Why Reichtards Figuratively Fellate the Founders

T. A. Gardner said:
Not true. Minority parties have to form coalitions with larger ones with similar political values resulting in a de facto two-party system of governance. While the US system does, indeed, make it easier for the parties to consolidate power, it also results in far less government by shaky coalition, and little chance that an extremist party can take power or have substantial influence in governance.

The European system has often resulted in radically Leftist government that has brought ruin to the nations it got control of. The Fascists of the 30's would be a excellent example. Hitler, for example, came to power on a distinctly minority vote and used coalition building to gain it. Communists in nations like Greece or pre-WW 2 France got enough power to completely screw the economy and flummox government. Labor in England in the 50's and 60's nearly bankrupted England and destroyed much of that nation's industry from coal, to aircraft, to automobiles.

Almost every country from Mexico to Argentina in the Americas has wallowed in economic mediocrity and social unrest due to adoption of the Parliamentary System. It works, but it doesn't work well.
Click to expand...

everything from you is ideology....lost interest
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The European parliamentary system provides a government far more representative of the governed.
Our government radically over-represents rural conservatives to the serious detriment of the nation.
These are people who know how to grow wheat and corn and soy, bless them, but who really don't need to be telling sophisticated people how to live.
Click to expand...

It also results in far more fractured government, often extremist government by radical fringes of politics, and are often far less representative of the governed.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It also results in far more fractured government, often extremist government by radical fringes of politics, and are often far less representative of the governed.
Click to expand...

I'll trust my own perspective and take it over our shit right now.
It doesn't appear to be a likely option, I will admit, but I'd definitely take it.
Our government is an embarrassment to the intellectually enlightened among us.
 
In the US today, that hasn't stopped the Left from finding a way around the two-party system. Today there are fringe radical Leftist political groups that run on the Democrat party ticket like:

The Democratic Socialist Party
https://www.dsausa.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ers_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States

The Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party
https://dfl.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic–Farmer–Labor_Party

That's two examples. Both parties are on the Left to far Left of politics and they get members elected by running them as Democrats.
 
AssHatZombie said:
ahhh, hegemonic stability.....
Click to expand...

Well, that should be expected when the head of state is selected by the legislative party or coalition that has been given power to govern. This means that the country's head of state is in lockstep with the legislative branch effectively resulting in the parliament being given power to govern without any real opposition.
 
Although I've been registered as a Democrat since 1967 [no 18-year old vote then or it would have been earlier],

I've really considered myself a Social Democrat all that time.

The highly respected and beloved Bernie and AOC tried to change the term to Democratic Socialist, but I was perfectly happy with the already existing
Social Democrat label. I wish people would be more cognizant of exiting language before creating more.

I very much believe in labels, by the way.
Those who shun them invariably have something to hide.
 
Cypress said:
James Madison hated the idea of equal state representation in the Senate. His original vision was proportional representation in the legislature based on state population.

Madison did not see any sense that states with tiny populations would have equal say with the states with larger populations.
Click to expand...

citation
 
I see misguided articles or positions like this and I have to wonder where these people got their teachings in history.......

We the people considered government a necessary evil and looked to limit it as much as possible to protect the rights of individuals. The colonists also wanted to protect their states autonomy which is how the Senate was built.........

So I would like to see people explain how the founders saw a majority rules as a power to restrict or deny rights to a minority and conclude that madison, or any other founder, wanted majority rules???
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, that should be expected when the head of state is selected by the legislative party or coalition that has been given power to govern. This means that the country's head of state is in lockstep with the legislative branch effectively resulting in the parliament being given power to govern without any real opposition.
Click to expand...

but the two party system is quite insane. it's a systemic false dichotomy.

damn, "systemic false dichotomy". I love my phrases. type it a few times, it just makes you feel smart.

"step right up, step right up, watch the freak suck its own dick."
 
AssHatZombie said:
but the two party system is quite insane. it's a systemic false dichotomy.

damn, "systemic false dichotomy". I love my phrases. type it a few times, it just makes you feel smart.

"step right up, step right up, watch the freak suck its own dick."
Click to expand...


The two party system does indeed allow for one party politics.
Get the majority and have at it.

Smaller tent political parties more tightly representing certain groups would end majorities.

Coalitions would have to be formed,
and thus actual dialogue and compromise would become necessary.

Every presidential election would be determined in the House of Representatives, however.
There could be no avoiding that,
and that's what caused the far premature ending of Re-Construction after the Civil War.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Although I've been registered as a Democrat since 1967 [no 18-year old vote then or it would have been earlier],

I've really considered myself a Social Democrat all that time.

The highly respected and beloved Bernie and AOC tried to change the term to Democratic Socialist, but I was perfectly happy with the already existing
Social Democrat label. I wish people would be more cognizant of exiting language before creating more.

I very much believe in labels, by the way.
Those who shun them invariably have something to hide.
Click to expand...

labels are abstract with shifting meanings. they are useful as long as people can specify what it means in a contextual context.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The two party system does indeed allow for one party politics.
Get the majority and have at it.

Smaller tent political parties more tightly representing certain groups would end majorities.

Coalitions would have to be formed,
and thus actual dialogue and compromise would become necessary.

Every presidential election would be determined in the House of Representatives, however.
There could be no avoiding that,
and that's what caused the far premature ending of Re-Construction after the Civil War.
Click to expand...

wow. a near perfect 1/2 truth!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top