Something that I think deserves it's own thread.

[frigidweirdo]

Totally agree on that. 100%.

Just a note to add to it. When any 3rd party candidate starts gaining any traction, the left and right always come together to squash any one that has even the slightest chance of competing. Suddenly it's "my friends across the isle."

Of course. The whole point of elections is that people position themselves. With PR, a party, like the AfD in Germany (founded 2013) can come along with new policies, and if they're attractive to the people then others might copy this. This is a good thing.

In Germany the AfD rose and the CDU/CSU fell, because the AfD were able to show some people what they wanted.

However in a FPTP system, people won't vote third party unless it's something serious, so the big parties will say they'll deal with this issue, make the third party go away, then stick their finger up.

In fact in the US, third parties are integrationalist parties, like the Tea Party, or even Trumpism. They're getting seats within the main two parties, and now you have the Republicans and it's just luck which kind of candidate you get.

 

[YoursTruly]

That is not what you said. You said the repubs were the spenders. Congress spends and they threaten the POTUS with a gov't shut down. Please keep up with reality.

Appropriations bills have to be law before anything is spent. The only way the circumvent the president is to override his veto. Trump only vetoed one bill. If there's a government shut down following a veto, it's because one side can't get enough votes to override said veto. 2/3rds.
But in Trumps case, for all but one, he signed them.

Government shut down or not. Stopping the money printing machines is the ONLY way to stop inflation. What's worse? a government shut down for a few months? Or 8% inflation increase that lasts for several months that decreases the value of the USD for everyone?

Trump caved to Pelosi so many times, his effectiveness became equal to Jimmy Carter.

 

[YoursTruly]

Of course. The whole point of elections is that people position themselves. With PR, a party, like the AfD in Germany (founded 2013) can come along with new policies, and if they're attractive to the people then others might copy this. This is a good thing.

In Germany the AfD rose and the CDU/CSU fell, because the AfD were able to show some people what they wanted.

However in a FPTP system, people won't vote third party unless it's something serious, so the big parties will say they'll deal with this issue, make the third party go away, then stick their finger up.

In fact in the US, third parties are integrationalist parties, like the Tea Party, or even Trumpism. They're getting seats within the main two parties, and now you have the Republicans and it's just luck which kind of candidate you get.

I know exactly what you're talking about. I was a proud member of the 2007 Tea Party. But by the end of 2008, after the GOP had infiltrated it, it wasn't even close to being the same thing. So many big government republican voters were showing up at our meetings and rallies. Bringing their big government republican BS with them.

 

[scruffy]

I know exactly what you're talking about. I was a proud member of the 2007 Tea Party. But by the end of 2008, after the GOP had infiltrated it, it wasn't even close to being the same thing. So many big government republican voters were showing up at our meetings and rallies. Bringing their big government republican BS with them.

The big parties need to be broken up. Just like the big corporations.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is not what you said. You said the repubs were the spenders. Congress spends and they threaten the POTUS with a gov't shut down. Please keep up with reality.

I could but you have no idea what reality is. Most partisans have lost that connection recently.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of course. The whole point of elections is that people position themselves. With PR, a party, like the AfD in Germany (founded 2013) can come along with new policies, and if they're attractive to the people then others might copy this. This is a good thing.

In Germany the AfD rose and the CDU/CSU fell, because the AfD were able to show some people what they wanted.

However in a FPTP system, people won't vote third party unless it's something serious, so the big parties will say they'll deal with this issue, make the third party go away, then stick their finger up.

In fact in the US, third parties are integrationalist parties, like the Tea Party, or even Trumpism. They're getting seats within the main two parties, and now you have the Republicans and it's just luck which kind of candidate you get.

I would really like to see FPTP become a reality here. It has gained some traction but I do not think we are anywhere close. It is a serious problem trying to put this in a system that is inherently against changing the election process.

The next thing that needs to go is WTA states. Another thing the system as it stands is inherently against.

 

[dblack]

This OP is designed solely to divide Republicans.

The tribe has spoken!

 

[Pellinore]

The reason for such partisanship is the electoral system. The FPTP benefits the major parties, so people feel they shouldn't bother voting third party, so they don't.
So the main two parties are so secure in their positions that they need to differentiate themselves, without alienating too many people. So they are rather vague on most things, then have a few strong issues, like abortion and guns, that aren't really major issues, they're secondary issues.

Then why haven't the parties always been this far apart? It's not like FPTP is a new thing.

I think a major culprit is social media, which seems to increase bubbling, rather than helping expand its users' horizons. Another is the 1987 revocation of the FCC fairness doctrine, which gave rise to talk radio and dragged the right further from the middle, thereby increasing the gulf between parties.

At any rate, we'd better figure it out, because the last time the two ideologies were this far apart, it ended with the Great Depression. The time before that, the Civil War.

 

[dblack]

I would really like to see FPTP become a reality here.

I suspect you mean you'd like to see FPTP (First Past The Post aka plurality voting) replaced with something less polarizing, like ranked-choice voting.

 

[dblack]

Then why haven't the parties always been this far apart? It's not like FPTP is a new thing.

Because agitators, foreign and domestic, have learned to use the internet to frighten people more effectively. The two party death match thrives on fear mongering.

I think a major culprit is social media, which seems to increase bubbling, rather than helping expand its users' horizons. Another is the 1987 revocation of the FCC fairness doctrine, which gave rise to talk radio and dragged the right further from the middle, thereby increasing the gulf between parties.

At any rate, we'd better figure it out, because the last time the two ideologies were this far apart, it ended with the Great Depression. The time before that, the Civil War.

Or, what you said.

 

[FA_Q2]

I suspect you mean you'd like to see FPTP (First Past The Post aka plurality voting) replaced with something less polarizing, like ranked-choice voting.

Excuse me, yes.

Acronyms

Specifically ranked choice voting. I think that makes the most sense as it allows for the 'I can't vote for the loser' mentality to be utterly removed yet also shows the actual support other parties and their ideas have.

 

[Foxfyre]

This was posted on another thread. But it's so deep, and spot on, I think it would be worth wild to discuss this topic on it's own (since it wasn't really on topic of the OP in the other thread)

The political divide in this country, especially on forums like this stems from a lot of issues. Some are legit disagreements. And some are merely political loyalty. "Sticking it to the other side" seems to be the going thing. Revenge politics, as they say. But on a social level.



The proof in this statement can be seen in the many MANY flip flops the party's have taken in the last several decades. Used to be, the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism. They still campaign on being fiscal conservatives. But the fact is, the right has spent more money and increased the debt ceiling more times since at least 1980, than the democrats have.
And as far as the democrats go, they used to be the party of border security. They're the ones who come up with the idea of fencing off the border and putting large amounts of border patrols on it. This was back when they seem to care about the working class Americans and wanted to protect their jobs.

Those are just two examples. But FA_Q2 nailed in his statement.

What republican is going to stand up against Trumps spending problem, in favor of keeping our economy from collapsing from inflation created by all the money he's going to borrow when he's re elected? What democrat is going to stand up against Biden's lax border problem, in favor of the American working man? Are these issue important enough for anyone to strongly oppose their party and it's leaders and decide for yourself, instead of being told what and who to support?

I started out my political life as a Democrat but finally switched in the Reagan years when the Democrat Party became unrecognizable to me. It changed beyond belief from what it was and has continued to increasingly radicalize as the old guard retires or is voted out and those coming in are more and more wild eyed fanatics/extremists condoning or promoting unconscionable legislation and policies that would have been unthinkable to old guard Democrats. The old guard Democrats for instance once sided with Republicans in opinion that abortion should be rare and illegal except for very specific circumstances that made it necessary.

The GOP has never been as monolithic as the Democrats and group think is pretty foreign to them. But most Republicans are in agreement on certain principles and policies which is after all why they are Republicans. But the party is pretty much the same as it was in the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 21st Century with only occasional shifts in points of view on a given issue.

The track record suggests that if the GOP in Congress sufficiently disagrees with a GOP President they will dig in their heels much more than a modern day Democrat Congress will thwart the will of a Democrat President. Usually what happens is the GOP negotiates with the President until they can find a compromise all can live with.
That happened numerous times during the last Trump administration.

I do hope President Trump has a GOP Congress for his next four years so that he won't have to deal with constant investigation and road blocks and together our elected leaders can accomplish truly good things for America and Americans and by default the world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I know exactly what you're talking about. I was a proud member of the 2007 Tea Party. But by the end of 2008, after the GOP had infiltrated it, it wasn't even close to being the same thing. So many big government republican voters were showing up at our meetings and rallies. Bringing their big government republican BS with them.

Surely the Tea Party infiltrated the Republican Party. I'm not an expert in this in any way, but the Tea Party used the Republican Party to gain power they couldn't get by going third party.

But I can see how the Tea Party might change as a merge between the two happened.

Certainly the Libertarians, Tea Party etc should be pushing for Proportional Representation so they can stand for what they believe in and people can understand this is what the whole party stands for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then why haven't the parties always been this far apart? It's not like FPTP is a new thing.

I think a major culprit is social media, which seems to increase bubbling, rather than helping expand its users' horizons. Another is the 1987 revocation of the FCC fairness doctrine, which gave rise to talk radio and dragged the right further from the middle, thereby increasing the gulf between parties.

At any rate, we'd better figure it out, because the last time the two ideologies were this far apart, it ended with the Great Depression. The time before that, the Civil War.

Probably because of social media.

In the past political parties had a lot of control. They could control the media, they could say what they wanted to say without people going off the wall about it.

Might also be because the Koch Brothers changed politics. In 1980 one of them ran as a VP candidate for the libertarians, got kicked and then they decided to change politics with their money.

Now these people need to use money to control people, controlling the message has got a lot more expensive because there are a lot more narratives going around, a lot more crazy ideas, rumors, speculation and the like.

Before, people accepted what was told, they trusted the media, they trusted politicians (though they shouldn't have trusted any of them, there was no one to tell them not to trust these people).

Yes, the US needs to figure this out. I mean, I've been harping on about Proportional Representation for years on this forum, I think I've had about five people agree with me in that time.
People are growing more and more needy of entertainment, and politics is growing into an entertainment industry in the US. That can't be good for anyone, but the entertainers.....

PR is the only real answer, because every other answer requires the main parties to change, and they won't without a change in the electoral system.

 

[The Duke]

There's no swaying anyone now a days, because no on either side listens.
Try to educate democrats on how illegals are reducing the value of labor for every industry and trade they invade, making it harder for Americans to get jobs in those fields, and you're deemed a racist. Or some other retarded word.
The die hard Republicans do the same thing.

Because it's a fact that illegal aliens depress wages and use social services intended for poorer Americans.

 

[elektra]

Trump vetoed only one spending bill, out of many, in his 4 years. So it could be said that it's hard to get the government to even try, when they know the president is just going to go along with it.
Especially when Trumps idea of spending is to just print more money. <<<<He actually said that.

Blame Trump for the swamp? We will never have the government that works for us, without Trump

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This was posted on another thread. But it's so deep, and spot on, I think it would be worth wild to discuss this topic on it's own (since it wasn't really on topic of the OP in the other thread)

The political divide in this country, especially on forums like this stems from a lot of issues. Some are legit disagreements. And some are merely political loyalty. "Sticking it to the other side" seems to be the going thing. Revenge politics, as they say. But on a social level.



The proof in this statement can be seen in the many MANY flip flops the party's have taken in the last several decades. Used to be, the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism. They still campaign on being fiscal conservatives. But the fact is, the right has spent more money and increased the debt ceiling more times since at least 1980, than the democrats have.
And as far as the democrats go, they used to be the party of border security. They're the ones who come up with the idea of fencing off the border and putting large amounts of border patrols on it. This was back when they seem to care about the working class Americans and wanted to protect their jobs.

Those are just two examples. But FA_Q2 nailed in his statement.

What republican is going to stand up against Trumps spending problem, in favor of keeping our economy from collapsing from inflation created by all the money he's going to borrow when he's re elected? What democrat is going to stand up against Biden's lax border problem, in favor of the American working man? Are these issue important enough for anyone to strongly oppose their party and it's leaders and decide for yourself, instead of being told what and who to support?

It's the UniParty and they all want the exact same thing: Mo' N Bigga Gubbamint, unending wars, surveillance and Insider Trading

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump vetoed only one spending bill, out of many, in his 4 years. So it could be said that it's hard to get the government to even try, when they know the president is just going to go along with it.
Especially when Trumps idea of spending is to just print more money. <<<<He actually said that.

Trump wanted zero or even negative interest rates too

 

[Care4all]

The Democrat Party has never been the party of "border security."

You've been brainwashed by propaganda, to believe that....

U.S. President George H. W. Bush approved the initial 14 miles of fencing along the San Diego–Tijuana border.[27] In 1993, President Bill Clinton oversaw initial border fence construction which was completed by the end of the year. Starting in 1994, further barriers were built under Clinton's presidency as part of three larger operations to taper transportation of illegal drugs manufactured in Latin America and immigration: Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold-the-Line[28] in Texas, and Operation Safeguard[29] in Arizona. Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which authorized further barriers and the reinforcement of the initial border fence. The majority of the border barriers built in the 1990s were made out of leftover helicopter landing mats from the Vietnam War.[27]

 

[Independent thinker]

This was posted on another thread. But it's so deep, and spot on, I think it would be worth wild to discuss this topic on it's own (since it wasn't really on topic of the OP in the other thread)

The political divide in this country, especially on forums like this stems from a lot of issues. Some are legit disagreements. And some are merely political loyalty. "Sticking it to the other side" seems to be the going thing. Revenge politics, as they say. But on a social level.



The proof in this statement can be seen in the many MANY flip flops the party's have taken in the last several decades. Used to be, the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism. They still campaign on being fiscal conservatives. But the fact is, the right has spent more money and increased the debt ceiling more times since at least 1980, than the democrats have.
And as far as the democrats go, they used to be the party of border security. They're the ones who come up with the idea of fencing off the border and putting large amounts of border patrols on it. This was back when they seem to care about the working class Americans and wanted to protect their jobs.

Those are just two examples. But FA_Q2 nailed in his statement.

What republican is going to stand up against Trumps spending problem, in favor of keeping our economy from collapsing from inflation created by all the money he's going to borrow when he's re elected? What democrat is going to stand up against Biden's lax border problem, in favor of the American working man? Are these issue important enough for anyone to strongly oppose their party and it's leaders and decide for yourself, instead of being told what and who to support?

You are viewing the world from blue tinted glasses and misrepresenting facts to your advantage.