Totenkopf Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 @Sithy--pray tell, what would this "new candidate" look like? Hopefully not one of those eruo-socialist types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trench Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 ^Freedom and non-oppressive government happened back in the 1700's Well what happened to that? I'd take that over this any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 What has happened to this country? Divisionist propoganda that says giving everyone rights means others have none. Ensuring everyone has the same minimum level of freedom means that's where the bar starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 @Sithy--pray tell, what would this "new candidate" look like? Hopefully not one of those eruo-socialist types. Opposed to the two party system we have now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Frankly, wouldn't mind seeing a lot of dems and reps thrown out and see a party that was more faithful to the Constitution than "special interests". I do see the dem party in this country coming closest to "eurosocialism", with many liberal republicans not too far behind. A multi-party system (ie more than 4 parties) won't necessarily be a better one, though. You already have w/in the 2 party system divisions w/in the ranks. People need to pay more attention to who they put in power and more willing to throw them out when they go afoul of the system (vs making excuses as to why it's ok for their own side but not the other). A truly neutral press would be nice, too. Sotomayor is largely being given a pass b/c it's one lib replacing another on the court. Her comments about the role of judges and her temperment making her a poor choice for a SC justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Neutral press...that's a good one I don't think the press has been truly neutral in the United States for my entire lifetime (thirty years) and I'm wagering even longer than that. I would like to see the two major parties get some legitimate competition, but I just don't see it coming to be any time soon. Sotomayor hasn't satisfied me with her responses to the questions the Senate has asked her, but like you Totenkopf I think she's getting a pass of sorts and will probably end up being confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Neutral press...that's a good one I don't think the press has been truly neutral in the United States for my entire lifetime (thirty years) and I'm wagering even longer than that. I'd agree that's likely true. Maybe we could settle for one that's ambivalent toward all sides. I know it's probably a pipedream, especially now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 A multi-party system (ie more than 4 parties) won't necessarily be a better one, though. You already have w/in the 2 party system divisions w/in the ranks. People need to pay more attention to who they put in power and more willing to throw them out when they go afoul of the system (vs making excuses as to why it's ok for their own side but not the other). Besides, multi-party systems boil down to a 2-party system anyway. Since you still need that majority to form government, you get a majority coalition, and everyone who's not. And it's not like a multi-party system won't have special interests gnawing at the parties either. As I see it, it makes it worse because you vote for party X who you want in power, but to be in power they have to form a coalition with party V and K too, now the party you wanted in power has to take on the interests of V+K. Ones that you might not even be aware of, or even like. The US really doesn't have a two-party system, much as Totenkopf points out, we have a largely personality-based system. While the party that your candidate belongs to gives you some base reasons to agree or disagree with them on, what we're voting for is NOT what multi-party systems are voting for. They vote for the platform laid out by the party, which all party officials keep to(more or less), while we vote for individuals based on their personal opinions on the issues we're interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Well what happened to that? I'd take that over this any day. Yeah me too...it was so much better back then...people weren't allowed to be pessimistic back then so at least I wouldn't have to deal with negativity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.326ca6d5b846893a1fbff1b9d7246b95.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.