What's new
By:

Orrin Hatch writes about a meeting that actually hadn't happened yet

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
JimLes said:
And the biggest obstacle to a viable third party. If you split the vote, then their guy can win with 30-40%. Best to just vote for our guy.
Click to expand...

Yup, until you stop looking at it as "theirs" v. "ours'
 
franklin said:
That basically moderates our political process, which is what most people bitching about a two party system tend to want in a third party anyway.

The main thing I love about politics is the inherent hypocrisy of it all. I don't really give a damn about the rest. I can adapt.
Click to expand...

For me it is more the two parties we have instead of the fact that there are two parties.
 
Stoked said:
For me it is more the two parties we have instead of the fact that there are two parties.
Click to expand...
I hope that something different can emerge, but realistically we're just going to have the same people calling themselves by different names. Is it really conceivable that an entirely new political class would take their place? No.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I hope that something different can emerge, but realistically we're just going to have the same people calling themselves by different names.
Click to expand...

Well, what else could possibly happen? If by some chance, either of the two parties was to implode/explode/disappear/whatever, do you think a new party would not emerge to represent those voters? And do you not think that party would hold largely the same views as the old party? Most issues are binary. You either support gay marriage or you don't. You either support more gun controls or less. You either support more military involvement around the world or less. You either want more government involvement in the economy or less.

It's hard to imagine a party that would somehow have different views on every issue than either of the two current parties. Or some other combination of views. As cute as it is to see people on the internet pretending there's such a thing as being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, that's a massive oxymoron. You can't possibly logically believe we need to eradicate poverty, but then also believe we need to keep government out of our lives and spend less.

People, very broadly, are either socially liberal and believe the government can be a force for good or are socially conservative and believe the government to be inherently bad. Hence two parties. And the first past the post system plays a huge part in propping the two-party system up.
 
JimLes said:
Well, what else could possibly happen? If by some chance, either of the two parties was to implode/explode/disappear/whatever, do you think a new party would not emerge to represent those voters? And do you not think that party would hold largely the same views as the old party? Most issues are binary. You either support gay marriage or you don't. You either support more gun controls or less. You either support more military involvement around the world or less. You either want more government involvement in the economy or less.

It's hard to imagine a party that would somehow have different views on every issue than either of the two current parties. Or some other combination of views. As cute as it is to see people on the internet pretending there's such a thing as being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, that's a massive oxymoron. You can't possibly logically believe we need to eradicate poverty, but then also believe we need to keep government out of our lives and spend less.

People, very broadly, are either socially liberal and believe the government can be a force for good or are socially conservative and believe the government to be inherently bad. Hence two parties. And the first past the post system plays a huge part in propping the two-party system up.
Click to expand...
IAWTP. The paradox is that most Americans are somewhere in the middle, but the parties tend to be defined by the extremes. Both parties pander to their bases in the primaries, and then try to move toward the middle in the general election. They then govern toward their base. What if someone legitimately ran as a centrist, speaking to the middle in the primary, speaking to the middle in the general, and most importantly governing toward the middle once they were in power. Is such a thing possible?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
IAWTP. The paradox is that most Americans are somewhere in the middle, but the parties tend to be defined by the extremes. Both parties pander to their bases in the primaries, and then try to move toward the middle in the general election. They then govern toward their base. What if someone legitimately ran as a centrist, speaking to the middle in the primary, speaking to the middle in the general, and most importantly governing toward the middle once they were in power. Is such a thing possible?
Click to expand...

There's nothing centrist about the American Enterprise Institute, which self-defines as a conservative "think-tank"
 
dalamon said:
There's nothing centrist about the American Enterprise Institute, which self-defines as a conservative "think-tank"
Click to expand...

also, lol @ the notion of the DNC being considered an "extremist" party. If Hillary didn't have her email scandals behind her she'd easily be the most centrist American presidential candidate of my lifetime
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
IAWTP. The paradox is that most Americans are somewhere in the middle, but the parties tend to be defined by the extremes. Both parties pander to their bases in the primaries, and then try to move toward the middle in the general election. They then govern toward their base. What if someone legitimately ran as a centrist, speaking to the middle in the primary, speaking to the middle in the general, and most importantly governing toward the middle once they were in power. Is such a thing possible?
Click to expand...
That's what I want..... I think
 
fishonjazz said:
That's what I want..... I think
Click to expand...

centrist is a fluid concept.

Canada elected a "Centrist" government that wants to legalize marijuana by 2017 and made half of his cabinet female.

TRUDEAU_CAROUSEL03.jpg
 
dalamon said:
also, lol @ the notion of the DNC being considered an "extremist" party. If Hillary didn't have her email scandals behind her she'd easily be the most centrist American presidential candidate of my lifetime
Click to expand...
Where did you get "extremist" from? I said that the parties are defined by their extremes and if you can't see that it's because you have your eyes closed. And the only reason you can call Hillary centrist is because the spectrum has moved significantly toward the left in your lifetime. She definitely panders toward the center because she is pure politician when it comes to this stuff. Her stances are calculated based upon polling. She needs to be just far enough to the right to get enough votes to get elected, but she cannot go too far to the right or she will alienate her base on the left. That's the way these things are done.

Bernie remains a huge problem for her because she needs the far left. He's poisoning them to her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top