What political party do you lean?

What party do you typically choose

  • Democrats

    Votes: 16 38.1%
  • Republicans

    Votes: 13 31.0%
  • Other, explain in comments

    Votes: 13 31.0%

  • Total voters
    42
Status
Not open for further replies.

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
I never understood why a country so diverse as the US, did not change their political system along the way.
More like the German, Dutch and Scandinavian system with more different parties, a prime minister and a more ceremonial head of state.

In any case, it prevents you from getting "but he/she had more popular votes" anymore.
And there are more flavors to choose from.
Also political parties are forced to cooperate and make coalitions. That way you have lesser chance for extremist outcomes.
The countries mentioned belong to the richest, safest and happiest countries worldwide. And some of them like Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany have almost no natural resources that made them rich (like for example the Arab countries or Russia)
That must almost mean that there is a link between the type of political system and the socio-economic conditions.
Our system is exceptionally difficult to change. It is geared toward two parties and asking those two parties to change the system to open the door to allowing power sharing with others is a tough ask.

Also, we might seem diverse but we aren't in most meaningful ways. The "acceptable" political spectrum here is very narrow compared to most countries and we tend to demonize anybody outside that spectrum. We might be diverse but we're really rather close-minded.

I think our socio-economic success has led to a situation where most of us take governance for granted and learn little about it. This has had disastrous consequences a number of times - the present included.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I think you have been missed something. Those are big words that certainly need scrutiny. Spike claims the debt only increases inflation and shows graphs on his podcast that chart this process. Now, I'm not sure if you have included Sociological statistics in your computation but he has plenty of them. Government restrictions directly affect the cost of services provided. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed over the past few years is just one example. We have more homeless every day and no one can help because of the Government restrictions. The list goes on and on and everything needs more scrutiny directly no doubt. We just have to find what's best.
Libertarian philosophy is based upon made up ideas that fail when tested. The people who invented your made up philosophy say outright that they reject science and math*.

The coroanvirus pandemic is the most recent evidence that capitalism fails to create stable, healthy, happy, and thriving societies.
There is no such thing as a market force.
There is no such thing as a free market
Libertarian ideas of low regulation and laissez faire government end up creating monopolies, unreliable, unsafe products and an unsafe food supply.

Libertarian ideology is just a scam by wealthy people to fool weak minded people like you.

*The following was taken directly from the original source for libertarian ideology:

The Mises Institute exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics, and individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. These great thinkers developed praxeology, a deductive science of human action based on premises known with certainty to be true, and this is what we teach and advocate. Our scholarly work is founded in Misesian praxeology, and in self-conscious opposition to the mathematical modeling and hypothesis-testing that has created so much confusion in neoclassical economics.

You are a chump for falling for their propaganda.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Our system is exceptionally difficult to change. It is geared toward two parties and asking those two parties to change the system to open the door to allowing power sharing with others is a tough ask.

Also, we might seem diverse but we aren't in most meaningful ways. The "acceptable" political spectrum here is very narrow compared to most countries and we tend to demonize anybody outside that spectrum. We might be diverse but we're really rather close-minded.

I think our socio-economic success has led to a situation where most of us take governance for granted and learn little about it. This has had disastrous consequences a number of times - the present included.
A+++Bravo:clap:
 

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
He’s very complimentary to young girls.

and didn't quite know it when he said he wanted to grab her by the pussy- Michael was standing there.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I would initially kind of miss opening the paper without seeing daily impending doom or ridiculous farce. Kind of like the let down after the OJ trial was over. But I would get used to it when my brain chemistry returns to normal I guess.
it's just a little chaos withdrawal..you might need to slam your hand in the car door or something until the feeling of loss subsides.
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
I think you have been missed something. Those are big words that certainly need scrutiny. Spike claims the debt only increases inflation and shows graphs on his podcast that chart this process. Now, I'm not sure if you have included Sociological statistics in your computation but he has plenty of them. Government restrictions directly affect the cost of services provided. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed over the past few years is just one example. We have more homeless every day and no one can help because of the Government restrictions. The list goes on and on and everything needs more scrutiny directly no doubt. We just have to find what's best.
$-3 trillion national debt under trump.....vote republicans out
 

smokin away

Well-Known Member
$-3 trillion national debt under trump.....vote republicans out
The trouble with just voting for the "other" party as it will do nothing for the debt. The debt has risen under either party's control for over a hundred years. Inflation has risen directly proportional to government spending. End the spiraling debt by voting Libertarian.
 

mysunnyboy

Well-Known Member
The trouble with just voting for the "other" party as it will do nothing for the debt. The debt has risen under either party's control for over a hundred years. Inflation has risen directly proportional to government spending. End the spiraling debt by voting Libertarian.
hahahahaha
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
The trouble with just voting for the "other" party as it will do nothing for the debt. The debt has risen under either party's control for over a hundred years. Inflation has risen directly proportional to government spending. End the spiraling debt by voting Libertarian.


That sounds like a phenominal idea (if you are wealthy enough not to worry if the market falls and you lose your businesses that the middle class folks work so hard to build up for the years in between recessions).



Because prior to the Federal Reserve system and all that ever present inflation you are so scared of there were recessions every couple years because the mega wealthy could just trigger a recession by withdrawing all their money from banks tanking the markets so they could buy up all the capital that was built up.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/15/why-third-parties-should-stop-running-candidates-president/
Screen Shot 2020-09-16 at 9.35.03 AM.png

If you had to pinpoint when third parties reached the height of their influence in modern U.S. presidential politics, it would have to be 2000, when Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received more than 97,000 votes in Florida, far more than George W. Bush’s 537-vote declared margin of victory. Which, given everything that happened over the subsequent eight years, was not exactly something to be proud of.

Though the effect was not quite as stark, in 2016, Green Party nominee Jill Stein received votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that exceeded the margin by which Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in each state. This year, we’re hearing less about the third parties, which have run into some trouble of late.

But this election — in which a vote for the Greens or the Libertarians has become almost impossible to justify — might lead them to reconsider their role in presidential politics.

The latest news is that because of a mundane paperwork snafu, the Green Party will not have its nominee, Howie Hawkins, on the ballot in Wisconsin, which makes a Joe Biden victory there significantly more likely.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Monday against the Greens, who had been disqualified because of discrepancies in addresses listed for their vice-presidential candidate on their application. Because they were not quick enough in appealing an initial decision by election officials, large numbers of ballots had already been sent out without the Green Party line on them; had they won, it would have meant sending out a second round of ballots, which would have caused extensive confusion.

To the Greens, it surely seems terribly unfair. Republicans are also deeply disappointed; it looks as though they will fail in their absurd effort to get rapper Kanye West on the Wisconsin ballot as well.

But we should ask why the Green Party, or any other third party, runs presidential candidates at all.

You can understand why they do: It’s a way to get attention for themselves and their views. People care about presidential campaigns. It’s the big show.

But nothing good comes of it, and in the worst-case scenario, they can help produce a disaster. Like Donald Trump becoming president of the United States.

What kind of establishment stooge am I to want to silence these important voices, you might ask? I’m not trying to silence them at all. I think it would be better if we had stronger third parties. But running in presidential campaigns doesn’t make them stronger.

Like it or not, we have a winner-take-all system when it comes to elections for president, Congress, and many other offices. Third-party candidates won’t win, they can only siphon votes away from candidates who agree with them on some things but not everything. The idea that doing so forces major-party candidates to be more responsive to their ideas — one justification they offer — has precisely zero evidence to back it up.

For instance, Biden is indeed much more liberal than he used to be or than Clinton was in 2016. But that’s not because of what happened with Stein four years ago, or because of the threat posed to Biden’s election by Hawkins. It’s because Democratic voters have moved to the left.

And to those potential third-party voters who say they just can’t get inspired by Biden: Who said you have to be inspired by your vote for president? Who said your presidential vote has to be a complete expression of everything you believe? It’s a dangerously narrow way to view politics.

Sometimes you vote for president for a very specific reason that stands apart from much of what you might like to see in the future. If you think that Trump is a monster, getting rid of him is a really good reason to vote for Biden, even if he’ll disappoint you in many ways.

If you like what the Green Party stands for, you’ll do a lot better to find ways to make it stronger on the state and local levels. There may be elections in your area where a third-party candidate can win, and then have real influence and power, which will help build the party and advance its ideas.

To be clear, third parties already organize on the local level; I’m not telling them something they don’t already know. But the problem they pose is with those casual voters, the ones who want to make a statement that they believe someone like Biden is a corporate sellout — but want to do it in the easiest way possible, a way that doesn’t require them to think too much about the complex nature of political power.

And plenty of third parties don’t run presidential candidates, even if they face their own challenges (the Working Families Party, which has been extremely influential in New York and endorsed Biden, is now facing a threat to its own access to the ballot which could greatly diminish its power, thanks to state Democrats).

The system is built and maintained by the two major parties, which would be happy to see third parties disappear (except when they can use them to undermine their opponents, as Republicans are now doing with the Greens). That makes building support and influence all the more challenging.
But at this point, we can pretty well say that whatever a third party’s strategy is for creating real change, running a candidate for president isn’t going to work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top