump. Now they are destroyers and disruptors. They seek to divide and weaken the federal government as an extreme form of State's Rights. A strategy that is self-destructive in the end since it destroys one of the main purposes of the federal government; dealing with foreign powers.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The Founders never wanted political parties.

Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion. I know you truly care.

 

[Diesel]

I have a slightly different view.

Oom is clueless where it come to nuance,
is bereft of Aristotelian logic,
and extremely imprecise and careless in his use of words.

These are hardly the most egregious faults a person could have,
I'll readily admit,
but they happen to be the very faults for which
I personally have the least tolerance.

That's why efforts to sustain civil discourse between ourselves always fail.

That's a fair analysis. He certainly is a bomb thrower who achieves satisfaction from annoying people. I find joy in other parts of life. I, too, cannot share a civil discussion with him.

 

[Diesel]

The founders impress me less than they do most.

I think they did a pretty good job building a novel system from scratch. They were literate and thoughtful. They also didn't consider women and Black people citizens. They are not heroes, but they formed a system that functioned relatively well for a couple centuries.

 

[Diesel]

Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion. I know you truly care.

Unsubstantiated? Have you ever taken an American history or political science class? This is common knowledge. Google "did the Founders want political parties?" And in the future, know what you're talking about before you run your clueless mouth.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Unsubstantiated? Have you ever taken an American history or political science class? This is common knowledge.

Google "did the Founders want political parties?" And in the future, know what you're talking about before you run your clueless mouth.

Yes. Yes. Have you? Do you have a college degree? I do.

Sure, let me help you substantiate your opinion:

https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion
The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart
The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.

...This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.

“It was not that they didn’t think of parties,” says Willard Sterne Randall, professor emeritus of history at Champlain College and biographer of six of the Founding Fathers. “Just the idea of a party brought back bitter memories to some of them.”

George Washington’s family had fled England precisely to avoid the civil wars there, while Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. James Madison, who worked with Hamilton to defend the new Constitution to the public in the Federalist Papers, wrote in Federalist 10 that one of the functions of a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”

But Thomas Jefferson, who was serving a diplomatic post in France during the Constitutional Convention, believed it was a mistake not to provide for different political parties in the new government. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties,’’ he would write in 1824.

In fact, when Washington ran unopposed to win the first presidential election in the nation’s history, in 1789, he chose Jefferson for his Cabinet so it would be inclusive of differing political viewpoints. “I think he had been warned if he didn't have Jefferson in it, then Jefferson might oppose his government,” Randall says....

Thanks for caring about my opinion so much.