Posted on 11/30/2017 8:32:26 PM PST by Kaslin
“The Democrats can come along for the ride, but they’re going to have to sit in the back of the bus.”
What is actually happening is that the leftist obstructionists in the house and Senate and press are irrelevant
ROFL as quoted by Nancy Pelosi.
That would be like asking for Harvey Weinstien’s input whilst making love to your significant other.
Or asking death row inmates for their prison security ideas.
Maybe NBC wants Senate Dems to install special doors to lock in the GOP.
And to quote their kenyan boy from last time around, "We Won".
Serious question here: Was there ever an actual period(s) of bipartisanship in American history.
WW2 maybe?
I can remember POTUS’s from RR to today and cant think of...any...examples of working together.
Media definition of “Bipartisanship” = When Republicans vote for extremist leftist moonbat Democrat bills.
The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. — George Carlin
That sums it up nicely.
"The era of good feelings" during James Monroe's presidency is probably the best example I can think of, but that goes all the way back to the 1820s. He was virtually unopposed for a second term and Congress pretty much agreed on all legislation during that time period. However, it wasn't really a two party system being "bipartisan", but more of a one-party system since the Federalists collapsed and basically the only elected officials at the time were Democratic Republicans. It became a two-party system again when they had infighting amongst themselves, leading to a breakaway group called the "National Republicans". They eventually became the Whigs, and the remaining "Democratic Republicans" eventually became Democrats.
Yeah, that’s about right. Plus then you had the factions with the Jacksonian Democrats and Whigs on the issue of slavery, which necessitated the collapse of one of those parties as a result (the Dems could’ve also, only because the Whigs were weaker by the 1850s).
I forgot if it was Madison or Monroe (I think Monroe) who was moving in the direct of the Washingtonian ideal of there being no parties (especially after the collapse of the Federalists). Only because he was reticent about assimilating the old Federalists into the Jeffersonian Republicans that it failed and would later cause the 1820s splintering between Jackson and JQ Adams.
Within the United States, the only state I can think of is Nebraska, and while those elections are officially "non-partisan", we UNOFFICIALLY know the party affiliation of all the members of the state house.
And in almost every instance, the contests in NE tend to be between obvious party members. Unfortunately, the heavily GOP legislature is filled to the brim with RINOs.
Some of the Pacific island countries, perhaps.
Checking, Samoa has one dominant party.
Here we go, Tuvalu.
“There are no formal political parties and election campaigns are largely based on personal/family ties and reputations.”
Might be others.
Parties and partisanship get a lot of crap from self-righteous idiots on both sides of the political spectrum. They are a natural feature of democracy, and when one of the parties wants to outright destroy the country, “hyper-partisanship” is only reasonable course. How do you “work together” when you want opposite things? You don’t. Lions and gazelles don’t work together. Muggers and little old ladies don’t work together.
We need an “Era of bad feelings” to grind the enemy into dust.
I'd say we're there about now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.