American Politics

[SubCmdr]

I own it whether I like it or not. Same as some other investments.

Didn't you write this? Did you know exactly what you owned that you didn't like?

Because you quote my post about Bitcoin where I didn't reference you are anything you wrote at all EihTooms.

This is the first sentence of my quote from the linked article telling you what I am referring to owning in that fund. And it isn't bitcoin, right?

What exactly was your meaning and how did it relate to the title of your post.

Did you really not know that meant owning a share of indirect crypto currency exposure and not directly owning Bitcoin?

I knew the meaning exactly. But I decided to clear up the word play and games that you often use whenever you reply to my posts.

I'll have to be very wary of accepting what you "teach" us about Bitcoin, crypto, the stock market and land investments from now on.

Good! I provide accurate information to those who are interested. I do NOT make investment recommendations. Not trying to teach a 73 year old man that knows everything anything.

I stand by my original statements. Both undisputed facts!

You don't own any Bitcoin and neither does Vanguard!

Bitcoin has delivered significantly higher historical returns than stocks

[Axel Heyst]

The corrupt Brazilian Communist really put his foot in his mouth this time. The election is on Oct 4. The hope is Brazil will follow the recent election pattern set in the rest of SA.

The headline reads "Lula in Bizarre Pre-Election Rant: Girls Learn to 'Get Touched' from an Early Age."

Socialist President of Brazil Luiz Incio Lula the Silva this week claimed that Brazilian girls learn to "get touched" from a young age in what his party affirms are comments on the subject of cervical cancer screening. KKK!

"Lula's outrageous remarks have sparked widespread condemnation from Brazilian politicians and healthcare professionals.

The controversy arose on Monday night during a presidential campaign rally held in the city of Belm, Para one of the president's last scheduled public events before the October 4 presidential election in which Lula is seeking to be reelected for a fourth term. The now-controversial rally took place some hours after the Brazilian president visited the So Joo de Deus Hospital in Belm and toured its renovated facilities, including a new robotic surgery unit which can perform complex surgeries such as those related to prostate cancer.

Poder 360 detailed that during the rally, Lula recounted the story of his mother, Eurdice "Dona Linda" Ferreira de Melo, who passed away from cervical cancer at a time when treatment procedures were more "precarious. " After affirming that men are "cowards" for not undergoing prostate cancer screening, Lula then claimed that women instead learn to "get touched" from a young age. "

Election day is October 4! Can't wait. I will be there on the 6th to party.

[Spidy]

The Constitution is a framework charter, NOT codified code

I disagree!

What part of that sentence are you disagreeing with? That "The Constitution is a framework charter..."? Or that, "...it is NOT codified code"? Or both parts of the sentence, which concisely describes essentially, what the Constitution is?

The Constitution of the United States of America is the first principles document that governs the entire political structure of the Dis United States of America The concept of first principles thinking in the context of the The Constitution of the United States of America, refers to the foundational, self-evident truths from which the entire structure of the Dis United States of America government is derived.

These principles are not merely procedural rules but the essential standards that answer fundamental questions about who rules, for what ends, and how power is structured. These first principles are "first" in two ways:

1. They must be addressed chronologically before other subjects.

2. They deal with the most important matters of a political community.
...

You say you disagree, but then present the same "foundational" conclusion. That being, The Constitution is foundational and NOT a code, but reached through a different theory. Yours being first principles verses mine being framework and interpretation..

• In the landmark Supreme Court case, Chief Justice John Marshall himself, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819,) where Marshall is famously quoted, that a constitution cannot contain, "an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution. For if it did, it, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code."
  
  "Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves." https://teachingamericanhistory.org/...-v-maryland-2/
  
  This is Marshall, explicitly distinguishing The Constitution, from code. Basically saying, The Constitution marks "great outlines", but leaves the details to be deduced.

I standby my statement that, "The Constitution is a framework charter, NOT a codified code", as exemplified and argued by Chief Justice John Marshall. Whether you call its foundations "first principles" or a "structural framework," is fine, but it is NOT codified code, that leaves details to be deduced, as the operative legal meaning still comes from the constitutional law and interpretation (argued in the courts by lawyers before justices) and not just from the text alone.

[SubCmdr]

And your case is batteries are cheaper? You are out of your damned mind.

Batteries are not cheaper. Nor is everyone happy with their use and application. Even in the great state of California there is pushback.

California is ground zero for the growing battery backlash

The US is in the midst of a battery boom critical to keeping the lights on amid heat waves, winter storms and surging electricity demand from artificial intelligence. But developers are increasingly encountering an implacable foe: communities afraid that large lithium-ion storage farms could spontaneously burst into flames.

As installations grow larger and are placed closer to neighborhoods, on farmland or in high-risk wildfire areas, local opposition is growing. That puts many states in a bind as they depend on renewable energy to meet rising electricity demand and to achieve climate targets. The expansion of solar and wind energy is tied in part to batteries, which can store electricity for use after the sun sets and the wind stops blowing. Theyre also key to the growth of data centers, which face rising resistance as well.

https://www.ocregister.com/2026/04/23/california-is-ground-zero-for-the-growing-battery-backlash/

Energy production is political only because political parties make it so. I don't care who is in office. Does not matter to me. But whoever it is Republican / Democrat, they better keep the lights on!

[EihTooms]

I do not see the words indirect crypto currency exposure.

Owning Bitcoin technically means possessing the private key that grants exclusive control and the ability to sign transactions for a specific balance recorded on the blockchain. Unlike traditional assets, Bitcoin is not a physical object or a file stored on your device; it is a record in a decentralized public ledger where ownership is defined by cryptographic proof rather than a central authority. Bitcoin has delivered significantly higher historical returns than stocks

Plain Language. ROTFLMAO!

This is the first sentence of my quote from the linked article telling you what I am referring to owning in that fund. And it isn't bitcoin, right?

Vanguard has become the largest shareholder of the most established Bitcoin equity play.

Did you really not know that meant owning a share of indirect crypto currency exposure and not directly owning Bitcoin?

I'll have to be very wary of accepting what you "teach" us about Bitcoin, crypto, the stock market and land investments from now on.

[SubCmdr]

Because the Afrikaners are being persecuted and victims of genocide in South Africa.

Back your statement up with some facts.

FACTS

White South Africans are, on average, wealthier and more ​likely to be employed than Black South Africans.

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/south-africa-summons-us-ambassador-again-over-undiplomatic-conduct-official-says-2026-09-30/

Thirty years after the end of apartheid, South Africa's economy remains deeply divided by race, spurring political debate on the extent to which its flagship Black economic empowerment law has worked.
Here are some facts about South Africa's racial divide:

UNEMPLOYMENT
South Africa has struggled for years with low economic growth and high unemployment. The official unemployment rate was 33.5% in April-June of this year.
During that period, the unemployment rate was 37.6% among Black South Africans and 7.9% among white South Africans, according to the statistics agency. It was 23.3% among South Africans of mixed race.
The unemployment rate among Black people has consistently been higher than the national average over the past decade, and has risen more than nine percentage points since 2014, Statistics South Africa said.
MANAGEMENT CONTROL
In the private sector, white people occupied 65.9% of top management level posts while Black people occupied 13.8% in 2022, according to South Africa's Commission for Employment Equity.
South Africa's population of 64 million is about 8% white, official data shows.
The statistics show that the percentage of Black people increases as the job level goes down to senior, professional, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled.
At the unskilled labour level, white people occupied 0.9% of jobs in the private sector and Black people 82.8% in 2022.
OWNERSHIP
Average Black ownership of companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange was almost 30% in 2022, according to the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Commission, which includes other minority groups such as mixed race and Asian people in its count.
However, the report is based on a small sample size of firms that submitted their information. One economist calculated that actual Black ownership among listed companies was about 1%.
Board membership on listed companies was around 47% Black in 2022, the Commission said in its latest report, adding that this showed potential progress but that limited data meant it did not necessarily represent industry performance.
"No entity registered 100% Black-owned within the JSE listed companies," it said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/racial-divide-south-africas-economy-2024-09-23/

Every man has a right to an opinion but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts - Bernard Baruch, 1946.

[Elvis 2008]

Vertical Solar?

2026 The Year of the Battery.

All the other suggestions are bullshit. Putting solar panels out in the ocean requires a huge and costly infrastructure to set them up and a huge and costly infrastructure to get electricity to land.

Vertical is a way to get more square footage without sacrificing land area, and you could put these in places where infrastructure is already built. The problem? You are depriving others of sunlight, and what gives anyone the right to do that? I cannot even imagine the legal issues with that.

The land in Texas is only 2% owned by government. You go to states like Nevada and it is 85% owned and the state gets a ton of sun and outside of Las Vegas, the state is mostly bare. The bullshit you keep falling for is power generation. You can put a thousand of the panels I mentioned out in the desert and be generating 3 million watts per day but so what? You are forgetting the most expensive parts. You have to have batteries to store said power when it is night, and you have to get people to move to Nevada or build up a huge infrastructure to move the electricity. That is the part you do not get.

But that is not even where the electricity demand is going to come from. There is nothing wrong with slapping up a few solar panels to lower electricity costs or in my case charge the batteries on a RV, however that does not work if you need constant power, and data centers are going to be the big drivers of electricity use, and they cannot afford down time, and neither can people shipping goods that require refrigeration.

I have given you constant examples of how paltry the amount of energy that can be stored in batteries versus nat gas or coal or oil or diesel or gasoline, and you still do not get it. If you do solar with batteries, you still have to back them up with a fossil fuel power source like natural gas or nuclear. So why do it all?

I have 12,000 watts of batteries in my RV and am increasing it to 20,000 but they take hours to charge. When I really need power and do not have time, I can wait hours to charge up the batteries or I can flip a switch and turn on the generator.

With even a climate change nut like you, if you are in my RV, when it is 100 outside and 110 degrees inside, you are going to flip the generator switch on. You can lie and say you are not but you will.

[SubCmdr]

Homeland Security taps $20M in taxpayer funds for pro-Trump ads

WASHINGTON (AP) The Department of Homeland Security has tapped $20 million to pay for the campaign-style ads glorifying President Donald Trump that have drawn widespread criticism from Republicans and Democrats as a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars that likely runs afoul of anti-propaganda law.

In a letter Tuesday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, two top Democratic senators said that the money is being drawn from Trumps so-called One Big Beautiful Bill and was supposed to go for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars, wrote Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee that handles Homeland Security funding.

The senators demanded answers within the next 48 hours about how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself.

They asked the secretary if the department plans to use additional federal funds to air these ads or create new ones, and if so to share contracting information with Congress. They also asked Mullin if he had spoken to Trump about using the taxpayer funds for the ads.

The political uproar over Trumps hagiographic ads, which started running last week during popular TV shows, including college and National Football League programming, has not abated as critics on the left and right raise alarms about the use of taxpayer funds, particularly so close to the midterm elections.

The White House has defended the advertisements, which disclose that they are funded by the U.S. government, as public service announcements.

Asked for a request for comment Tuesday on the senators letter, Homeland Security referred to the earlier White House response.

Ad spend is up to $2.5m as criticism and legal scrutiny grow
The unusual commercials, which echo the GOPs midterm election slogans, against imagery of Trumps tenure in office one with a Love me, Love me song refrain in the background appear to violate a law against congressionally appropriated funds being used for propaganda.

Experts also have said the ads, which are airing on network and cable TV and streaming, differ from other administrations PSAs because they arent designed to help Americans access any specific program.

Over the weekend, a new ad promoting the president resembles a black-and-white video from his own 2024 campaign that shows Trump walking down a hallway as his voice can be heard warning of a final battle against globalists and warmongers. It ends with Trump staring straight into the camera lens with the Paid for by the U.S. Government message printed.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, has compared Trumps ads to those used by authoritarian former leader Viktor Orban of Hungary. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said it shouldnt be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Data from the outside firm AdImpact shows more than $2.5 million was spent on the three ads over the past seven days. The actual amount spent could be significantly more, depending on whether networks classified the ads as political.

The senators said in their letter that DHS has committed $20 million to the campaign.

A person who was not authorized to discuss the situation and who was granted anonymity confirmed the findings, which were first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Trumps ads use taxpayer dollars, likely skirting the law
The unusual ad campaign comes as Republicans face an increasingly volatile midterm election season with their control of the House and Senate and Trumps future agenda all at risk.

Voters say they are struggling with high prices of gas and groceries, and are concerned about the lengthy U.S. war against Iran, now in its seventh month. Democrats are gearing up for vast oversight of Trump and his administration if they seize power, and impeachment is not off the table.

House Democrats said Trumps director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, moved $20 million from Homeland Security resources to the ad campaign on Sept. 19.

The next day, a $20 million contract for a National Media Campaign was awarded to the Maryland-based LMD Agency, Inc., according to federal data. LMD Agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Homeland Security funds are part of a whopping $175 billion Congress gave the department in the Big, Beautiful, Bill as part of Trumps immigration enforcement and deportation agenda. Democrats voted against that package, which Trump signed into law last summer, in part because of its steep cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security subcommittee, said that after gutting $1 trillion from Medicaid and social services and more than quadrupling funding for mass deportations, it turns out the Trump administration used Republicans One Big Beautiful Bill to pay for President Trumps political ads.

They said if the Democrats regain control, they will work to uncover and reverse misuses of taxpayer money like this and hold those who abused their power accountable.

Whats also striking about the administrations use of taxpayer dollars for the ads is that Trumps own political campaign committee, MAGA Inc., is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars of funding that could be used during the midterm season. Groups aligned with MAGA Inc. have started shelling out funds for the House and Senate races.

The administration has defended the use of taxpayer dollars for the ads and shown no signs of changing course.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-ads...109ae175ee9e5c

Democrats kill crypto legislation Republicans spending my tax dollars for propaganda in the Dis United States of America. Yet senior members have the nerve to ask me: Which party is doing the most for the The Cmdr?

Neither Party is Mine!

[EihTooms]

You Fucked Around And Found Out, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

I guess more of your eligible registrants and voters should have gotten off their butt and voted for Harris in 2024 in at least the scant few more numbers necessary to override the totally presidential election determinative votes for someone else that a tiny handful of votes cast by angry Muslims on a single issue decided for the entire USA.

Pennsylvania measles cases cross 900 as outbreak grows

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litiga...ws-2026-09-28/

Michigan households hit hardest per person by Trump-era tariffs: report

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/po...154650927.html

Mapped: The U.S. States Hit Hardest by Canadas Tariffs

Mapped: The U.S. States Hit Hardest by Canadas Tariffs

See the map where MI, PA and poor WI are featured prominently among the states hardest hit by Trump's American Consumer Taxes and Trade War with Canada.

Oh well.

We tried.

[SubCmdr]

I own it whether I like it or not. Same as some other investments.

I do not see the words indirect crypto currency exposure.

Interesting. You might want to read up on the topic a bit more.

Owning Bitcoin technically means possessing the private key that grants exclusive control and the ability to sign transactions for a specific balance recorded on the blockchain. Unlike traditional assets, Bitcoin is not a physical object or a file stored on your device; it is a record in a decentralized public ledger where ownership is defined by cryptographic proof rather than a central authority. Bitcoin has delivered significantly higher historical returns than stocks

Plain Language. ROTFLMAO!

[EihTooms]

You don't own any Bitcoin and neither does Vanguard!

Vanguard does not own Bitcoin in self-custody. The firm has explicitly stated it has no plans to launch its own Bitcoin ETF or hold cryptocurrency directly. Vanguard's policy restricts direct ownership and self-custody of digital assets for its clients. Period. Full Stop!

https://www.mexc.co/learn/article/do...eed-to-know/1l

As I said before, Bitcoin is a opt in system. No one owns it that does not deserve to. I am available for any further questions any of you International Tricks may have about Bitcoin. Even if you are a no coiner and are skeptical. I already put down much mis information in this thread about Bitcoin. My information has not been refuted.

Regulatory rule making has shifted from Congress to federal agencies after the CLARITY Act failed to advance due to the Democrats on September 15,2026. The SEC, CFTC, and Federal Reserve are rapidly drafting rules using existing authority to fill the void, with the SEC unveiling a tokenized-stock exemption and the Fed proposing stablecoin reserve rules under the GENIUS Act. The Trump Administration is a friend of Crypto. The Democrats are not.

Who said anything about me owning bitcoin? I didn't say that.

From my linked article:

The views come as Vanguard now already offers its customers indirect cryptocurrency exposure through its funds, but refuses to offer customers access to products like Bitcoin ETFs on its brokerage platform.

Did you think bitcoin is the same as indirect crypto currency exposure?

Interesting. You might want to read up on the topic a bit more.

Or did you mistakenly think you saw the plain language word "bitcoin" in the Subject of my post and somewhere in my comments about the article I linked when it isn't in there at all?

[Elvis 2008]

Who cares about your arcane propaganda fossil fuel math, when countries like Pakistan stands to save US $6.3 billion over the course of the year through reduced oil and gas imports, following an estimated US $12 billion saved between 2021 and early 2026, using simple rooftop solar. https://energyandcleanair.org/the-hedge-that-paid-off-how-pakistans-solar-boom-is-shielding-it-from-the-hormuz-crisis/

That is complete bullshit. I cannot even make sense of this more honest assessment. https://electronics.alibaba.com/ques...ice-guide-2026

High-efficiency bifacial 700 W panels cost PKR 42–45 (or 16 cents) per watt. Is solar power in Pakistan cheaper than electricity from the grid?

Yes — over a 10-year horizon. Grid electricity costs PKR 28–45/ kWh (9 to 16 cents) with annual increases of 8–12%. A solar system averages PKR 8–12 (3 to 4 cents) / kWh lifetime cost (including financing, maintenance, replacement). Break-even occurs between Year 2 and Year 4.

I am not sure how you get from 16 cents per watt to 3-4 cents per watt. What I can say is that solar requires a huge upfront cost and therefore any cost savings is theoretical bullshit. Where do they get 8 to 12% price increases in grid power from? And what yield are you getting on the money you do not spend on solar?

And that is not even getting into real world costs. If you got a refrigerator using 250 watts per hour with $100 of perishable food in it, the batteries on the Pakistani systems are going to back up that refrigerator for 20 hours, and that is assuming you use the battery for nothing else. So if you have a day or two without sun, you are fucked, and that $100 worth of food is going to go bad.

That 5,000 watt battery is going to weigh in the 100 to 150 pound neighborhood, and it is going to cost $1000 to $3000. That is for 20 hours of juice.

5 gallons of diesel can run that refrigerator for almost 2 weeks, weights 42 pounds, and even with higher fuel costs, runs a person $30.

Whether it is a data center losing billions in down time or a refrigerator with $100 of food in it, it is not just the cost of generation but the reliability of the generation that affects cost, and sun and wind are not reliable.

Who cares about your arcane propaganda fossil fuel math

Uh, everyone in the world who uses electricity? To a dumb Dem, math is now political.

In the UK specifically, there is roughly six times more land for golf courses than for solar.

England is about 50,000 square miles. That is enough to power three cruise ships. The UK is 90,000 square miles. That is enough to power five cruise ships with solar.

Rooftop solar?

Rooftops do not add to the square footage of a country.

On/Offshore wind? Tidal-wave power?

This is an admission that you have lost the debate on solar.

2026 The Year of the Battery.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/EcoFlow-...3-US/330847837

This is the power station I own. $2500,4000 watt capacity, 113 pounds.

When used in a generator, diesel gets about 16,000 watts per gallon. So for 4000 watts, that requires 1/4 of a gallon of diesel at $1. 50 which weighs less than 2 lbs.

And your case is batteries are cheaper? You are out of your damned mind.

[Spidy]

Per google, to generate 8 billion watts (8 gigawatts) of solar energy daily, you require approximately 17,500 square miles of land area, which is equivalent to about 11.2 million acres. That just happens to be an area that is 1.5 times the size of the state of Maryland.

And you would need battery capacity to store 4 billion watts of power when the sun went down and you are still going to need hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel in case there is not adequate sun.

Late additional questions, if anyone in Trumpland and MAGA world, on Earth #2, has also heard of the follow variations of solar, that work with nature's resources and don't take up additional land?:

• Agrivoltaics? In harmony with land, nature and the farmers

• Floating Solar? Again, in harmony with the sea, nature and fish & wildlife conservation

• Canal Solar? At the same time conserving water, for farmers. California and India projects, have yielded good results

• Vertical Solar? Like on the side of residential homes, commercial buildings OR

• Solar as Fencing Panels? Since solar panels are often cheaper than other fencing materials FWIW

• Canopy Solar: Parking Lots, Gas/Charging Stations, Rest Stop Areas? Also provides vehicle, weather and road protection

• Balcony Solar? Option of apartments as a nominal way to participate in creating their own energy

• Desert/Mountain Solar? China has just about perfected the reuse and revitalization of what was unusable land, hillsides or desert with solar

• Unused/Abandoned Mining Solar? China has built the largest single coal mining subsidence area photovoltaic project in Ningxia (ie. big-time use of marginal unused land)

AND the latest and greatest solar, no one in Trumpland and MAGA World, on Earth has every heard of, that doesn't take up land is:

• Railway Track Solar Pilot project in Switzerland, with more than 11,000 trains having rolled over the setup without causing damage, safety issues, or glare for drivers. Italy and others are seriously considering this solar

• Solar Noise Barriers? Photovoltaic modules integrated directly into noise barriers along highways or railways

I know that, since the sun and wind doesn't shine or blow everywhere on Trumpland and MAGA world on Earth #2, tell me, do none of these various implementations of solar, also not exist in either?

2026 The Year of the Battery.

[SubCmdr]

The Constitution is a framework charter, NOT codified code

I disagree!

The Constitution of the United States of America is the first principles document that governs the entire political structure of the Dis United States of America The concept of first principles thinking in the context of the The Constitution of the United States of America, refers to the foundational, self-evident truths from which the entire structure of the Dis United States of America government is derived.

These principles are not merely procedural rules but the essential standards that answer fundamental questions about who rules, for what ends, and how power is structured. These first principles are "first" in two ways:

1. They must be addressed chronologically before other subjects.

2. They deal with the most important matters of a political community.

The core first principles underpinning The Constitution of the United States include:

Popular Sovereignty: The axiom that all political power emanates from the people, who are the sole source of legislative authority and can alter or abolish governments

Limited Government:*The radical conception, introduced by James Otis Jr. in 1761 and codified by the Framers, that government possesses only those powers explicitly granted to it by the Constitution, acting as a creature of the law rather than the other way around

Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: The division of authority into distinct branches to prevent tyranny and ensure that no single entity concentrates power.

Natural Rights and Equality: The belief that individuals are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights (such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that predate and limit government authority.

These principles were deliberately chosen over analogical reasoning from ancient models like Greece or Rome, which the Founders recognized contained contradictions (such as slavery) incompatible with their new political experiment. The Constitution was designed as a "written contract" that prescribes the only lawful methods for amendment, ensuring that the government remains subordinate to the law and the consent of the governed

Try to build a house without a blueprint and without a frame. Constitutional Attorneys to do not determine the law in the Dis United States of America. The Supreme Court of the United States of America does that. I am the people. The government is mine. The power is mine. I will not ceed that power to political parties or the government. Neither party has done a damn thing for The Cmdr! They are both equally useless.

Neither Party is mine! Power to the people! Not the parties!

Unless of course it is a sex party! Because that meets with my objective. What is my objective? My objective is to nut! ROTFLMAO!

[Spidy]

There is no mention of political parties nor a loyal opposition in the United States Constitution.

Yes, thank you for confirming what I'd told you in a previous post, to the one you've just posted.

Here:

Currently there is no such thing as the "loyal opposition" in the U.S. Constitution, but it does sound to me like, your "loyal opposition" argument, is the very thing that constitutional law and lawyers are need for and are meant to argue in the courts, as to whether or not it pertains to the constitution.

Now that we both agree on your argument for "loyal opposition" and it's NOT contained in the U.S. Constitution, it remains moot point, but nonetheless a point of constitutional law to be argued in the courts (or in debate forums) as to it's relevance or necessity as codified law.