Art Morte wrote:The US needs more political parties, it's stupid to try to shoehorn that divided & diverse a nation into just two juggernaut parties.

Yes, absolutely. It's amazing what dumbing down ths division into two does to the whole political discourse, political scientists involved.

Two Party system / Dynasty politics is the norm everywhere. New parties are unable to make a breakthrough in these huge nations where national history since inception have been defined by these parties. Lack of voter support also discourages any form of new Parties and the amount of spending required to cover large areas, populations and cities compared to other smaller nations.

The people aren't willing to take a risk with someone new unless the government continuously falls to the absolute ground like France who have a culture & history of not trusting any government.

England, India are usual examples for two party system.

Imagine being willing to die in the name of scum of the earth Trump serving another term..... I wouldn't even blink for this piece of human sewage!

Also agreed with Hans. No more appeasing for fascists and terrorists. They tried to overthrow the goverment because they know they're fucked for years to come as far as elections go.

Nishankly wrote:Two Party system / Dynasty politics is the norm everywhere. New parties are unable to make a breakthrough in these huge nations where national history since inception have been defined by these parties. Lack of voter support also discourages any form of new Parties and the amount of spending required to cover large areas, populations and cities compared to other smaller nations.

The people aren't willing to take a risk with someone new unless the government continuously falls to the absolute ground like France who have a culture & history of not trusting any government.

England, India are usual examples for two party system.

Most European countries have more than two parties that win 10+ percent of seats in their parliaments.

Art Morte wrote:

Nishankly wrote:Two Party system / Dynasty politics is the norm everywhere. New parties are unable to make a breakthrough in these huge nations where national history since inception have been defined by these parties. Lack of voter support also discourages any form of new Parties and the amount of spending required to cover large areas, populations and cities compared to other smaller nations.

The people aren't willing to take a risk with someone new unless the government continuously falls to the absolute ground like France who have a culture & history of not trusting any government.

England, India are usual examples for two party system.

Most European countries have more than two parties that win 10+ percent of seats in their parliaments.

Yeah they don't really count. France is what 45th in terms of size when its the largest in Europe nor are these countries diverse from early times. Even population wise only a few European nations makes a cut.

Imagine if you are a new party, think about making a campaign across 10 million people vs 150 million with different languages, cultures and standard of livings within a country. What do you think is easier to accomplish?

Hapless_Hans wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

McLewis wrote:I listened to Republicans in both chambers magically find their spine yesterday. Too little too late. What happened yesterday will be in attack ads for decades to come. Every single one of them (not just the ones who objected to the electoral count) who supported Trump and enabled him needs to lose their seat.

It was kind of amazing to finally see where Republicans hit a limit with Trump. Even Pence and McConnell disowned this, all while Trump was tweeting "I know how you feel". SMH.

McLewis wrote:This is what should happen. But it won't. I have no faith in Democrats' ability to seize this moment and crystalize it into a lockout of Republicans from positions of power for the foreseeable future.

Republicans should not be locked out of power. These people need a voice, and if they don't have one they will resort to violence again, and the next time it will be better planned and more effective. What Biden should do is elevate the moderate wing of the republican party by giving them a few calculated wins so that they once again have more sway than the right-wing nuts. That way the US democracy will be healthier.

Nazis don't need a voice, and they certainly need to be locked out of power.

No pussyfooting around it, sorry. This was a Nazi coup attempt with the help and instigation of the highest members and officials of the Republican party. These people all need to go to jail, really.

Giving them calculated wins? Textbook appeasement. It won't work. It will only work to push the framing further to the right. You give them a finger they'll take the whole people and put them in camps.

But of course Biden too is of the opinion that there are fine people on both sides, in the senate..

I didn't say appease the nazis, said appease the republican party which encompasses a lot more people. Going into 2024 there will be GOP infighting between the nazis and moderates. Biden should use whatever influence he has to ensure the moderates come out on top of that struggle.

Nishankly wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

Nishankly wrote:Two Party system / Dynasty politics is the norm everywhere. New parties are unable to make a breakthrough in these huge nations where national history since inception have been defined by these parties. Lack of voter support also discourages any form of new Parties and the amount of spending required to cover large areas, populations and cities compared to other smaller nations.

The people aren't willing to take a risk with someone new unless the government continuously falls to the absolute ground like France who have a culture & history of not trusting any government.

England, India are usual examples for two party system.

Most European countries have more than two parties that win 10+ percent of seats in their parliaments.

Yeah they don't really count. France is what 45th in terms of size when its the largest in Europe nor are these countries diverse from early times. Even population wise only a few European nations makes a cut.

Imagine if you are a new party, think about making a campaign across 10 million people vs 150 million with different languages, cultures and standard of livings within a country. What do you think is easier to accomplish?

Large population means you cannot have more than two parties? Makes sense, yeah.

Art Morte wrote:

Nishankly wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

Most European countries have more than two parties that win 10+ percent of seats in their parliaments.

Yeah they don't really count. France is what 45th in terms of size when its the largest in Europe nor are these countries diverse from early times. Even population wise only a few European nations makes a cut.

Imagine if you are a new party, think about making a campaign across 10 million people vs 150 million with different languages, cultures and standard of livings within a country. What do you think is easier to accomplish?

Large population means you cannot have more than two parties? Makes sense, yeah.

You've made no effort to read the last two posts.

The bi-party system in the US is a consequence of a "winner-take-all" electoral system. In such systems voters are coerced into choosing the "lesser evil" because otherwise their vote will be "wasted" and, over time, this leads to only 2 main parties. In political science this is called Duverger's law.

In most European countries you have proportional representation, so when you vote for a small party your vote still "matters" and impacts how many seats that party will get. Governments are made from alliances of people working together rather than an outright majority (most of the time), allowing a plurality of ideas to be on display.

Until "winner-take-all" is done with there will be no other parties.

Nishankly wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

Nishankly wrote:

Yeah they don't really count. France is what 45th in terms of size when its the largest in Europe nor are these countries diverse from early times. Even population wise only a few European nations makes a cut.

Imagine if you are a new party, think about making a campaign across 10 million people vs 150 million with different languages, cultures and standard of livings within a country. What do you think is easier to accomplish?

Large population means you cannot have more than two parties? Makes sense, yeah.

You've made no effort to read the last two posts.

He's right tbh, large population does not lead to two party systems, FPTP cause this.

Nishankly wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

Nishankly wrote:

Yeah they don't really count. France is what 45th in terms of size when its the largest in Europe nor are these countries diverse from early times. Even population wise only a few European nations makes a cut.

Imagine if you are a new party, think about making a campaign across 10 million people vs 150 million with different languages, cultures and standard of livings within a country. What do you think is easier to accomplish?

Large population means you cannot have more than two parties? Makes sense, yeah.

You've made no effort to read the last two posts.

You said that "the two-party system is the norm everywhere" when it literally is not.

I don't know what you were trying to say about France, it was very confusing.

And population does not determine how many parties a country can have.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

McLewis wrote:I listened to Republicans in both chambers magically find their spine yesterday. Too little too late. What happened yesterday will be in attack ads for decades to come. Every single one of them (not just the ones who objected to the electoral count) who supported Trump and enabled him needs to lose their seat.  

It was kind of amazing to finally see where Republicans hit a limit with Trump. Even Pence and McConnell disowned this, all while Trump was tweeting "I know how you feel". SMH.

McLewis wrote:This is what should happen. But it won't. I have no faith in Democrats' ability to seize this moment and crystalize it into a lockout of Republicans from positions of power for the foreseeable future.

Republicans should not be locked out of power. These people need a voice, and if they don't have one they will resort to violence again, and the next time it will be better planned and more effective. What Biden should do is elevate the moderate wing of the republican party by giving them a few calculated wins so that they once again have more sway than the right-wing nuts. That way the US democracy will be healthier.

This country has heard enough from Republicans. More than enough to last a lifetime. They had 6 years to show us they can lead us better than the Democrats under Obama could. They gave us a President who incited a riot because he lost an election. They gave us a cowardly Senate that obstructed hundreds of bills and refused to help the most vulnerable people when they needed help the most during a pandemic not to be seen again for at least a hundred years. Their voices were heard loud and clear over the last 4 years. They care about no one, but themselves. They care about no one, but those who can improve only their lives.

We need to turn the page of Republicans. The voice of those who did not support Trump was clearly not loud enough to stop his takeover of their party. Why should we trust that they won't let that happen again when they've very clearly shown they are gullible enough to be taken by a ride by such a bad liar?

Giving them a voice, at this point in time, is dangerous to this country's democracy and frankly it's national security. Maybe that will not be the case some time down the road in the future, but right now....it's no for me.

Art Morte wrote:

Nishankly wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

Large population means you cannot have more than two parties? Makes sense, yeah.

You've made no effort to read the last two posts.

You said that "the two-party system is the norm everywhere" when it literally is not.

I don't know what you were trying to say about France, it was very confusing.

And population does not determine how many parties a country can have.

Right apologies. I do stand by thought that parties that been there since the inception of a country are really hard to displace in larger countries, newer parties have way too much to fight for and don't have that financial warchest or geographical coverage to fight for power through a nationwide campaign. I might be looking at it from a very Indian angle, so I regress with my other posts.

France removed the two major parties in power for the first time in 70 years.

locking out republicans from power?

Come on man.

They represent 49.5% of the US people.  And it's not up to anyone to lock out anyone else.  It's a democracy.  Whoever gets the votes, gets the seat they got voted in for.  Remember.... "for the people, by the people".

You're now speaking like Trump's twin brother from another mother.

I completely understand your anger and disgust.  I feel the same.  But the path to restoring America is to find the right path towards healing and mutual respect.

The country where you get killed  if you re black and you have fake dollars on the pockets   but if you are white and right-wing extremist you can enter the Parliament , making a mess, smashing things up and taking away souvenirs.
The image of  USA  is this.

Robespierre wrote:The country where you get killed  if you re black and you have fake dollars on the pockets   but if you are white and right-wing extremist you can enter the  Parliament , making a mess, smashing things up and taking away souvenirs.
The image of  USA  is this.

I don't deny that we have a problem with extremists in the US.  But ISIS is not a representation of Muslims and, similarly, these extremists do not represent the US (yet; it's getting bigger).

You don't fight extremism with opposite extremism.  The path to victory is to bring the large majority of people to a moderate position.  If you don't, all you're doing is pushing more people to choose between extremes, which is the real problem in the US.

There's no room for dialogue and understanding if you're on polar opposites.

sportsczy wrote:

Robespierre wrote:The country where you get killed  if you re black and you have fake dollars on the pockets   but if you are white and right-wing extremist you can enter the  Parliament , making a mess, smashing things up and taking away souvenirs.
The image of  USA  is this.

I don't deny that we have a problem with extremists in the US.  But ISIS is not a representation of Muslims and, similarly, these extremists do not represent the US (yet; it's getting bigger).

You don't fight extremism with opposite extremism.  The path to victory is to bring the large majority of people to a moderate position.  If you don't, all you're doing is pushing more people to choose between extremes, which is the real problem in the US.

There's no room for dialogue and understanding if you're on polar opposites.

surely USA are  something else but the Trump legacy leaves this .
The ruins basically. It will take time to build. But I don't dare to imagine if he 'd have won again,3 years were enough for regressing

What yesterday proved without the shadow of a doubt is that we have an organized and powerful insurrectionist element of the population in the US...  led by our current president

I agree with McLewis on one point.  You do need to find out which parts of the republican party can be reasoned with and which part should be shunned.

I hope that the Lincoln Project grows (formed by disenfranchised conservatives).  This is a good political movement:
https://lincolnproject.us

McLewis wrote:This country has heard enough from Republicans. More than enough to last a lifetime. They had 6 years to show us they can lead us better than the Democrats under Obama could. They gave us a President who incited a riot because he lost an election. They gave us a cowardly Senate that obstructed hundreds of bills and refused to help the most vulnerable people when they needed help the most during a pandemic not to be seen again for at least a hundred years. Their voices were heard loud and clear over the last 4 years. They care about no one, but themselves. They care about no one, but those who can improve only their lives.

We need to turn the page of Republicans. The voice of those who did not support Trump was clearly not loud enough to stop his takeover of their party. Why should we trust that they won't let that happen again when they've very clearly shown they are gullible enough to be taken by a ride by such a bad liar?

Giving them a voice, at this point in time, is dangerous to this country's democracy and frankly it's national security. Maybe that will not be the case some time down the road in the future, but right now....it's no for me.

I don't really disagree, I don't want another Republican government and there is no doubt that the past 4 years will forever be a tarnished spot in America's history.

That said, it's a certainty that at some point the GOP will be back in power, could be in 2, 4, 8 or 12 years, but it will happen. And when it does, who do you want in power? A party that believes in autocracy or democracy? Because from where I'm standing, if another Trumpian GOP manages to come back to power, American democracy itself would be at stake. So many things have become normalized with Trump, imagine how much further they'll be able to go the 2nd time around.

This is a moment to heal, not shun. And fwiw I think Biden might be the right blend of bland to do it. He has a lot of work ahead of him, hope he's able to pull it off.

sportsczy wrote:locking out republicans from power?

Come on man.

They represent 49.5% of the US people.  And it's not up to anyone to lock out anyone else.  It's a democracy.  Whoever gets the votes, gets the seat they got voted in for.  Remember.... "for the people, by the people".

You're now speaking like Trump's twin brother from another mother.

I completely understand your anger and disgust.  I feel the same.  But the path to restoring America is to find the right path towards healing and mutual respect.

The Democrats wanted mutual respect and healing. The Republicans weren't interested. They gave us Trump instead. The Democrats, demonstrating how little of a spine they really have, have bent over backwards trying to work with Republicans, who have displayed no interest in governing this country with them. Why would they? They had the power they wanted and wielded it accordingly. I would love to tell you it's the Democrats' turn to do the same, but they won't. They don't have it in them to govern with the same ruthlessness as Republicans have done. And it's why the Republicans will always have a path back, even after the damage they caused yesterday and over the last 6 years while in power. That 49.5% made their choice to support people who supported this psychotic, sociopath that just tried to overthrow our government. Why would we ever trust them with power ever again?

sportsczy wrote:

Robespierre wrote:The country where you get killed  if you re black and you have fake dollars on the pockets   but if you are white and right-wing extremist you can enter the  Parliament , making a mess, smashing things up and taking away souvenirs.
The image of  USA  is this.

I don't deny that we have a problem with extremists in the US.  But ISIS is not a representation of Muslims and, similarly, these extremists do not represent the US (yet; it's getting bigger).

You don't fight extremism with opposite extremism.  The path to victory is to bring the large majority of people to a moderate position.  If you don't, all you're doing is pushing more people to choose between extremes, which is the real problem in the US.

There's no room for dialogue and understanding if you're on polar opposites.

Moderate politics have brought us to this point. Moderate politics took us so far to the right, we resemble the 3rd world countries we "liberate". And with Biden we are now back to Moderate politics, where the status quo resumes. Politicians will continue the soaring rhetoric while taking kickbacks from corporations and powering their political machines to remain in office as long as possible. They will continue enrich themselves and enact their agendas rather than the agenda of the people that put them there in the first place. We'll get watered-down, compromised-to-death legislation that makes no one happy, helps the fewest amount of people while enriching those who do not need any further enriching. That's Moderate Politics.

This country is a fascist corporatocracy that has convinced itself it is still the Constitutional Democratic Republic it was founded as.

Completely disagree.  Moving away from moderate politics on both sides has brought us to this point... the complete opposite of what you're suggesting.


Extremism of any kind... and i don't care how righteous you feel that your cause is.... is never the answer. We need to find a place where people can have a dialogue.

It was never both sides. It was only one side. The right-wing. The left never wielded the power that the right has. They never got that chance.

And now that the right have lost their power, now they sue for "a dialogue", because they fear what comes next.

You talk about moderate politics, but listen to the right-wing media. They don't think we're moving to the middle, they're convinced we're moving to the left, even when we're not. You want a dialogue? Start with them.

Moving away from moderate politics on both sides led to this? Absolutely insane take.

The two most hated politicians by the right wing is moderates in Obama and Clinton. It wouldn't matter who actually was a democratic candidate because they've been brainwashed to think all democrats are socialists despite noone even knowing what 'socialist' even means.

Brainwashing and bigotry led to this.

The reason that you can't see the extremism of the left is that you're blind to it. No other way to put it. It's a different type of extremism... its akin to a cultural revolution where you force people to think a specific way and persecute (or cancel) anyone who doesn't. It's only democratic and lawful if the situation suits its purpose. If it doesn't, then anarchy is ok.

No need to explain the far right.

Both are horrible.