The Republican Thunderdome

Hi,

I think that the Republicans think that dysfunction is t their advantage, since it takes logic and understanding out of the equation, and this gives them a better chance. In the end, if it all starts to crumble, and it will soon enough when Mr. T is not there anymore, it will likely create a situation for a party that ... has lost its way, and will, likely, have a hard time, getting new votes.

But, America is tough, and not having an alternate media that actually speaks hurts ... and I don't know that folks appreciate that ... the 60's, at least, had a lot of alternative publications that really helped a lot of artists, musicians, writers ... only to all of them being crushed in the next 10 years. The best, and most interesting example was The LA Free Press, which you could almost say was the main reason why Frank Zappa was noticed in the first place, and then ... here came VietNam ... and .... 

This sort of thing confuses me about the concept of freedom in the USA.

Hi,

Also, the misinformation is a serious problem because there is no media to help you figure it out, which only makes things worse still.

I have no issue with states making their own decisions ... but I do with one serious problem ... so one state is Republican this time, and in the next time becomes Democrat, and  they change all the laws back to before the Republicans used their hands ... and then it will change again ... and again ... and this needs a system of checks and balances to resolve the issue, not just put it in the hands of the states and the Supreme Court should wake up to that ... and soon ... or their relevance will lose even more points, for being selfish, stupid and over rated, because of a person that wanted to dismantle the Constitution. (I do think its wording needs some cleaning up ... to bring it more up to date, but in the end, it will disrupt and hurt the laws on the land, which each state will not agree on at all!

If they really were a uniparty, why is there still so much freedom that they still need to reduce? Couldn't they have set the level of freedom at what they desire already in the last x hundred years?

I'm making reference to your quote, so for the sake of answering my question I'm happy to go with your definition of freedom. My point is, assuming that uni-party stuff is true, the uni-party must have had a lot of power for a very long time. So my question is, if this is so, why didn't they use that power in a way that they wouldn't need to worry about too much freedom now (which they  according to your statement apparently do)?