Political parties are a consequence of freedom of association. US law does not recognize political parties as part of the governmental structure; they're just private groups of people pursuing the same political ends together. So I'm not clear what you want done to ban political parties, if not just banning people with similar political interests from working together toward those ends. — Pfhorrest

This doesn't address how one party would come to power if there were no parties. You're moving the goalposts.

I'm not saying that ppl can't work together towards a common goal, except when the goal is subverting and oppressing others, or when your primary goal is to hate another group because they have different goals. Most ppl would come together for a single issue and trying to incorporate other issues will just alienate some if the group that doesn't agree on every issue.

The problem is that the parties have adopted contradictory positions and there isn't any meaningful distinction between them. And if the only two groups don't represent your interests then it sucks to be a minority in that respect. There is a two-party system privilege in the U.S.


Winner-take-all is a law that prevents other groups from having a viable chance. Diverges law states that 3rd parties can't compete, not to mention the media that would rather give a voice to hypocrites and maintain the status quo.

See, I'd believe that if your point had been that he had the wrong data set but your argument was the source was biased. So wriggle on little worm.

I also pointed out that we each only provided one source and each of our sources says the complete opposite so where does that leave us if not with the fact that both parties are equally corrupt, which is what you and I seem to have agreed upon,, but now it seems you'd rather perform mental gymnastics in an effort to show that im wrong somewhere in my arguement, but I'm not. Keep flipping, Flipper.

U.S. Supreme Court allows release of Trump tax returns

When's he going to jail? Any bets?

The problem is that the parties have adopted contradictory positions and there isn't any meaningful distinction between them. — Harry Hindu

Is that not a contradiction? Just asking.

For what?

I would wager on him escaping the country first...

Likely he will be treated as a hero at least by the CPAC crowd, I forecast.



So much for the GOP having a sincere look at what went wrong with the 2020 elections (and with the Trump Presidency).

For what? — NOS4A2

Whatever they can find him guilty of. Don't you think that the greatest witch hunt in history is bound to make a judgement of guilty at some point, and proceed with punishment, regardless of the person's actual guilt or innocence. That's what witch hunts do don't they?

That’s what corrupt, immoral and unjust witch-hunters do, yes.

That’s what corrupt, immoral and unjust witch-hunters do, yes. — NOS4A2

Which is only to say that corrupt, immoral and unjust witch-hunters do everything that witch hunters can do, and more besides!

But again, you [censored] troll, what is your point? That Trump has committed no crimes? That any investigation of him is a witch hunt?

So, what do you think? How long until he's in jail?

My point is you have referred to criminality and corruption this whole time without being able to mention what crime he has committed or if a crime has occurred at all. In other words you advocate for using a criminal justice system to harass your political opponents. That makes you corrupt and weak at the same time.

So, what do you think? How long until he's in jail?

Who knows? 30 plus investigations and nothing yet. What’s another 30?

Can you really tell no difference between Trump (and his) and others. And must you continue to abuse our language with disingenuity? But how about a whole raft of financial crimes? How about rape and assault? How about the possibility of child abuse? How about a whole raft of civil liabilities? And how about a whole raft of obstruction-of-justice crimes and lying to law enforcement? And all the sub-categories of these, like fraud.

I am all for giving him credit when and where he is actually exonerated of crimes. If, for example, his taxes are crime-filled, then why has not the IRS in years past figured that out? But as it sits, and in terms of all reporting, it appears that investigation is no mere witch hunt. But finally, in these forums, your posts say more about you than anything else, and none of it good.