Is the two party system dead

[L1tTleD1fferent]

It's probably because there wasn't one.

If that were the case, you would have said that, & not that you missed it... Also there that you missed, the day they taught how & when to use the word "its" without an apostrophe.

Long post short (unlike yours), I will not deny you make points, but I also can't say you assuredly do, as you go for half the page so nobody wants to read that all & decode/decipher.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Most people get through it just fine. And I missed whatever your point was so completely that I don't know what it was. If I don't know it very well may not exist.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

If I don't know it very well may not exist.

The same could be said for air, water, & things we're all aware exists, so that post was entirely needless.

 

[Real_American17]

It would in all likelihood lead to the exact same amount of candidates at the end of the day (two) where the huge change would be would be that the Democrats and Republicans would be much smaller.

Okay, that makes sense.

But how does somebody that would normally be running on the Green Party's ticket get endorsed by the Dems? It seems like it will still be a GOP vs. Dem candidates just with each of them pushing out third parties.

I still don't get the runoff-voting.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The same could be said for air, water, & things we're all aware exists, so that post was entirely needless.

No, I know air exists. I can even prove it exists.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Okay, that makes sense.

But how does somebody that would normally be running on the Green Party's ticket get endorsed by the Dems? It seems like it will still be a GOP vs. Dem candidates just with each of them pushing out third parties.

I still don't get the runoff-voting.

At the moment let's focus on the one you do, then we can swing back around. Maybe I should find a video though because I don't know how to explain it better and that's my fault.

The Dems and Repubs would eventually have to stand for SOMETHING. You wouldn't really give a shit about their endorsement in the same way anything else that gets endorsed doesn't generally give a shit about any single endorsement so long as they meat their criteria. In this case it's about building a coalition.

Rand Paul is probably a good example. A lot of millennials love the Pauls. You'd get the "pro Weed" party with them. They would also get the "Pro Life" club. Maybe they get big business, maybe they don't. Each group would be free to splinter off into smaller more specific groups.

 

[Real_American17]

Rand Paul is probably a good example. A lot of millennials love the Pauls. You'd get the "pro Weed" party with them. They would also get the "Pro Life" club. Maybe they get big business, maybe they don't. Each group would be free to splinter off into smaller more specific groups.

So they would be dissolved into many one-issue parties?

So who ever has the most endorsements on things you support is who'd you be voting for?

 

[Sean Renaud]

So they would be dissolved into many one-issue parties?

So who ever has the most endorsements on things you support is who'd you be voting for?

More accurately the person with the most endorsements would get the most votes assuming those one-issue parties were equal in size and had minimal overlap.

And you could run as a single party if that one party had broad enough appeal to people but there would be fewer of those since it's hard to make everybody happy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

"deviating from what are widely perceived to be fundamental American cultural and political values."

Those exist, but they are not the cultural and political values of our Founding Fathers. They are the values of living Americans, and are constantly changing, as they should.

 

[Real_American17]

Those exist, but they are not the cultural and political values of our Founding Fathers. They are the values of living Americans, and are constantly changing, as they should.

Wrong, they are fundamental.

According to your logic, if the US became North Korea that would be American and anyone fighting against it would be unAmerican.

Not only is the way of life and relationship between government and it's citizens totally opposite of what America was founded on but resisting tyranny is fundamentally American, rebellion is what made this country, rebellion is what will heal this country.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And that would be absolutely correct. We would at that moment be North Korea and that would be America.

What we were founded on doesn't matter. I'm not a slave, women can vote, most of us don't farm. Rebellion rarely works out for anybody.

 

[Real_American17]

And that would be absolutely correct. We would at that moment be North Korea and that would be America.

What we were founded on doesn't matter. I'm not a slave, women can vote, most of us don't farm. Rebellion rarely works out for anybody.

No, if it changes it is no longer American.

American is an idea that is defined and solid, if you drastically change the country it is only American in name, but it is no longer "American".

Also there were black slave owners, stop listening to liberal propaganda.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, if it changes it is no longer American.

American is an idea that is defined and solid, if you drastically change the country it is only American in name, but it is no longer "American".

Also there were black slave owners, stop listening to liberal propaganda.

Then we haven't been America in over 150 years. IT doesn't matter if there were black slave owners or even if there were white slaves. The majority were not. And those things no longer exist for anybody.

 

[Real_American17]

Then we haven't been America in over 150 years.

I agree, we've been sliding further away every generation.

I want to reverse this cultural shift.

IT doesn't matter if there were black slave owners or even if there were white slaves. The majority were not. And those things no longer exist for anybody.

But it goes against your race card you pulled earlier about being a slave because you're black.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't. For me we haven't gotten nearly far enough away from our past.

No it doesn't go against my race card at all. The majority of blacks were not slave owners they were slaves. Going back to the founding is not going to put me in a good situation at all.

 

[Real_American17]

I don't. For me we haven't gotten nearly far enough away from our past.

No it doesn't go against my race card at all. The majority of blacks were not slave owners they were slaves. Going back to the founding is not going to put me in a good situation at all.

Yes it would. There were black politicians.

The Irish were brought over to the Colonies as slaves decades before Africans.

Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans using an already established slave trade... it wasn't something Europeans or Americans invented because of white supremacy.

Slavery has been a part of human civilization across all continents, American Indians enslaved each other, they enslaved whites, Africans enslaved each other, they enslaved whites, the Roman Empire dealt with the slave trade in Asia, Africa and Europe.

There were gladiators of all kinds of exotic distant races.

Britain and America were responsible for the dramatic reduction of slavery world wide. Name me one other country were the non slaves fought a civil war to end slavery? Slaves were seen as property like animals, and yet they were freed with the blood shed of their masters fighting their brothers.

Blacks didn't even earn their freedom, historically slaves rebelled and overthrew their masters... blacks were to weak, stupid, and cowardly to do it on their own.

Infact it was a greedy black slave owner that is responsible for the shift in how slavery worked in the US. One of his slaves decided to leave when his time was up, he left and went to work for a new master, the greedy black owner sued in court and had them man enslaved for life, which was totally new in the US and is what led to the later treatment of African slaves.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes it would. There were black politicians.

The Irish were brought over to the Colonies as slaves decades before Africans.

Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans using an already established slave trade... it wasn't something Europeans or Americans invented because of white supremacy.

Slavery has been a part of human civilization across all continents, American Indians enslaved each other, they enslaved whites, Africans enslaved each other, they enslaved whites, the Roman Empire dealt with the slave trade in Asia, Africa and Europe.

There were gladiators of all kinds of exotic distant races.

Britain and America were responsible for the dramatic reduction of slavery world wide. Name me one other country were the non slaves fought a civil war to end slavery? Slaves were seen as property like animals, and yet they were freed with the blood shed of their masters fighting their brothers.

Blacks didn't even earn their freedom, historically slaves rebelled and overthrew their masters... blacks were to weak, stupid, and cowardly to do it on their own.

Infact it was a greedy black slave owner that is responsible for the shift in how slavery worked in the US. One of his slaves decided to leave when his time was up, he left and went to work for a new master, the greedy black owner sued in court and had them man enslaved for life, which was totally new in the US and is what led to the later treatment of African slaves.

Few and far between. Oh and legally didn't count as people.

The Irish were not chattel slaves, nice try though. They did have a shitty go of thing the rest of your post is irrelevant.

 

[PoisonedChalice]

The two party system is absolutely dead as there are no differences between Repubs and Dems on the issues that really matter.

Both want:
Open borders and unlimited immigration
Corporate welfare
Unlimited campaign spending
Overseas wars to "spread democracy"
Mass surveillance and loss of personal freedoms

Politicians use silly social issues like abortion and gay marriage as a smokescreen to divide and confuse people. Neither the Repubs or Dems give a shit if you can't get a job and the streets aren't safe to walk on. This is why you should vote for Trump and only Trump, unless you want to keep getting fucked in the ass by Wall Street cosmopolitan whores.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nobody WANTS open borders. We just don't have a good solution. Our streets however are safer to walk on than at any time in recent history. That has beena net gain no matter how we got there.

The Dems are MUCH less likely to support corporate Welfare and btw that's oneo f those meaningless terms they throw out to confuse people.

Both Hillary and Sanders have stated they would work to overthrow Citizens United so no, both parties are not for unlimited campaign spending.

Virtually all Americans are for overseas wars to spread democracy. You just have to phrase it differently.

Dems for the most part are good for my personal freedoms. But the reality is that's one of those nebulous terms thrown about with little concrete meaning.

 

[Real_American17]

Few and far between. Oh and legally didn't count as people.

The Irish were not chattel slaves, nice try though. They did have a shitty go of thing the rest of your post is irrelevant.

Chattel slavery was caused by a greedy black slave owner.

Also, why does it matter? They were still enslaved for years/decades against their will, Irish women were raped and used to breed more slaves.

And actually Irish slaves were treated worse.

Think of it like how you treat your car vs. a rental or a public restroom.

The owners only had the Irish slave for a limited term, so they worked them until they died in some cases. African slaves were treated better because the owner wanted to get as many years of labor as they could.

Irish slaves were also cheaper to replace, African slaves cost more.

America was founded on liberty, slavery was totally normal, obviously slaves didn't count in the question of liberty.

Same with women. Women (as they should be) were raised until they were wold enough to marry, then the father got rid of her, she became a wife and was cared for by a husband that got children, and service for raising them, cooking, cleaning, etc.

It worked for everyone, the man had children, the women had food and shelter, and the children had two parents and a stable home.

You want to talk about slavery how about all the hard working men and women being robbed to support welfare parasites?

And the parasites themselves are slaves, they vote to continue their handouts, but if any of them attempt to get a job and raising themselves out of poverty the government takes away the benefits that are keeping them alive. There is no process to seek employment and slowly reduce your government support.

They are trapped as parasites, sure most probably have no desire to change that but some do and they can't.

Nobody WANTS open borders. We just don't have a good solution. Our streets however are safer to walk on than at any time in recent history. That has beena net gain no matter how we got there.

Well the SS had no problem finding Jews and Gypsies... I think we could find some illegals.

And as far as the border, why not build better multi-layered walls, fences, trenches, minefields, artillery gun ranges, ground and air patrol both regular and random, motion, heat, seismic sensors, satellite and drone surveillance?

Reorganize how border and coastal security works both at the Federal, State, and local levels. If it is national security, why not station the military there?

We could solve the problem of illegals entering across the border, through coastal waters, and even through cargo containers, we could solve the problem of arresting and deporting illegals already here, and we could fix the process of allowing legal immigrants to be processed, vetted, and controlled so that there is a proper amount of time for assimilation.

 

[sr71plt]

Virtually all Americans are for overseas wars to spread democracy. You just have to phrase it differently.

The honest (and sensible) way to phrase it, with all administrations pursuing it since at least WWI, is to fight all wars outside the boundaries of the United States to keep wars from being fought on the soil of the United States. It isn't something that the parties would split on.

But it's just silly to say there are no differences in the basic philosophies of the two parties. And even if there weren't, it's proved to be a workable process. There just are, as there have always been, a bunch of "the sky is falling" nervousniks around.

 

[PoisonedChalice]

Nobody WANTS open borders. We just don't have a good solution. Our streets however are safer to walk on than at any time in recent history. That has beena net gain no matter how we got there.

That is not true, it is a pet cause of the WSJ for example. However due to the political opposition, it just isn't discussed publicly...outside college campuses of course. Ideologically, unregulated immigration is the cause which has united the radical left (which sees racial differences as the main obstacle to their utopia) with big business.

The Dems are MUCH less likely to support corporate Welfare and btw that's oneo f those meaningless terms they throw out to confuse people.

Both Hillary and Sanders have stated they would work to overthrow Citizens United so no, both parties are not for unlimited campaign spending.

Sanders' campaign is finished. If you believe Hillary will overturn Citizens United considering how much money she's received from Wall Street, you're crazy.

Virtually all Americans are for overseas wars to spread democracy. You just have to phrase it differently.

I doubt most Americans would be prepared to suit and boot up to fight in a war half a world away. I wouldn't. Unless you are prepared to put your own (or your husband/son's) life on the line you are not really "for" these wars. It is easy to preach when someone else has to fight your wars for you.

Dems for the most part are good for my personal freedoms. But the reality is that's one of those nebulous terms thrown about with little concrete meaning.

Dems have a warped perception of personal freedoms. They fight against any freedoms that don't harmonize with progressive ideology, and support the few that do.

For example, how many Dems believe:
Low-income housing should not forced on majority-white neighbourhoods to make them "more diverse", as this violates one's freedom of association
The federal government shouldn't create a registry of all gun owners, as this violates one's rights to privacy
The Supreme Court shouldn't force a state to legalize gay marriage if the majority of people there disagree, as this violates one's religious freedom
College campuses should repeal their speech codes which criminalise "offensive" and "hateful" language, because they are politically motivated and violates one's freedom of speech

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

Sanders' campaign is finished. If you believe Hillary will overturn Citizens United considering how much money she's received from Wall Street, you're crazy.

I doubt most Americans would be prepared to suit and boot up to fight in a war half a world away. Unless you'd do that, you are not really "for" a war, just for someone else to fight it for you.



Dems have a warped perception of personal freedoms. They fight against any freedoms that don't harmonize with progressive ideology, and support the few that do.

You have a warped perception. Among other things, Sanders' campaign is not finished. Also, no intelligent Americans want any Americans to "suit up" & fight a war elsewhere wherein those Americans could potentially lose their lives & not win anything.

 

[PoisonedChalice]

You have a warped perception. Among other things, Sanders' campaign is not finished. Also, no intelligent Americans want any Americans to "suit up" & fight a war elsewhere wherein those Americans could potentially lose their lives & not win anything.

Sanders needed to win New York to have any path forward. Hillary now has enough of a delegate lead and the momentum to clinch the nomination before the convention. A drawn-out Democrat primary battle suits guys like me, so I am not going to complain if Sanders stays in the race and continues to attack Hillary. The weaker she is, the better for Trump.

You also make my point for me about war. People on the left gush about democracy when packs of violent jihadists overthrow their secular, stable governments. What is worse, when the countries predictably descend into chaos, you urge us - a foreign people, a foreign civilisation half a world away, to invade and complicate the situation. Why? Liberal imperialists get caught up in a fantasy where the entire world will rise up and liberate themselves, and then we'll enter this golden age of peace and tolerance. Grow the fuck up! You have destroyed millions of peoples' lives forever.

Despite all of the available evidence, Hillary still believes she did the right thing forcing an invasion of Libya and is fixated on regime change in Syria. Europe's migrant crisis is therefore partly her fault as well. This woman, the ideology she represents, they are dangerous not just for America but for the entire world.

Identity politics has dropped the collective IQ of the left 50 points. People like you are going to vote for a war criminal just because she strokes your white guilt. Pathetic!

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

Sanders needed to win New York to have any path forward. Hillary now has enough of a delegate lead and the momentum to clinch the nomination before the convention. A drawn-out Democrat primary battle suits guys like me, so I am not going to complain if Sanders stays in the race and continues to attack Hillary. The weaker she is, the better for Trump.

You also make my point for me about war. People on the left gush about democracy when packs of violent jihadists overthrow their secular, stable governments. What is worse, when the countries predictably descend into chaos, you urge us - a foreign people, a foreign civilisation half a world away, to invade and complicate the situation. Why? Liberal imperialists get caught up in a fantasy where the entire world will rise up and liberate themselves, and then we'll enter this golden age of peace and tolerance. Grow the fuck up! You have destroyed millions of peoples' lives forever.

Despite all of the available evidence, Hillary still believes she did the right thing forcing an invasion of Libya and is fixated on regime change in Syria. Europe's migrant crisis is therefore partly her fault as well. This woman, the ideology she represents, they are dangerous not just for America but for the entire world.

Identity politics has dropped the collective IQ of the left 50 points. People like you are going to vote for a war criminal just because she strokes your white guilt. Pathetic!

Again, you make claims about me that you seem to prove in the same post are better-fitted to yourself.

Surely, it appears Hilary has what she needs to win at least the Dem. party. However, some time last year, many would have stated Trump would be no longer in the race by now, let alone a feasible contender for the party's nod.

Also, I certainly don't make your point about war! Since the WMD mess, I personally have been very clear in saying I support the troops, but that is largely due to the fact they are literally sent overseas & risking their lives with no choice in the matter. (Also, I echo Jon Stewart's comments after Charleston regarding fighting in foreign countries when we have people dying in groups in SC, TX, & even my home state.)

I have personally never destroyed, let alone ended, anyone else's life. Also, I plan for that inaction to continue in 6 months.