How do you identify politically?

Dean wrote:   In closing, I'm not advocating a one-party system, quite the opposite.

I never said you were.

SteveG wrote: ^Sorry for the abrupt response, but I was interrupted by phone call. You and I live in democratic systems that are not ideal, but what is? Political systems are implemented by imperfect beings call men. Perhaps if we find a perfect man, he can come up with a perfect system.

Fine.  I'll see what I can do.

The T wrote: I'm a somewhat-free market socialist

Mutualist?

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: [QUOTE=SteveG]...redirecting those who would shore-up a poorly adapted system towards creating a viable alternative is not beyond the wit of man. Either that or we continue along the path of scepticism, apathy and complacency that disenfranchises and disaffects more and more people. Sorry, old man, but I'll have to bail on this discussion due to close relative suddenly passing. I would like to quickly summarize that I see any type of coup as self-defeating, and that polarization provides inherent, albeit at times unwanted, checks and balances that are not available in a one party system/government. Until next time then.  Sorry to hear that Steve, my condolences.   Polarisation never achieves balance because that implies that they are equal and opposite but they never are, checking produces two outcomes blocking (e.g. the current Senate opposition to Obama) or vacillation (alternating terms in government).  In closing, I'm not advocating a one-party system, quite the opposite.

Thanks for the condolences, Dean. I'm still not able to respond to your interesting post in depth, right now, especially if any of the alternate ideas that would replace our current governments have actually been tried out already on a larger scale. If not, then that's like throwing dice. Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose.

Edited by SteveG - August 04 2016 at 13:47

Blacksword wrote: Terrapin Station wrote: I doubt there are many people who believe that Trump is going to (even attempt to) literally build a border wall/make a foreign government pay for it. I imagine a significant chunk of his flock probably do believe it.

Check the now viral NY Times video taken at some of his rallies and you'll see.. 

SteveG wrote: Dean wrote:   In closing, I'm not advocating a one-party system, quite the opposite.   I never said you were.

SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote:   In closing, I'm not advocating a one-party system, quite the opposite.   I never said you were. Then why the hell do you bang on about a one-party system like it's the only alternative to a two-party system?  Because aside from your Lilliputian multi-party lands of confusion, that you put forth as possible alternatives to our current governments, polarization is common to democratic systems. The other's are known and tried, but not true, single party systems. Just keeping the topic straight.

Seat A B C

1 51% 0% 49%

2 0% 51% 49%

3 0% 51% 49%

4 0% 51% 49%

5 51% 0% 49%

6 0% 51% 49%

7 51% 0% 49%

8 0% 51% 49%

9 0% 51% 49%

10 51% 0% 49%

Total 4 6 0

Popular vote 20% 31% 49%

Sean Trane wrote: Modrigue wrote: For me, with most French politicians since I was born, no matter the party They're still reasoning the 20th Century way, and haven't "updated" their political mindset to address the issues of the 21st Century yet. It' not just in France, but most western democracies that can't renew itself (well maybe some Scandinavian countries are)... And if you think that it's all about political dinasties in France or Benelux, it's not really different in Nort Am (yes, even Canada with Trudeau's son in power now).

Edited by Modrigue - August 05 2016 at 07:23

SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote:   In closing, I'm not advocating a one-party system, quite the opposite.   I never said you were. Then why the hell do you bang on about a one-party system like it's the only alternative to a two-party system?  Because aside from your Lilliputian multi-party lands of confusion, that you put forth as possible alternatives to our current governments, polarization is common to democratic systems. The other's are known and tried, but not true, single party systems. Just keeping the topic straight. While "Lilliputian" implies a very small thing, the Lilliput narrative in Gulliver's Travels was a satire on the sectarian Big-Endian/Little-Endian two-party system.    Now if you're a Democrat or a Republican supporter (or a Tory or a Labour supporter) you bloody love this system, and because one of you will always be in power under it then there is absolutely no incentive (or desire) to change it. You'll even profess to any that oppose it that it ain't broke so don't fix it. I'm glad that you got the "Lilliput" reference, it was a favorite of my father. But you seem to overlook my concern for jumping backing and forth between party lines from Republicans and Democrats in America. Especially poor southern Democrats that do not vote, cannot get to polls, are not registered, etc. They are not a third party system that is not represented. They are not part of the political process in the US and that's a far poorer reality then the unrepresented 3rd party scenario that you keep spinning.

Dean wrote: Frankly that's not my problem it's yours because even with those "missing" voters the two-party system would still not represent the true composition of the voters. However are these poor southern Democrats really missing or is it that they are just going against type and voting Republican? As to overlooking your concerns fro jumping backing and forth between party lines from Republicans and Democrats in America - not so much overlooked as completely missed it .... because you've barely typed a hundred words in this thread and didn't mention it once. People switch between the parties because neither one is a good fit for them so when the one in power doesn't do it for them they'll vote for the other bugger next time. If there was more choice then the chances of finding one that is a better fit is greatly improved, people do not fit neatly into Republican or Democrat pigeonholes.  It beggars belief to think that politics is supposed to be about freedom and choice when the only options presented are Mrs Frying Pan and Mr Fire... (from a pool of 318 million people that's a poor choice by any standard)

First off, if you took the time to tally my words, you could have at least read some of them. When I posted, at the top of this page, that Americans may  vote for a Democratic president and Republican Senators, Governors, etc, I was being facetious, because many Americans did actually vote for Democrat Obama as President when they were registered Republicans, but also stuck to a Republican Governor, like New Jersey did, with Chris Christie. The same went for voting in Republican Senators and Congressmen. And Democrats did almost the same when voting for Senators, Congressmen, etc, and voting Republican instead of Democrat as they felt a repub would be better on the local level.

If I have to spell it out clearly, that is jumping party lines. That is why we have a stalemated Congress. As I said, Americans cannot have their cake and eat it too. Then, when absolutely nothing gets done to fix America's problems, the masses shout for an end of America's political ineptitude that their mixed party voting started in the first place.

So what's broken here? The system or it's citizens? This is why we have both Bozo the Clown and Miss Crabtree running for president in 2016.

As for poor southern Democrats voting for Trump, that would be an awesome feet of magic, as the problem is that poor southern Democrats have been denied, for decades, the right of legally registering to vote in many southern Republican run states. They have been denied social welfare programs that include everything from healthcare to food stamps as dictated by their so-called Republican leaders. I'm sure if they could, they would much rather give Hillary a chance rather then Trump on their first time punching the ticket.

This time, what's broken here? I'll go with my own Democratic party for not making this a political priority, the same as they failed to educate their party that jumping party lines results in a stalemated Congress. Again, is it the system that's broken or it's citizens. It's still it's citizens that failed, as politicians and party members are citizens.

And can this be fixed? Yes. Do we need to scrap the entire system and peruse through brochures of small multi party countries to find an alternative? No way, Jose. 

Let's fix the flat tire before we trade this car in for something newer and shiny, and probably made in China.




Edited by SteveG - August 05 2016 at 14:22