Why we don't need one party rule

[Boris The Animal]

Because the Democrat party is made up of nothing but whacked out immoral leftists. We need strong opposition to the Left here in the US so we don't wind up just like the old Soviet Union where political opposition was quashed. But I bet leftists like Green Arrow, TrueBlue, Cigar would love that.

[Cigar]

Because the Democrat party is made up of nothing but whacked out immoral leftists. We need strong opposition to the Left here in the US so we don't wind up just like the old Soviet Union where political opposition was quashed. But I bet leftists like @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308), @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) would love that.

:grin: Change has Come to America

[Chris]

We don't need rule by duopoly either.

[Boris The Animal]

:grin: Change has Come to AmericaNot for the better, Bolshevik.

[Boris The Animal]

We don't need rule by duopoly either.
Problem here is also that you cannot have a Euroweenie style parliament system in the US. Ruling by coalition only winds up morphing into two parties again. the idea is to weed the GOP of all the Liberal RINOs and welcome good Conservatives who made the mistake of joining the DemocRAT party.

[Cigar]

Not for the better, Bolshevik.

Can't please everyone ... :laugh:

[Cigar]

Problem here is also that you cannot have a Euroweenie style parliament system in the US. Ruling by coalition only winds up morphing into two parties again. the idea is to weed the GOP of all the Liberal RINOs and welcome good Conservatives who made the mistake of joining the DemocRAT party.

Please don't take it personal ... life will still go on, after November :grin:

[Ravens Fan]

Because the Democrat party is made up of nothing but whacked out immoral leftists. We need strong opposition to the Left here in the US so we don't wind up just like the old Soviet Union where political opposition was quashed. But I bet leftists like @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308), @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) would love that.

I am wondering why you would group Green Arrow with TrueBlue and Cigar? Their views and debate styles are nowhere near close, IMO.

[Boris The Animal]

Please don't take it personal ... life will still go on, after November :grin:
Nope. America will be destroyed if that lying b!tch Hitlery or Komrade Sanders slither their way into the WH.

[Boris The Animal]

I am wondering why you would group Green Arrow with TrueBlue and Cigar? Their views and debate styles are nowhere near close, IMO.ALL Leftists are the enemy here, as far as I am concerned.

[Green Arrow]

Don't mention me in troll threads, please. I'd rather not be involved in trash.

[Chris]

Problem here is also that you cannot have a Euroweenie style parliament system in the US. Ruling by coalition only winds up morphing into two parties again. the idea is to weed the GOP of all the Liberal RINOs and welcome good Conservatives who made the mistake of joining the DemocRAT party.

Give third parties a chance, let them into the national debates.

[Boris The Animal]

Give third parties a chance, let them into the national debates.No! Third parties are guaranteed losers.

[Boris The Animal]

Don't mention me in troll threads, please. I'd rather not be involved in trash.Whassamatta? Truth hurts?

[Mister D]

Problem here is also that you cannot have a Euroweenie style parliament system in the US. Ruling by coalition only winds up morphing into two parties again. the idea is to weed the GOP of all the Liberal RINOs and welcome good Conservatives who made the mistake of joining the DemocRAT party.

I tend to think we'd be better off with a different system. The US system has a moderating effect on all political forces. That can be a good thing because, for example, it marginalizes the loons but it also makes the system highly resistant to change. The US looks like a paradox on the surface because it combines a high degree of atomism (a sociological term) with a high degree of conformity in the political arena but they go hand in hand.

[Quicksilver]

ALL Leftists are the enemy here, as far as I am concerned.

Are you always such a sweetie?? hahahahahahahaha

[Chris]

No! Third parties are guaranteed losers.

Then what are you afraid of?

[Crepitus]

Because the Democrat party is made up of nothing but whacked out immoral leftists. We need strong opposition to the Left here in the US so we don't wind up just like the old Soviet Union where political opposition was quashed. But I bet leftists like @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308), @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) would love that.
You do realize that single party rule by the republicans would be just as bad or worse right?

I can picture it now, all of us, or those of us that remain at least, wandering through the post-apocalyptic wasteland left by the megs-corps rape of the earth, armed to the teeth because our second amendment rights demand it, squabbling over the few remaining scraps of uncontaminated food, while the 1% sits safe and warm behind their walls, secure in the knowledge that it's OK, because they are better than the rest of us.

[Mister D]

I tend to think we'd be better off with a different system. The US system has a moderating effect on all political forces. That can be a good thing because, for example, it marginalizes the loons but it also makes the system highly resistant to change. The US looks like a paradox on the surface because it combines a high degree of atomism (a sociological term) with a high degree of conformity in the political arena but they go hand in hand.

And for those who can't or won't put 2 and 2 together the implication is that change is slow if it happens at all because Americans aren't a particularly political people. We don't like politics because politics involves choosing between alternatives. Deep down, Americans are a most liberal people wedded to an apolitical status quo. Fukuyama wrote of the end of history and of liberalism's triumph when the USSR fell but I think the end of US history, so to speak, was a crucial ideological first step.

[Chris]

And for those who can't or won't put 2 and 2 together the implication is that change is slow if it happens at all because Americans aren't a particularly political people. We don't like politics because politics involves choosing between alternatives. Deep down, Americans are a most liberal people wedded to an apolitical status quo. Fukuyama wrote of the end of history and of liberalism's triumph when the USSR fell but I think the end of US history, so to speak, was a crucial ideological first step.

Fukuyama remains resolute in that prediction despite the threat of Islamism, the resurgence of Russian, and the rise of China, but does see political decay--corruption, cronyism--as a possible threat to democracy.

[Mister D]

Fukuyama remains resolute in that prediction despite the threat of Islamism, the resurgence of Russian, and the rise of China, but does see political decay--corruption, cronyism--as a possible threat to democracy.

I'm not surprised. The west seems rather fearful of a resurgent Russia. I think that's interesting and quite telling given that communism is about as dead as a political philosophy can be. What exactly is this fear based on? Or is it really fear? They sell it as a security concern but I think a resurgent Russia is more of an ideological threat.

[Chris]

I'm not surprised. The west seems rather fearful of a resurgent Russia. I think that's interesting and quite telling given that communism is about as dead as a political philosophy can be. What exactly is this fear based on? Or is it really fear? They sell it as a security concern but I think a resurgent Russia is more of an ideological threat.

I see Russia and China as moving toward capitalism, state-controlled, but I think Fukuyama, like Friedman, interestingly, would argue that opening up to capitalism means having to open up politically too, to democracy.

Fukuyama writes a follow up to End of History every year or so. I didn't like him for a long time because he was a neocon, but Bush II turned him away from that.

[Mister D]

I see Russia and China as moving toward capitalism, state-controlled, but I think Fukuyama, like Friedman, interestingly, would argue that opening up to capitalism means having to open up politically too, to democracy.

Fukuyama writes a follow up to End of History every year or so. I didn't like him for a long time because he was a neocon, but Bush II turned him away from that.

I don't think capitalism (defined as a relatively free market) need have the cultural effects it has had in the US, for example. Moreover, modernity is a product of the west's historical experience. It's simply not the experience of Russia to the same extent and not the experience of China at all. We're just speculating I suppose. Whatever will happen in the long term can't be known but, for my part, I reject the universalism and determinism of Fukuyama.

[Peter1469]

The globalist elites control both main political parties in the US. And people really support one over the other and think they are clever.

[Chris]

I don't think capitalism (defined as a relatively free market) need have the cultural effects it has had in the US, for example. Moreover, modernity is a product of the west's historical experience. It's simply not the experience of Russia to the same extent and not the experience of China at all. We're just speculating I suppose. Whatever will happen in the long term can't be known but, for my part, I reject the universalism and determinism of Fukuyama.

Yes, speculating broad movements in history, or historicism. Much as Fukuyama disagree with Marx on capitalism over communism, he did admire Marx, and Hegel, and Plato, see https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/fukuyama.htm -- each of whom Popper excoriates as statist and historicists in The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper, too, is an exponent of liberal democracy.