Why do Republicans suck?

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Being from a Scandinavian socialist democratic country these discussions feel truly bizarre to me. Is there any way that the US political system could be diversified to have something like 8-10 political parties, I bet it would do a lot of good?
no...not in any kind of meaningful timetable...people tend not to take third party candidates very seriously, it would take a lot of work to get one elected at all, for anything
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
Being from a Scandinavian socialist democratic country these discussions feel truly bizarre to me. Is there any way that the US political system could be diversified to have something like 8-10 political parties, I bet it would do a lot of good?
I agree, but don't think we can switch at this point in time. Hardcore religious voters make up a substantial chunk of republicans, if we splintered into a bunch of groups they would remain as one and dominate. We would need to also change over to proportional representation or whatever you call it when it's not a winner take all thing.

It seems like a system that could be easily gamed, we have enough pretty shitty people in our country that I don't think it would work. Just look at our last election and the aftermath. Those folks aren't going to have a problem with whatever unethical behavior, breaking up the party opposed to them seems like a recipe to fail.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Being from a Scandinavian socialist democratic country these discussions feel truly bizarre to me. Is there any way that the US political system could be diversified to have something like 8-10 political parties, I bet it would do a lot of good?
You come from a place where coalition politics are how things get done. I doubt that the established monied interests here would tolerate a move toward a system like yours (I am unsure if you are there, or were).

To use a chemical metaphor: going from our system to the one you suggest is exothermic, but there is an immense activation energy required. Currently, with one party in a full bid to do a 1933, that is very unlikely to end up well.
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
It does suck being stuck in this system, I don't know what to do to escape it though. Our healthcare system is similar, I'm a big advocate for commie healthcare, but our healthcare industry is massive and I am not sure what to do about all the jobs that are dependent on it being a bureaucratic messy nightmare.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
It does suck being stuck in this system, I don't know what to do to escape it though. Our healthcare system is similar, I'm a big advocate for commie healthcare, but our healthcare industry is massive and I am not sure what to do about all the jobs that are dependent on it being a bureaucratic messy nightmare.
I am moved to say that the liability is smaller than the likely benefit.
Now, with it being an employee’s market, is the best time for the many who woukd be let go to Find Something New.
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
I am moved to say that the liability is smaller than the likely benefit.
Now, with it being an employee’s market, is the best time for the many who woukd be let go to Find Something New.
Man its a lot of people. Going to find something new is what I personally would do, but having worked for large companies...there are a lot of Delores' that are like 55 years old and have done the same basic task for like 30 years and it provided a decent life, but they don't really have the ability to adapt at this point.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Being from a Scandinavian socialist democratic country these discussions feel truly bizarre to me. Is there any way that the US political system could be diversified to have something like 8-10 political parties, I bet it would do a lot of good?
Not right now. It would require an amendment to the Constitution and that's not going to happen with the gridlock we have.

Our elections are winner takes all, not proportional. 8 parties would mean the president (for example) would be elected by an even smaller minority than he does now. Sometimes a third party tries to make it into the system but all they seem to do is siphon away enough votes to enable one or the other of the two main parties to win. This happened in 2000, which is how Bush Jr got into office, even though he had less support among the populace. (That and some election fraud in Florida. )

The way the Republican Party is turning off newer voters, we might be down to one. That's the trend, anyway. (just kidding)
 
Last edited:

schuylaar

Well-Known Member

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I agree, but don't think we can switch at this point in time. Hardcore religious voters make up a substantial chunk of republicans, if we splintered into a bunch of groups they would remain as one and dominate. We would need to also change over to proportional representation or whatever you call it when it's not a winner take all thing.

It seems like a system that could be easily gamed, we have enough pretty shitty people in our country that I don't think it would work. Just look at our last election and the aftermath. Those folks aren't going to have a problem with whatever unethical behavior, breaking up the party opposed to them seems like a recipe to fail.
Sadly it is a two party system..not sure where I heard or read maybe here, but Jill Stein and the Green Party did enough damage to Clinton and she ultimately lost..splitting the ticket is not the way to go in the US. Ending the Unconstitutional filibuster to pass bills at 51 instead of having to ask the other party if it's okay by having 60 votes. The Senate is pretty tight with seats almost a 50/50 split most sessions, unlike the House which can be more messy. When the filibusters is ended the presiding team will guide themselves accordingly, because the other team will be back; that's the failsafe but no one can see it or wants to.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Sadly it is a two party system..not sure where I heard or read maybe here, but Jill Stein and the Green Party did enough damage to Clinton and she ultimately lost..splitting the ticket is not the way to go in the US. Ending the Unconstitutional filibuster to pass bills at 51 instead of having to ask the other party if it's okay by having 60 votes. The Senate is pretty tight with seats almost a 50/50 split most sessions, unlike the House which can be more messy. When the filibusters is ended the presiding team will guide themselves accordingly, because the other team will be back; that's the failsafe but no one can see it or wants to.
they won't care...they'll use their "turn" to undo everyhing the democrats and sane people consider progress, and then try to fuck up enough other shit that there won't be time to fix it all before they can come back and fuck things up some more...that's what they do, it's all they do, it's the only thing they do well...
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
they won't care...they'll use their "turn" to undo everyhing the democrats and sane people consider progress, and then try to fuck up enough other shit that there won't be time to fix it all before they can come back and fuck things up some more...that's what they do, it's all they do, it's the only thing they do well...
Nah, Biden will be prez until 2024. If the worst comes about and the GQP manage to take control of the Senate and House, Biden will still hold veto power as well as the power of the Executive branch. Enough Democrats will sit in the Senate to prevent Joe from being removed from office, so if the worst occurs, it will be a stand off until 2024. 2024 will be an ugly time for this country. I have no idea who will prevail then.

I'm bad at making predictions, as has been shown several times on the forum. But I'm optimistic that by 2026, the country will turn against the old, backward facing Trumper movement. To get there, we need to keep the heartbeat of freedom alive through the next few difficult years.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
they won't care...they'll use their "turn" to undo everyhing the democrats and sane people consider progress, and then try to fuck up enough other shit that there won't be time to fix it all before they can come back and fuck things up some more...that's what they do, it's all they do, it's the only thing they do well...
then we'll use 'our turn' to do same; a few cycles and maybe they will learn.

if the framers wished something called 'filibuster' they would've invented it back then and put it in the Constitution; but they didn't..know why? because it does fucking work..the premise of asking permission of the minority party is a joke!
 
Top