Do we have a Democrat Hypocrisy thread anywhere? 
[/quote]
No hypocrisy here. âRepubeâ is overtly insulting, and not couched in plausible deniability, nor is it subject to accidental use by those who donât know betterâŚ[/quote]Which makes it sound like deliberate trolling. :no-no:
A few points:
-
President Obama and Senate Democrats have expressed a willingness to accept US$4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years in return for US$1 trillion in new revenues over the same period.
-
The House Republicans, including Majority Leader Cantor, have defied Speaker Boehner and refused to compromise.
-
Raising taxes on the rich and instituting a flat tax are polar opposites. In 2009, 51% of Americans filing income taxes paid no federal income taxes. An across the board flat tax would significantly raise taxes on the working and middle classes.
There is little value in having a third party when one party is already willing to compromise and the other isnât.
Why? One of the major roadblocks is the (perceived) need to get a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. Used to be that wasnât necessary, or, if it were, the relative independence of Senators made interest-based coalitions and compromise possible. If a minor third party, not an ideological party, but one willing to compromise, were to capture just enough Senate seats so as to make (party- or interest-based) coalitions possible again, thatâd be interesting. Two willing-to-compromise parties would certainly shake things up.
I think. Or, maybe not. You might simply end up with a group of swing-vote kleptocrats.
The OP has suggested the need for a third party based on the premise that the Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to compromise. But the premise is false.
I acknowledge that there are other reasons why one may want a viable third party in the US. But what would be its platform? The two parties pitch broad tents, and itâs difficult to imagine any sort of novel platform. A third party would effectively just mix and match planks from the major partiesâ platform, perhaps based on a common theme. For example, a Christian party that is both pro-life and pro-social justice is easily imaginable.
Even with a third party, the equation still gets reduced down to only two parties in the end. Take this example.
Party A has 25 arrows
Party B has 20 arrows
Party C has only 10 arrows
Each party gets to take one shot, and then the next party plays. Now both parties A and B can attack Party C and eliminate the weakest element fairly quickly. But in truth, each party has to attack a stronger player. If Party A attacks Party C, and uses 10 arrows, now Party A only had 15 arrows. At that point, Party B can attack Party A and possibly win. The same if Party B attacks Party C. So Party A and Party B should attack each other during each round. In this case, the weakest player, Party C, can come from behind and even the score. But in the end, someone will be eliminated and then we are back to the same old two party problem.
One of the biggest problems with government, any government, as we are seeing clearly in the world today, is that there is no way to control government spending. We have this complex system of checks and balances, but there is no effective system in place to slow down the expenses created by people in politics.
Which brings us to the problem of taxes. If you lower taxes, they say, employers will have more money to spend, and will build bigger companies, hiring more employees. So in the end, you will have more people paying taxes, and although the taxes are lower, you will collect more money.
But I can see one real problem with this argument. When employers get more money (due to lower taxes), they donât always invest all of it back into the company. They pocket some. They pay back shareholders. In essence, the rich get richer.
On the other hand, you canât just raise taxes all the time. Thereâs actually a theoretical limit to how high taxes can go anyway. If taxes get to high, people will stop working, because it will be easier to make money off of welfare than to go to work and lose half of what you make to the government.
So I donât think the solution is in how we handle taxes. Thatâs just political positioning between the two parties. It goes back to finding a way to control government spending, which is something neither party wants you to focus on.
I still donât think splintering the electorate is going to work. The major problem is party politics and it isnât going to be solved by adding more parties. I stand by what I said about the electroate becoming polarized. Itâs no longers about issues or competence. Itâs about Red or Blue.
In away this thread is a good example of that. A simple typo was enough to send one poster into fits. And why? Because the resulting typo (Democrat party) has been used as a perjorative by some conservative commentaters. It got me wondering.
- Why the outrage? Democrat party is hardly insulting by itself, thereâs no profanity that I can see
- Is there some sort of context Iâm missing? Or, is it because it is merely a corruption of a name? If that is the reason then it would be pretty silly, pretty much on the level of something like âsmelly / shellyâ. I got over that kind of thing when I was six.
- What the hell is a hardcore democrat paying so much attention to what Limbaugh and others are saying anyways? Iâm not a Democrat and even I donât pay attention to Limbaugh et al.
This last point is the most worrisome. If it is true that democrats watch these programs, to what end? Do they stay glued to the media waiting for these people to say something they can get outraged about? Have they become addicted to feeling this outrage and now pay rapt attention to the right wing media hoping for a chance to hear something that makes them feel justified in feeling righteous anger towards others?
I used to find the resulting outburst on this forum ammusing. Now Iâm starting to find it sad and a little bit frightening.
You say âcommentatrosâ you better be ready go to fist city.
:roflmao:
LOL, well I guess someday Iâll learn to stop multitasking when posting. Sigh.
The OP has suggested the need for a third party based on the premise that the Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to compromise. But the premise is false.
I acknowledge that there are other reasons why one may want a viable third party in the US. But what would be its platform? The two parties pitch broad tents, and itâs difficult to imagine any sort of novel platform. A third party would effectively just mix and match planks from the major partiesâ platform, perhaps based on a common theme. For example, a Christian party that is both pro-life and pro-social justice is easily imaginable.[/quote]
But thatâs the thing. I would be all about a party that had Christian principles and was pro-social justice (seeing how social justice is a Christian principle anyway.) There are so many issues that people who identify with one party want, but canât vote for someone with those principles because they are from another party.
For example: My dad is a crazy right wing conservative. Watches Hannity, OâReilly, Fox and Friends, and all that. He doesnât listen to Limbaugh, because Limbaugh is mentally insane. Anyway, my dad is a union worker and he was all about shaking up the government, sweeping change, fiscal reform, etc, but he refused to vote for Obama based on the Abortion issue and gun rights.
So what Iâm saying isâŚwhy canât there be a party that splits the best of both worlds while simultaneously staying away from lobbyist and political interest groups. I mean, the problem with well-intentioned candidates from either major party is that they have to put up with the âapproval monstersâ that are watching them every step of the way. I truly believe that every single president came into office intending to do good things, and intending to hold up to his campaign promises, and then was simply unable to because of having to play politics, being sensitive to all the special interest groups, pandering for donations for his next election and so on. Itâs ridiculous.
BUTâŚif you had a party that already had the best of both worlds, as far as the American people were concerned (in other words, held the political stance favored by the majority of Americanâs on each issue) it would be hard to lose elections once you got your name in the media and became well known.
This is a little far fetched, but play along. What if you had a party that:
-Supported gun ownership rights
-Supported eliminating the federal income tax altogether and just instituting a nationwide sales tax (effectively forcing everyone to pay taxes, even people with âoff the booksâ income, like pimps)
-Supported taxing companies that sent jobs overseas, while giving tax incentives to those who kept them here, thus creating jobs for Americans again.
-Could come to a compromise on Abortion. For example; establishing that human life begins when you can hear a heartbeat. This way, after 8 weeks or so, abortions are illegal. Then both sides win a little, and both sides give a little: compromise.
-Supported sustained energy and weaning off of fossil fuels.
-Resisted war if there was even the slightest shadow of a doubt about the warâs purpose or intentions (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, so forth).
-Supported welfare programs, but enforced regulations requiring beneficiaries to do community service as their âjobâ until they no longer needed welfare, set welfare term limits, and enforced drug testing on those receiving welfare
I may just be spitballing here, but most of these are broadly supported standpoints according to the most recent polls I could find (save for the abortion issue, since its such a polarizing issue).
If you could honestly get enough people, with enough self-made money or grassroots money, to run on platforms like that and serve the interests of the PEOPLE and not special interest groups, I think you could bring about serious change in Washington. Because the fact of the matter is, for now at least, neither party cares what their constituents think, but rather what can keep their party in power and get them reelected.
Itâs all academic. In a winner take all system like the US, a two party system very quickly emerges. Winner take all systems with a genuine third party, like the UK, are uncommon. The reasons are logical and mathematical â pretty soon the third parties are wiped out by the two biggest, irrespective of their particular politics. Meanwhile the two biggest parties make all sorts of deals.
The real problem with the US is not that we have two parties. itâs that there is no meaningful difference between the two parties on key economic and foreign policy issues because the center-right establishment that runs the country doesnt permit that. No matter who I vote for in November, no progress will be made on ending our clinically insane wars in the Middle East, transitioning away from the fossil fuel economy toward a renewable energy driven all electric economy, instituting a universal health care program, terminating our growing security state, terminating corporate control of public life, and stopping the steadily rising wealth inequality in the US that is gradually destroying the nation. The social issues like gay marriage and abortion are trivial in their effect on the center-right corporate state and exist only to keep the electorate divided against itself and easily ruled.
Vorkosigan
[quote=âVorkosiganâ]Itâs all academic. In a winner take all system like the US, a two party system very quickly emerges. Winner take all systems with a genuine third party, like the UK, are uncommon. The reasons are logical and mathematical â pretty soon the third parties are wiped out by the two biggest, irrespective of their particular politics. Meanwhile the two biggest parties make all sorts of deals.
The real problem with the US is not that we have two parties. itâs that there is no meaningful difference between the two parties on key economic and foreign policy issues because the center-right establishment that runs the country doesnt permit that. No matter who I vote for in November, no progress will be made on ending our clinically insane wars in the Middle East, transitioning away from the fossil fuel economy toward a renewable energy driven all electric economy, instituting a universal health care program, terminating our growing security state, terminating corporate control of public life, and stopping the steadily rising wealth inequality in the US that is gradually destroying the nation. The social issues like gay marriage and abortion are trivial in their effect on the center-right corporate state and exist only to keep the electorate divided against itself and easily ruled.
Vorkosigan[/quote]
:roflmao: :roflmao: Center-right establishment? :roflmao: You mean these guys? youtube.com/watch?v=dSpOjj4Y ⌠re=related
By western standards it is accurate to describe the default position for the United States as Center-Right. The average voter is pretty conservative, and many touchy topics in the US are non-issues in other western democracies, i.e. abortion, gun control.
In New Zealand I was very much on the right of most issues but the positions that I took - if translated into U.S. politics - would make me a moderate Democrat or moderate Republican.
Question for the Yanks: who was the last hardcore fiscal conservative president (as in donât spend more than you earn)?
[quote=âalmas johnâ]By western standards it is accurate to describe the default position for the United States as Center-Right. The average voter is pretty conservative, and many touchy topics in the US are non-issues in other western democracies, i.e. abortion, gun control.
In New Zealand I was very much on the right of most issues but the positions that I took - if translated into U.S. politics - would make me a moderate Democrat or moderate Republican.
Question for the Yanks: who was the last hardcore fiscal conservative president (as in donât spend more than you earn)?[/quote]
Sure it may be accurate to describe the default position for the US as Center-Right. But, I have no argument with that. What I find silly is the idea that there is some illuminati supressing green technologies and commiting other acts to the detriment of society. If the electric car is a currently viable technology why arenât they dominant in other countries? New Zealand for example? What about here in Taiwan? The politics in the US are an accurate reflection of the attitudes of the people in the US. Also laughable is the Idea that issues such as same sex marriage and abortion are artificial constructs whose real purpose is to distract the populace. Iâm pretty sure Craig TPE is not a secret agent posing as an advocate for some made up cause at the behest of some nefarious agency. :loco:
Bill Clinton. Look it up if you donât believe me. 
Haha, I donât believe that stuff either. Vorkosiganâs correct that the US is basically a Center-Right nation, however.
But Vork, we are nearing universal health care! And that wouldnât have happened if Obama had not been elected. Letâs give credit where credit is due.
[quote=âGao Bohanâ]
But Vork, we are nearing universal health care! And that wouldnât have happened if Obama had not been elected. Letâs give credit where credit is due.[/quote]
Maybe. We did lurch forward a step on that one.
Never said they were âartificial constructsâ â their very reality is what makes them such potent levers. Nor did I claim a conspiracy. Itâs not a conspiracy but a political establishment, a class of individuals that understands what its class interests are and which is served by a larger class of individuals that also know what those class interests are and how to protect them. Instead of viewing things in conspiracy/not conspiracy terms, it is a good idea to stop and thoughtfully ask what the political function of the existence of a debate over issue X is, whatever your position on X is.
Ok, give me an illustration. You say that this class of people are obstructing progress towards a green economy. How so? Who are these people? Why is it in their interest to retard the progress towards green technologies? If these technologies are economically viable why are they not being adopted by other countries not under the influence of this nefarious class? The data Iâve seen all indicates that solar, wind and tidal are all more expensive than fossil fuel energy per kW/h. Show me something that refutes this.
In terms of viewing issues in terms of their political function, explain the debate over abortion in terms of itâs political function.
Gman: That one is easy. The theory goes that abortion, gun control and other issues are basically ways to get poor people to vote against their economic interests.
Time to revive this. This trend is going to be picking up steam going into 2022 and 24 IMO. One new entrant is the Peopleâs Party
1 Like
They should just start their own country with a wishlist like that. I think they need to focus on a few key areas first to have any chance.