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.

Was Trump ever a threat to neoliberal agendas? For instance, the trade war?

Trump launched his own cute little four page website: https://www.45office.com/

Oh how the mighty have fallen. :fear:

Trump launched his own cute little four page website: https://www.45office.com/ — praxis

As I did expect his official page is only in English despite the fact he was the president of the most influential country of the world. Also he refers only to American people, he doesn’t care about the rest of the world despite his administration put a lot of worldwide conflicts.

I remember this story finding a home among the credulous (one can type "bounties" into the search bar for a good laugh).

U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops

"It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a “hoax.”"

"It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a “hoax.”" — NOS4A2

That's interesting, because some folks I know in the community said, at the time, it was a non-issue; not because it didn't happen, but because it's been a long-standing SOP for, like, ever, and so, ho hum.

I say the Trump supporters should pick their medicine. Either no one should care because it didn't happen, or they shouldn't care because it wasn't new.

Unfortunately it’s a dangerous game. Such hoax-worthy lies have brought the US and Russia that much closer to war. Skepticism of the story proved not only right, but prudent.

Unfortunately it’s a dangerous game. Such hoax-worthy lies have brought the US and Russia that much closer to war. Skepticism of the story proved not only right, but prudent. — NOS4A2

The article you linked said:
"U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue."

How do you get "hoax" out of "unproven and possibly untrue"?

Skepticism of the story proved not only right, but prudent. — NOS4A2

The link does not disprove the story or prove that doubt was prudent. We were propping the Mujahidin against Soviet Russia in worse ways, and all the players around the world continue to play games like this to this day. The *only* reason the issue was a story at the time is because our POTUS was backing Putin over his own intel people. It would be funny indeed to see him now citing Biden's intel people as proof he was right. WTF?

Unfortunately it’s a dangerous game. — NOS4A2

Yes, dangerous indeed. To the people on the ground. But not existentially dangerous. That would be having a foreign leader's hand up your ass, moving your lips. Or putting you nukes in the other's back yard.

The “intel people” have been notorious failures. The Iraq war was premised on “intelligence” derived from methods of torture. When they start rattling their sabres it should be doubted on principle.

When they start rattling their sabres it should be doubted on principle. — NOS4A2

So we should not trust the recent intel showing that maybe Russia did not put bounties on American heads?

I can trust that they had to walk back their conspiracy theories. They have already got what they wanted: stopping troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Unfortunately in so doing they have edged us closer to war with Russia.

So, when it suits your bias, they are gold. When they don't, they are suspect. Got it.

I remember Scott Ritter et al, walking it back, and it was not the intel community that spun up the war: it was politicians who spun the intel. Intel is usually okay and straight up. It's the pols that spin it. You know, guys like you.

So, when it suits your bias, they are gold. When they don't, they are suspect. Got it.

I never said that. But spin all you like. I don’t expect anything else.

I never said that. But spin all you like. I don’t expect anything else. — NOS4A2

The first intel about bounties was bad. The second intel walking it back was good. Sounds like spin to me.

The first intel about bounties was bad. The second intel walking it back was good. Sounds like spin to me.

Do you believe the intel about bounties was good?