Again, The Orange Baboon

[Minimalist]

Maybe if there were viable 3d parties you could make a case. There aren't.

I'd say doomed is a pretty accurate prediction. History tells us that when empires collapse it is not a pretty sight

[Thumpalumpacus]

Maybe if there were viable 3d parties you could make a case.   There aren't.

How do you think they become viable without people voting for them, Einstein?

I'd say doomed is a pretty accurate prediction.  History tells us that when empires collapse it is not a pretty sight

Sure, and there's no reason to expect America to be immune to history. There's also no reason to buy your fatalism when it's only a smokescreen for the failure of you and your generation to do anything to change what you found.

I notice you didn't answer my question. Is that a guilty conscience at work?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners who aren't in America.

It puts limits on what the American government is allowed to do, which includes non Americans.

Again, not in all cases.

Not to mention it is against international law.

Which is another matter entirely, beyond the purview of my point.

What they're doing is wrong, no matter who they do it to.

No shit, Sherlock.

[Whateverist]

In addition to the practicality angle, Thumper my friend, I also worry that people get their hopes up too much about the power of having more than two parties. I don't really see how that is going to make much difference when you don't properly educate the masses. If you look at how the Brits do it, it seems the only difference is that the parties have to negotiate among themselves in order to put together a ruling coalition. The part I like about their system is that once they achieve that ruling coalition they aren't hamstrung by the separation of powers. Here everyone whines and points to a different branch of power to explain why they were unable to achieve their goals. In England, if you're in power (and genuinely have the support of your coalition) it is on you to do as you see best. The results can then be judged for how well they worked or didn't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In addition to the practicality angle, Thumper my friend, I also worry that people get their hopes up too much about the power of having more than two parties.  I don't really see how that is going to make much difference when you don't properly educate the masses.  If you look at how the Brits do it, it seems the only difference is that the parties have to negotiate among themselves in order to put together a ruling coalition.  The part I like about their system is that once they achieve that ruling coalition they aren't hamstrung by the separation of powers.  Here everyone whines and points to a different branch of power to explain why they were unable to achieve their goals.  In England, if you're in power (and genuinely have the support of your coalition) it is on you to do as you see best.  The results can then be judged for how well they worked or didn't.

I don't think of a competitive third party as a panacaea, but it'd help. Even more important, to my mind, is proportional representation, and the elimination of the electoral college -- but those changes won't happen without outsider thinking.

I like that powers are separated here. The thought of having no course of redress for bad government decisions scares me. Voting every four years is simply not enough check on the power-hungry if they already have the reins of government in their hands.

More directly to your point, it's incumbent upon the third-parties to educate the electorate. I think the two major alternatives have both failed in that regard.

[Minimalist]

Maybe if there were viable 3d parties you could make a case.   There aren't.

How do you think they become viable without people voting for them, Einstein?

I'd say doomed is a pretty accurate prediction.  History tells us that when empires collapse it is not a pretty sight

Sure, and there's no reason to expect America to be immune to history. There's also no reason to buy your fatalism when it's only a smokescreen for the failure of you and your generation to do anything to change what you found.

I notice you didn't answer my question. Is that a guilty conscience at work?

I don't think I mischaracterized you.  There is much fantasy in politics and thinking that the two main parties will give a flying fuck if you vote for the lunatic fringe is merely part of it.  They will simply write you off.

You know, the best thing that could have happened to Sanders was not getting the nomination.  He gets to preserve his Snow White legacy.  As Drumpf is learning there is a major difference between running in a primary and running in a general election.  His fans would have been shrieking SELL-OUT at the top of their lungs had he moved to the center to win the election.  Drumpf has not and is tanking in the polls.

We all have to live in the real world at the end of the day.

Here's a prediction.  After Drumpf crashes and burns the Republicunts will hold another "autopsy" and reach all the same conclusions they did in 2012. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rnc-...d=18755809

The report, called the "Growth and Opportunity Project," lays out an extensive plan the RNC believes will lead the party to victory with an extensive outreach to women, African-American, Asian, Hispanic and gay voters.

So what happened in 2016?  17 assholes who did their dead-level best to chase away all those targeted groups competed to get to the right of each other.  It was a race to see who was the biggest nazi and the one with the biggest mouth and name recognition won.  In 2020 they will blame Drumpf for "not being a true conservative" and we will see the same bullshit trotted out again because they still have to win a majority of votes from what remains in the republicunt base.

Get ready for more of the same.

[Chad32]

I doubt that Sanders would have needed to move to the right to win the election. Clinton is appealing to the right, and it's not really helping her. The only reason she has a lead is because Trump is so toxic.

It's going to take more than one thing to fix this problem, but Hillary is not the bandage we need.

[Brian37]

I doubt that Sanders would have needed to move to the right to win the election. Clinton is appealing to the right, and it's not really helping her. The only reason she has a lead is because Trump is so toxic.

It's going to take more than one thing to fix this problem, but Hillary is not the bandage we need.

I am so sick of everyone treating one person, be it Trump or Bernie or Hillary for that matter as being a magic sugar pill. Our government has never been run by one person, but 3 branches. I don't delude myself into thinking Hillary is a hero or perfect one bit, but only one candidate and one party is behaving like fucking brats and that party at this point in history is being lead by a dangerous demagogue.

Hillary is not the problem. The problem started with Reagan and the deregulation and hijacking of the party by the religious right. The GOP pulled the same scare tactics when Obama ran and have simply aimed their bullshit at a new target.

No Hillary is not a band aid because nobody who becomes a president, regardless of party is allowed to make all the laws themselves. Change is a collective effort and that is also at the local and state level and governorships. Anyone who thinks Hillary will become a fascist is full of shit, just like Obama didn't become one. Hillary will still be a far better president than Bush Jr was and most certainly far more stable and qualified than that orange asshole demagogue even with her flaws. Even when she becomes president, it will still be up to us to create a congress she can work with and democrats who can act as that leverage to point her where we want her to go.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Min, you certainly mischaracterized my point. I don't think they will care about one vote, but they sure as hell will care about hundreds of thousands. If you think the two majors don't care about preserving their places in the status quo, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying.

One thing I do know is that trying more of the same will probably get us more of the same.

[Brian37]

Min, you certainly mischaracterized my point. I don't think they will care about one vote, but they sure as hell will care about hundreds of thousands. If you think the two majors don't care about preserving their places in the status quo, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying.

One thing I do know is that trying more of the same will probably get us more of the same.

Bullshit, this is not more of the same. Obama pulled us way from a cliff and we are far better off than we were 8 years ago. I am so sick of both camps who think politics can be a quick fix. Again, we do have a pay gap, and there is currently far too much big money influencing politics. But if we simply think a sudden revolution is possible that is not only absurd, even if you could, there still would be no given, for either party that they would rise to fill that vacuum. This mess didn't happen overnight and there will be no quick fix. But it most certainly is not more of the same.

The constitution is solid, but it is only as good as the people we vote into power. Politics is ugly and it always has been, but no, I am not about to say "fuck it" because there are some people in government I currently don't want there. Our system can work if we make it work. 

I've been voting since Reagan's second term, been paying attention through Bush Sr, and both Bill's terms and both of Bush Jr's Terms and now both of Obama's terms. The closest our nation ever came to being fractured and dismantled was the Civil War, but as divided as it may seem right now, we are not even close to that. And as much as Trump loves playing off of Jim Crow and McCarthism our youth especially isn't buying it. Time will kill the GOP, and Trump is the result of the old boy's club running out of lipstick to put on their pig.

The blame for our divisions is the result of the GOP, they don't want to govern, they simply want to be the only power.