US Presidential Election XII

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Ross Perot is the most successful third party candidate of the modern era, hence he is the "gold standard" because he was (and still is) the most successful. he was actually on the debate stage in 1992. nowhere have i claimed they shouldn't exist, but i have claimed that the two party system is necessary and perhaps even a good thing in the US, due to it's unique character, population, geography, history, system of government, etc.



it seems to me that you'd be mistaken to mistake a black swan like Trump as proof of anything, really, beyond his own celebrity powers, the weakness of the field, and the post-Obama GOP madness (and the reverberations of what was a nearly catastrophic economic collapse in 2008). the 2020 GOP nominee will likely be back to the model of a more typical GOP candidate. also, Trump's views aren't all that much out of the mainstream of the GOP candidates in general, and it also speaks to the size of the field that diluted anti-Trump votes so no credible opposition was able to rise. i think everyone, Trump included, is shocked he's the nominee, and i think he was planning on running as a Perot (and then starting his own cable network).













"most westernized countries" are different, and have different systems of government, and thus have different needs than the US.

Your use of "gold standard" here versus earlier isn't the same. You've numerous times implied that that's the model for a third party candidate, or that inherently all third party candidates are unqualified, ideological, not serious, or jokes a la Perot.

Short of continuing to say there's lots of diversity (which to my point is contradictory), you haven't explained why a two party system is "necessary." There's nothing to suggest this is the case.

Most westernized countries, on the whole, have a relatively similar system of government, with political parties and individuals who campaign for office with an end goal of winning an election. It's similar enough to draw comparisons in many cases. Our political system wasn't necessarily designed with intentions of having parties at all, but it certainly wasn't designed to have just two parties. That's a product of centralization of money and power. There's no "necessity" and you haven't provided an actual thought out reason for declaring such a necessity, so I'm confused as to what you even mean by that.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Your use of "gold standard" here versus earlier isn't the same. You've numerous times implied that that's the model for a third party candidate, or that inherently all third party candidates are unqualified, ideological, not serious, or jokes a la Perot.

i think you need to read more closely. i said Perot was the "gold standard," by which i meant successful, which i clarified for you. Perot was *not* a joke at the time, though he has become one over the years. most third party candidates have been jokes, fringe, or too small to be taken seriously. your use of the word "model" is your own -- i have not used that word.

Short of continuing to say there's lots of diversity (which to my point is contradictory), you haven't explained why a two party system is "necessary." There's nothing to suggest this is the case.

again, i think you need to take a closer look at what i've laid out. i've explained this several times, and if it's not to your liking, i'm sorry, but that's on you at this point.

Most westernized countries, on the whole, have a relatively similar system of government, with political parties and individuals who campaign for office with an end goal of winning an election. It's similar enough to draw comparisons in many cases. Our political system wasn't necessarily designed with intentions of having parties at all, but it certainly wasn't designed to have just two parties. That's a product of centralization of money and power. There's no "necessity" and you haven't provided an actual thought out reason for declaring such a necessity, so I'm confused as to what you even mean by that.

our political system wasn't initially designed to have parties, but they were quickly deemed necessary during Washington's first term. you may disagree with my reasoning, but it's disingenuous to suggest it isn't there.

i think the regionalism-as-dangerous that other posters have brought up is certainly an issue, we did have a civil war, and to an extent, we already have the GOP as a Dixie-centric, almost regional party. with more parties for people to choose from, we could Balkanize even more.

and as i've continued to say, i don't know if multiple political parties would be a better or worse thing, but i do think there are many good things about having only two political parties and have suggested that it might be necessary given the unique makeup of the US.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

with more parties for people to choose from, we could Balkanize even more.

and as i've continued to say, i don't know if multiple political parties would be a better or worse thing, but i do think there are many good things about having only two political parties and have suggested that it might be necessary given the unique makeup of the US.

For a while I didn't want to make too much of a judgement on the US 2-party system, as a multi-party system like we have here also has its risks and problem. The segmentation and at times difficulty to create coalitions is one.
But one of the biggest flaws I have seen in the past years in the US is the inability/unwillingness to compromise. It's not about trying to develop the country anymore, it's about refusing to deal with the other party. Because the automatic consequence of the other party losing is that you are winning. And so obstructionism works. With a viable and sizable third (and fourth, fifth) party it will be necessary to compromise on issues, to build coalitions together. And with that politicians might start to look at what's best for the country again, instead of what will hurt the other party most.
As such, I don't see what is so unique about the US that it needs only 2 parties, that it can't have more.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

I could see a party popular in the Pacific NW.

Seattle has a socialist on the city council in Seattle. An honest-to-god socialist!!!!

We haven't all burned to death yet, so .... yay.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Seattle has a socialist on the city council in Seattle. An honest-to-god socialist!!!!

We haven't all burned to death yet, so .... yay.

Kshama Sawant? I've heard she is pretty good.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by DaveC

if the US had a multi-party system, they would probably be regional parties rather than ideologically based. i'm not so sure if that would be a good thing.

Because the D/R split isn't already heavily regional?

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Kshama Sawant? I've heard she is pretty good.

Yep, that's our socialist!

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by DaveC

if the US had a multi-party system, they would probably be regional parties rather than ideologically based. i'm not so sure if that would be a good thing.

Meh... Honestly it's probably about time we all went our separate ways any how.

238 years is a nice run.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

But one of the biggest flaws I have seen in the past years in the US is the inability/unwillingness to compromise. It's not about trying to develop the country anymore, it's about refusing to deal with the other party. Because the automatic consequence of the other party losing is that you are winning. And so obstructionism works. With a viable and sizable third (and fourth, fifth) party it will be necessary to compromise on issues, to build coalitions together. And with that politicians might start to look at what's best for the country again, instead of what will hurt the other party most.
As such, I don't see what is so unique about the US that it needs only 2 parties, that it can't have more.

Exactly right. I'm a bit confused by Irvine on this point because he has been one of the strongest advocates of compromise and finding middle ground rather than lofty goals and preaching to the far left/right converted a la Sanders for example. And yet the two-party system in the US as it is right now is breeding ground for little more than contempt and entrenching yourself in ideology. You win - you make it your job to stick it to the other side until the next election. You lose - you make it your job to obstruct. It has resulted in a government almost entirely unable or unwilling to get big things done. If you introduced a third or fourth party even with relatively small numbers of seats, you would see a fairly quick turnaround in attitude. And frankly if you look at other Western democracies generally speaking there tend to be 2 major parties (typically centre-left and centre-right) with one or more parties to the left and right of those which are almost never in power except in extraordinary circumstances and then often for a short period of time. BUT they are enough to get more interesting legislation passed.

I think the stereotypical view of 78 Italian parties with members in fisticuffs in parliament is not at all representative of what actually goes on.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Meh... Honestly it's probably about time we all went our separate ways any how.

238 years is a nice run.

actually, historically speaking, for an expansionist empire it really is.

[Oregoropa]

We should have kept Cuba. Avoided that whole missile crisis shit. Harambe is dead and Fidel is still alive. Smh


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Vlad n U 2]

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll have another time to install another Batista/Pinochet type.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by DaveC

actually, historically speaking, for an expansionist empire it really is.

If is.

I'm all for it, actually.

[the iron horse]

Something seems to be happening. I don't know.

This being reported this morning:

Hillary Clinton has 'medical episode' at 9/11 ceremony, source says | Fox News

[bono_212]

Oh fucking hell.

[mikal]

Sounds like a republican wet dream. But just sounds like she got a bit dizzy. Same thing happened to me the other day when I didn't eat enough for breakfast.

[Popmartijn]

It looks as if the two candidates dealt quite differently with 9/11 and its aftermath.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tacks-response

Then a uniformed firefighter with battalion 58 in Canarsie, Brooklyn, Alles arrived at Ground Zero 20 minutes after the second tower collapsed. He stayed there for two days and nights, seeking survivors amid the ruins. What struck him most about Clinton that day, he said, was what he called her “compassion”.

“She really went out of her way to speak to the first responders on the site to reassure them,” he said. “I never forgot it.”

Alles was also struck by how Clinton quickly grasped the potential health risks of Ground Zero, and how doggedly she pursued treatment for those who suffered. “We all knew from the get-go that the air was contaminated,” he said, “but we had a job to do so we kept on working. Senator Clinton was at the forefront over dealing with it, she showed herself to be a fighter.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2786879

Donald Trump’s tale about why he took $150,000 in 9/11 money is as tall as the Downtown skyscraper he says he used in recovery efforts, according to government records.

Though the billionaire presidential candidate has repeatedly suggested he got that money for helping others out after the attacks, documents obtained by the Daily News show that Trump’s account was just a huge lie.

Records from the Empire State Development Corp., which administered the recovery program, show that Trump’s company asked for those funds for “rent loss,” “cleanup” and “repair” — not to recuperate money lost in helping people.

That government program was designed to help local businesses get back on their feet — not reimburse people for their charitable work.

[DaveC]

she felt faint from the heat, so obviously her condition has now progressed to the palliative stage.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Something seems to be happening. I don't know.

Something is happening. People are talking. There are many people talking. I'm not a doctor, but people are talking.

We must not think for ourselves, we let the talking people do that for us. People are talking, listen to what they say; don't think.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by mikal

Sounds like a republican wet dream. But just sounds like she got a bit dizzy. Same thing happened to me the other day when I didn't eat enough for breakfast.

No kidding. I'd like to see even the most fit of us here undertake the kind of schedule she has without feeling a bit rough every so often.