5th June 2016, 2:36 PM
Dark Jaguar Wrote:That's not how it used to work though! There used to be many competing parties.When? There has never been a period in American history with three major parties that actually last. There are a few single elections with more than two parties, but the third parties quickly get subsumed into one or the other major party, because our system turns out to be designed for two parties. Something like the Progressives of the early 20th century, or the numerous parties of 1860... those things do not last, within an election or two all those groups join a major party. America has never been a true multi-party state like a lot of European countries are.
Quote: Even having the house determine the winner would still indirectly result in the will of the people being expressed, since the people are who vote for the members of the house.Remember, the rules for the House voting for president are not just "each member votes". They are "each STATE DELEGATION votes". Huge difference there: the Republicans would win every time because they have a gerrymandered-in majority in many delegations, and also control many small states while Democrats do better in larger ones.
Quote:That said, THAT could be changed as well. No one needs to "completely" change the constitution, it would just take an amendment to change THAT part of the constitution, and you KNOW that. I'm not sure why you're being intentionally misleading here, but this leads to my next point."Only a bit"? That's, like, the understatement of the decade! There is a MASSIVE difference between the two parties now. Once it wasn't as huge, but now, it's immense. The extreme rightward movement of their party has led to the Republicans now being a party that only barely, with a lot of argument, maybe believe that perhaps government should be allowed to function. Meanwhile, the Democrats believe in us having an actual functioning country. The Republicans believe
I won't join a party I don't actually support. Now, I HATE the republicans, but the democrats are only a bit better.
Quote: I really just don't trust that the democratic party is honest at all.Why not? Both parties generally follow their basic principles, of the Democrats for helping poorer people and the Republicans for helping richer people.
Quote:I'll be voting for the democratic candidate when the election comes about, but that's out of necessity, not because the democratic candidate actually represents my ideals. There are MANY like me, people far to the left of the democrats (it's why I keep saying that in terms of worldwide politics, the democratic party is actually a centrist party). No, I don't believe I'll be able to "change things from the inside". Working for a group you dislike in the vain hope you can change them "from within" never really seems to work all that well. I'll tend to go where my ideals are more properly matched.Actually, working from the inside to try to change a party towards a direction you prefer can work. Look at Donald Trump, and how he has taken over the Republicans! He did that from the inside, through their process, against the wishes of almost all party leaders. And also on their side, the rise of the Tea Party movement is another example of this. Or on the left, of course a major component of Bernie's campaign is to move the Democratic party to the left, as left-of-the-party candidates have done before. Howard Dean may have lost to Kerry in the Democratic primary in 2004, but his term as Democratic Party chair was quite important, his 50 State Strategy was a very different idea that worked well...
Quote:Every argument you are making is basically saying "give up, this is just the way it is", as you swallow your values in favor of the "winning strategy". You may have given up on more substantial change, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept it. I mean, yeesh, don't you watch anime? Isn't this the part where the ignorant yet determined hero tells the "pragmatist anti-hero" they lost because they gave up on people and on change?I haven't given up on accomplishing change! Two things here, First, Hillary is also a great, very liberal candidate. You are underselling her liberalism, she's no centrist. I supported her in '087 and have again this year, and I think she'll be a very good president. It's about time we had a female president too, that is needed.
But also, I think that the best way to actually get change is to actually have people in office... and Bernie would never win a general election. And anyway, one some issues, such as guns, Hillary is the one who is more liberal and more likely to bring change...
And last, the kinds of change we most badly need, that would allow for more good to happen in this country, require significant changes to our election system, most importantly to get rid of gerrymandering and to control money in politics. If we could do those two things then maybe things would actually start moving again, instead of being stuck in this incredibly stupid loop of "let's have a massive fight over basic spending bills because half of the Republican Party would rather see the US go bankrupt than 'feed the beast'" while nothing actually useful happens in Washington... yes, it's been a very frustrating 5 1/2 years since the Republican takeover of 2010, for any of us who follow politics. :( The Democrats got so much done in that short period of 2006-2010 when we controlled the House!
Weltall Wrote:That is basically the slogan for Clinton 2016. 2008 was "Hope and Change" and a thoroughly optimistic election, all the vitriol aside. The Democratic platform for 2016 is a total repudiation of hope and change. Clinton is the better choice because she personifies only most of what's wrong with American politics. It's enough for the low-info Democrats, I guess we'll see if the low-info American public as a whole buys it.Exactly zero things you say here are in any way true. Hillary Clinton stands for several things, including the hope of having our first female president, for continuing Obama's domestic programs (Obama will be campaigning hard for Hillary, and she is very close to him on most issues!), for stronger gun laws than we would see from Bernie, for change for the better on many issues... saying "but Bernie is better on certain issues" ignores that the two of them are extremely similar in most of the ways that matter. Remember their 93% the same voting records in the Senate, etc.
And this is VERY important, it also ignores that Bernie's economics-are-everything focus ignores many of the real roots of problems in this country. Bernie badly lost minorities this year because in part of that economic focus -- black people do not believe that just reducing the influence of big banks and fixing income inequality will fix racism, because it won't. One of Hillary's stronger moments in one of the debates was when the made this point, and it's very true. Do everything Bernie says about economics, and we'd still have a hugely racist system very discriminatory against minorities. Hillary is much better at recognizing that, and minorities responded by supporting her. This is why Bernie lost; his campaign was pretty much over by mid February, when he failed badly in the South.
And on that note, Hillary won a big win in the US Virgin Islands primary a few days ago. Results, 6 delegates for Hillary, 1 for Bernie, and he only BARELY got that one, he was close to non-viable -- it was like 86% to 13%. And the Puerto Rico caucus is today, and it's sounding like it will also be a huge wipeout in Hillary's favor -- 70-30 Hillary sounds likely. Bernie only wins with white people, particularly white men.