Time to end the two party system?

[kaz]

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

Who are these socialists you're talking about? Name some names. Obama? No way. We haven't even had a real liberal in the white house, much less a socialist, since LBJ. The two party system could work if we had only taxpayer funded elections and actually jailed politicians that take bribes, which most do to fund their elections.

Kaz thinks everyone not in his far right world is a socialist.

Actually, I think people who want government to own our economy, like "single payer" is socialism. And I think that because it's the definition of socialism. I keep asking you for examples, and you can't think of any, which is why you're going to deflection.

Even going so far as to label a plan which was created by the Heritage Foundation as socialism

The Heritage Foundation once suggested fining people for not having health care. It was a stupid idea and they said so. But that was the only thing they said. To call Obamacare as having been "created" by the Heritage Foundation is completely baseless.

He is incapable of realizing the Affordable Care Act is a far from socialism as possible

Socialism is where government owns economic assets. Government controlling economic assets is "as far from socialism as possible." Actually, capitalism, which is economic freedom, is "as far from socialism as possible." Economic assets technically in private hands but under government control is fascism, which is also referred to as "socialism light" and inevitably ends up in government doing away with the ruse and going to full socialism.

The Irony of Obamacare: Republicans Thought of It First | Wall St. Cheat Sheet

The Republicans suck, no insight. But it's just further deflection. That Republicans said something stupid that in a loose way can support a Democratic plan doesn't prove it's not socialism, sorry Charlie.

No self respecting socialist would ever agree on the affordable care act which is why most of them oppose it.

Actually socialists across the country are supporting it and cheering it on to crush the industry, which is what it was designed to do, so government can make the predictable step of going from fascism to socialism.

All this deflection just goes to show you can't answer the original question. Give me things that your "Greens" and "Democrats" would disagree on since they aren't disagreeing on anything now. The amount of work you're going to so you can evade the question answers the question. Nothing.

 

[jasonnfree]

The problem we have is that socialists are now half the country forming a unified block. When one ideology is half the country, having third parties doesn't work because the one just dominates. The rest of us are trying to squeeze into the Republican party to provide a large enough opposition, but we fundamentally disagree on too many issues. Basically there are three groups. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives and the liberals who don't want to be Democrats for whatever reason.

For a third party to work, any two of them have to be larger than the third and we don't have that unless the Democratic party splits up. And they are so monolithic they couldn't disagree on what wall paper to put in the dining room.

Who are these socialists you're talking about? Name some names. Obama? No way.

Name one thing Obama as done, by choice, which is not socialism. A case where he could have gotten his way on a socialist position, and actually said "no."

Start with ACA or Obamacare. If Obama was forced to include the participation of health care corporations, it hasn't come to my attention.
Let's name the people he's surrounded himself with since taking office. None of them forced on him. Any socialists? I see CEO's as job czars, anti labor billionaires like Pritzker for Commerce Sec. sylvia burwell from walmart as budget chief. No liberals even. Don't forget Summers, Geitner, Gates. Free traders for trade reps. same as Clinton, another closet republican. List goes on forever. His latest move is the transpacific partnership which no liberal would go for. Who's forcing this on him? What's he ever done to prove himself a socialist? He even invokes ronald reagan in speeches, never FDR of LBJ. You haven't named any socialists that Obama conspires with because there are none. He is a centrist democrat that leans right much too often. Look how he was so eager to put Social Security on the chopping block. I answered, now you answer. How is he a socialist?

 

[kaz]

Who are these socialists you're talking about? Name some names. Obama? No way.

Name one thing Obama as done, by choice, which is not socialism. A case where he could have gotten his way on a socialist position, and actually said "no."

Start with ACA or Obamacare. If Obama was forced to include the participation of health care corporations, it hasn't come to my attention

Never did he have the option of not including "health care corporations." He also said this: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”

Let's name the people he's surrounded himself with since taking office. None of them forced on him. Any socialists? I see CEO's as job czars, anti labor billionaires like Pritzker for Commerce Sec. sylvia burwell from walmart as budget chief. No liberals even. Don't forget Summers, Geitner, Gates. Free traders for trade reps. same as Clinton, another closet republican. List goes on forever. His latest move is the transpacific partnership which no liberal would go for. Who's forcing this on him? What's he ever done to prove himself a socialist? He even invokes ronald reagan in speeches, never FDR of LBJ. You haven't named any socialists that Obama conspires with because there are none. He is a centrist democrat that leans right much too often. Look how he was so eager to put Social Security on the chopping block. I answered, now you answer. How is he a socialist, much less a liberal.

There were capitalists in W's administration, but W was no capitalist. Who they know is no argument. And that the people who he surrounds himself with don't call themselves socialists doesn't make them not socialists. The Democratic party is now dominated by 30s style socialism. The days of Truman and JFK are long gone.

 

[Sactowndog]

Who are these socialists you're talking about? Name some names. Obama? No way. We haven't even had a real liberal in the white house, much less a socialist, since LBJ. The two party system could work if we had only taxpayer funded elections and actually jailed politicians that take bribes, which most do to fund their elections.

Kaz thinks everyone not in his far right world is a socialist.

Actually, I think people who want government to own our economy, like "single payer" is socialism. And I think that because it's the definition of socialism. I keep asking you for examples, and you can't think of any, which is why you're going to deflection.


The Heritage Foundation once suggested fining people for not having health care. It was a stupid idea and they said so. But that was the only thing they said. To call Obamacare as having been "created" by the Heritage Foundation is completely baseless.


Socialism is where government owns economic assets. Government controlling economic assets is "as far from socialism as possible." Actually, capitalism, which is economic freedom, is "as far from socialism as possible." Economic assets technically in private hands but under government control is fascism, which is also referred to as "socialism light" and inevitably ends up in government doing away with the ruse and going to full socialism.

The Irony of Obamacare: Republicans Thought of It First | Wall St. Cheat Sheet

The Republicans suck, no insight. But it's just further deflection. That Republicans said something stupid that in a loose way can support a Democratic plan doesn't prove it's not socialism, sorry Charlie.

No self respecting socialist would ever agree on the affordable care act which is why most of them oppose it.

Actually socialists across the country are supporting it and cheering it on to crush the industry, which is what it was designed to do, so government can make the predictable step of going from fascism to socialism.

All this deflection just goes to show you can't answer the original question. Give me things that your "Greens" and "Democrats" would disagree on since they aren't disagreeing on anything now. The amount of work you're going to so you can evade the question answers the question. Nothing.

I gave you answer. Just because you are too stubborn or stupid to see it doesn't mean it isn't an answer. Anyone who thinks a socialist would implement a plan designed by the Heritage Foundation is foolish.

However stubborn seems to be a prerequisite for being a Republican today so I am sure you happily fit in.

 

[kaz]

I gave you answer. Just because you are too stubborn ... to see it doesn't mean it isn't an answer. Anyone who thinks a socialist would implement a plan designed by the Heritage Foundation is foolish.

However stubborn seems to be a prerequisite for being a Republican today so I am sure you happily fit in.

I asked you how your "Green" party and "Democratic" party would be different. You gave me the answer that Obamacare doesn't prove they agree on health care. That isn't an answer how they would be different. If that's all you have, even your argument should start to bother even you.

Regarding Heritage, Again, Obamacare uses only one idea, which the Heritige has since denounced. To call all of Obamacare, which only contains one idea once proposed by the Heritage "a plan designed by the Heritage Foundation" is just silly.

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a Republican. You're not exactly on a roll.

 

[FA_Q2]

Economic strength not so sure about that point.

I can name over 100 nations that have weaker economies than 1 of our 50 states. And I can name EVERY nation on Earth for having a weaker economy than the U.S.

based on what measure... total GDP sure but I am not sure that is the best measure of strength just size....

Pick one. On virtually any economic measure, the USA is the strongest economy out there. The one figure that I can think of where the US even remotely looks like it is not leading is in growth where China takes the cake. Of course, that is only when taken in a vacuum. You have to realize that China’s growth is not sustainable and they are slowing even as we speak as the economic growth there eats at the very thing causing it – cheap labor.

 

[FA_Q2]

End parties, not republicanism. I see no advantages in a parliamentary system at all. Cronyism would be even worse IMHO. I think that parties though should be outright illegal. Normally I would not advocate such as the people should be able to vote in for who and how they want but it seems that the ignorant population has absolutely no interest in actually educating themselves before voting. The only real purpose parties serves is to dupe you into supporting their guy so I don’t think parties should even exist. Stand on your own merits and people should actually have to look into who they vote for rather than looking at the letter next to the name of the candidate.

 

[Sactowndog]

I gave you answer. Just because you are too stubborn ... to see it doesn't mean it isn't an answer. Anyone who thinks a socialist would implement a plan designed by the Heritage Foundation is foolish.

However stubborn seems to be a prerequisite for being a Republican today so I am sure you happily fit in.

I asked you how your "Green" party and "Democratic" party would be different. You gave me the answer that Obamacare doesn't prove they agree on health care. That isn't an answer how they would be different. If that's all you have, even your argument should start to bother even you.

Regarding Heritage, Again, Obamacare uses only one idea, which the Heritige has since denounced. To call all of Obamacare, which only contains one idea once proposed by the Heritage "a plan designed by the Heritage Foundation" is just silly.

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a Republican. You're not exactly on a roll.

The Affordable care act is a subsidized market based approach which is based on a set of local exchanges. This approach is the furthest segments of the Democratic Party would accept.

Others in the Party would prefer a single payer (Medicare) or single Provider (VA) type of model. The single provider model would be the closest to pure socialism and clearly the entire Democratic Party doesn't support that model or we would have it today instead of ObamaCare.

The center right Democrats differ from center right Republicans in they would pay a subsidy for health care. Far left Democrats would vote for single provider plans. Libertarians would eliminate the unfunded mandate that hospitals must treat anyone who walks through their door.