EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3054
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:39 OtherWorld wrote: A question to you Americans : from what we can see so far in these primaries we can assume that a lot of people in the US are starting to get bored of the two traditional parties' view of the world. Thus, do you think it is possible that the election system will change - through whatever means - to make it less bipartisan? Trump and Sanders figured out the way to run as a third party in the presidential election... and that's to run in the Republican and Democrat primaries. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:39 OtherWorld wrote: A question to you Americans : from what we can see so far in these primaries we can assume that a lot of people in the US are starting to get bored of the two traditional parties' view of the world. Thus, do you think it is possible that the election system will change - through whatever means - to make it less bipartisan? I would argue we are watching a 4 party election in the form of a 4 man tournament. In a way, we're already there. Just in tournament format. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22525 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:32 xDaunt wrote: Well, there's little point in getting bogged down in the details with various members of the rank and file are. They don't really matter, because they are largely under the boot of the current establishment. If you're a congressman or a senator, you're basically coerced into towing the party line, or your political career is over. You may get elected by the folks back home, but you will not advance up the ladder and hold important posts. This is how it works in both parties. This is Ted Cruz's root problem. He's conservatism incarnate: a pure ideologue who will not compromise his conservative values for anything. He refuses to play by the rules of the establishment and he rubs their noses in their own corruption. Because he refuses to play the game and make any compromise whatsoever, he's reviled by everyone in Washington. If conservatives are honest with themselves, they'll understand that Ted's rock solid conservativism is his biggest liability and weakness as a presidential candidate. But back to the problems with the republican party: the root cause of what's happening is the divorce between the whims of the republicans leadership (the establishment) and the desires of the average republican voter. The magnitude of the disenfranchisement and betrayal is huge. Again, let me remind everyone that Jeb Bush kicked off his campaign to a presumably easy nomination by announcing that he was going to win the nomination without cowing to the republican base. I agree with pretty much your entire post but think its worth noting that Jeb's refusal to cow to the base has a strong basis in that doing so makes its much harder (if not impossible) to win the general election. Its pointless to win a battle by guaranteeing you lose the war. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:00 thePunGun wrote: You linked me an article that begins, "The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy," as I said. Forgive my brevity--I am not going to enumerate the bits and pieces that stitch together privacy in some areas unless somebody has wild assertions. I responded to some vague articulations in the post you quoted. You can read in your link what the courts have done, as I wrote.This might enlighten you 2: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html Call me google  | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:39 OtherWorld wrote: Bored is hardly the term. Sanders supporters reacted with energy to the dem's premature crowning of Clinton. Republicans didn't want another amnesty go-along-to-get-along candidate in Jeb Bush. Both are rebellions within the party structure to remake the party--remake from within. A question to you Americans : from what we can see so far in these primaries we can assume that a lot of people in the US are starting to get bored of the two traditional parties' view of the world. Thus, do you think it is possible that the election system will change - through whatever means - to make it less bipartisan? I don't think either big reaction will undo the two-party system, if that's what you mean by "election system." Any third party swing will weaken whichever side it draws support away from, leading to a gain in the opposing party. I think the Democrst's super delegate structure could change from riled Bernie supporters. "Less bipartisan?" You'd have to explain what you mean by this. In America it refers to policies/bills/erg supported by both parties. If you mean three party+ politics, I think not. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote: I agree with pretty much your entire post but think its worth noting that Jeb's refusal to cow to the base has a strong basis in that doing so makes its much harder (if not impossible) to win the general election. Its pointless to win a battle by guaranteeing you lose the war. Do you know who's doing what Jeb wanted to do? Trump. The difference is that Trump doesn't treat the base with contempt. He tries to be inclusive. Jeb, Romney, and McCain all antagonized the base. Jeb just did it the most flagrantly (and his last name didn't help). | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22525 Posts
On February 27 2016 09:37 xDaunt wrote: Do you know who's doing what Jeb wanted to do? Trump. The difference is that Trump doesn't treat the base with contempt. He tries to be inclusive. Jeb, Romney, and McCain all antagonized the base. Jeb just did it the most flagrantly (and his last name didn't help). How is Trump not cowing to the republican base of racist misogynists? Are you actually serious? | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
jeb decided early on to try and avoid winning the battle and losing the war. too bad he lost the battle really badly and never made it to the war. i see what he tried to do, he just misunderestimated the situation. not the first time a bush has done that. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18413 Posts
On February 27 2016 09:57 puerk wrote: trump is "inclusive".... now i heard it all... Sure he is. He includes all white mysogenists. Apparently these overlap quite a bit with the Republican base. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6395 Posts
On February 27 2016 09:49 Gorsameth wrote: How is Trump not cowing to the republican base of racist misogynists? Are you actually serious? If only one half of the American political system were actually built on a base of racists and misogynists. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Can you imagine that one of these two children is going to be the Republican nominee in the general election to become president of the United States, the most powerful country on Earth? It's mind-blowing. One's an ignorant and xenophobic blowhard, the other's an opportunistic slimeball who passes talking points for knowledge and who's several decades late on societal issues. They have no stature whatsoever. The U.S. population can really thank the Democrats for bailing them out of that one. Hopefully next time people like Nikki Halley run, so we can have an actual contest between serious candidates (even though I oppose Halley on more issues than I can count). If she was the governor of a swing state, she'd be a safe bet for the VP pick. She might still be chosen, we'll see. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 27 2016 10:46 kwizach wrote: Rubio labels Trump a ‘con artist,’ Trump responds with ‘Mr. Meltdown’ Can you imagine that one of these two children is going to be the Republican nominee in the general election to become president of the United States, the most powerful country on Earth? It's mind-blowing. One's an ignorant and xenophobic blowhard, the other's an opportunistic slimeball who passes talking points for knowledge and who's several decades late on societal issues. They have no stature whatsoever. The U.S. population can really thank the Democrats for bailing them out of that one. Hopefully next time people like Nikki Halley run, so we can have an actual contest between serious candidates (even though I oppose Halley on more issues than I can count). If she was the governor of a swing state, she'd be a safe bet for the VP pick. She might still be chosen, we'll see. We're getting the rejects. No one wanted to run against Clinton except Sanders, lol. | ||
|
zf
231 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:39 OtherWorld wrote: A question to you Americans : from what we can see so far in these primaries we can assume that a lot of people in the US are starting to get bored of the two traditional parties' view of the world. Thus, do you think it is possible that the election system will change - through whatever means - to make it less bipartisan? The parties might change, but the two-party system won't. Because of the structure of our government and electoral system--we have a presidential system and single-member districts--no third-party candidate has ever received anything approaching the plurality of votes. That's been the case for two hundred years. And it won't change now. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6395 Posts
On February 27 2016 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Either way by the looks of it the next POTUS will be a one termer. Are you talking about age here? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:32 xDaunt wrote: Well, there's little point in getting bogged down in the details with various members of the rank and file are. They don't really matter, because they are largely under the boot of the current establishment. If you're a congressman or a senator, you're basically coerced into towing the party line, or your political career is over. You may get elected by the folks back home, but you will not advance up the ladder and hold important posts. This is how it works in both parties. This is Ted Cruz's root problem. He's conservatism incarnate: a pure ideologue who will not compromise his conservative values for anything. He refuses to play by the rules of the establishment and he rubs their noses in their own corruption. Because he refuses to play the game and make any compromise whatsoever, he's reviled by everyone in Washington. If conservatives are honest with themselves, they'll understand that Ted's rock solid conservativism is his biggest liability and weakness as a presidential candidate. But back to the problems with the republican party: the root cause of what's happening is the divorce between the whims of the republicans leadership (the establishment) and the desires of the average republican voter. The magnitude of the disenfranchisement and betrayal is huge. Again, let me remind everyone that Jeb Bush kicked off his campaign to a presumably easy nomination by announcing that he was going to win the nomination without cowing to the republican base. Ted Cruz is corrupt. Look at his views on net neutrality for example. | ||
| ||
