Print

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

[Sheb]

RedKing, you're saying that the parties are increasingly polarized, and then go on ranting about how the Democrats aren't leftist enough.

Can you try to stay consistent within your posts?

[Bauglir]

That's not actually inconsistent.

Spoiler: The Distribution of Political Sentiment RedKing Would Like To See (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: The Distribution of Political Sentiment RedKing Does See (click to show/hide)

Not to say I necessarily agree, but the point is that polarization doesn't imply that each extreme is equally represented.

also maybe i'm misrepresenting RedKing's views here but that's beside my actual point >__________>

[alway]

"climate change causes terrorist attacks"

- Senator Sanders 2015

(I don't remember exactly what he said, but that's the gist of what he said.)

I could get behind that. I mean, people already commit terrorism, and if their homes are flooded/otherwise destroyed because of the negligence of the [perceived] Western industrial complex, then yeah, they're gonna go a-bombing.

Not just flooding or destructions; nor is it causing it primarily through ill-will. See, the major point here is that climate change induces drought, floods, and generally conditions that lead to a lack of fundamentally necessary goods like food and water. Historically, lacking such things on a widespread basis is just about the single most effective way to topple a government.

The so-called Arab Spring, for example, which included the Syria uprising, was in large part triggered by a big spike in food prices, exacerbated by climate change. The large number of refugees fleeing war and famine is thus very much influenced by climate change, as are the conflicts they flee, and the criminal acts committed against innocents.

Don't believe me? Well, in that case, try believing the Department of Defense report on the matter. http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710

[RedKing]

No, I'm saying that there's no more "big tent" where two parties can encompass the majority of the US political spectrum. Views increasingly have to line up across multiple issues (economic, military, abortion, civil liberties, social justice, environmental, gun control etc) or else a candidate is deemed a RINO or a blue-dog Dem and they get primaried to death.

Look at the shit Sanders is taking for not being stringent on gun control. Look at the shit Kasich is taking for not being a rabid xenophobe. Think about how hard it is to get elected these days as a pro-life Democrat or pro-choice Republican. A Republican that believes in climate change, or a Democrat that's against multiculturalism. We treat all these values and concepts as if they're inextricably linked in a package deal.

EDIT: Polarized was probably a poor word choice. Maybe "convergent"?

[Aklyon]

So we need an actual third party, then?

[RedKing]

We need several. And we need the main parties to shrink down to their true constituency, not just filled with a lot of people who are "well, I sorta like these guys but not really, but they're a better choice than those guys".

Voter apathy is so high because very few people are voting FOR something, they're voting AGAINST something. I've long described myself as Anti-Republican, but never as a Democrat.

[smjjames]

So we need an actual third party, then?

Basically, yes.

Only problem is our first past the post system and neither party will allow candidates with views outside their party boundaries to join into debates (see Larry Lessig).

Not to mention that it's pretty difficult for a third party to break through because of the spoiler phenomenon, any third party or independent candidate will inevitably take more from one party or the other, thus splitting the republican or democrat vote with the party nominee.

It's not that there isn't a third party, theres a whole bunch of them, it's that the two main are preventing them from gaining traction.

[Bauglir]

i mean, is there literally anybody in this thread who doesn't know why we only have the two parties?

[sluissa]

How is it then, that third parties have managed to gain traction in other FPTP governments? Canada and the UK both have pretty strong third parties

[Bauglir]

Parliamentary systems go a long way toward helping. I'm also not too clear on how their districting rules work and such; there's a contribution from gerrymandering, since it's locked up the House.

[mainiac]

No, I'm saying that there's no more "big tent" where two parties can encompass the majority of the US political spectrum. Views increasingly have to line up across multiple issues (economic, military, abortion, civil liberties, social justice, environmental, gun control etc) or else a candidate is deemed a RINO or a blue-dog Dem and they get primaried to death.

How the fuck are the democrats not a big tent party?  Like abortion is almost (but not quite) a litmus test for democrats but beyond that they'll accept anything that resembles a functioning government.  Look at the signature democratic legislation recently.

Some democrats wanted to keep the market system where it existed and keep the socialized system where it existed
Some democrats wanted single payer
Some democrats wanted a mixed market system with government and privately run plans
Some democrats wanted to keep the market system but nationalize more of the health insurance industry

And what did we actually get?
Well we mostly got the market system where it existed but reformed the market failures
We got and and expansion of the socialized system into underserved markets (medicare part D reforms, medicaid expansions)
We got a pilot program of single payer (Vermont, it didn't work)
We didn't get the public option because a democrat got replaced by a republican in the senate and the only way to get the legislation was to pass the version without the public option

So the democrats tried over and over and over again to try all of the above, make the biggest tent they possibly fucking could.  They only stopped when they lost their control of the senate and had no possible hope of making any additional changes to the bill if it would pass.  The democrats desperately tried to get the republicans to accept anything, anything at all but the republicans wanted no law whatsoever.

And as a result of this they got fucking slaughtered in the midterms.  The bill was debated, debated and debated some more but that just made it more unpopular.  People didn't say "well gee, this bill tries to reach out and try anything that might work".  They said "well republicans dont like it so it must not be inclusive".

American voters get a much better government then they deserve, tbh.

[smjjames]

How is it then, that third parties have managed to gain traction in other FPTP governments? Canada and the UK both have pretty strong third parties

The UK has a whole lot smaller population (and easier to split up) for starters, and Canada actually has a bit more than half of the UKs population, but that can't be the whole story.

@maniac "American voters get a much better government then they deserve, tbh.": Are you saying you want the polarization and gridlock to be worse than it is now?

[SalmonGod]

Mass Surveillance
Government Secrecy
Police Militarization
Military-Industrial Complex
Whistleblower Protection
Environment

Give me a party that provides more than weak lip service to my interests on these topics.

[smjjames]

Mass Surveillance
Government Secrecy
Police Militarization
Military-Industrial Complex
Whistleblower Protection
Environment

Give me a party that provides more than weak lip service to my interests on these topics.

Government Secrecy and Whistleblower Protection are kind of mutually exclusive, at least idelogically.

Also, what are your interests on the topics? are you for or against police militarization?, are you for or against the military industrial complex?, are you for or against mass survelliance?, are you for or against the environment?, are you for or against whistleblower protection?

Just listing the topics tells us nothing on your positions, just like listing guns doesn't tell us whether you're pro-gun or not.

[Helgoland]

Come on, you know ol' SG well enough to guess his positions.