palou said:
You can do both, you know?
While there is no evidence that Trump himself is included in any of it, there is quite a bit of evidence tha t several members of his staff, both during campaign and in office, have been communicating more with russians than they should have (Flynn...) |
I do criticise Trump. There was even a no-so-veiled insult hurled at Trump in the OP in that he is incoherent.
vivster said:
Probably because nothing is actually happening? No sentence, no new details, no drunken twitter rants. You see the word "new" in "news"? That's kind of a requirement. |
Well no evidence has been presented for the Russia stuff either. I know Trump is the President and so the focus is on him, but the media bias is still clear as day. They simply hate him. Partly because he insults them at every turn and partly because he is easy to make fun of, but I think they mostly just lean to the left in the MSM.
jason1637 said:
"Dumbass voters" because people don't vote the way you'd like then to vote they are dumbasses lol.
As for the DNC and GOP being done away with and new parties are establish there would still be a liberal party that former democrats would end up joining and a conservative party that former republicans will end up joining. The parties aren't the problem it's those that are in the parties. |
The problem is that the american electoral system (first past the post) encourages the establishment of a 2-party system.
As with everything else, competition creates quality, in politics. But the democrats and republicans currently are the only option for people that feel inclined to the left/right. In an electoral system that is more open to the creation of new parties, the established need to constantly make sure that their voters are all satisfied, not only with general affiliation (which is the only thing that destinguishes GOP and DNC currently), but also in quality.
In a proportional parliamentary system, it would be possible for a third party with very close ideology to just replace the current left/right party, if the public is dissatisfied with their current representatives (what happend with the french leftist party, which completely collapsed after Holland). In the american system, splitting off makes sure that the opposing ideology is guaranteed to win.
Bet with PeH:
I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.
Bet with WagnerPaiva:
I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.
Shadow1980 said:
Pretty much this. We need some form of proportional representation for House of Representatives elections, and some form of runoff system (either IRV or a 2-round system) for Senate and Presidential elections, the latter of which should be a national popular vote only. |
So you want the german system for the House of Representatives, and the french system for presidential elections?
Bet with PeH:
I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.
Bet with WagnerPaiva:
I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.
| Shadow1980 said: Damn it. When will Bernie Bros. realize that he lost because he simply didn't have as much popular support as Hillary did? Polls showed Hillary with a solid lead throughout most the primaries. By time the polling gap closed (which it did only temporarily), it was already April, and by that point Hillary already had an insurmoutable lead in the vote total and pledged delegate count. If the primaries all took place in mid-April, Bernie might have squeaked out a narrow victory, but that's not how primaries are held. Bernie's share of the vote is entirely consistent with the polling data, and there's no evidence that either was rigged. And I'm saying this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primaries (but had enough sense to vote for Hillary in the general election because "Bernie or Bust," especially in the face of the prospect of getting Trump for president, was obviously a fucking stupid sentiment).
|
As a "Bro" who supported Bernie, I never thought the vote count was wrong or illegitimate. However, the massive advantages Clinton had from the party and backers that carried a weak candidate to the most embarassing loss in modern presidential history. Look at the polls now. Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, while Clinton polls as poorly as Trump.
The Democrats have been content to be the whipping party of Washington Generals to the Republicans Harlem Globetrotters. If they don't change they will blow 2018 and 2020 as well even though they have popular support on nearly every major policy position. I'm not worrie dabout the past, it is done, but I am concerned no lessons were learned and that Medicare for all will be a dream deferred for another decade in the US.
Mr Puggsly said:
Yeah, scary thought. Thanks DNC! |
Never thought I would say that too but yeah, thanks DNC!
Even if Trump had lost, I'll take Hillary's relatively harmless corruption/evil as compared to Bernie's socialist nightmare evil.
palou said:
The problem is that the american electoral system (first past the post) encourages the establishment of a 2-party system.
As with everything else, competition creates quality, in politics. But the democrats and republicans currently are the only option for people that feel inclined to the left/right. In an electoral system that is more open to the creation of new parties, the established need to constantly make sure that their voters are all satisfied, not only with general affiliation (which is the only thing that destinguishes GOP and DNC currently), but also in quality.
In a proportional parliamentary system, it would be possible for a third party with very close ideology to just replace the current left/right party, if the public is dissatisfied with their current representatives (what happend with the french leftist party, which completely collapsed after Holland). In the american system, splitting off makes sure that the opposing ideology is guaranteed to win. |
I agree that the system we have favors two large parties but there are other parties that cant seem to get elected. People are so attached to the two main parties that they are scared to vote for third party because they think doing that will help the other main party. If people can be more accepting of other parties in a large scale then a new party can be established as a big contender.
Maybe one day people will wake up and realize that both Dems and Repubs are evil, not just the Repubs.
Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!
Check out my Twitch Channel!:
www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames
The only thing that surprised me following the last election is that the Democratic Party wasn't forced to drop their unelected "superdelegates" that essentially allow them to ignore their voters and pick their own candidate.
Such a feature is not present in the Republican party, so it certainly isn't some universal backbone of party politics... Of course, if Republicans had superdelegates we'd probably have President Marco Rubio in the oval office instead of Trump, and I must admit that sounds preferable.
Unfortunately, no matter what -Trump would've won if it whether it be Hillary or Bernie. Hillary had a higher chance of winning and lost anyway. Bernie had absolutely no chance due to him being considered 'socialist' which to Americans is the second worst thing a politician can be besides Communist. Americans picked a facist over a socialist because they're too uneducated to realize socialism isnt as scary as they think.
But going with the OP, the DNC should be held responsible for their actions but likely wont due to the chaotic nature of the orange attention whore. He'd rather sabotage his own presidency than let others steal his spotlight
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
