Topic: Who still believes that the GOP wants to reduce government?

Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #137,678

Reagan increased the size of the government. The 1990s Republican Revolution didn’t significantly reduce the federal government. DOGE made a mess and achieved nothing. The only common thread is reducing regulatory safeguards and removing checks and balances. It’s almost as if it’s not about reducing federal surveillance or power over citizens.

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 minutes later[^] [v] #1,457,996

Who still believes in this two party meme shit? I don't say that to discourage people from voting either. You absolutely should vote especially in local elections because it at least puts pressure on the government but let's be honest here. The direction of this country is decided in secret meetings behind closed doors and you aren't invited to those meetings.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,019

@previous (B)

> Who still believes in this two party meme shit? I don't say that to discourage people from voting either. You absolutely should vote especially in local elections because it at least puts pressure on the government but let's be honest here. The direction of this country is decided in secret meetings behind closed doors and you aren't invited to those meetings.

Well yeah. I was just focused on one thing. The Democrats offer no great truth or solutions. Other than legislation so all encompassing and all inclusive nobody can figure out what the fuck it means.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,038

@previous (A)
> Democrats offer no great truth or solutions
I'm pretty sure they promised the planet would finally be just once we installed their base in all positions of corporate power and dismantled the patriarchy!

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,050

@previous (C)
Tbh I don’t like the two party system. It’s a flaw with our constitution, winner take all systems always turn into two party systems. It doesn’t give voters real choice.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,052

If it was up to me and I could rewrite the constitution, I’d have a coalition system with proportional representation based off the popular vote with term limits on the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,053

Idk if I think the Supreme Court should be democratically elected. Maybe appointed by congress, but not the president.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,054

Then the other thing that’s dumb about the way the US works is that the judicial branch is supposed to be a check on the executive branch, but the judicial branch has no means of enforcing a court ruling because the executive branch enforces the court ruling of the judicial branch. So the power of the judicial branch is entirely theoretical in that the executive branch can always just refuse to obey a court order and then they can’t be punished because they’re responsible for punishing themselves, which is stupid. Which is probably why in practice the judicial branch is basically useless.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,056

Like it’s a check on power that only works if the president follows the law.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 36 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,067

@1,458,050 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)

> Tbh I don’t like the two party system. It’s a flaw with our constitution, winner take all systems always turn into two party systems. It doesn’t give voters real choice.

Why would two parties necessarily mean no choice?

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 24 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,069

@previous (E)
Well I don’t know about you but as far as I see it, I only have one option.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,073

@1,458,052 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> If it was up to me and I could rewrite the constitution, I’d have a coalition system with proportional representation...
Good thing it's not up to you then.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,074

@previous (F)
Yeah, it would be awful. I’d make the country more democratic than it already is. That’s so evil.

Anonymous F replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,091

@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> more democratic
Lol. The naivety is almost cute.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,092

@previous (F)
How can I be naive of my own intentions?

Anonymous F replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,458,142

@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> How can I be naive of my own intentions?
No, it's sweet how you think coalition governments and enforcing things like proportional representation applied across the board leads to some kind of democratic utopia. I'm afraid you need to do some more history homework, son.

Minichan