Trumps Presidency 2025

[Motor City Sonics]

55 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, people will believe anything they see online.   

[romad1]

Massie is profile in courage stuff right now.  

He's probably a weirdo in so many other ways but man...i need to think there are a few people shaken by their consciouses to do the right thing. 

[chasfh]

17 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

Once they eliminate all the immigrants, who do you suppose they will incarcerate in thee warehouses?

[CMRivdogs]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Once they eliminate all the immigrants, who do you suppose they will incarcerate in thee warehouses?

Everybody over 65 so they (MAGA) won't have to supplement healthcare or pay Social Security.

2) Anyone who doesn't pass their loyalty tests

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

of course there is an alternate view that both parties are walking dead, that 'political party' as a basic paradigm is dying and is not revivable exactly because the very people you need to be in them (the sane middle) won't go near them anymore. While I keep seeing this talked about, my question is what does it look like in practice? OK - so for starters you run ranked choice primaries and every candidate is a free agent, but how does a legislature function? Firstly, how to have stable leadership to manage an agenda if every leadership vote is an ad hoc exercise among a couple of hundred free agents? Sound like a recipe for getting even less done than the broken legislative processes we have now.

There will never not be political parties. There will always be a move to organize and fund, if for no other reason than to centralize the donor class into a cohesive unit to achieve their governmental aims. There must anlso be a basis for caucuses to form, and membership in a party-like structure is the easiest and cleanest way to form those.

Unless the alternative view you’re describing implies that political parties will devolve into a corporatized trust structure? That, I could see, at least in some dystopian short-term. But the idea that politicians could all be solitary free agents flitting back and forth between caucuses seems fancifully naive.

[CMRivdogs]

Washington warned about political "factions" in his Farewell Address. He feared political parties would place loyalty to the party over the good of the country.

Unfortunately, two of his cabinet members disagreed...

[oblong]

41 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Massie is profile in courage stuff right now.  

He's probably a weirdo in so many other ways but man...i need to think there are a few people shaken by their consciouses to do the right thing. 

I've been impressed by him in this situation as well. In normal times we need 2 parties but this is not normal times and the GOP has a long way to go before they prove to be normal again.

[romad1]

Bagpipes in protest are awesome. 

 

 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

Everybody over 65 so they (MAGA) won't have to supplement healthcare or pay Social Security.

2) Anyone who doesn't pass their loyalty tests

 

[chasfh]

58 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Washington warned about political "factions" in his Farewell Address. He feared political parties would place loyalty to the party over the good of the country.

Unfortunately, two of his cabinet members disagreed...

Q: Hey ChatGPT: are there any countries without political parties?

A: Yes — there are sovereign countries and territories in the world today that do not have formal political parties at the national level. These fall into a few distinct categories: some ban parties outright, others are non-partisan democracies where candidates run as individuals, not as party representatives.

---

1) Countries where political parties are banned or effectively nonexistent

These states either legally forbid political parties or their political systems don’t include functioning parties:

• Saudi Arabia — political parties are prohibited; governance is under the monarchy.

• United Arab Emirates — no political parties; consultative body exists but parties are outlawed.

• Kuwait — parties have been prohibited since 1961; candidates run independently.

• Oman — political parties are outlawed; elections (when held) have non-party candidates.

• Afghanistan (under the Taliban) — all political parties are banned.

• Vatican City — there is no party system; governance is ecclesiastical and monarchical.

Note: Some of these are authoritarian systems where banning parties is tied to centralized power structures rather than democratic choice.

---

2) Non-partisan democracies (no formal parties)

These are typically small states or territories where elections occur but no political parties exist; candidates run as independents:

• Palau — no active political parties; politics revolves around personal/clan affiliations.

• Federated States of Micronesia — no political parties; governance is non-partisan.

• Niue — no political parties; elections are non-partisan.

• Tuvalu — non-partisan parliament with independent representatives.

• Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory) — elections without political parties.

Some discussions include Nauru in this category* because its Parliament operates without party discipline even though parties have formed at times.

---

3) Transitional/temporary cases

• Burkina Faso — as of early 2026, the military government officially dissolved all political parties, eliminating the party system.

---

Clarification: One-party states vs. no-party states

• One-party states (e.g., China, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea) have only one officially legal political party; other parties are banned or permitted only in name.

• No-party states (listed above) have no legal parties at all; candidates are independents or the system doesn’t incorporate party organization.

---

Summary Table

Category	Examples
Parties banned (no party system)	Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Afghanistan (Taliban), Vatican City
Non-partisan democracies (no parties exist)	Palau, Micronesia, Niue, Tuvalu, Falkland Islands
Transitional (party system removed)	Burkina Faso (2026 military decree)

I	am willing to take this information at face value because it passes the smell test.

[Screwball]

Thomas Massie didn't kill himself. 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

There will never not be political parties. There will always be a move to organize and fund, if for no other reason than to centralize the donor class into a cohesive unit to achieve their governmental aims. There must anlso be a basis for caucuses to form, and membership in a party-like structure is the easiest and cleanest way to form those.

Unless the alternative view you’re describing implies that political parties will devolve into a corporatized trust structure? That, I could see, at least in some dystopian short-term. But the idea that politicians could all be solitary free agents flitting back and forth between caucuses seems fancifully naive.

I agree some structure seems to be an organic necessity, but the idea that structure will continue to be based on the free association of a significant proportion of the ordinary citizenry certainly does seem to be in danger of extinction. If you look at PAC money - which already dwarfs party funding power,  you can guess where the future is going.

[CMRivdogs]

At times I wish there were more than two parties in the US. I'm not sure given our DNA whether it would work, but would go a longer (than now) way to stop the Party Purity B-S we're seeing now. 

But that would go along with things like ranked voting and multi member districts. 

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

At times I wish there were more than two parties in the US. I'm not sure given our DNA whether it would work, but would go a longer (than now) way to stop the Party Purity B-S we're seeing now. 

But that would go along with things like ranked voting and multi member districts. 

third parties have their primary value in parliamentary systems where they can be the swing votes to form a majority coalition if no party wins a majority. We don't have one of those. One party is going to win the presidency on its own in almost every possible election scenario. Doesn't leave national 3rd parties much potential leverage. In the US third parties can have a working presence in local Govs where seats on city councils can have swing leverage. We had a functioning third party locally in A^2 through a few election cycles in the 70's. Collapsed when they tried to go state wide. Democratic Socialists of America are alive and well in NYC.

Edited 23 hours ago by gehringer_2

[RatkoVarda]

23 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

At times I wish there were more than two parties in the US. I'm not sure given our DNA whether it would work, but would go a longer (than now) way to stop the Party Purity B-S we're seeing now. 

But that would go along with things like ranked voting and multi member districts. 

maybe ranked choice is the way out,

but the GOP pours huge money into Jill Stein and others every POTUS election, hoping to peel of 1-2% here or there; that is money well spent by them on their useful idiots 

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

maybe ranked choice is the way out,

but the GOP pours huge money into Jill Stein and others every POTUS election, hoping to peel of 1-2% here or there; that is money well spent by them on their useful idiots 

this is a good point. Third parties here do get coopted for the purposes of the other main parties too often.

[chasfh]

21 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

At times I wish there were more than two parties in the US. I'm not sure given our DNA whether it would work, but would go a longer (than now) way to stop the Party Purity B-S we're seeing now. 

But that would go along with things like ranked voting and multi member districts. 

Technically, we do have more than two parties, but there can never be more than two major parties because of the way the president is constitutionally elected by a majority of electoral votes. If the presidential election were to end in a plurality instead, the election would be thrown to the House, firmly controlled by two major parties, for a one-state-one-vote vote, and short of casting a magic spell on Congress, a third party could never win in that scenario.

The danger of a strong third-party scenario in the next election could be the following:

Suppose somehow the Republicans maintain their state delegation advantage after the mid-terms (not an impossibility as Republicans now hold a 30-18-2 advantage in controlling states' House delegations), and all the polls in late 2027 point to an absolute blowout for Democrats in 2028. One practical way for Republicans to undermine it all would be to run a fake third party candidate campaigning as a moderate trad Republican conservative, while they run a MAGA hard-liner as the regular party candidate. Someone like that could easily siphon off enough votes to swing purple states to MAGA Republicans. (Remember, a party needs only a plurality victory in a state to win its electoral votes.) Then, if no party ends up with an electoral vote majority, the election is thrown to the House, and due to control of a majority of states' House delegations, they simply vote the MAGA Republican into office—even though the vast majority of voters in this hypothetical scenario would have rejected him. Sure, it would be hard for the MAGA elite to totally get away with keeping their true intentions under wraps, not the least of which would be finding a candidate who could get away with role-playing as a traditional conservative while hiding or overcoming proof of MAGA connections. But, never say never could happen.

Otherwise, it's technically possible for a third party (or non-party?) candidate to surprise everyone with a majority electoral vote win out of nowhere, but the structural limitations of how our presidential elections are currently constituted all but prevents it.

So, G2's implication is correct: third parties could never have any influence in American politics short of reconstituting it from scratch as a parliamentary democracy.

[CMRivdogs]

21 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

maybe ranked choice is the way out,

but the GOP pours huge money into Jill Stein and others every POTUS election, hoping to peel of 1-2% here or there; that is money well spent by them on their useful idiots 

I get that. Maybe we shouldn't be electing representatives who do not receive 50.1 percent of the total vote. And maybe that's where ranked choice voting comes in, and possibly move to multi member districts.

That said the whole system needs to be reformed. Expand the House, add states like Puerto Rico and DC if you want. I really don't know. 

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I get that. Maybe we shouldn't be electing representatives who do not receive 50.1 percent of the total vote. And maybe that's where ranked choice voting comes in, and possibly move to multi member districts.

That said the whole system needs to be reformed. Expand the House, add states like Puerto Rico and DC if you want. I really don't know. 

expanding the House would be a good step toward getting actual democratic balance back. And an anti-gerrymander rule that says re-districting must drive toward minimum boundary length. It's a simple rule and would cut down on maybe 80% of the abuse. The bigger problem  is the Senate. I think a good system would be to have a 100 member Senate reapportioned by population but all the Senators in each state continue to be elected at large state wide and each state guaranteed only one. Or maintain two per state minimum but raise the total to 200. That would still be unbalanced but less than now. Of course to get there requires major Constitutional surgery, expanding the House does not.

Edited 22 hours ago by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I get that. Maybe we shouldn't be electing representatives who do not receive 50.1 percent of the total vote. And maybe that's where ranked choice voting comes in, and possibly move to multi member districts.

That said the whole system needs to be reformed. Expand the House, add states like Puerto Rico and DC if you want. I really don't know. 

They will accept states like Puerto Rico and DC being admitted into the union when they can split Texas into five exquisitely gerrymandered states. Although, given how much Republicans hair is on fire over Virginia and California threatening to gerrymander in response to MAGA states actually doing so, probably not even then.

[LaceyLou]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

 

Oh wow, I haven't thought of that movie in decades. I actually liked it at the time.

Gives new meaning to "Don't trust anyone over the age of thirty."

[The Ronz]

[smr-nj]

Look!

Spines! About ****ing time. 

[Motown Bombers]

He’s completely lost his marbles. 

 

[Tigerbomb13]

Looks like the Clintons called Comer’s bluff.