Status
Not open for further replies.
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Audioholic Chief
Great post but we are currently stuck with the 2 party system. I didn't think either candidate would make a good President in our last election.
We're only stuck so long as we keep clinging to the idea that a vote for someone other than a two party candidate is a "wasted" vote. Of course, it would help if there were a good and viable third party candidate to vote for. But even IF you got a 3rd party President, BOTH sides of Congress would likely snub him/her. What I'm saying is it's time for a new third party that will obscure, obfuscate and ultimately wipe out one of and/or both of the other parties as fringe groups, because in my opinion, you've got two parties that now turning into extremists.

I consider myself a moderate person, conservative in financial areas and bit more liberal when it comes to social type things because I don't believe any human being has the right to tell another human how to live, what to think, etc. outside of them causing harm to another human being (i.e. My rights should end where yours begin and vice versa). Having the state tell people they can't do certain things while they can do other things that are equivalent (e.g. Smoking weed versus drinking alcohol, both DRUGs and yet you can drink yourself to death in every state but until recently, weed would get you arrested or fined in almost every state. Why? Because someone somewhere says they think you are NOT an adult and have NO RIGHTS over your own body. I say I don't care what you do in your home as long as it's not harming someone else (i.e. children need protecting from crazy SOBs, etc. Drinking while driving is bad because it impairs judgment and could harm others who have a right to be as safe as possible while driving or riding on public roadways).

This is not rocket science. We shouldn't have to have thousands of laws spelling out every little thing. In the Bible, "God" only had 10 Commandments (whether one believes in that God or a literal version, etc. etc. is another question, but it doesn't matter in terms of the story). Everything else was from Moses when he saw mankind couldn't think well enough to follow those BASIC things. And therein lies the problem. If you made a simple law of not harming others (the ENTIRE basis of Buddhism, for example to combat the negative effects of Karma that result from harming others), people will look for any excuse, any loophole, any opportunity to do what they want, harmful or not because people are ultimately self-centered bastards who don't give two craps about anyone but themselves. And THAT is the real heart of the problem and why the political system is screwed up in this country.

In principle, the system is for and by the people. In reality, it's for the people that get elected to help themselves to whatever they can get, however they can get it. Whatever the forefathers envisioned for the future, they clearly didn't have enough foresight to put in things like term limits or have another body determine the rules affecting Congress and even their pay (who else gets to vote themselves a pay raise? Who else can exclude themselves from insider trading? Etc. Etc.). These people believe themselves to be better than their fellow man. They think we're stupid and they're probably right because we put up with it and do literally nothing about it.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Great post but we are currently stuck with the 2 party system. I didn't think either candidate would make a good President in our last election.
By now it should be clear to most that Mrs Clinton would have been a much better President than Trump turned out to be, and there were many warning signals during the primaries and election that Trump would turn out to be an awful President. So I think that the argument that neither of them would make a good President is false equivalency.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Can we PLEASE get a 3rd party ....
Well, I am far from knowledgeable in politics but in essence we can only have a two party system due to the Electoral College.
And the last election proved it. They elect the president, not 50% popular vote.
And, that last presidential election showed what happens when you have other parties running, 7 million went to the other runners, 7 million.
And even a plus 3 million wasn't enough to win the Electoral collage, twice in 16 years.
A parliamentary system allows power sharing, not here.
Don't have a good answer.
 
H

Hetfield

Audioholic Samurai
Well, I am far from knowledgeable in politics but in essence we can only have a two party system due to the Electoral College.
And the last election proved it. They elect the president, not 50% popular vote.
And, that last presidential election showed what happens when you have other parties running, 7 million went to the other runners, 7 million.
And even a plus 3 million wasn't enough to win the Electoral collage, twice in 16 years.
A parliamentary system allows power sharing, not here.
Don't have a good answer.
Isn't that sad. The person that got 3 million more votes lost. Let that stupidity sink in. Then the whack job orange fat slob gets in and acts like he has this super agenda.
I would bet anyone a million bucks if this were happening the other way where a republican win twice but lost, the electoral college would be gone in an instant.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications".[3]
Oh well, I guess Hamilton had good intentions, but assuming the requisite qualifications include stuff like Honesty, Honor, Dignity, Stability, knowing how to shake hands, knowing how to maintain positive relations with allies (or simply how to inspire loyalty or maintain a true friendship, for that matter),etc; Hamilton's plan was woefully inadequate.
 
Last edited:
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
Interesting. Tyranny of the majority in 2000? Really?
In 2008? In 2016?
Not quite yet, but that's what they want and are working towards. They want three or four large metropolitan areas to control the whole country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/13/at-last-an-electoral-map-thats-to-the-proper-scale/?utm_term=.929b24916458

How about the tyranny of the minority?
Yeah, it sure looks like that now.
 
Last edited:
H

Hetfield

Audioholic Samurai
There is a possibility that Barr set up Trump for a fall. Release the 4 page summary, have Trump bite and say nice things about Mueller and then when the full report is released have a crush come down on Trump. Slim chance but ya never know.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
T

TankTop5

Audioholic Field Marshall
Interesting. Tyranny of the majority in 2000? Really?
In 2008? In 2016?
How about the tyranny of the minority?
Unfortunately remedial English was not your strong point. Protection from the majority by the minority is pretty much the entire point of America. That and lifetime judicial appointments but we screwed that one up...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
There is a possibility that Barr set up Trump for a fall. Release the 4 page summary, have Trump bite and say nice things about Mueller and then when the full report is released have a crush come down on Trump. Slim chance but ya never know.
Yet another unhinged conspiracy theory to defend Trump.
 
H

Hetfield

Audioholic Samurai
Yet another unhinged conspiracy theory to defend Trump.
Um I don't think you have been paying attention or comprehended what I was saying.
I have post after post calling Trump a orange fat slob so I wouldn't defend him on anything.
What I was saying is the full report from Mueller might not be kind to Trump. We might not ever see it though because republican after republican keeps blocking it's release.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
Um I don't think you have been paying attention or comprehended what I was saying.
I have post after post calling Trump a orange fat slob so I wouldn't defend him on anything.
What I was saying is the full report from Mueller might be kind to Trump. We might not ever see it though because republican after republican keeps blocking it's release.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I think Trell just used the first real example of sarcasm in this entire thread......

Not sarcasm... innocent people don't have things to hide.

Cue posting of memes about Hillary... (who went thru 8 investigations, and nothing was found.)

Trump was noted as NOT being exonerated......... Can't imagine why he wouldn't want the full report released....
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
By now it should be clear to most that Mrs Clinton would have been a much better President than Trump turned out to be, and there were many warning signals during the primaries and election that Trump would turn out to be an awful President. So I think that the argument that neither of them would make a good President is false equivalency.
Better doesn't equal good. In some cases, it means 'less bad'.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Better doesn't equal good. In some cases, it means 'less bad'.
I think she would be a very good President and I certainly see your point, but I think that in any case she would be far, far less bad than Trump. This is the point more than a few Trump voters has to come to grips with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top