Get rid of 2 party system ???

[geauxtohell]

The fact that society functions on a day to day basis and that we have a bloodless coups every few years means our system works fine.

No it does not. We don't have a "bloodless coup" every few years. We simply have the stage manager announce that tonight's Leading Role in the comedy/tragedy known as The United States of America will be played by...... for the next four years. There is ZERO difference between the lines, the acting, and the results regardless of which worthless bag of trash sits in the White House.

The system is NOT working fine. We have illegal immigrants crawling around like roaches. We have an economy that is totally in the tank. Our JUSTICE system has ceased to exist. Morals, Values, Basic Decency, Common Sense, and Personal Responsibility are all things of the past.

We aren't perfect, but we are nowhere near the hellhole you would have us believe we are. I'll agree we took a massive sing towards federalism after the civil war. It was necessary as we progressed from an agrarian to urban society.

Personally, if it requires an agrarian society to bring this country back to what it was intended to be, then evacuate and burn every city with more than 50,000 residents to the ground.

Wow. Jefferson bemoaned the loss of agrarian society, while the vast majority were still farmers. However, he never wanted the current system to move back to medieval times. He was right happy with eyeglasses and other new technologies of the day. In fact, he invented many himself.

He was for individuals being free, (in spite of his contradictory relations with the peculiar institution.)

You are not for founding principles here, you are for a state of nature. No thank you.

That's just it. If you want to be an anarchist, be an anarchist. Don't act like you are a constitutionalist when you want to trash it.

"Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining."

 

[Anachronism]

Don't act like you are a constitutionalist when you want to trash it.

I don't want to Trash it. I would suggest that those who actively ignore it, deride it, and crap on it are the ones who Trash it. I want to go and replace it. I have sufficient respect for it, to suggest that it should be replaced, not ignored.

 

[geauxtohell]

What WASN'T better about it? Honestly, I can't find a whole lot that I would actually miss about this day and age if I could go back. I say that as someone who would likely not have survived to age 5 in the time period I prefer, due to personal medical issues.

Childbirth not being the leading mortality factor of women? People not dying in mass from the flu and pneumoniae?

By your own account, you wouldn't have even lived to have seen the "good old days".

I'm trying to do that, but it's simply a matter of finding the "least bad" place to be. There really isn't anywhere that "good" so far as I can see.

Welcome to life. Sorry for the rude awakening.

I couldn't care any less about what happens to the rest of you.

You should if you have severe physical and health limitations, as if you get your fantasy, you will most likely be carried by the healthy.

I say that as someone who has always been in good health and never had any physical limitations. The natural world is cruel. The laws exist to protect the weak and infirm.

Sarcasm doesn't look good on you.

I wasn't being sarcastic. Pointing out the massive hypocrisy between you waning on about morality in one post and advocating scorching people out of their homes on another isn't sarcasm.

If that's what it takes to fix the country, you're darn right.

How in the hell is that going to fix anything?

Actually I have family members who do make a living farming, so I am well aware of what it takes.

In other words, no you don't. You've never worked the fields. As someone who did for 18 years and did everything from shoveling shit and breaking ice in the freezing snow, to working cattle in the rainy spring, to hauling alfalfa square bails all day in the blazing sun let me tell you this: it sucks. It's not a lifestyle that people should be forced to undertake.

Even worse, most people don't know a plow from a seeder.

How it's a seven day a week job with 14-16 hour days most of the time. IF there was a way to move to the urban society and maintain the morals, values, and ideals that generally only exist in the agrarian society, I'd be fine with it. However, that does not appear to be possible.

Yeah, farm hands and cowboys are a real virtuous lot.

I think you are notalgic for something you know nothing about.

I have no problem with new technologies and the like.... SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT IMPEDE THE CONTINUED EXISTANCE AND PREVAILANCE OF THE MORALS, VALUES THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO RETURN TO A PROPER SOCIETY. The problem is that we do not take those morals and values into account when we allow these new technologies and ideas into society.

If it's not codified into law, then who are you to dictate someone elses' morals? Morals are a self chosen code. The people that founded this country got that. If they wanted for us to live under biblical law, they would have written the laws that way.

No, I'm for RIGHT over WRONG. Period. It's literally that simple in my mind.

How is it ever right to destroy people homes and force them to move elsewhere? They have a name for that, you know.

 

[gekaap]

why not a "no Party" system....back to our roots where whoever came in first became president and whoever came in second became vice president, regardless of party affiliation, if any?

You do realize that the so called "no party system" went out the door with George Washington, right?

 

[Annie]

Wow. Jefferson bemoaned the loss of agrarian society, while the vast majority were still farmers. However, he never wanted the current system to move back to medieval times. He was right happy with eyeglasses and other new technologies of the day. In fact, he invented many himself.

I have no problem with new technologies and the like.... SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT IMPEDE THE CONTINUED EXISTANCE AND PREVAILANCE OF THE MORALS, VALUES THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO RETURN TO A PROPER SOCIETY. The problem is that we do not take those morals and values into account when we allow these new technologies and ideas into society.

You are not for founding principles here, you are for a state of nature. No thank you.

No, I'm for RIGHT over WRONG. Period. It's literally that simple in my mind.

Somehow I've an inkling that your morals, values are not likely to align with the majority. Thus you're for the simple solution, no matter how immoral it may be. You are not conservative in any sense. You are for anarchy.

 

[Annie]

I never thought I'd see Geux and myself echoing each other for more than a line or two. Gee, this guy is the great uniter.

 

[Anachronism]

By your own account, you wouldn't have even lived to have seen the "good old days".

That would have been my FATE. Such is life.

Welcome to life. Sorry for the rude awakening.

As I've said repeatedly today, I truly feel that it's better to not live than to accept living in a society and place where there is nothing remaining of any value.

You should if you have severe physical and health limitations, as if you get your fantasy, you will most likely be carried by the healthy.

I say that as someone who has always been in good health and never had any physical limitations. The natural world is cruel. The laws exist to protect the weak and infirm.

No. In my fantasy world I either have the money to pay for my medical care or I don't get it. Whether that money comes from myself, my family, friends, etc.... it does not come forcibly from anyone in the form of taxes or forced giving. Natural Selection... let the weak and infirm improve the life of everyone else by ceasing to exist themselves.

I wasn't being sarcastic. Pointing out the massive hypocrisy between you waning on about morality in one post and advocating scorching people out of their homes on another isn't sarcasm.

Someone else commented on the idea of Conscience versus Morality earlier. They're totally different things in my mind. There is NO right to act in an improper or immoral manner so far as I'm concerned. Never has been and never will be.

If it's not codified into law, then who are you to dictate someone elses' morals? Morals are a self chosen code. The people that founded this country got that. If they wanted for us to live under biblical law, they would have written the laws that way.

Oh, it would definitely be codified into the Founding Documents of the country given my choice. There would not be a means to modify it either.

How is it ever right to destroy people homes and force them to move elsewhere? They have a name for that, you know.

I don't care.

 

[geauxtohell]

I never thought I'd see Geux and myself echoing each other for more than a line or two. Gee, this guy is the great uniter.

The neo-secessionists/"scrap it all" crowd have a talent for uniting liberals and conservatives.

 

[Anachronism]

Somehow I've an inkling that your morals, values are not likely to align with the majority. Thus you're for the simple solution, no matter how immoral it may be. You are not conservative in any sense. You are for anarchy.

You are correct that my morals and values do not generally agree with the majority of the brainless, politically correct, liberal sacks of crap that make up probably 90-95% of the American citizenry and 100% of the foreigners in the world.

LOL. Anarchy is the absolute LAST thing I want. It's the antithesis of what I believe in. I'm an AUTHORITARIAN. I believe in a nearly all-powerful government.

 

[geauxtohell]

That would have been my FATE. Such is life.

Or death in your case. Ironic that you haven't had to face the reality of what would have been your fate, but now would damn others to undertake.

As I've said repeatedly today, I truly feel that it's better to not live than to accept living in a society and place where there is nothing remaining of any value.

Simply because you refuse to see value doesn't mean it's non-existent.

No. In my fantasy world I either have the money to pay for my medical care or I don't get it. Whether that money comes from myself, my family, friends, etc.... it does not come forcibly from anyone in the form of taxes or forced giving. Natural Selection... let the weak and infirm improve the life of everyone else by ceasing to exist themselves.

Like I said. It's ironic you would deprive others of the care that has gotten you to however many years you are at this point in time.

Someone else commented on the idea of Conscience versus Morality earlier. They're totally different things in my mind. There is NO right to act in an improper or immoral manner so far as I'm concerned. Never has been and never will be.

Displacing people and burning them off their lands is both improper and immoral.

Oh, it would definitely be codified into the Founding Documents of the country given my choice. There would not be a means to modify it either.

Then that would be your will. Not the will of the people that founded this country. In other words, you want this country to be something it was never intended (and specifically intended not to) be.

I don't care.

Obviously. You can continue to huddle in whatever nook of society the rest of us afford you and your computer to occupy and be glad that you don't get your way.

If you did, you and the rest of the infirm would likely be the first to go or suffer the most.

As you noted, life is cruel. It's cruel in places like Afghanistan, which I've personally witnessed, and it could be cruel here. Thankfully, the level heads will prevail. You can come on board or stay angry about God knows what. It doesn't matter, you are irrelevant. Your proposed outcome is so horrible, no one will ever willingly go along with it.

BTW, your going to need a lot more time at the pistol range and gym if you have the misfortune of coming up against real soldiers with more than sidearms.

 

[geauxtohell]

Somehow I've an inkling that your morals, values are not likely to align with the majority. Thus you're for the simple solution, no matter how immoral it may be. You are not conservative in any sense. You are for anarchy.

You are correct that my morals and values do not generally agree with the majority of the brainless, politically correct, liberal sacks of crap that make up probably 90-95% of the American citizenry and 100% of the foreigners in the world.

LOL. Anarchy is the absolute LAST thing I want. It's the antithesis of what I believe in. I'm an AUTHORITARIAN. I believe in a nearly all-powerful government.

Hey, Annie, just for the record, this guy is on your side of the political spectrum.

I am already chock full of crazies on my end.

Who would have known that in this day and age a true fascist would exist?

 

[gekaap]

I don't know why people have been complaining about the US having a "winner take all" system as necessitating what is de facto a two party system. Maybe people don't understand the meaning of the phrase? If the US had more winner take all systems in use, a multi-party system would be more feasible. In a winner take all plurality election, the person with the most votes wins. Winner takes all. But the US often relies on an absolute majority system, which necessitates that a person gain a full majority of votes before being named winner. Such a system favors only two contestants and favors any multi-party system to eventually reduce to only two parties.

The truth is that Americans don't like winner take all pluralities. When Jesse Ventura was elected Gov. of Minnesota there was much ado about the fact that a Governor was elected by only 1/3 of the populace. Americans like having only two choices. It excuses them from actually having to think, and they've learned to enjoy getting screwed up the ass by the near absolute power of a winner in a two way election, and of a single party fully controlling things.

 

[Annie]

Somehow I've an inkling that your morals, values are not likely to align with the majority. Thus you're for the simple solution, no matter how immoral it may be. You are not conservative in any sense. You are for anarchy.

You are correct that my morals and values do not generally agree with the majority of the brainless, politically correct, liberal sacks of crap that make up probably 90-95% of the American citizenry and 100% of the foreigners in the world.

LOL. Anarchy is the absolute LAST thing I want. It's the antithesis of what I believe in. I'm an AUTHORITARIAN. I believe in a nearly all-powerful government.

Actually Hobbes was an authoritarian because he feared the world that the likes of you created.

 

[Annie]

Somehow I've an inkling that your morals, values are not likely to align with the majority. Thus you're for the simple solution, no matter how immoral it may be. You are not conservative in any sense. You are for anarchy.

You are correct that my morals and values do not generally agree with the majority of the brainless, politically correct, liberal sacks of crap that make up probably 90-95% of the American citizenry and 100% of the foreigners in the world.

LOL. Anarchy is the absolute LAST thing I want. It's the antithesis of what I believe in. I'm an AUTHORITARIAN. I believe in a nearly all-powerful government.

Hey, Annie, just for the record, this guy is on your side of the political spectrum.

I am already chock full of crazies on my end.

Who would have known that in this day and age a true fascist would exist?

Sorry, we will not accept this one, he's not anywhere near my thinking.

 

[Anachronism]

Or death in your case. Ironic that you haven't had to face the reality of what would have been your fate, but now would damn others to undertake.

It may still be my fate. If things go the way I expect, I'll be dead within the next decade... probably at my own hand.

Simply because you refuse to see value doesn't mean it's non-existent.

To me it does. That's all that matters to me.

Like I said. It's ironic you would deprive others of the care that has gotten you to however many years you are at this point in time.

36 long, miserable years that I often wonder if we wouldn't have all been better off if had never happened.

If you did, you and the rest of the infirm would likely be the first to go or suffer the most.

Again, better to be dead than to live in a society like the one we are headed towards.

Your proposed outcome is so horrible, no one will ever willingly go along with it.

Who has ever suggested that they would be given a choice?

BTW, your going to need a lot more time at the pistol range and gym if you have the misfortune of coming up against real soldiers with more than sidearms.

Again, I'm more than ready to die at their hands. It would be better than what I see out the window every day.

 

[Sheldon]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

Our "winner take all" system of elections promises a two party system. Even if you eliminated the GOP and DNC, two new parties would crop up. To get rid of the two party system, you would have to fundamentally change the way this country works.

If you wanted five parties, we would have to switch to a parliamentary system of government.

Good luck with that.

Yep.

And a multi-party system has it's own bag of drama. A big issue with our system imo is the gerrymandering. There's some places where it's not even close. The Dem or the Rep gets like 70 percent of the vote easily.

And it gets even more polarized at the state legislature level. I think the guy for my district won with almost 80 percent, and the same party has basically owned the district since I've been alive. That type of job security just insulates the representative, and gives no incentive to consider compromise. Ideological purging is another problem, but I think that has more to do with the voters and the media atmosphere, than the actual election system.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly, without fundamentally changing our system of government, there is no way to create a 3+ party system.

Deal with it.

Aside from the fact that you're wrong...
-I'm- not the one whining about the 2-party system.
But, then -I- understand that once the people decide to do somethng about it, it will be done. Nothing in the current system necessitates 2 prominent parties; nothing in the current system prevents 3+ prominent parties.

I am certainly not whining about the two party system. It is what it is. I recognize why third parties aren't viable in this country.

I suppose I could try and spell out "winner takes all" yet again, but at this point I am only left with recommended you exercise your library card.

Sigh.
What "winner takes all" system, and how does that create the effect you describe?

 

[geauxtohell]

Or death in your case. Ironic that you haven't had to face the reality of what would have been your fate, but now would damn others to undertake.

It may still be my fate. If things go the way I expect, I'll be dead within the next decade... probably at my own hand.

Simply because you refuse to see value doesn't mean it's non-existent.

To me it does. That's all that matters to me.



36 long, miserable years that I often wonder if we wouldn't have all been better off if had never happened.



Again, better to be dead than to live in a society like the one we are headed towards.

Your proposed outcome is so horrible, no one will ever willingly go along with it.

Who has ever suggested that they would be given a choice?

BTW, your going to need a lot more time at the pistol range and gym if you have the misfortune of coming up against real soldiers with more than sidearms.

Again, I'm more than ready to die at their hands. It would be better than what I see out the window every day.

Get help, man. Seriously. I won't talk to you anymore. It seems like you are dealing with enough.

 

[skeptic]

As long as were a country with 2 reining parties, were never going to get anywhere. It will continue to be Tit 4 Tat. We need something more like a 5 party system, to mix it up a little, so that we can move forward.

Members of both parties will just continue to toe the party line, you know it, and I know it.

"A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND"

A five party system would be better for the USA because of all the diverse people and cultures. Either we are, or were not, the melting pot of the world.

I find it an odd coincidence that the Dems and the repubs are aligned and polarized by the colors they wear, exactly as the crips and bloods are.

That should be instructional.

During the Medieval period “political” parties were non functional but they returned with the Renaissance.

As late in history as the time of The Renaissance political parties used colors as a quick way of identifying themselves. In the Age of Petrarch and Boccaccio, philosopher/historian Will Durant says (1304-75) in the “ - year 1302 in which the aristocratic party of the Neri (Blacks), having seized the government of Florence by force , exiled Dante (Alighieri), and other middle class Bianchi (Whites), the triumphant oligarchy indicted a White lawyer, Ser. Petracco on the charge of having falsified a legal document....- ”

The first quasi political organizations were the fanatical groups of citizens in the Roman Circus Maximus

“ - Factions were identified by their colors: Blue or Green, Red or White. [Emperor] Domitian added gold and purple but they, like the emperor, were never popular and short-lived. Colors first are recorded in the 70s BC, during the Republic, when Pliny the Elder relates that, at the funeral of a charioteer for the Reds, a distraught supporter threw himself on the pyre in despair, a sacrifice that was dismissed by the Whites as no more than the act of someone overcome by the fumes of burning incense.- ”

People have been identifying themselves as members of a tribe with colors for several thousand years. Celts, Scots etc use codes of arms and proprietary plaids while tribes in Africa use tribal colors in dyed clothing. This is as old as man.

But the crips and bloods and the dems and repubs use the same color scheme, a purely American fresco, if you will. And it isn't about tribes, but about fictional divisions.

When the north faced off against the south that was a real polarization. Blue and gray.

But the crips and bloods, dems and repubs are nearly identical, or 99.999999% identical groupings.

Their polarizations are A) manufactured B) not at all real C) specifically engineered divide and conquer events.

American partisans are chumps. Fools. Dupes. Pons. Puppets. Sheeple. Tarded.

 

[Annie]

Or death in your case. Ironic that you haven't had to face the reality of what would have been your fate, but now would damn others to undertake.

It may still be my fate. If things go the way I expect, I'll be dead within the next decade... probably at my own hand.



To me it does. That's all that matters to me.



36 long, miserable years that I often wonder if we wouldn't have all been better off if had never happened.



Again, better to be dead than to live in a society like the one we are headed towards.



Who has ever suggested that they would be given a choice?

BTW, your going to need a lot more time at the pistol range and gym if you have the misfortune of coming up against real soldiers with more than sidearms.

Again, I'm more than ready to die at their hands. It would be better than what I see out the window every day.

Get help, man. Seriously. I won't talk to you anymore. It seems like you are dealing with enough.

I thought the same, then saw him posting in another thread. Union member and leader. I don't think he's what he claims above. Just an emo troll.