GOP Fretting About Monster It & FOX Created. Why?

[Philly]

[Indy]

I'm saying that GOP voters have been groomed by right-wing media for years now to vote for people for completely irrational reasons, and now we've seen the ultimate result of that: Donald Trump. And Ted Cruz.

Not only that, but it's become acceptable to be 100% obstructionist when a non-Party member is in the White House, even when you're screwing yourself while realizing it or not.

Hell of a trick, if you think about it.

Doesn't bode well for the future of the country, or the planet.

As for political parties, I'm not saying we should have none, but actually a ton more. Why is it that Norway, for instance, has over 20 political parties and in our Beacon of Democracy we have exactly... two, and a third-party candidate is completely unrealistic possibility?

One way you usurp the power of the population is to limit their choices. In our case, literally, down to exactly two. And nowhere is that more evident then right now.

[Philly]

What are you talking about, when a non party member is in the WH. When was the last time that happened? George Washington?

But you said party members only use their power to wage jihad. How would more parties help this? It suggests only people not affiliated with parties are willing to lead.

[Indy]

Non-GOP (aka "The Party").

I'm saying GOPers are on a jihad, not people of the Democratic party. And then for the other parties--oh wait, there are no other parties. How is this good for America? To have only two choices?

[Philly]

Indy we've been over this. You have to stop making up your own meaning for words or you won't be able to communicate with those of us who stick to the definitions the entirety of the English speaking world has agreed upon.

[Indy]

Please, not the semantic thing again. I've been using The Party for years, and you absolutely know this.

[Philly]

In the context of American politics, "party" can refer to Democrats, Republicans, or any other party. Why don't you just use real terms instead of making up your own? I am in favor of more parties as well, though our entire system of government would have to change for that to happen. But when you say that all the problems come from "party members", no, I'm not going to change to definition of "party" to suit you, nor should you expect others to do so. Unless directly specified otherwise, a "party member" is a member of any political party.

[Indy]

[Philly]

I would agree that party members don't cause all our problems. Especially not the minor parties who don't even ever elected -- how could it be their fault?

The two-party system, which is unintentionally cooked into our constitution, is the problem. However, with both parties benefitting from keeping additional ones out, the odds of changing the constitution to fix this are slim to none.

[Indy]

How does the Constitution limit us to two parties? (I'm not a big Constitutional scholar).