Hillary Clinton Is In...

Choosing the lesser evil may be a good option depending on the nature of the worse evil you want of get rid of or exclude.

But it's not going to change anything fundamentally, only changing the system could do that I think.

 

Which is relatively easy if enough people are on board. But big if. And that while so many like to say they are fed up with the current state of the system.

 

And you better hope it works out, because we could end up with another Bush who creates big problems for the entire Western world.

The current concept of the Democratic Party is for a wide variety of factions to unite against conservatism. There are so many conservatives in this country that our only hope of defeating them is to combine our strength. I don't see a flaw in the concept, so I think we only need to work to improve the party from within.

Inside the Democratic Party, straight people support gay rights, men support women's rights, white people support racial minority rights, nonunion workers support unions, Christians support the rights of those with different religious views, and nonsmokers support the rights of stoners. Each of these small groups knows that separately, the rich and powerful white Christians can easily crush us. If we start dividing into two large groups, both will likely be crushed.

So, I don't see the third party approach as a potential winner for us.

Campaign finance reform is a better approach, and it may take a Constitutional amendment to do it right. Or, get more liberals on the Supreme Court.

 

I am not saying the democratic party's concept is completely shit. Just saying they know they are one of the 2 biggest parties and that they are more talk than action (same witht their right wing counterpart). I understand talking in theory is always easier than making something happen in reality

I better hope it works out? Not more than you guys Your political system is in the first place your pile of shit. Not mine. Even though it may stink so bad it might bother people in other parts of the western world too.

 

It's not just the people though. How can the political class and their corporate backers be persuaded to change the system from which they are direct beneficiaries, even if that's at the expense of the mass of people.
In the past, it's taken revolutions before entrenched political systems could be replaced. But again, there's also the example of the collapse of communism.

 

I think that's probably a pragmatic and sensible approach. It's similar in some ways to the situation we have here. Just as we don't want a Republican in the White house again, we don't want 5 more years of the Tories here. A united opposition is the only answer. Even if the agenda may be flawed, it's less flawed than that of the right wing.

And if the Republicans did get it, you're right that it could spell trouble for many other countries as well. I think at least some of our present political problems here stem from the Bush/Blair years.

 

Right on

 

Sigh..

 

I read and hear plenty about Parliamentary democracies with three or more viable political parties. I'm not sure that would work here, just because of the size of the country. Even if it could work, a three party system isn't a Utopian fix, because that's what allowed the Nazi Party to come to power in Germany without ever earning as much as 50% of the popular vote. That's a worst case scenario.

Democrats still get significant money from labor unions, fortunately. The unions oppose Wall Street on almost everything. Also, various liberal political action committees raise funds that are far from insignificant.

I'm not sure I'll live long enough to see the end of all those bad consequences. The Middle East is now a scrambled egg. Who can unscramble it?

 

Uhm, I am not advocating a coalition governent for the whole united states or was talking about an utopian fix. Same when you mentioned there is no perfect third party option yet. It is not about that there isn't a clear solution yet, and it is certainly not about an 'utopian fix', it is about that this is not working (on the contrary it may only work against you in the end). And what if the democrats would lose? How much use was your vote then? Wouldn't you think next time perhaps it's better to try something new? Give some fresh party a chance? Or at least support them....

 

Try something new? WTH? I don't think you know what it is like to actually live in America? Much easier said than done. Enough said

 

Not by experience no. But we can get a pretty good picture. And like I said, I acknowledge the current political situation is hopeless and it is easier said than done to get another party in power (even if there would be one that is more worthwile to spend your vote on then the democratic party).
The more hopeless it gets the more ready the people often become for change though. But yeah, I don't wish for you guys to come in an even more hopeless situation really. But if that is what it would take....

 

Since we can "only like" (as opposed to repping), I just needed to repeat that post ^.

Absolutely excellent and well put.

 

I especially found it interesting to take notice of the table (and yeah, the example of the reform party explains things well):

edit: copy pasting the table didn't work.

 

Well, yes. The art of Politics. She will have to cooperate/ co-exist with a mostly Republican congress. A partisan political atmosphere. A congress where a recent Democratic majority has been shrunken to minority status.

If you want to walk for any distance, you will have to get some shit on your shoes.

But you have to be willing to step out into it.

 

I don't understand people who vote for divided government, but a lot of people do that. What do they expect to happen?

When somebody is running for the House or Senate, it doesn't matter what they say in campaign speeches; if they get elected, they will mostly have to support the party platform. Otherwise, the majority leader or minority leader will make their life miserable and irrelevant. They won't be on any committees if they don't conform. Their bills will never be brought up for a vote, and they will never get to speak in a public session. They may as well be at home watching C-SPAN.

What happens with the Congress will be more important than who is the next President, because Congress has more power. There's a reason why the Capitol is much larger and more impressive than the White House. The symbolism is intentional. The founding fathers were afraid of entrusting too much power to one person, because of their horrible experiences with King George.

 

A question - Are the powers of the President now at the same level that was intended by the founding fathers? Or has power shifted one way or another over time?

To me as a casual student of American history, it seems that the role of the President has become more central as time has passed, and much more so during the 20th century.

Whatever the case in terms of actual power, I think the fact that we live in the mass media age has led to much more focus on the personality of political leaders. In some cases, I think it's the way they come across in the media (as well as how the media spin it) that actually gets people to vote for them rather than simply an appraisal of their policies.

In 'Gulliver's Travels', Swift has the potential politicians of Lilliput engage in a contest known as 'leaping and creeping' to decide who gets power. Someone holds a stick out, and the candidate has to either leap over it or creep beneath it in what is considered the correct or the best or most stylish way. I wonder at times how much our systems of democracy resemble this kind of process.

 

It's mandatory to vote for the lesser of two weasels,IMO. Although it's difficult sometimes to tell the difference. Traditionally, it has been the dems that have at least given lip service to progressive ideas and in some cases, their ideas have succeeded. Now, the republicans---well--they're just flat out against the working class and that's obvious to anyone that can actually think. Hell, even those from other countries know this.

But I don't care for Clinton at all--she defines "the machine." Warren and Sanders would be my choice.

 

I doubt that any President has done more than Lincoln to expand the scope of the office, though several others have done so, to some degree. In recent years, GOP leaders McConnell and Boehner have shown us that a lot of that Presidential power is political, and therefore unofficial. Opposition party leaders usually fear the President's ability to speak directly to the voters and sway public opinion, but not those two.

Part of the increased importance of the Presidency comes from our expanded role on the world stage. Again, that's more political than official.

Elizabeth Warren is one of my personal favorites. Maybe she can get a cabinet level position; maybe Treasury.