Making leftist enablers bend the knee.

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

I actually don’t have any issue with classic liberals. It’s the progressive left that I take issue with. 

The United States’s constitutional republic lend it self to a two party system by design. It’s no accident. We’re under a period of reshuffling so the names may change but there will only be two.

You're WRONG.

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart

Quote

Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.

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.”

LMAO

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

I actually don’t have any issue with classic liberals. It’s the progressive left that I take issue with. 

The United States’s constitutional republic lend it self to a two party system by design. It’s no accident. We’re under a period of reshuffling so the names may change but there will only be two.

The public sphere has deteriorated to the point where real problems sit in the shadows while people debate rhetoric and unimportant things, for entertainment.

If you come into my discussion with a set of complaints against one party, you're talking about something else.

[CDN1]

On 8/3/2025 at 2:41 PM, robosmith said:

Too bad you completely missed the EXTENSIVE EFFORTS to get IMMIGRATION REFORM LAWS PASSED, until Trump told House RepubliCONS to kill it.

Thanks for demonstrating your IGNORANCE.

Lol, still pushing Kamala's talking point. She lost the election peddling that bs bill that would have allowed for 1.5 million illegals to be released into the US per year. 

Quit f'n gaslighting. You're pathetic.

Edited August 5, 2025 by CDN1

[eyeball]

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.

This seems more like a mistake. They should have deliberately done more to discard these relics.  They could have crafted a system of choosing representatives similar to the way jurists are selected.  Political parties should simply be regarded as social clubs like Kiwanis or a neighborhood pickle ball association.

The bigger your social club the better your chance of having a representative or two selected from the population.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CDN1 said:

Lol, still pushing Kamala's talking point. She lost the election peddling that bs bill that would have allowed for 1.5 million illegals to be released into the US per year. 

Quit f'n gaslighting. You're pathetic.

Your OPINIONS mean NOTHING without EVIDENCE.

The FACT is, that bill means that SOMETHING was being done to reform immigration CONTRARY to the post which was QUOTED. Duh