Civil war

[Johnny Dangerr]

Got a bunch on my father's side. I don't even bother making up excuses why I don't go to family reunions anymore.

Good weekend. Not a word about politics and lots of laughing.
After 37 years maybe we have figured out what not to discuss.......

[bownutone]

Probably one of the best posts I have read on this site. Could not agree more.
They could not do it without the main stream media helping along the way.

[BrandonA]

Excellent Post and Spot on

[RiverRat1]

Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't democrats have said the same thing during Obama's administration?

This a joke?

Name one relevant thing that even remotely compares to what has been happening to Trump..

[Pedernal]

Great post!! Nail meet hammer!! I will gladly buy you an adult beverage or five if you are ever in southwest Texas!!

[grizzman]

Good weekend. Not a word about politics and lots of laughing.
After 37 years maybe we have figured out what not to discuss.......

Yeah, my father finally came to the realization that we weren't politically aligned and I wasn't going to cave to his arguments just because he was my father.

It's funny because two of his brothers (one still living) were more in line with me than him. Their kids are more in line with me also but their kids aren't.

[txpitdog]

This a joke?



Name one relevant thing that even remotely compares to what has been happening to Trump..

Trump is getting the special treatment because he doesn’t play the game. So not only is he a detestable a-hole to some people, he is unapologetic and unafraid. Therefore, a threat not just to their platform but to the game and the rules used to keep them in power.

Republicans cannot whine and complain though because when given the chance lately they’ve done a ****ty job. Their actions speak louder than their BS words.

[RiverRat1]

My point was dems try to act like both parties act the same. Like Obama and Trump are/were equally mistreated by the opposing party. That's BS10

If someone can't see the difference between asking for a birth certificate versus someone's personal tax filings they're an idiot.

And I still ask liberals "What exactly has Trump done to make you hate him?" Funny when you get vague retarded answers like.. He's a pervert! Or whatever the media is pushing at the time with ZERO evidence or proof whatsoever.

[Ætheling]

Im not a huge fan of a parliamentary system of democratic governorship but I do like the idea they have in Europe and the UK that if the party (in our case it would just be the president) doesn't get a certain percentage of the vote than they don't get to rule. They must reach out to another party and make compromises to form a government. If you think about it we are at a point where basically half or less than half of the populace will be served by a President they actually voted for. Making an amendment to the COTUS to somehow encompass something like this I think would one; destroy the two party system, and two; would force apart the polarization of the country. Say 52 percent is the magic number for ****s and grins.

Example, in the last election neither Trump nor Hillary broke the 40s in terms of percentages of the vote so lets say since Trump won using our current electoral system he would then need to go make concessions and deals with the Libertarian party to get those votes. Now we have a ruling government that represents more than one party and an absolute majority of the vote of the citizenry.

[txpitdog]

Im not a huge fan of a parliamentary system of democratic governorship but I do like the idea they have in Europe and the UK that if the party (in our case it would just be the president) doesn't get a certain percentage of the vote than they don't get to rule. They must reach out to another party and make compromises to form a government. If you think about it we are at a point where basically half or less than half of the populace will be served by a President they actually voted for. Making an amendment to the COTUS to somehow encompass something like this I think would one; destroy the two party system, and two; would force apart the polarization of the country. Say 52 percent is the magic number for ****s and grins.

Example, in the last election neither Trump nor Hillary broke the 40s in terms of percentages of the vote so lets say since Trump won using our current electoral system he would then need to go make concessions and deals with the Libertarian party to get those votes. Now we have a ruling government that represents more than one party and an absolute majority of the vote of the citizenry.

One additional potential tweak from the Canadian side is that cabinet members must also be elected vs appointed. Not a guaranteed fix and would come with its own problems, but it has the potential to act as an additional check and balance and tempering of a newly elected President.

I don’t think any party will risk introducing the possibility of a Constitutional amendment, because things are so contentious that they would get in a tit for tat amendment battle just like they do with everything else and potentially get a very damaging amendment (to their platform) passed by a later administration

[Ætheling]

One additional potential tweak from the Canadian side is that cabinet members must also be elected vs appointed. Not a guaranteed fix and would come with its own problems, but it has the potential to act as an additional check and balance and tempering of a newly elected President.

I don’t think any party will risk introducing the possibility of a Constitutional amendment, because things are so contentious that they would get in a tit for tat amendment battle just like they do with everything else and potentially get a very damaging amendment (to their platform) passed by a later administration

That Dr. Peterson has you following Canadian politics I see

[txpitdog]

That Dr. Peterson has you following Canadian politics I see

Interestingly I picked that up from a completely random encounter with a Canadian while on business in DC. We were both in the hotel restaurant eating dinner separately but both watching coverage of the 2012 election. The Canadian asked me something about how American politics works, and the conversation took off from there. That’s where I learned that they supposedly also have to elect cabinet members, which could be elected from a party different from the one the elected PM represents.

But yes, Dr Peterson has a lot of good stuff to say and I do follow much of his interviews and speeches.

[Ætheling]

Interestingly I picked that up from a completely random encounter with a Canadian while on business in DC. We were both in the hotel restaurant eating dinner separately but both watching coverage of the 2012 election. The Canadian asked me something about how American politics works, and the conversation took off from there. That’s where I learned that they supposedly also have to elect cabinet members, which could be elected from a party different from the one the elected PM represents.

But yes, Dr Peterson has a lot of good stuff to say and I do follow much of his interviews and speeches.

You going to his lecture next month? Ill PM you so we don't derail the thread.

[systemnt]

Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't democrats have said the same thing during Obama's administration?

Yes..they could have said everything democrats touch turns to ****... but they didnt.. they kept on being democrats.

[JimMcKnight]

Well said