Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[SalmonGod]

Despite all the attention the right earns itself, social progress does keep marching on.  So on that point I think he's right.  When lefties post those pictures of racist protesters during the civil rights movement captioned "This is what the opposition to gay rights will look like in 20 years", what they're saying is "we're the future".

But while the left is winning on the social front, it's also losing disgracefully on the environmental and economic fronts.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

you're the future?

wow m8 are you gonna found the lcs that's the most fucking selfish thing to say i can imagine right now

i'm siding with frump here

You expect social and fiscal conservatism to endure into 2030? 2050? 2100? That's a laugh, especially for the former. We are experiencing a technological (and by extension, social) paradigm shift that will make the old ways of doing things impossible. Why do you think all the classic systems of economics and politics are experiencing such huge difficulty? And besides that, conservative thought has failed pretty hard to capture both Gen X and Gen Y. Unless there are some serious changes soon, simple demographics are going to win out on this front.

So I'm not selfish (well, I am, but not like that). I can do math.

[Descan]

Well like I said in the first place, that's the "best possible world" version of conservatism. Sanitized and such. What most conservatives would tell you they believe and probably try and emulate, at least to a degree.

[Helgoland]

Of course fiscal conservatism will endure! It's been there in all the previous economic systems, why should it end now?
Social conservatism, too. The issues will change, but conservatism is a relative term - the conservative positions of 2100 may very well be the positions that you hold now, MSH.

[Sergarr]

What's Gen X and Gen Y?

[Darvi]

What's Gen X and Gen Y?

Gen 6.

[Frumple]

Gen X and Gen Y. Ranges of birth years, generally. X is around the 60s 'till early 80s, Y (also known as millennials) is mid-late 80s through 2000 or so. There's pretty marked shifts in cultural trends between them and the ones before 'em. I kinda' like to think of it as the "You assholes left us with bigger problems than who our neighbor is porking" generations.

[smjjames]

I am definetly gen Y, even though birth year is 1983.

[10ebbor10]

We're the future, and to some extent we're the majority. I'm convinced the right, or at least the insane right, can be indefinitely contained with the correct application of effective politics and democratic reform. Once that's done cooperating with more center-minded people is a good idea, but for now it should be a goal to claim the center and hold it, rather than try to be bipartisan.

There's a lot in presentation. The Right, for example, has had a pretty good hold on the concept of manliness for some time now. Men don't want to appear unmanly, so they tend to support the right more often. You'll note how that has absolutely nothing to do with what they actually believe in politically or morally. I'm not saying that bleeding heart flower children need to be expunged, but they cannot be solely representative of the left, like they have been. It turns off people who would otherwise be helpful.

Mostly, I think this is a result of America's two party system. (Not to forget Gerrymandering and other undemocratic practices).

Due to that, some minor beliefs have far more strength than they have support, because they latch on to other more popular parties. And it's not like the party is going to loose votes due to that (there being only 2 parties and all that) which results in the tendency that the craziest people have to much to say.

[smjjames]

It would be great for the US to become a multi (as in more than two) party system (more options for one), but the system seems to be tailored for a two party system and it's tough for a third party to get significant votes in a statewide or nationwide race.

[Owlbread]

What would need to happen to the US system in order to develop a multi-party system?

[10ebbor10]

Get rid of first past the post elements in the system, create independent organisations to maintain voting districts, and restrict the ability for civilians and corporations to fund election campaigns.

The first one is the biggest though. Link

[smjjames]

Technically we already are since there are many parties other than the dominant two, it's just tough for them to get into statewide or even nationwide positions. Even though theres the tea party, it's still a subset of the republican party.

We have had third parties before like Teddy Roosevelts Bull Moose party, which was a split in the replublican party.

The biggest third party in the US is the Green party I believe, which is actually pretty young of a political group, compared to the Democrats and Republicans.

Get rid of first past the post elements in the system, create independent organisations to maintain voting districts, and restrict the ability for civilians and corporations to fund election campaigns.

The first one is the biggest though. Link

Getting rid of the gerrymandering would definetly help.

[10ebbor10]

The fact that additional parties exists doesn't mean that it's not a two party system.

A two-party system is a system where two major political parties dominate politics within a government

Even the Bull Moose party, which was unusually succesfull, never managed to have any meaningfull effect on politics. (Well, it did have an effect, in that it weakened the Republicans and ensured a Democrat victory)

It's that that is the primary problem of a FPTP system. The creation of a third party similar to one of the other parties will be a net gain for the other party.

[Helgoland]

Revolution, or losing a major war on home territory.

FTFY