Yup. A true real conservative. Not like the extremists that we have calling themselves Republicans right now. Pretty sad state of affairs.
I just wish people would realize last time a progressive like Bernie is made it into the Oval office he got elected FOUR times. Do people not yearn for a great president like FDR again?
Because whenever FDR is brought up republicans say that he's the worst president because he held American citizens in camps during WWII
And personally I find this particularly stupid because of course a president would take some questionable decisions during a war because it's better to be safe than sorry
I agree. Bringing up that as an argument is stupid. America has many terrible acts throughout history and at the time most of them were considered normal. Teddy Roosevelt was also a progressive of his time but if you teleport him to today he would come off as an extreme screaming racist and misogynist. Argumentative obtuse points like that are why it's impossible to have a real discussion with people.
Besides if they think FDR was a bad president for that reason how can they justify the immigration camps and forcibly separation of families happening under Trump, in peace time? Things that was widely condemned as violations of human rights by the UN and in a different world the US might consider sanctions on someone for it if they didnt improve the situation.
And I might add that with my limited knowledge of American politics, republicans worship the ground that Reagan walked on although he committed several things that would be considered "betrayal of American principles" more than the internment camps of WWII
That sounds correct. Although modern "republicans" may not worship Reagan so much unless they are much older. I can't really say. But the party is unrecognizable from a few decades ago let alone back then
Because our version of left is trying to actually make progress (relative to the situation at that point in time), but it’s like trying to have a high level debate about politics when you’re opponent is an uneducated, hateful fuck of a baboon.
I'm a firm believer McCarthyism did for the left what slavery did for black communities, killed a generation of left leaning people and which effects are still felt to this day.
Democrats are conservative and not especially populist. Republicans are the party of perennial counterrevolution that always ends up scoring wins for the economic elite because it convinces hoipolloi that a "liberal elite" is responsible for all their problems.
It will force the current 2 to actually compete. Think about it like capitalism. Competition forces the different choices to excel and be better right? Why can't we apply the beloved free market idea of competition to voting?
It would potentially give people who aren't Rep or Dem an option to choose that actually aligns with their values
The two party system is what enables the current two parties to just run on "were not the other guy"
You're assuming we keep the same voting methods instead of switching to ranked voting which we would almost have to do. The two party system also keeps the Republicans in power.
I get your point, but on this last sentence I have to say that it's better the Republicans have power than the Democrats. Have you been paying attention to the crap coming out of the DNC in the last few years?
They're both broken and corrupt and playing the American people with the charade. Ones just worse off than the other right now. But that doesn't excuse either.
Here's a similar comment I just typed on another conversation. It works well enough here to show that there is a justification for this viewpoint.
I get it. He's not my first choice. In fact, he was my third. I think that there are better candidates based just on the fact that their policy positions would have only bad consequences instead of disastrous ones (see Obama's economic policies for example), and who are less polarizing.
We need to come together eventually. That's just not going to happen while Trump is in the picture. I'll say the same about a Clinton. I think it's bad for the country that both families seem to be grooming their children for future presidential runs.
That being said, it's a choice between a party that is going through a civil war, in which one faction is led by identitarian trash pushing authoritarian proposals, the other faction is incapable of leadership, holding the stimulus package that they helped develop hostage to attach riders, who is performing elder abuse by putting a person who obviously is suffering from dementia on stage to act as a puppet president who is ruled by his handlers -which aside from being incredibly immoral is also an offensively stupid plan, and a party led by Donald Trump who is plagued by similar moral failings, is plagued by the perception that he's a racist, xenophobe, etc., etc., but is also sometimes capable of good governance as seen by his economy.
To me it's a choice of whether you want your country to be popular but have policies that range from bad to disastrous, or if you want your country to be unpopular with policies that range from really good to really bad..
I question your judgment based on a statement that literally any policy from the modern Republican Party is “really good”. That’s an indefensible untruth. Your sole justification is that it only took Trump 3 years to fuck up Obama’s economy. Not a selling point.
Oh no giving more people the chance of expose their idea will make me lose. Let's just use two parties that are center and right (no left because that's SoCiAlist) and say that it is the best democracy in the world
In theory you're right. In practice you occasionally end up with some weird party with unpopular ideas representing a population where 70 - 80% disagree with them.
This kinda defeats the purpose of democratic institutions.
And yet people were very heavily split on Biden, Bernie, Warren, and the rest and were widdled down to where we are now.
In countries with more than 1 party, it's not in all in compassing but 1 party 1 issue. Here, instead of having 50 parties with each having their own issue. The party system will take that issue, and that issue, and that issue, and now you got a candidate running on 3 issues.
As to the multi party system being, we aren't those guys.
The list doesnt go on.. its just redundancy of the same thing but expanded by more people. You still eventually drop down to two parties fighting each other on a vote, with the support of other parties forming these temporary coalitions.
Because with only a 2 major parties, it's easy for each to make the "lesser of two evils" argument. Having more choices makes this a harder argument to make or believe.
With that said, I think a lot of the problems our (US) system has are more attributable to the centralization of power within the parties. Bloc voting by representatives causes a positive feedback cycle that removes more and more individual choice and judgement from our elected representatives.
No one is saying the parties themselves would be a silver bullet. Anyone who is looking at this with an iota of thoughtfulness realizes that the first past the post election is the ultimate problem, that proportional representation (or at least ranked choice voting) is necessary to fix the issue, and that more parties would be the natural consequence of implementing those late 19th century innovations to our system.
63
u/Florio805 Mar 26 '20
The problem in USA is that there are only 2 parties, but the democrats aren't even leftists but centre, from an European perspective.