WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Your Opinion: The 'Two Party' System

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Your Opinion: The 'Two Party' System  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 04:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6338
Status: 
Offline
BlueThunder wrote: Is a two party system avoidable in a free society? I like small government and others like big government. There will always be that divide. We're just way too polarized today. Does everyone the bromance between Reagan and O'Neal? I think that type of non-partisanship is gone.The reality is they fought most of the time but when push came to shove but realized they needed to compromise.  The 82 tax bill is the perfect example.  Reagan had to have that and had almost all the votes to get it (even with a D House).  However, he was just short.  He and Tip came to an agreement that a stimulus package would be included.  Reagan didn't like it but knew it was that or nothing.  
Also, the last SS reform was done under them when it was in trouble.  However, they fought like cats and dogs most of the time.  The difference is they both wouldn't just let everything crash and burn. 
Just so someone doesn't misunderstand - I am NOT lionizing Reagan or O'Neill.  Both had plusses and minuses to be certain.  I am just stating basic facts. 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 04:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6338
Status: 
Offline
Ultimark wrote: BlueThunder wrote: Is a two party system avoidable in a free society? I like small government and others like big government. There will always be that divide. We're just way too polarized today. Does everyone the bromance between Reagan and O'Neal? I think that type of non-partisanship is gone.The reality is they fought most of the time but when push came to shove but realized they needed to compromise.  The 82 tax bill is the perfect example.  Reagan had to have that and had almost all the votes to get it (even with a D House).  However, he was just short.  He and Tip came to an agreement that a stimulus package would be included.  Reagan didn't like it but knew it was that or nothing.  
Also, the last SS reform was done under them when it was in trouble.  However, they fought like cats and dogs most of the time.  The difference is they both wouldn't just let everything crash and burn. 
Just so someone doesn't misunderstand - I am NOT lionizing Reagan or O'Neill.  Both had plusses and minuses to be certain.  I am just stating basic facts. 
I have also found that many proponents of small Gov like that until "their thing" is threatened.  Then, not so much. 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 05:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
srossi
Mr Monday Night!
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 46292
Status: 
Offline
BlueThunder wrote: Is a two party system avoidable in a free society? I like small government and others like big government. There will always be that divide. We're just way too polarized today. Does everyone the bromance between Reagan and O'Neal? I think that type of non-partisanship is gone.
Other democracies have more than two parties.  Even America toyed with it off and on through the late 1800s with a lot more success than is possible today.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 05:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6338
Status: 
Offline
Ultimark wrote: BlueThunder wrote: Is a two party system avoidable in a free society? I like small government and others like big government. There will always be that divide. We're just way too polarized today. Does everyone the bromance between Reagan and O'Neal? I think that type of non-partisanship is gone.The reality is they fought most of the time but when push came to shove but realized they needed to compromise.  The 82 tax bill is the perfect example.  Reagan had to have that and had almost all the votes to get it (even with a D House).  However, he was just short.  He and Tip came to an agreement that a stimulus package would be included.  Reagan didn't like it but knew it was that or nothing.  
Also, the last SS reform was done under them when it was in trouble.  However, they fought like cats and dogs most of the time.  The difference is they both wouldn't just let everything crash and burn. 
Just so someone doesn't misunderstand - I am NOT lionizing Reagan or O'Neill.  Both had plusses and minuses to be certain.  I am just stating basic facts. 
How do you square small gov with a trillion dollar deficit in a good economy?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 07:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 2035
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: BlueThunder wrote: Is a two party system avoidable in a free society? I like small government and others like big government. There will always be that divide. We're just way too polarized today. Does everyone the bromance between Reagan and O'Neal? I think that type of non-partisanship is gone.
Other democracies have more than two parties.  Even America toyed with it off and on through the late 1800s with a lot more success than is possible today.


The electoral system pretty much kills any chance of a viable third party.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 07:45 pm
  PM Quote Reply
21st Post
srossi
Mr Monday Night!
 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 46292
Status: 
Offline
BlueThunder wrote: srossi wrote: BlueThunder wrote: Is a two party system avoidable in a free society? I like small government and others like big government. There will always be that divide. We're just way too polarized today. Does everyone the bromance between Reagan and O'Neal? I think that type of non-partisanship is gone.
Other democracies have more than two parties.  Even America toyed with it off and on through the late 1800s with a lot more success than is possible today.


The electoral system pretty much kills any chance of a viable third party.

Not really. You can split electoral votes 3 ways just as easily as you can total votes.  Money and influence is what kills it.  Particularly both parties colluding with the media to make it impossible for a third party candidate to get any positive attention or to take part in any of the debates.  And everyone is well-trained to immediately blame a third party candidate if the OTHER guy wins.  It's a calculated vilification technique.  After all Nadar has done, he's probably best know today as the guy that "lost" the election for Gore. 

Last edited on Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 07:48 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 09:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
22nd Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9058
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: BlueThunder wrote: srossi wrote: BlueThunder wrote: Is a two party system avoidable in a free society? I like small government and others like big government. There will always be that divide. We're just way too polarized today. Does everyone the bromance between Reagan and O'Neal? I think that type of non-partisanship is gone.
Other democracies have more than two parties.  Even America toyed with it off and on through the late 1800s with a lot more success than is possible today.


The electoral system pretty much kills any chance of a viable third party.

Not really. You can split electoral votes 3 ways just as easily as you can total votes.  Money and influence is what kills it.  Particularly both parties colluding with the media to make it impossible for a third party candidate to get any positive attention or to take part in any of the debates.  And everyone is well-trained to immediately blame a third party candidate if the OTHER guy wins.  It's a calculated vilification technique.  After all Nadar has done, he's probably best know today as the guy that "lost" the election for Gore. 


It is the money that is the hurdle to get over to make any of this work. 


Money and power also bring with it media influence.  They will attempt to stifle a Third Party candidate and/or prohibit them from participating in things like debates to get exposure.


It happens. 

Last edited on Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 09:41 pm by Papa Voo

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 09:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
23rd Post
Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6338
Status: 
Offline
Seldom do the 2 parties ever agree but one of the times they do is when a third party appears ready to break out. Then they unite like brothers in arms to make sure they become nothing.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 11:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
24th Post
freebirdsforever2001
Fantasia is running wild!


Joined: Tue Jul 8th, 2008
Location: Pittsgrove, New Jersey USA
Posts: 20449
Status: 
Offline
The system the way it is now is a fucking joke. Nothing gets done and everything is in one constant spin cycle.



____________________

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Oct 4th, 2018 09:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
25th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9058
Status: 
Offline
Things get done but nothing benefiting the ordinary citizen unless there is money to be made.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Oct 5th, 2018 03:20 pm
  PM Quote Reply
26th Post
BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 2035
Status: 
Offline
Papa Voo wrote: srossi wrote: BlueThunder wrote: srossi wrote: BlueThunder wrote: Is a two party system avoidable in a free society? I like small government and others like big government. There will always be that divide. We're just way too polarized today. Does everyone the bromance between Reagan and O'Neal? I think that type of non-partisanship is gone.
Other democracies have more than two parties.  Even America toyed with it off and on through the late 1800s with a lot more success than is possible today.


The electoral system pretty much kills any chance of a viable third party.

Not really. You can split electoral votes 3 ways just as easily as you can total votes.  Money and influence is what kills it.  Particularly both parties colluding with the media to make it impossible for a third party candidate to get any positive attention or to take part in any of the debates.  And everyone is well-trained to immediately blame a third party candidate if the OTHER guy wins.  It's a calculated vilification technique.  After all Nadar has done, he's probably best know today as the guy that "lost" the election for Gore. 


It is the money that is the hurdle to get over to make any of this work. 


Money and power also bring with it media influence.  They will attempt to stifle a Third Party candidate and/or prohibit them from participating in things like debates to get exposure.


It happens. 


Money is an important factor. IThe big two typically are stacked. Perot was the exception. In an electoral winner takes all, people are afraid of wasting their vote, so they vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm sure many stone libs liked Stein better than Hillary, but they chose Hillary to avoid a Trump presidency. The problem is that both big parties cover so much ground that they co-opt the platforms of third parties. I mean, Trump has done quite a bit that might steal votes from otherwise Libertarians. The fact that he's willing to sit down and talk about decriminalizing some drugs should be enough to make inroads. Third parties work better in a Parliamentary system where parties that did okay get a say in the government.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Oct 6th, 2018 05:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
27th Post
gwlee7



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 5247
Status: 
Offline
And maybe a parliamentary system would be better for us too. In parliamentary style governance, coalitions have to formed in order for legislation to get passed. There has to be consensus. In our system it is basically which ever party has a simple majority gets to bully the other. The SC vote is going to be a perfect example. It is going to be straight partisan voting save for about 2 or 3 Senators. Statistical probability would suggest that more Dems should be voting yes and more Republicans should be voting no if voting was was strictly one his qualifications. But, Kavanaugh could fuck a goat on national TV and most Republicans would still vote for him. And to be fair, Trump could have been a political genius and put Merrick Garland forward and I bet he would not have the Dems support because Trump did it.



____________________
I just think it's amazing that Trump is really on Twitter all day, personally writing this shit. He's about 3 beers away from joining S&W and getting into a flame war with Ports.----srossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 03:11 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2     
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Your Opinion: The 'Two Party' System Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems