Leftists...ugh. It is black and white with them. It is big unlimited gov run by fools or it is Somalia. They must get this foolishness from MSLSD, because they all seem to say it in unison.
I gave examples. I didn't say it was black and white, HOWEVER, you need some form of government. Can you name me one place which doesn't have government that isn't in a major war? I bet you can't.
The reason being that govt will appear EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE where there isn't govt. There's even government in Somalia, lots of different types of govt, the Islamists have govt, the supposed govt of Somalia has govt, and there's govt in the north which is more stable.
Why do you think this is? No place has ever worked without some sort of government.
Government governing is one thing. Government being a part of your life is quite another.
Our city forces us to have apartments inspected before a tenant moves in. It doesn't matter whether the apartment was just inspected three years ago, three months ago, or three days ago. It has to be inspected again before each tenant occupies the place.
In the past ten years, that apartment has been inspected over five times. Guess what? They still found supposed violations in the place. What this time? Now they want CO2 detectors in the apartment and the basement as well. That set me back $60.00. And for what? So that we can reduce that fraction of 1% that may become ill or even die from CO2?
I hate government on every level: city, county, state and in particular, federal. Why? Because they are all too far up my ass for me to ever enjoy freedom again.
I agree. However someone made the suggestion that govt is bad, whatever.
The people can vote, they keep voting in morons who don't have a consistent policy other than "do what the right think" or "do what the left think" and all you end up with a whole situation where politicians do what the left or right want, and the left or right do what the politicians want. Who is telling who exactly? Doesn't matter, all that happens is that nothing sensible comes out of it.
Having checks on tenants is hardly taking away your freedom, how yes, at times the govt imposes itself on people as it should not. Where is this debate to be found? You come on a board like this and there isn't much debate, it'll just end up in a bitching match with people say "liberals are this" and "Conservatives are that", and it's not much different for anything.
The ONLY way to change this is to have govt change the way it is elected, so there are more parties, more opinions from different types of parties, more access to politics and so on. But the two main parties have so much control they prevent this debate.
Nobody but the people are stopping a change in our two party system.
We are becoming more and more divided in this country that there is no longer any middle ground; no room for a third or fourth candidate. When we vote, many of us don't vote our favorite candidate in, we vote to make sure the other candidate stays out. If the Republicans nominated Mickey Mouse, I would still vote for him just to keep Hillary or that other Socialist out of power.
My father and I were discussing this very issue yesterday. I told him Nanny Bloomburg was thinking about getting into the race, and what an election this would be if Trump was not nominated and decided to run as an Independent as well. It would probably be the most interesting election in our lifetime because all candidates would have a reasonable chance at winning the presidency. I don't see that happening, but it's always possible.
If Nanny decides to run, whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next President of this country.
The country is becoming divided BECAUSE OF the system.
People see only two choices, and then these two choices have become such powerful voices, that people don't see past the voices.
Debate is stifled along the lines that suit the two main parties. Without change in the way people vote, nothing will change in the way people think.
You look at other countries.
Germany has a duel system, you vote Proportional Representation and First Past The Post at the same time. So people have a choice in who they want to be their representative at a local level and which party they would like to have in Berlin.
The last elections saw the CDU gain 37.2% of the constituency votes and 34.1% of the PR votes.
So 3.1% of the voters felt the desire to vote for them at a local level and NOT at a federal level.
The SPD got 29.4% at the constituency level and 25.7% at a national level, so 3.7% of people decide to vote for them locally but not nationally.
And the CSU (Sister party of the CDU) also saw 0.7% of the voters choose not to vote for them nationally when they voted locally.
That's 7.5% of the voters chose not to vote for one of the main two parties who would undoubtedly control the govt on a national level, but did so on a local level.
Why? Maybe they were being tactical. On a local FPTP level they didn't want the other party to get in.
But maybe a CDU/CSU voter wanted other things nationally, they might have wanted to choose the coalition partner. The CDU would got with FDP and the the SPD would go with die Linke or the Greens.
The FDP didn't get in. They got 2.4% of the constituency votes and 4.8% of the national vote, meaning they didn't reach the 5% needed.
The Greens and die Linke gained more votes and were there too.
In the end the two main parties had to have a coalition.
What this means is that the govt is more representative, these people have to work together, they can't do what they do in the US, because then the govt will fail and new elections will happen, which puts pressure on party finances and so on, and no one is confident of winning.
Such a system in the US would open things up. People could vote main party at a local level, and at a national level choose someone else, it'd force cooperation onto the main parties, get rid of the silly bravado they keep shouting off and it would put opinions into the system that simply don't exist because it's not in the interests of the two parties nor those who control them.
More parties means the money gets spread out more, it's harder to control one party and get what you want if you're rich. It gives more power to the people.
