politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Epic faceplant. I have no idea who convinced Trump that this would be a good plan, but the dems need to send whoever it was a fruit basket and a box of cigars.
During the speech, Trump quotes an editorial by Deroy Murdock saying Trump should be nominated as the Libertarian candidate. My guess is Trump was handed a printout of the article by the staffer whose job it is to cherry pick news to make Donald feel good. He read it and he decided he needed to go to the convention, as everything he’d read said he should be their candidate. The no one among the yes men he surrounds himself with was able to talk him out of it.
On paper, it is actually a really good idea.
libertarians are basically chickenshit republicans who don't want to acknowledge how they get their dream world that... is pretty damned similar to the republican dream world. The problem is that trump is just an unlikable and obnoxious piece of shit. And libertarians are incredibly fragile and need to have their ego stroked endlessly because they are "enlightened" and "above the petty two party system". And trump almost immediately started talking about how he was one of the best libertarians and blah blah blah.
Removing the trump factor, it would be like if Biden (or, honestly, even Sanders) were to go talk in front of a tankie rally. On paper, they want many of the same things and have many of the same policies. But they would be one poorly phrased message away from failing a purity test and being booed out of the venue.
Anyone who doesn't think they deserve better than a two party system is like an abnoxious teacher's pet that just kept doubling down repeatedly into adulthood. Insulting someone for saying they deserve more than that gives me major 2nd hand embarrassment. You may want to work on your insult game.
Anyone that doesn't acknowledge that we are stuck with a two party system is like an obnoxious teenager mad that they got a Toyota when they wanted a Lexus. No one is happy about it but it's not going to change
It would be astounding if, after thousands of years of countries having their political systems changing, this would be the time period where all of a sudden, everything just gets cemented in place. Anyone who thinks nothing can change is like an obnoxious teenager who thinks the world didn't exist before they were born.
This is all besides the point though, this whole thing is about some dummy that thought that it's a clever insult to say that a group doesn't like the two party system. Obviously, it's a pretty bad insult if practically nobody wants a two party system. It's like insulting somebody because they don't inject mayonnaise into their pillow to make it extra soft.
Anybody who insists the parliamentary/multi party system is somehow better for the people of a given country need only look at…basically every country that has that system…to see that that isn’t necessarily the case.
“Let’s switch to a multiparty system, that way we can have four parties pretending to give a shit about us while catering to the demands of the rich instead of just two!”
The 3rd parties in the US are only on the side of the little guy because they are also the little guy. If you put them into power they will not stay on the side of the little guy.
Ranked choice voting would make a far bigger difference, as that would allow a greater diversity of opinion both within party platforms, and in the voting booth. And would also allow more 3rd party candidates to have an actual shot at winning elections.
Go tour around Scandinavia or most of Europe for that matter, and then tell me how much better a two party system is for it's people. In lots of the first world, they have things called trains that can quickly take all over the country, and even into other countries! Guess what happens in lots of the first world if you get hurt or sick, spoiler alert: you don't lose your house! Guess what happens if your homeless? You don't get arrested for it, you get support. The list goes on and on.. pull the IV out of your arm, the two party system in America isn't shitting the golden nuggets they've got you thinking they do. There is a reason it takes millions in investments and property for US citizens to snag an EU passport.
Yeah that’s because they are ideologically a lot further to the left as a nation than the US is, not because of some arbitrary feature of how their government functions.
Also, if the US had a parliamentary system we might not actually vote for the president. Some systems elect their Members of Parliament, who then elects the Prime Minister.
This is a problem in some systems where people like their local representative, but don't necessarily want that party to run the whole government. Remember the phenomenon of "Congress sucks but my congressperson is okay"? It's harder to fix that issue with a Parliament.
So then, what is your point about how we can look at any parliamentary or multi-party government to see how poorly they work? We look at them, see they are better, and then you just say that that's not why they are better. Why even bother looking at them for evidence, then? Maybe having more voices in government is the thing that moves a country in a direction of being better for its people.
In a lot of ways, it doesn't even feel like we have two choices. Which party should you vote for if you think we shouldn't be bombing children? In that regard, it is almost like we have one party. How about if you think peoples lives shouldn't be destroyed for smoking a joint? Who do you vote for for that one?
I’ve read the guy you’re responding to and don’t understand where you’re coming from. What made you think OP doesn’t think they deserve better than a two party system? That seems like a heavy assumption.
Are you morally grandstanding about how shit the two party system is? I think we all agree it’s shit, but it’s (currently) backed up by a US social contract (the average citizen agrees to the authority of the system), has a monopolization of violence behind it, and is the system that exerts power on people in and outside of the US.
Not participating in the system with the monopoly on violence seems like a bad decision because it’s more likely to make you a victim of that violence w/o any impact on the system itself, e.g. martyrdom.
Alternatively I have not heard of a good movement that’s poised to take power from the current system before November, which was the subject of OP’s post, so I don’t know where you’re coming from with such hostility towards a random comment lmao.
I think you may be reading into this a bit too much. They brought up the fact that libertarians famously don't like the two party system as if it were some big insult against them. There are plenty of ways to insult libertarians legitimately, but a dislike for the two party system is certainly not one of them!
At the risk of (rightfully) invoking Dril:
I AM kind of glad trump reached out to the libertarians. Because it gets people like you to rush out of the woodwork to defend your particular brand of wannabe fascists.
I'm not defending anyone. Are you saying that you are pleased with the two party system, and you would be upset if you had someone other than Trump and Biden to choose from?! Now this is fresh hot take. I'm constantly hearing people on here and everywhere, saying they wish there were more than 2 parties. Not to be insulting, but would you be even happier with 1 party, or is 2 the magic number for you?