Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
Editor: Can Paul Ryan possibly leave the House too soon? This is Trump hatred by Republicans in full throttle.
In November, if House Speaker Paul Ryan gets his way, most GOP legislators “will be on record in support of amnesty,” Iowa Rep. Steve King told Breitbart News. “It is not going to help us in November” if there is a vote in the House on amnesty, King said.
The retiring Speaker is forcing a floor debate where Republicans will split their party by voting for a business-demanded amnesty, and where Democrats will unify their party by voting against reforms or a wall, said one source with knowledge of the draft details, adding:
Leading up to the midterms, in exactly the moment that the Republicans look like they have a good chance, the Republican leaders are going to do this? For what? To show Republican voters that Republicans legislators suck?
The amnesty would also stop or stall the wage raises which are boosting President Donald Trump’s political ratings and the GOP’s generic-ballot score, especially because many amnesty-seeking migrants will rush across the border in the weeks before the election, in full view of the media’s TV cameras.
Will we ever learn to accept we are ruled by a two party tyranny under which both major political parties are controlled by the Pilgrims discussed in http://www.silver-investor.com/charlessavoie/cs_dec04.pdf?
I have studied for the longest time why America is the only major power with two large political parties, and the conclusion I came to was the slavery issue. Is was such a crux to our economy, it only allowed two parties to be in place.
It didn't help that two of our founding fathers were at each others throats driving both parties. The Wigs always ruled on the side of large banks such as the newly created National Bank, and the Democratic party ruled on the side of anti-abolition businesses to keep their low labor costs.
George Washington drove the Oligarchs out, and for the life of me I don't know why that tradition wasn't carried through to other administrations. We need to abolish the whole cabal, and if people vote for it Trump is proof, IT WILL HAPPEN, regardless of what it is. Right now is the time, in the next coming years a crisis is going to come, and the actions of both parties and their fault for the crisis, will be evident and they will be shamed among Americans, this will be the time, the moment that another major party can form, and it can be driven, by people like us! This crisis will come in the 2030's, and we can rise!
I went through the exercise of identifying political parties throughout America's history. A most informative exercise and I highly recommend the effort.
Yes I do believe that an effort of creating a 3rd party that represents core conservative values. While some of these core values are currently part of both the Libertarian and Republican platform there is the fact that the two parties GOP and DNC have zero appetite to have their power infringed upon.
The core and well known founders expressed that political parties were not optimal. Common sense would inform they were going to become a force in reality (federalist vs anti-federalist).
Question I ponder is with more or another political do we risk the efforts of forming coalition government and in history even in recent time not being able to form a coalition gov't another election can be held. Does this move push us closer to the socialist gov'ts like in Western Europe?
They're socialist because they created the system first. This would be new to the American experiment, and there are ALOT of people that know politics in America are corrupt. The media would indeed attack the new party, especially if it begins to resonate.
This would be free advertising and wouldn't be for the moderate political activist. There would be great efforts to get candidates on TV to attack. We would need to present ourselves visually as the future, with Roman inspirations in designs for future government created architecture in American cities, such as a new city in the Arizona desert with grand infrastructure as a example.
The uniforms that every candidate running for office would look official, inspired by branches of the military with pins and buttons with various representations, they would remind people of the appearance of George Washington. We would be, Americana, we would carry ourselves as what we would be, having the founding fathers as our foundation, with the future of investing in technology and America first.
I would aim to change the libertarian party because they already have an infrastructure and can be voted for in all 50 states, they have many donors that want the future to be here with inventions and are very like minded to this idea. Trump showed that the media is like that of the emperor, they have no clothes! Don't apologize, don't back down, and you will get even more popular.
A coalition would be a great scenario, because we could bottleneck legislation and much of what we want would go through, and we would only get more popular with us showing more of our vision. The Libertarian party is spineless, and with them choosing Gary Johnson, it shows they are willing to accept change, because they want a win, and with strong voices coming in, with like minded people in the party, there could be change.
I read all of what you posted Adam_Sedene actually read twice and I felt uncomfortable after the reads.
Of what aspects? I re-read, and I should of had dialogue between the first two sentences. I'm saying the new party would shatter the current political paradigm, the first sentence was quickly answering your question of socialism. I'm diametrically opposed to socialism in all its forms. Hope that clears it up.
Adam, Thanks for try to help me get through my "uncomfortableness". The source of my uncomfortable feeling I have identified as being in paragraph three.
In a two party system what's always in the conscious mind is "why should I vote for a different party". This must be met with the direct visuals of the candidates themselves. They must look respectable, and be associated with a already existing part of the government, that is to say "They're supposed to be there", in comparison to "why are they there".
This is a play to the subconscious of the voter. They would look like old school military like George Washington, it doubles with our platform, whenever you see them, you think of the policies. I can't control how you feel, but I believe America is bought by China in the 2030's and we need to do all of our homework, and push for the strongest image and policies to SAVE America, or it will FOREVER be gone.
Greatest respect to you.
I would not like to see those seeking office using any visual techniques that took on the looks of strong propagandist methods.
Instead of worrying about the party a candidate is in wouldn't we be better off knowing where she/he stands on issues of importance by asking questions such as those posed in http://www.thecnc.org/Documents/Questionnaire.htm?
Dump Ryan now. Next speaker should be Jim Jordan.