Quote:

---

Fair, and one could add that Republicans have equally shifted heavily to the right where what would have once been considered a mainline Republican is now chastised as being a "RINO."

---

People have woken up that in order for the Republic to survive and prosper, one needs to be guided by conservative values. Mainline Republicans are nowhere near being conservative.

If the left is characterized by more government and the right is characterized by less government…..wouldn't "far-right" extremists be anarchists (zero government)?

YouBet said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

Sumlins Cesspool Cleaner said:

---

The system was designed for local residents to represent geographical areas on a national level. What we have is a system where national groups (left and right) pick local agents to represent either party on a national level. It's operating backwards and hence the mess.

---

The fact that we have huge national parties is a major part of the problem. It siloes views into monoliths that don't adequately account for regional differences, and feeds tribalistic attitudes that impede meaningful progress on issues of substance.

---

Said this elsewhere this week...would you prefer a system more like Europe where there are multiple parties leading to "grand coalitions" that frequently fail?

And all have led to much more left-wing outcomes than what we have here with the UK and France on the verge of financial failure because of it.

---

I'm not suggesting that a parliamentarian system of multiple small parties is any better, but in theory factions within parties would lead to modifying their national platforms akin to the agreements that are the basis of these sorts of coalitions so there would be something more agreeable to people generally. What we have now isn't working and has led to both sides characterizing the other side as evil, idiotic, insert-negative-term-of-choice-here, etc.

These tendencies, along with the influence of big money, are serious issues. Not sure if there is a solution, but we should at least be clear that there is a problem in need of addressing.

---

I acknowledge some problems with our current system, but a parliamentarian system has already proven to be inferior simply by watching Western Europe who pursued diversity and lax to open borders immigration policy like we have. And very little of what they have done is agreeable to our version of conservative here so it would still fail. So, your theory, while valid, has not played out that way.

I would say the larger problem with our current system is that the Democrats have sprinted so far to the left that there is very little we can agree on anymore. [Political spectrum meme here] It didn't used to be that way when both parties wanted what was best for the country within the confines of the US Constitution.

---

Fair, and one could add that Republicans have equally shifted heavily to the right where what would have once been considered a mainline Republican is now chastised as being a "RINO."

Both sides have shifted to the extremes, and that isn't helping because it undermines people talking to each other rather than at each other. The caricatures lead to dismissal, and we are all the worse for it.

Gone are the days when Reagan and O'Neill would vigorously debate policy during the day, and be able to share a drink that same evening.

---

Incorrect.

Republicans have shifted left, but not nearly as far left nor as fast as the democrats have. It makes the gap seem wider than it really is. But the overall shift has been left and not right.

I think if you compared the beliefs of each party now versus, say even 50 years ago, you'll find that the extremes is applicable almost exclusively to the left. The right is "extreme" in that it holds onto some really, really weird beliefs like guys shouldn't pretend to be girls, law enforcement should do its job, taxes and government spending are out of control (the national republican party excluded from this one), etc.

---

Hell, we only have to go back to the 1990s to find where Democrats would now be Republicans. We have video evidence from speeches of it. See both Clintons, Biden, Schumer...almost any Democrat at the time.

There is zero debate here on this topic. Republicans have not moved to the right...at all.

---

Studies suggest otherwise:

Quote:

---

As Democrats have grown more liberal over time and Republicans much more conservative, the "middle" where moderate-to-liberal Republicans could sometimes find common ground with moderate-to-conservative Democrats on contentious issues has vanished.

---

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/

It's really sad watching a government sit on its hands and do nothing.

YouBet said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

Sumlins Cesspool Cleaner said:

---

The system was designed for local residents to represent geographical areas on a national level. What we have is a system where national groups (left and right) pick local agents to represent either party on a national level. It's operating backwards and hence the mess.

---

The fact that we have huge national parties is a major part of the problem. It siloes views into monoliths that don't adequately account for regional differences, and feeds tribalistic attitudes that impede meaningful progress on issues of substance.

---

Said this elsewhere this week...would you prefer a system more like Europe where there are multiple parties leading to "grand coalitions" that frequently fail?

And all have led to much more left-wing outcomes than what we have here with the UK and France on the verge of financial failure because of it.

---

I'm not suggesting that a parliamentarian system of multiple small parties is any better, but in theory factions within parties would lead to modifying their national platforms akin to the agreements that are the basis of these sorts of coalitions so there would be something more agreeable to people generally. What we have now isn't working and has led to both sides characterizing the other side as evil, idiotic, insert-negative-term-of-choice-here, etc.

These tendencies, along with the influence of big money, are serious issues. Not sure if there is a solution, but we should at least be clear that there is a problem in need of addressing.

---

I acknowledge some problems with our current system, but a parliamentarian system has already proven to be inferior simply by watching Western Europe who pursued diversity and lax to open borders immigration policy like we have. And very little of what they have done is agreeable to our version of conservative here so it would still fail. So, your theory, while valid, has not played out that way.

I would say the larger problem with our current system is that the Democrats have sprinted so far to the left that there is very little we can agree on anymore. [Political spectrum meme here] It didn't used to be that way when both parties wanted what was best for the country within the confines of the US Constitution.

---

Fair, and one could add that Republicans have equally shifted heavily to the right where what would have once been considered a mainline Republican is now chastised as being a "RINO."

Both sides have shifted to the extremes, and that isn't helping because it undermines people talking to each other rather than at each other. The caricatures lead to dismissal, and we are all the worse for it.

Gone are the days when Reagan and O'Neill would vigorously debate policy during the day, and be able to share a drink that same evening.

---

Incorrect.

Republicans have shifted left, but not nearly as far left nor as fast as the democrats have. It makes the gap seem wider than it really is. But the overall shift has been left and not right.

I think if you compared the beliefs of each party now versus, say even 50 years ago, you'll find that the extremes is applicable almost exclusively to the left. The right is "extreme" in that it holds onto some really, really weird beliefs like guys shouldn't pretend to be girls, law enforcement should do its job, taxes and government spending are out of control (the national republican party excluded from this one), etc.

---

Hell, we only have to go back to the 1990s to find where Democrats would now be Republicans. We have video evidence from speeches of it. See both Clintons, Biden, Schumer...almost any Democrat at the time.

There is zero debate here on this topic. Republicans have not moved to the right...at all.

---

Studies suggest otherwise:

Quote:

---

As Democrats have grown more liberal over time and Republicans much more conservative, the "middle" where moderate-to-liberal Republicans could sometimes find common ground with moderate-to-conservative Democrats on contentious issues has vanished.

---

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/

---

That is such laughably obvious b.s. that I can't believe it was published. Good lord.

A simple eyeball test of historical reality debunks this "study".

Again, where have the Republican moved "heavily to the right"? The Democrats literally ran on an open borders policy last time out which is anti-American and anti-sovereignty. Thus, shreds the Constitution. That one issue alone debunks this worthless study.

---

You get that support for an unchecked executive is a shift to the right, correct? That study looked at roll call votes over time. Accept it. Don't. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

PathfinderGeneral said:

---

Time to surround the Louvre with pork products

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

You get that support for an unchecked executive is a shift to the right, correct?

---

Not sure which is more laughable, that "unchecked executive" is "right" or that is what what anyone at all supports.

---

How else would one read inability to stand up to Trump out of fear, be it of being primaried, losing party favor, or something else. Few Republicans are willing to disagree with the Don, and the sycophantic praise of the guy is just sad.

oldyeller said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

You get that support for an unchecked executive is a shift to the right, correct?

---

Not sure which is more laughable, that "unchecked executive" is "right" or that is what what anyone at all supports.

---

How else would one read inability to stand up to Trump out of fear, be it of being primaried, losing party favor, or something else. Few Republicans are willing to disagree with the Don, and the sycophantic praise of the guy is just sad.

---

It is a bit of an out there take. Trump has had his home raided. Has been under more investigations then any government official with little evidence.

It would be beneficial for you to realize that Trump is seen as a Traditional story character. More "divinely" appointed then "earned it with credentials". Ronald Reagan is a similar story arc.

There are plenty of Republicans willing to criticize Trump. The pseudo Traditional Story characters like MTG or Loomer. There are the modern story characters who get hung up on details like Shapiro, Cruz and other "intellectuals". Generally speaking most postmodernists are democrat. AOC, Warren, Sanders etc for example.

The thing with Modern Story characters is if you take them down it builds onto your prestige. Think of it like Highlander. But with a Traditional Character you don't gain the same benefit. It is actually a turn off. This is why most Catholics seem uninterested in the fallacies of their pope. That is also a traditional character. Replacing a "hero" isnt done by defeating it head to head but by proving more worthy. Which is a hard thing for someone to do who is a modern story character. See DeSantis and Cruz. Meanwhile Rubio and JD have created more of a hero persona rather than a track record credential based status.

This next election will be interesting to see who can win between the 2 competing camps in the republican party.

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

YouBet said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

Sumlins Cesspool Cleaner said:

---

The system was designed for local residents to represent geographical areas on a national level. What we have is a system where national groups (left and right) pick local agents to represent either party on a national level. It's operating backwards and hence the mess.

---

The fact that we have huge national parties is a major part of the problem. It siloes views into monoliths that don't adequately account for regional differences, and feeds tribalistic attitudes that impede meaningful progress on issues of substance.

---

Said this elsewhere this week...would you prefer a system more like Europe where there are multiple parties leading to "grand coalitions" that frequently fail?

And all have led to much more left-wing outcomes than what we have here with the UK and France on the verge of financial failure because of it.

---

I'm not suggesting that a parliamentarian system of multiple small parties is any better, but in theory factions within parties would lead to modifying their national platforms akin to the agreements that are the basis of these sorts of coalitions so there would be something more agreeable to people generally. What we have now isn't working and has led to both sides characterizing the other side as evil, idiotic, insert-negative-term-of-choice-here, etc.

These tendencies, along with the influence of big money, are serious issues. Not sure if there is a solution, but we should at least be clear that there is a problem in need of addressing.

---

I acknowledge some problems with our current system, but a parliamentarian system has already proven to be inferior simply by watching Western Europe who pursued diversity and lax to open borders immigration policy like we have. And very little of what they have done is agreeable to our version of conservative here so it would still fail. So, your theory, while valid, has not played out that way.

I would say the larger problem with our current system is that the Democrats have sprinted so far to the left that there is very little we can agree on anymore. [Political spectrum meme here] It didn't used to be that way when both parties wanted what was best for the country within the confines of the US Constitution.

---

Fair, and one could add that Republicans have equally shifted heavily to the right where what would have once been considered a mainline Republican is now chastised as being a "RINO."

Both sides have shifted to the extremes, and that isn't helping because it undermines people talking to each other rather than at each other. The caricatures lead to dismissal, and we are all the worse for it.

Gone are the days when Reagan and O'Neill would vigorously debate policy during the day, and be able to share a drink that same evening.

---

Incorrect.

Republicans have shifted left, but not nearly as far left nor as fast as the democrats have. It makes the gap seem wider than it really is. But the overall shift has been left and not right.

I think if you compared the beliefs of each party now versus, say even 50 years ago, you'll find that the extremes is applicable almost exclusively to the left. The right is "extreme" in that it holds onto some really, really weird beliefs like guys shouldn't pretend to be girls, law enforcement should do its job, taxes and government spending are out of control (the national republican party excluded from this one), etc.

---

Hell, we only have to go back to the 1990s to find where Democrats would now be Republicans. We have video evidence from speeches of it. See both Clintons, Biden, Schumer...almost any Democrat at the time.

There is zero debate here on this topic. Republicans have not moved to the right...at all.

---

Studies suggest otherwise:

Quote:

---

As Democrats have grown more liberal over time and Republicans much more conservative, the "middle" where moderate-to-liberal Republicans could sometimes find common ground with moderate-to-conservative Democrats on contentious issues has vanished.

---

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/

---

That is such laughably obvious b.s. that I can't believe it was published. Good lord.

A simple eyeball test of historical reality debunks this "study".

Again, where have the Republican moved "heavily to the right"? The Democrats literally ran on an open borders policy last time out which is anti-American and anti-sovereignty. Thus, shreds the Constitution. That one issue alone debunks this worthless study.

---

You get that support for an unchecked executive is a shift to the right, correct? That study looked at roll call votes over time. Accept it. Don't. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Well since that is not happening we can move on.

TAMU1990 said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

BREAKING: French police confirm that rioters in Paris, Marseille and Lyon are armed with AK47s and Scorpion submachine guns.

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 19, 2026

---

Could ultimately be good news if true. Erases the BS "student protests over not enough teachers" and would give France and other countries the cover to crack down hard on the "protesters".

---

Same issues as the DSA plan. Uprising of French leftist demanding for the government to be taken over if an insurrection is declared and calls of dismemberment of it.

---

Yeah, well, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. The average French farmer doesn't have an assortment of ARs, handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles with stacks of ammo available to them.

HumpitPuryear said:

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

HumpitPuryear said:

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

BREAKING: French police confirm that rioters in Paris, Marseille and Lyon are armed with AK47s and Scorpion submachine guns.

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 19, 2026

---

Could ultimately be good news if true. Erases the BS "student protests over not enough teachers" and would give France and other countries the cover to crack down hard on the "protesters".

---

Same issues as the DSA plan. Uprising of French leftist demanding for the government to be taken over if an insurrection is declared and calls of dismemberment of it.

---

Yeah, well, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. The average French farmer doesn't have an assortment of ARs, handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles with stacks of ammo available to them.

---

Yeah well that's their problem. They should have learned in the 1940s to not let anyone take your weapons away.

None of the French grew up playing American football so not sure if any of them know how to get physical. If they aren't willing to pick up clubs and bats to fight off the rioters, then they can watch it burn. Start breaking bones and cracking heads and this gets real. Fight or flee- their country their choice. Same choice the Persians had in Iran.

A day that ends in Y and another anti women post by infinity ag.

Sharpshooter said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

A day that ends in Y and another anti women post by infinity ag.

---

He's right, you know.

---

No he is not right. Women's suffrage did not destroy the west. The rise of postmodernism destroyed the west. If he is right how would you reconcile that married Christian women vote more conservative then unmarried non Christian men. Thanks.

Postmodern impact:
First it weakend Christian churches. Which led to a precipitous drop in Christian schooling. I hope i dont need to explain why public school is worse.
Second it gave rise to "liberation": sexual, abortion, divorce. Destruction of family.
Third it pushed people away from family and into a rat race for money and education. With that people were left to jsut be materialistic.
Fourth the hollow life absent of family and community impacts women more quickly which leads to them voting more liberal. True for unmarried and non-christian women.

So yes I think one who blames women is just showing their ignorance on voting behavior and what is actually at play.

The Unforgiven said:

---

They should call for a curfew. Then bring in the military with rules of engagement to shoot on site no matter who it is if they don't lay down and accept being hogtied. Then send them to a black site for the rest of their lives.

---

Quand les pillages commencent, les tirs commencent.

texagbeliever said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

A day that ends in Y and another anti women post by infinity ag.

---

He's right, you know.

---

No he is not right. Women's suffrage did not destroy the west. The rise of postmodernism destroyed the west. If he is right how would you reconcile that married Christian women vote more conservative then unmarried non Christian men. Thanks.

Postmodern impact:
First it weakend Christian churches. Which led to a precipitous drop in Christian schooling. I hope i dont need to explain why public school is worse.
Second it gave rise to "liberation": sexual, abortion, divorce. Destruction of family.
Third it pushed people away from family and into a rat race for money and education. With that people were left to jsut be materialistic.
Fourth the hollow life absent of family and community impacts women more quickly which leads to them voting more liberal. True for unmarried and non-christian women.

So yes I think one who blames women is just showing their ignorance on voting behavior and what is actually at play.

---

What? Leaders of the suffrage movement were pagans and participated in the demonic. It was always going to end this way, even before postmodernism.

Italians ain't waiving white flags like the ***** french yet. Too bad they are still gimps and not a single one of them knows what a punch is.

Little wannabe theif gets his ass smacked around after trying to steal with just a stick.

El negrito descubrió que los tanos no son franceses pic.twitter.com/R4Bbfnx8gZ

— Paul Vinsennau 🍷🫠👇 (@Pvinsenok_) October 18, 2026

That dude found out.