50 years ago is.....50 years ago. The GOP has not adapted since 1980, and if not for hanging chads would be looking at their 7th consecutive general election loss. That sounds like extremely poor adaptability to me.
Sorry, 50 years ending in like 2004. It was a juggernaut.
Who cares about the Presidency? Congress still holds the power.
But I'm not the only poker game in town, you chose to join mine because you thought it gave you the best chance to win.
I don't buy the rigged against Bernie narrative that has been created. He lost as fairly as one can in politics. Sure we can argue that politics aren't fair but I thought everyone understood that here. You want fair? Join a softball league.
There's only 2 poker games in town.
They conspire to keep any others from being viable. Debates used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters. Not anymore, the parties left them and now make the rules between themselves - which is why 3rd party nominees don't get into debates. Ross Perot's wouldn't make the debates, under today's rules.
So there's your poker game where you get an extra card, and one other poker game being run by a racist biker gang, and you work together to shut down new games.
You're a dick!
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Sorry, 50 years ending in like 2004. It was a juggernaut.
Who cares about the Presidency? Congress still holds the power.
So kudos to the GOP for gerrymandering the #### out of America to make sure they can keep Congress. Now they are essentially a blockade party rather than one that actually governs. And the Dems are going to have their own juggernaut if the GOP can't turn it around quickly, which they almost certainly won't.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
So kudos to the GOP for gerrymandering the #### out of America to make sure they can keep Congress. Now they are essentially a blockade party rather than one that actually governs. And the Dems are going to have their own juggernaut if the GOP can't turn it around quickly, which they almost certainly won't.
Man, you are really incapable of seeing the other side, aren't you?
Sometimes, CHL takes his stance a little too far, but in you, he has a perfect case study.
Please tell me that you are at least American, because if you are some guy living in Calgary, I honestly do not know what turns your gears.
But I'm not the only poker game in town, you chose to join mine because you thought it gave you the best chance to win.
I don't buy the rigged against Bernie narrative that has been created. He lost as fairly as one can in politics. Sure we can argue that politics aren't fair but I thought everyone understood that here. You want fair? Join a softball league.
I'd add to this that while politics aren't fair, internal party politics are doubly (maybe triply so). This was never intended as a process to fairly elect candidates; it was intended as a mock-election format to vet candidates for electability and party values (while serving secondary factors of generating interest and mobilizing the base). I think that now, a more educated populace is looking at this and saying 'wait, this system is all totally unfair!' And they are right, they just shouldn't be surprised.
Personally, I think a simultaneous (could be over several weeks, but results are announced at once), nation-wide IRV system for each party would be ideal. It would also help to greatly condense the primary schedule. Standardize eligibility rules across states and parties (party members can only vote in their own primary, independents can vote in any one primary including 3rd parties). Get rid of the delegate system entirely. For the two major parties, the ranked voting system ensures they don't nominate widely disliked candidates due to a scattered field (like Trump), while there's still a solid possibility for acceptable outsider candidates to rise to the top (like Sanders).
Yeah, it would never happen. But if you're looking for hypothetical replacements for the current, unfair system, I think it would be a good way to go.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Please tell me that you are at least American, because if you are some guy living in Calgary, I honestly do not know what turns your gears.
Odd thing to say considering you're also making points in a thread about American politics.
That aside, American politics is interesting for obvious reasons, and having an interest in one side or another whilst living in another country makes sense considering the USA is a dominant world superpower.
There's only 2 poker games in town.
They conspire to keep any others from being viable. Debates used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters. Not anymore, the parties left them and now make the rules between themselves - which is why 3rd party nominees don't get into debates. Ross Perot's wouldn't make the debates, under today's rules.
So there's your poker game where you get an extra card, and one other poker game being run by a racist biker gang, and you work together to shut down new games.
You're a dick!
I can't argue your last point. This is fact.
IMHO the two party system is and will forever be the only way American politics can be conducted as long as the electoral college exists. What Bernie wanted to do was turn the Democratic party into the American Socialist Party in a single campaign run. He got them to move left and that is admirable on some fronts but that's as far as it would go. He's a fringe independent candidate that pragmatically switched to the Dems and then bitched about how they do business. He was certainly able to mobilize a vocal minority of liberals into a legitimate bid but make no mistake he got his ass handed to him in the Democratic process when it was all over.
On the topic of US right vs. left, generally, if you ask someone on the left to explain a policy position of the right, they can do it. They understand the motives, and can make accurate predictions and models of a right-wing philosophy.
The reverse is not true. This is why there's no funny right-wing comedians - they're never ahead of the curve.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
On the topic of US right vs. left, generally, if you ask someone on the left to explain a policy position of the right, they can do it. They understand the motives, and can make accurate predictions and models of a right-wing philosophy.
The reverse is not true. This is why there's no funny right-wing comedians - they're never ahead of the curve.
Could that also be that conservatives look to the past and returning things how they were? It's maintaining the status quo, always keeping things as they are or reverting to how they used to be. Hard to be ahead of the curve when your platform is "avoid the curve at all costs".
Odd thing to say considering you're also making points in a thread about American politics.
That aside, American politics is interesting for obvious reasons, and having an interest in one side or another whilst living in another country makes sense considering the USA is a dominant world superpower.
I have pretty clearly stated that I have no skin in the game.
On the topic of US right vs. left, generally, if you ask someone on the left to explain a policy position of the right, they can do it.
Of course. For example, the right supports police intervention and opposes black lives matter because they're racist.
The right is anti-illegal immigration and in favour of border security because they're racist.
The right is all about tax cuts because they hate the poor and want to keep the rich getting richer (and they're also racist).
The right is concerned about voter fraud because they're racist.
The right is anti-refugee because they're bigoted.
The right opposes abortion because they're misogynists.
The right opposes gun control legislation because they care more about being able to shoot guns than peoples' lives.
Basically, they're just terrible human beings.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Could that also be that conservatives look to the past and returning things how they were? It's maintaining the status quo, always keeping things as they are or reverting to how they used to be. Hard to be ahead of the curve when your platform is "avoid the curve at all costs".
That doesn't explain the cognitive failure though.
Of course. For example, the right supports police intervention and opposes black lives matter because they're racist.
The right is anti-illegal immigration and in favour of border security because they're racist.
The right is all about tax cuts because they hate the poor and want to keep the rich getting richer (and they're also racist).
The right is concerned about voter fraud because they're racist.
The right is anti-refugee because they're bigoted.
The right opposes abortion because they're misogynists.
The right opposes gun control legislation because they care more about being able to shoot guns than peoples' lives.
Basically, they're just terrible human beings.
In fact, why even have elections at all when the other side can only win through egregious fraud, chance, and gerrymandering.
Of course. For example, the right supports police intervention and opposes black lives matter because they're racist.
The right is anti-illegal immigration and in favour of border security because they're racist.
The right is all about tax cuts because they hate the poor and want to keep the rich getting richer (and they're also racist).
The right is concerned about voter fraud because they're racist.
The right is anti-refugee because they're bigoted.
The right opposes abortion because they're misogynists.
The right opposes gun control legislation because they care more about being able to shoot guns than peoples' lives.
