Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Seriously, the US needs a better political system. What about representative democracy with more than two parties?

It would have to (somehow) abolish FPTP voting, which would push us to some form of parliamentary system. . . I don't think that we have the political capabilities, in this day and age, to come up with an equitable system, with the minds that we have in positions to do these things.

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
And the only thing I’m refuting is that I said anything good about or somehow am defending the GOP. If you believe differently, you are wrong.

I didn't say you were or had, actually. That's not my point at all.

Well you lost me then pal. Guess I should’ve stayed in school.

My point is that 'both sides are bad' puts the side that's not making a policy out of child abuse on a level with the side that is, which is glossing over an atrocity. I don't believe you're doing it as a defense of the GOP - although that's certainly something that happens with people who just want an excuse to pull for Team Red - so much as an attack on the Democrats. And there's stuff to criticize about the party! Absolutely! In a less pants-on-head insane political climate, I'd absolutely be behind that.

But it isn't a great time to throw your hands up and go 'both sides are bad'. There's families that will never see their children again, because they got sent off to Toddler Jail and the system doesn't give a gak about figuring out where they were sent after that. 'Both sides are bad' doesn't do a whole lot for them.

 whembly wrote:

The end result, frankly, is the eventual deletions of the filibuster rules in all things. The Senate will just be a glorified House of Representative passing bills along with simple majority and the minority party being truly neutered. I certainly don't like the way it's going... but, me changing my votes to Democrats would go against everything else I believe in... so, it's a non-starter. My best path forward is to actually engage the GOP party locally and hopefully I can change enough minds to get some action.

In the end, I wonder if the "Two Parties System" is really good for democracy at all. I mean, after reading all these points of view from the outside, I feel like people voting for one or other side don't especially agree with everything represented by this or that guy/gal saying or doing, but back their team because otherwise that means going for the other team.

It's an "all or nothing" package. You want to keep your guns ? Then you have to go as well for anti-abortion and separating kids from their families, it's part of the package.

Shouldn't democracy be about voting for the principles/ideas you stand for , and the actual people who do represent these ideas the best, rather than "blue or red team" ?

We need to institute ranked voting.

 Sarouan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The end result, frankly, is the eventual deletions of the filibuster rules in all things. The Senate will just be a glorified House of Representative passing bills along with simple majority and the minority party being truly neutered. I certainly don't like the way it's going... but, me changing my votes to Democrats would go against everything else I believe in... so, it's a non-starter. My best path forward is to actually engage the GOP party locally and hopefully I can change enough minds to get some action.

In the end, I wonder if the "Two Parties System" is really good for democracy at all. I mean, after reading all these points of view from the outside, I feel like people voting for one or other side don't especially agree with everything represented by this or that guy/gal saying or doing, but back their team because otherwise that means going for the other team.

It's an "all or nothing" package. You want to keep your guns ? Then you have to go as well for anti-abortion and separating kids from their families, it's part of the package.

Shouldn't democracy be about voting for the principles/ideas you stand for , and the actual people who do represent these ideas the best, rather than "blue or red team" ?

Keep in mind that the current state of the system is the worst is has even been. There is no precedent for a party being as self-serving and detached from reality as the current GOP, and that's down to the modern age making it possible to create a voting base that continually and reliably supports delusion.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


Keep in mind that the current state of the system is the worst is has even been. There is no precedent for a party being as self-serving and detached from reality as the current GOP, and that's down to the modern age making it possible to create a voting base that continually and reliably supports delusion.

Yes, indeed, but I wonder if that "Two Parties System" isn't actually part of the causes of the problem and making it worse. That propaganda works even better when there is a well defined target - in this case, it's "the other team". That helps polarising the sides even more by dividing them into "blue supporters" and "red supporters".

In the end, you vote for the team rather than the ideas you actually care for. Or if I put it, rather making sure the other team not supporting some of your core prinnciples doesn't make it to power.

Going local is a way to actually do that. Support the people who represent your ideas the best, and not just the team. So I can understand Whembly when he says he should act more locally and make things change the way he sees it.

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
We all know republicans will never admit or even realize their hypocrisy. They’re the party of christians after all. And christians wrote the book on hypocrisy!

But the insistence that the democratic party is a shining paragon of virtue and morality beyond reproach is either naive or disingenuous.

You’re all arguing about different sides of the same coin.

Oh wow, bigotry much?

Trump came into power with an intent to undue everything done in the last 8 years. Thats a scary precedent. Especially if thats the route continually taken in future administrations. And one a democratic administration will surely have to take if elected in 2020. All forward progress will be halted.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm sure the kids who will never see their parents again would have opted for the lesser evil.

This is why one should vote for Cthulu. Don't choose the lesser evil!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
We all know republicans will never admit or even realize their hypocrisy. They’re the party of christians after all. And christians wrote the book on hypocrisy!

But the insistence that the democratic party is a shining paragon of virtue and morality beyond reproach is either naive or disingenuous.

You’re all arguing about different sides of the same coin.

Oh wow, bigotry much?

Unabashedly!

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
I never said I don’t vote

But I guess you can say not voting republican or democrat is an inaction itself, but my conscience is clear and I sleep well enough at night.

The Yankee has a point. In many areas (Illinois, California, Texas NYC for example) voters live in a one party state. Your vote is irrelevant to nearly all races.

Well it's clear the Trump presidency really shakes the core of a lot of things that will clearly have huge consequences for the future, for the USA and the rest of the world.

Sebster's post about doing the same as Timmy is somewhat concerning and in that mindset of "blue team vs red team" again. And that's the real danger - democracy crumbling down in that team war, and finally forgetting all the principles and ideas that are behind our political views.

To follow Sebster's metaphor, the question is : should we really focus on Timmy here or aren't we losing something very important by doing that and trying by all means to "teach Timmy a lesson" ?

Unless I'm mistaken, in seb's analogy, Timmy isn't Trump, he's the entire GOP.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
We all know republicans will never admit or even realize their hypocrisy. They’re the party of christians after all. And christians wrote the book on hypocrisy!

But the insistence that the democratic party is a shining paragon of virtue and morality beyond reproach is either naive or disingenuous.

You’re all arguing about different sides of the same coin.

Oh wow, bigotry much?

Ironic given some of your postings in the past

The point is that rather than repudiate Trump's excesses, the Republican Party in Congress and state governments, have to a great degree swung in behind Trump and support his works.

They do this because the general base of GOP voters have embraced Trump to a remarkable degree.

Fantasizing about a new political system is not really going to get you guys anywhere. There are a number of reasons why a multi party system might be an unholy mess in a country like America - it is absolutely huge, it is really diverse, and it has a very poor political culture.

Small European nations can manage with multiparty systems, but once you get past a certain size it is a bit more difficult. Even in most of those countries, you tend to end up with 2 main teams with assorted others as temporary coalition parties.

It is true that the FPTP countries are currently experiencing a really shocking collapse of political credibility, but I think a PR system is more feasible in the UK than the US.

I dunno. The US might need something more like the European Union, but that also has massive issues with the need for unanimity and consensus creating deadlock.

What the US really needs is a culture of integrity in politics and media. That is why I am hard on people who accept hypocrisy and poor political behaviour and just say that is how the game works. You've got to expect better if you want to improve the system.

Trump and Trumpists don't want to improve the system. They want to smash it.

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
I never said I don’t vote

But I guess you can say not voting republican or democrat is an inaction itself, but my conscience is clear and I sleep well enough at night.

Clear or defective?

Very clear


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some real “pick a side or die” attitudes

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
Some real “pick a side or die” attitudes

Because that's how it works. The way the electoral system is structured inevitably produces a two-party system and, outside of an extreme outlier incident like a major party candidate committing public murder right before election day, a third-party candidate has zero chance of winning. You have two choices: R or D. If you vote for anyone but R or D then you are not voting. Justify it with "both sides" nonsense if you must, but don't pretend that you are doing anything but stating that you don't care what happens in the US and want no say in government.

And if you can look at the utter disaster of the Trump administration and the republican party in general, decline to vote against it, and still have a clear conscience, well, that's a pretty impressive feat.

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
Very clear


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some real “pick a side or die” attitudes

One side is taking children from their parents permanently. If that doesn't make you choose a side, you are the problem. No American should be able to sleep well at night these days, especially if they choose to do nothing rather than to take action against this human rights violation.

And that attitude is exactly why it will never change. But my conscience is defective because I want to change it and do what I can by voting for people who represent what I want. And you wonder why i don’t respect people who tow party lines.

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
And that attitude is exactly why it will never change.

No, math is why it will never change. The two-party system is not a coincidence of how US history happened or the current state of political beliefs among the voters, it's a direct and inevitable result of any electoral system using the US rules. The platforms of the two parties can change, but you're still going to have exactly two of them. Believing that you can change the system by voting for third-party candidates is simply a statement of ignorance about how the system works.

But my conscience is defective because I want to change it and do what I can by voting for people who represent what I want.

Unless you vote for a R or D candidate you are not voting. You are not voting for people who represent what you want, you are turning in a piece of paper that says "I stayed home on election day". You can tell yourself whatever lies you want, but in the end you have two choices: vote for the party that puts children in cages, or vote for the other candidate.

That’s some real hard converting you’re trying there

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
That’s some real hard converting you’re trying there

That's some real hard denial you're trying there. Do you have any answer to the arguments we have posted, or are you just going to handwave it away so you don't have to face the possibility that you might be wrong?

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
We all know republicans will never admit or even realize their hypocrisy. They’re the party of christians after all. And christians wrote the book on hypocrisy!

But the insistence that the democratic party is a shining paragon of virtue and morality beyond reproach is either naive or disingenuous.

You’re all arguing about different sides of the same coin.

Oh wow, bigotry much?

Ironic given some of your postings in the past

He is right this time though.

That is pretty bigoted. Not to mention a blatant lie.

This line of discussion is getting way too personal and too shrill. If we are going to have a US Politics thread at all, people are going to have to make an extra effort to be civil because the subject matter is so inherently contentious. If you can’t make the effort then pleaae consider taking a voluntary break from posting in this thread. Thanks!

I have no fear of the possibilty I’m wrong on some of the things I feel. Being wrong on Dakka isn’t something I’ll lose sleep over. I’ve made my feelings known. Alot of you disagree. Some appear to think I’m the problem. So be it. I’ll continue to take action in the ways I feel is best for myself and my country. Maybe I’m just the guy on the beach screaming at the approaching hurricane. An exercise in futility. But I’ll take that over compromise.

And yea, I guess I’m an a-hole for not shedding tears over the children. I feel bad about it, but don’t tell me I’m somehow endorsing it because I’m voting third party.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump and Trumpists don't want to improve the system. They want to smash it.

Here here!

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
I have no fear of the possibilty I’m wrong on some of the things I feel. Being wrong on Dakka isn’t something I’ll lose sleep over. I’ve made my feelings known. Alot of you disagree. Some appear to think I’m the problem. So be it. I’ll continue to take action in the ways I feel is best for myself and my country. Maybe I’m just the guy on the beach screaming at the approaching hurricane. An exercise in futility. But I’ll take that over compromise.

So do you actually have any evidence for your position to dispute the evidence that you are wrong, or just stubborn determination not to admit that you're doing something wrong?

And do you honestly think that compromise is a bad thing? Pragmatic compromise is how things get done. Insisting on moral purity over practical effect is how you become an irrelevant factor in politics. Are you really going to be comforted by the knowledge that you didn't compromise when everything you want fails to happen because you weren't willing to compromise to get it done?

And yea, I guess I’m an a-hole for not shedding tears over the children. I feel bad about it, but don’t tell me I’m somehow endorsing it because I’m voting third party.

I'll tell you that because it's the truth. You have three choices here:

1) Vote for the party putting children in cages.

2) Vote for the other party.

3) Stay home on election day (or vote third-party, which is exactly equivalent to staying home on election day) as a statement that you don't care enough to take even the most minimal action against putting children in cages.

Anything but a D vote is endorsement of Trump's policy of putting children in cages. If you're in agreement with that policy, fine, but don't pretend that your voting choices are anything but a passive endorsement of it.