EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9312
| 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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On November 24 2017 00:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think it's unlikely that FPTP is changed before there's a legitimate third party with a shot at winning states. Just wildly hypothesizing, I have the easiest time imagining this party being part of a new center. Like republicans have already gone hard right, democrats might be going hard left, that'd open up for democrats who aren't up for increased taxes or republicans who aren't up for trump era crazy. If it's just the left segment refusing to vote democrat, republicans would not consider that an incentive to abandon FPTP - both parties have to bleed voters. I definitely agree with you on the first sentence, and that's how I imagine any significant change could actual happen. But I think it is more likely that the Democrats will remain the center considering who are funding them and the control those funds have on the party now. The Clinton-esque people who are in charge of the party are pretty much fiscal conservatives (moreso than the Republicans, who like to build up debt, yes?), not particularly anti-war, don't do much of anything on social issues, etc. We are already seeing moderate Republicans considering their position on the party as it has moved further right. The actual left - like GreenHorizon - already either holds their nose while they vote for the Democrats or doesn't vote at all. I think you can definitely sap like half of the current Democrats if those ex-Republicans get a bigger foothold in the Democratic party (thereby bringing over some more Republican voters). That would even things out quite a lot. But it would be a long struggle to grow such a group in the form of a 3rd party (People's Party, Workers Party, Labor Party, whatever) in the way described by Nick Brana. Definitely not something done overnight. Shouldn't stop people from aspiring to it though. Everyone objecting to it are just a bunch of cynical bastards. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14207 Posts
If a third presidential canidate can get enough electoral votes to prevent another canidate from getting 270 then the nation would be plunged into chaos in a constitutional crisis the nation hasn't seen in 250 years or so. That's probably what the third parties are thinking will happen. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote: No shit GH. All the parties should be better. Third parties should stop trying to shoot the moon and do nothing else. The democrats should do better and learn from mistakes. But guess what? It will take years or decades. It took decades to legalize gay marriage. Took decades to make abortions legal. So strap in for years of hard work and stop calling everyone stupid for realizing it's gunna take a while. I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't think saying "the only way FPTP is for x to happen" is true beacuse public opinion might shift over time and things might just go meh. If a third presidential canidate can get enough electoral votes to prevent another canidate from getting 270 then the nation would be plunged into chaos in a constitutional crisis the nation hasn't seen in 250 years or so. That's probably what the third parties are thinking will happen. I don't see why it woudl be a "constitutional crisis" since it's pretty clear what would happen in that case. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm criticizing them for being on the wrong side of that struggle, not for recognizing there will be many fights. Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote: Considering the the third parties in the county are just as big of failures as the democrats, I'm not convinced it was a clear choice. There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14207 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:19 zlefin wrote: I don't see why it woudl be a "constitutional crisis" since it's pretty clear what would happen in that case. It would be clear what proceduraly would happen but no one knows how the public will react to the process being dug up and the president being decided by congress. God forbid a congress that doesn't change hands during the election. God forbid a congress that can't agree on a president. God forbid one side not accepting the results. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote: There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. Just remember that you had literally nothing to do with my change in view. If anything, your attitude and general holier than though arguments delayed the process. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote: Just remember that you had literally nothing to do with my change in view. If anything, your attitude and general holier than though arguments delayed the process. Tell yourself whatever you have to, as long as you're less wrong now than you were before the election, I call that a win for everyone. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Tell yourself whatever you have to, as long as you're less wrong now than you were before the election I call that a win for everyone. As this post demonstrates, you are a shit advocate for your political views. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote: There's a clear choice. The Democrats are shit and refusing to admit it. Either you support their ignorance because you've convinced yourself you have no other choice or you call them out. To put some context on it; I think you're moving at a reasonable rate, others, not so much. or your side is shit and you refuse to admit it. there's been plenty of evidence to prove that point just as well. mostly you're just a revolutionary ideologue. here's the thing: you want some mystical 3rd party and think everything will be better after the revolution. whereas in reality-land: a new 3rd party will have the same issues as the old ones; the problems are not with the parties themselves, but iwth the nature of power. I see no reason to believe this new party of yours will be magically free of corruption, or indeed any significantly different in the amount of it. If there's a new party, that party will also be affected by corporate influence, because power influencing power is how things work. Or, they'll go down the crazy route like maduro in venezuela, which is obviously far FAR worse than being affected by corporate influence. PS agree with p6 that you're really bad at getting people to your side, and a terrible advocate. You might even be worse at convincing people than me, which would be shocking considering how terrible I am at that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On November 24 2017 01:34 Plansix wrote: As this post demonstrates, you are a shit advocate for your political views. I'm not a shit advocate, you're just pissed I was right (to whatever degree you admit) and that's normal. I do my advocating on the streets. This is more of a place to hear more articulate and well read opposing positions then I typically encounter in the street and argue my position confidently against them (and venting a little of the "how could you really think this crap?!?") while patching up weak spots. Admittedly, it's become less useful as I've shifted my focus away from people that this group would be representative of. But people slowly and begrudgingly coming to the positions you were telling them months or years ago certainly has it's own satisfaction. + Show Spoiler + Trying to change minds on the internet... pfft... who do you think I am? Russia? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On November 24 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote: Whatever you need to tell yourself. Well played You have a response to mine about that rally or no? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
The whole cut off the nose to spite the face approach just leads to a whole lot of nothing. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On November 24 2017 02:30 WolfintheSheep wrote: Said it before, if you want political change, you either vote, or you stage a revolution and roll the dice with the aftermath. The whole cut off the nose to spite the face approach just leads to a whole lot of nothing. If you want political change you need to work hard for years to slowly gather a movement around your goals. Voting only comes in halfway through. Once you have the votes you need to work for years to enact the changes. And all the while you need to brush aside the cynical cunts that say it can't be done, of course. | ||
| ||
