Trump Alone at the Top

[FireChan]

 

How?

There are enough issues that they could be even more spread out among parties. How many elections has Joe Schmo sat there and said "Well I agree with A that the Republican/Democrat candidates say but I hate that they think B?" Quite a bit, probably.

 

More parties means more choices. Instead of 2 homogenized bloated monsters, we can find more palatable groups.

 

I realize there's downsides, as well. But after the last 15 or so years of American politics as usual, I'd be ready to try something else. Wouldn't you?

Edited July 25, 2016 by FireChan

[GG]

There are enough issues that they could be even more spread out among parties. How many elections has Joe Schmo sat there and said "Well I agree with A that the Republican/Democrat candidates say but I hate that they think B?" Quite a bit, probably.

 

More parties means more choices. Instead of 2 homogenized bloated monsters, we can find more palatable groups.

 

Are you ready to rewrite the election laws & possibly the Constitution? The 2 party system grew into its being because it's the most effective way to govern under the US Constitution.

[FireChan]

 

Are you ready to rewrite the election laws & possibly the Constitution? The 2 party system grew into its being because it's the most effective way to govern under the US Constitution.

What would we need to rewrite in the Constitution?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Are you ready to rewrite the election laws & possibly the Constitution? The 2 party system grew into its being because it's the most effective way to govern under the US Constitution.

 

The two party system didn't grow into being. The two parties snuffed out any potential adversaries by using their influence to control election law.

[GG]

 

The two party system didn't grow into being. The two parties snuffed out any potential adversaries by using their influence to control election law.

 

How old is the Republic? How old are the parties?

What would we need to rewrite in the Constitution?

 

Good luck living with the 12th amendment with an 8 party system.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

How old is the Republic? How old are the parties?

 

Good luck living with the 12th amendment with an 8 party system.

 

Democrats in 1828 and Republicans in 1854.

 

Prior to that you had Federalists, Whigs, Democratic Republicans and the like.

 

With the exceptions of the Bull Moose, Dixiecrat and Reform parties, pretty much NO other party's ever had a legitimate shot at the white house, or even congressional seats since the rise of the D and R parties.

 

That's isn't by chance, it's by design.

Edited July 25, 2016 by joesixpack

[FireChan]

Good luck living with the 12th amendment with an 8 party system.

Do you believe it impossible to rework? Do you believe that reworking it is less viable than what we have today?

[GG]

Do you believe it impossible to rework? Do you believe that reworking it is less viable than what we have today?

 

It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be silly to do so. The beauty of the Constitution is that it forces governments to be proactive and make decisions, and its design is what's driving the two party system. Dem & Reps weren't there at the outset, but it's always been a 2-party system because that's the system that works best under the construct of the Constitution. US government has been a model of stability in a nutty world for 4 centuries, and a big part of that is because of how its system of governing was built.

 

It's not just the 12th amendment that would need to change, but how Legislative will need to function among 8-party squabbles. Look at the Parliamentarian mess that the rest of the world lives under. Imagine the power that a 5% voting block in the Senate can have on holding up legislation. If you think that government is ineffective now, think about giving real power to affinity groups.

 

Also the crying about the parties having too much power misses the real target. They are big because they are fully vertically integrated across every voting district in the country. There's no other prohibition on anyone starting a real third party. What they're missing and nobody wants to fund is the national infrastructure that's needed to be truly competitive.

[Deranged Rhino]

It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be silly to do so. The beauty of the Constitution is that it forces governments to be proactive and make decisions, and its design is what's driving the two party system. Dem & Reps weren't there at the outset, but it's always been a 2-party system because that's the system that works best under the construct of the Constitution. US government has been a model of stability in a nutty world for 4 centuries, and a big part of that is because of how its system of governing was built.

 

It's not just the 12th amendment that would need to change, but how Legislative will need to function among 8-party squabbles. Look at the Parliamentarian mess that the rest of the world lives under. Imagine the power that a 5% voting block in the Senate can have on holding up legislation. If you think that government is ineffective now, think about giving real power to affinity groups.

 

Also the crying about the parties having too much power misses the real target. They are big because they are fully vertically integrated across every voting district in the country. There's no other prohibition on anyone starting a real third party. What they're missing and nobody wants to fund is the national infrastructure that's needed to be truly competitive.

So we are stuck with a corrupt system that's eliminated true choice, true democratic representation of the people and their issues in favor of an oligarchical totalitarianism because change would be difficult.

 

That's called giving up.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be silly to do so. The beauty of the Constitution is that it forces governments to be proactive and make decisions, and its design is what's driving the two party system. Dem & Reps weren't there at the outset, but it's always been a 2-party system because that's the system that works best under the construct of the Constitution. US government has been a model of stability in a nutty world for 4 centuries, and a big part of that is because of how its system of governing was built.

 

It's not just the 12th amendment that would need to change, but how Legislative will need to function among 8-party squabbles. Look at the Parliamentarian mess that the rest of the world lives under. Imagine the power that a 5% voting block in the Senate can have on holding up legislation. If you think that government is ineffective now, think about giving real power to affinity groups.

 

Also the crying about the parties having too much power misses the real target. They are big because they are fully vertically integrated across every voting district in the country. There's no other prohibition on anyone starting a real third party. What they're missing and nobody wants to fund is the national infrastructure that's needed to be truly competitive.

 

The ballot laws...enacted by the two major parties...are what prohibits the formation of effective third or fourth parties.

[FireChan]

 

It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be silly to do so. The beauty of the Constitution is that it forces governments to be proactive and make decisions, and its design is what's driving the two party system. Dem & Reps weren't there at the outset, but it's always been a 2-party system because that's the system that works best under the construct of the Constitution. US government has been a model of stability in a nutty world for 4 centuries, and a big part of that is because of how its system of governing was built.

 

It's not just the 12th amendment that would need to change, but how Legislative will need to function among 8-party squabbles. Look at the Parliamentarian mess that the rest of the world lives under. Imagine the power that a 5% voting block in the Senate can have on holding up legislation. If you think that government is ineffective now, think about giving real power to affinity groups.

 

Also the crying about the parties having too much power misses the real target. They are big because they are fully vertically integrated across every voting district in the country. There's no other prohibition on anyone starting a real third party. What they're missing and nobody wants to fund is the national infrastructure that's needed to be truly competitive.

If I'm following you correctly, in order to get true (and easier) change in how our government is run, the only way to do so is to kill off a party and replace it with a fundamentally different one?

Edited July 25, 2016 by FireChan

[GG]

So we are stuck with a corrupt system that's eliminated true choice, true democratic representation of the people and their issues in favor of an oligarchical totalitarianism because change would be difficult.

 

That's called giving up.

 

Why do you think a change would be better than the current system? Don't voters now have more than two choices at the ballot box?

If I'm following you correctly, in order to get true (and easier) change in how our government is run, the only way to do so is to kill off a party and replace it with a fundamentally different one?

 

Pretty much, unless you're willing to change the Constitution and our form of government.

 

The ballot laws...enacted by the two major parties...are what prohibits the formation of effective third or fourth parties.

 

As I said, lots of money and lots of people are needed. So far, no one has been willing to put in the money and lots of people don't seem to care enough.

[FireChan]

 

Why do you think a change would be better than the current system? Don't voters now have more than two choices at the ballot box?

 

Pretty much, unless you're willing to change the Constitution and our form of government.

 

As I said, lots of money and lots of people are needed. So far, no one has been willing to put in the money and lots of people don't seem to care enough.

Well I know who I should vote for now.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Why do you think a change would be better than the current system? Don't voters now have more than two choices at the ballot box?

 

I just think it's funny that you're reasoning is that it's incompatible with our current system, and thus it shouldn't be attempted.

 

This coming from a neocon who believes in regime change and nation building despite those things being demonstrably incompatible with our political system. The people don't have the will or stamina required for the length of time regime change and nation building require -- yet you have no objections to continuing to try to force change upon other nations and cultures.

 

But when it comes to trying to change a broken, corrupt, and increasingly totalitarian system at home -- nah, that's just too much work.

 

Like I said, funny.

 

Pretty much, unless you're willing to change the Constitution and our form of government.

 

Our form of government has already changed. You just haven't caught on yet.

 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

 

I just think it's funny that you're reasoning is that it's incompatible with our current system, and thus it shouldn't be attempted.

 

This coming from a neocon who believes in regime change and nation building despite those things being demonstrably incompatible with our political system. The people don't have the will or stamina required for the length of time regime change and nation building require -- yet you have no objections to continuing to try to force change upon other nations and cultures.

 

But when it comes to trying to change a broken, corrupt, and increasingly totalitarian system at home -- nah, that's just too much work.

 

Like I said, funny.

 

Our form of government has already changed. You just haven't caught on yet.

 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

For someone who doth protest too much about espousing conspiracy theories, it's hard to take you at face value where you consistently preach that US is run as an oppressed totalitarian regime. Especially in a year where a political novice just got nominated to run for President of a major party, and a cooky 100-year old socialist made enough waves to change the other party's platform, and was a major reason for the resignation of the party's chair.

 

it's also the height of self indulgence to think that this is the worst period for corruption in US politics.

 

Maybe it's time to readjust the aluminum on the hat?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

reason for the resignation of the party's chair.

 

 

Thinking the resignation of that filthy Wasserman Schultz has more to do with the blatant corruption revealed in the leaked emails than a 100 year-old socialist.

[DC Tom]

 

Pretty much, unless you're willing to change the Constitution and our form of government.

 

You lost that argument when Obama changed the ACA during press conferences.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

For someone who doth protest too much about espousing conspiracy theories, it's hard to take you at face value where you consistently preach that US is run as an oppressed totalitarian regime.

 

You've still yet to get any of my stances correct... but that doesn't stop you from inventing positions you think I hold. Your deflections would be much more effective if you stick with what I actually said, or theorize, than inventing your own.

 

We're sliding down a slippery slope into totalitarianism. Sliding... not there yet. I've been consistent on this point. There's a war going on, not just here but globally, between totalitarianism and traditional democracy. This is pretty clear if you're willing to look at the facts dispassionately.

 

Or... you could keep making stuff up about other people's positions. Whatever works for you.

 

 

Especially in a year where a political novice just got nominated to run for President of a major party, and a cooky 100-year old socialist made enough waves to change the other party's platform, and was a major reason for the resignation of the party's chair.

 

None of this is true. Trump isn't a real candidate, he's running to clear the field for Hillary which he's done. He's not going to win the election. This also isn't his first time running for office, he may be inept but he's not a novice.

 

Bernie never had a chance -- this has been proven and was something I've said since the beginning. He didn't change the platform by any great measure. Schultz didn't resign because of Bernie. She resigned because the emails got leaked by outside actors... emails exposing the very corruption I've been lamenting for over a year and change now.

 

But again, when you presume to know what it is I'm theorizing rather than actually engaging with what I'm saying, it's easy to make yourself look silly.

 

 

it's also the height of self indulgence to think that this is the worst period for corruption in US politics.

 

 

Something else I've never said. But again, you just can't help yourself.

 

 

 

Maybe it's time to readjust the aluminum on the hat?

 

So you don't even want to address the inherent hypocrisy in your original statement?

 

Changing the two party system is too hard because it's incompatible with our political system... but regime change and nation building (also incompatible with our system) are two major planks of your ideology.

 

That's some big cognitive dissonance you got going for you.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah, but Greggy? You often don't put things in historical context. You act like Tammany Hall never existed. Thomas Nast is a personal favorite of mine, because he was so effective. Many of his positions were totally vile, but, no one can ever say he didn't do his job as a media, "shaper of opinion":

 

Ahem, New York Times.

 

The difference today, and you'll be happy to know, the thing that puts a bat up GG's ass, is the internet. Not just the thing itself. The internet is a culture, it is also a warning, because it is an arbiter of justice, that also self-corrects.

 

True, we'd never know about the emails, because there wouldn't be any, without the internet. However, because there's an internet, there's no longer a gateway for NBC et al to control, and thus decide what people get to know, and what they don't. IF NBC/CBS/ABC has gotten copies of paper memos, because this is 1980-something, that showed the DNC's bad behavior, do you think they would have run the story?

 

The bottom line: It's damn near impossible to run a proper conspiracy anymore. Only 1(one) person has to say "the rest of you do this, and I will put it on the internet", for the bad actors/actions to cease. In this way, the internet is the great...punisher. We don't even need the real Punisher anymore. The internet is the vigilante, operating outside the system, that cuts through all and holds the bad guys accountable.

 

Why else do you think the Democrats want to control the internet, regulate it, and set up a taxation system on it whereby they can punish those who punish them?

Edited July 25, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

Yeah, but Greggy? You often don't put things in historical context. You act like Tammany Hall never existed. Thomas Nast is a personal favorite of mine, because he was so effective. Many of his positions were totally vile, but, no one can ever say he didn't do his job as a media, "shaper of opinion":

 

My theory has never been that the corruption is new. I love history and putting things in historical context. I was a historian in my other life.