IMAGINERIES wrote:
How a Trump and the late Mc Cain be from the same party? Same with democrats.......

Party politics, in the US, IMHO are a great deal of what is wrong with govt.

The parties, in an effort to "dominate" their foes- kept "combining" with one another until---again, IMHO, they lost any ability to represent the grassroots voters.

Well informed consensus among the various "factions" vanished, replaced by shrill "party lines".

The Republicans are a great example. As parts of the party drifted further and further right it no longer came close to representing my beliefs. As those far right elements began to dominate the party--- centrists like me were left with effectively "no party". Trump and his minions are as far from my beliefs as Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan.

But the functional reality of American politics is that a "minority" party has no real chance in national elections. Libertarians, Green Party etc etc- they are looked at not as viable candidates, but as potential "spoilers"--- diluting the vote, detracting from one party or an other's dominance.

LightDreams wrote:
[...]
The Trump family has moved hard to make sure they completely control the RNC at the top, and it looks like they've got it (and will probably continue to for at least another 4 years).   That means they can make it difficult for anyone else to mount a serious challenge, should Trump be around and wanting to run again in 4 years.  OR if another one of the Trump family becomes the new Trump "face", then the machinery will change accordingly.

[...]

So I'd suggest that any Republicans that think the RNC is going to be able to easily move on, past the "Trump" era, is in for a rude shock.  At least that's my "two cents" worth!

First- LOL, my days as a political prognosticator are over. I dont have a clue how this is going to work out. Let me be clear about that

With today's 1 hour news cycle, four years is a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time. A lot can happen, literally overnight.

That said--- trying to predict where the party will be four years from now seems pretty risky. Before June 2015, no one in the republican party would have given Trump a snowflake's chance in hell. He certainly wasnt "in control" of the party nor did anyone believe he ever would be. Things change.

I dont believe Biden will pursue any Federal prosecution of Trump. Politically very wise IMHO... dont give Trump the pulpit. Maybe more importantly, dont set the precedent.

But I DO believe Trump will face civil and criminal charges in New York State. If it is shown that Trump did, in fact, cheat on his taxes---the IRS "might" do something... New York State definitely will, if given the chance.

What impact those trials will have is hard to guess.

With his diminishing influence over the  Congress critters they may even begin re-growing some spine (a guy can dream, right?)

Biden has about 18 months. The 2022 elections will tell the future of both parties, again, in my somewhat  befuddled opinion....

LnN Studio wrote:
Why? Congress is controlled by the majority party...

That's much of the problem.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
There's already 5 parties . . .

Democrats
Republicans
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Constitution Party

How many more do you think we need ?

Just one more, call it purple if you wish. Or...Demopublicans.....Remocrats.?....

LnN Studio wrote:
Why? Congress is controlled by the majority party, easy with two, impossible with three. Only possible in a Parliamentary system and while theoreticly possible here we are in an age of ideological purity ( Cancel Culture) where compromise is a four letter word.

"compromise is a four letter word" --- Representative democracy is supposed to be all about well reasoned compromise.

And two, rigid, doctrinaire parties are NEVER going to "compromise"--- and that is the problem. The political will of the people cannot (or should not) be boiled down to a digital decision----good government isnt necessarily "either/or".

One dominant party, republican or democrat, shoving unwanted legislation (or Supreme Court appointments) down the throat of the "minority" party just sets us up for a never ending roller coaster of "un-doing" what the previous "majority" did.

Just maybe--- there wouldnt BE the ultra polarized, essentially paralyzed Congress we have now if they knew from the start a "compromise" between multiple parties was the only way things were going to happen---

dunno---- but I know we are not getting our money's worth out of what passes for "Congress" now.

rfordphotos wrote:
"compromise is a four letter word" --- Representative democracy is supposed to be all about well reasoned compromise.

And two, rigid, doctrinaire parties are NEVER going to "compromise"--- and that is the problem. The political will of the people cannot (or should not) be boiled down to a digital decision----good government isnt necessarily "either/or".

One dominant party, republican or democrat, shoving unwanted legislation (or Supreme Court appointments) down the throat of the "minority" party just sets us up for a never ending roller coaster of "un-doing" what the previous "majority" did.

Just maybe--- there wouldnt BE the ultra polarized, essentially paralyzed Congress we have now if they knew from the start a "compromise" between multiple parties was the only way things were going to happen---

dunno---- but I know we are not getting our money's worth out of what passes for "Congress" now.

Hey folks, the problem is not with our elected representatives (I'm referring to the U.S. right now), the problem is with the voters who elected them.  The clowns in Washington were elected by the clowns in their district.  Until the citizens of the our once fine country get their act together and learn to live and work with others with totally different views,  the country will continue to decline.  Our reps are just doing what their voters told them to do.   

Additionally, the country doesn't have 2 major parties, it has 100, 2 for each state.  Democrats and Republicans have unique issues within each state. And all the states have different issues.  Decades ago our reps compromised.  I'll support your bill if you support mine.  When it crossed parties, each side gave a little.  That's not happening anymore, at least not like it use to.   

China's goal is to be the dominate country in the world by 2049.  That will happen a lot sooner if the political divide with the CITIZENS continues to get worse.  My recommendation right now given by the citizen reaction to the election, learn Mandarin.

LnN Studio wrote:
Why? Congress is controlled by the majority party, easy with two, impossible with three. Only possible in a Parliamentary system and while theoreticly possible here we are in an age of ideological purity ( Cancel Culture) where compromise is a four letter word.

In Canada we currently have 4 Recognized Political Parties in our Parliament - The ( Minority )  Governing Liberals are Centrists . the Conservatives are of course Conservative . The NDP are Socialist Leaning and the Bloc Quebecois are concerned first and foremost with the interests of Citizens in the Province of Quebec

Our Governing Liberals are dependent on either the NDP or Bloc vote  to maintain a majority over the Conservatives

As a result - the NDP have been able to push the Liberals into increasing support for Canadians such as $2000 a month in unemployment benefits for the first 3 months of Covid ( plus many Provinces also provided their own benefits ) As I understand it the NDP are now also trying to push the Liberals into implementing a Universal  Pharmaceutical Plan to go along with our Universal Medical Plan .

A Thousand Words  wrote:
Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments.

I have to agree.  I HATE what political party allegiances have done to politics, especially in the U.S.

I use to think that political parties should be banned.  You voted for the best people you could find and they'd all vote differently, on an issue by issue basis, depending on their judgment of that particular issue.

Unfortunately, it's not very realistic.  Before long, you'd have unofficial voting "slates" of who you should vote for, etc.  And you'd end up right back to what would effectively be a political party system once again...

Kevin Connery wrote:

That's much of the problem.

I dont disagree but the system will never change unless wee do major campaign finance reform which will never happen because the party professionals make too much money at it.
Limit campaign  donations to in state residents for Senate and House, limit campaigns to three months before the convention and conventions to 8 weeks before the election.
Corporations ( and that includes public interest , non profit, for profit and unions) to instate and non. partisan , educational , issue ads on a national level ( that is a tough one to draft and enforce)

The problem is the endless campaigns, 2024 starts on Jan 1, 2021.
Also characterizing parties as party of racists doesn't do much for promoting unity  BTW. I would suggest that racism is pretty much equal in all parties because it isn't a political issue.

LnN Studio wrote:
...Also characterizing parties as party of racists doesn't do much for promoting unity  BTW. I would suggest that racism is pretty much equal in all parties because it isn't a political issue.

I don't think you meant to say that in quite the way you did...

Let's be clear.  There's a MASSIVE difference between racists existing within a political party and BEING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  In poll after poll, the majority of Americans define President Trump as a rascist.  That's the President  of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party.

That's one HELL of a difference...

Are all Republicans, or even the majority of Republicans, racist?  Of course not.

But the President clearly is, and has a long legal history and repeated pattern of incendiary comments in that regard.  He also deliberately and repeatedly specifically panders to that part of his voting base, rather than trying to disown them.

So let's not try and downplay the difference that Trump currently makes, when it comes to political parties and racism.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
There's already 5 parties . . .

Democrats
Republicans
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Constitution Party

How many more do you think we need ?

I always thought there should be a "Common Sense Party" but don't think there would ever be a majority.

LightDreams wrote:
I don't think you meant to say that in quite the way you did...

Let's be clear.  There's a MASSIVE difference between racists existing within a political party and BEING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  In poll after poll, the majority of Americans define President Trump as a rascist.  That's the President  of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party.

That's one HELL of a difference...

Are all Republicans, or even the majority of Republicans, racist?  Of course not.

But the President clearly is, and has a long legal history and repeated pattern of incendiary comments in that regard.  He also deliberately and repeatedly specifically panders to that part of his voting base, rather than trying to disown them.

So let's not try and downplay the difference that Trump currently makes, when it comes to political parties and racism.

If I wanted to say that I would have,
Two points.
First I do not think our current president is a racist but depending on the definition used  he is no more racist than 90% of the American population. Of course racism, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Second many on the left see all of Trump's supporters as racist all 74 million that voted for him.
So far we have had 45 Presidents of those by present day political standards would qualify as racist? My guess would be 45 for all one needs to have done by todays's standards is to have once in your lifetime used the N word, and for most of our history it was a commonly used term for what are now Black or African American. Of course all slaveholders had to be racists but history tell us that many slaveholders treated their slaves well wishing what was a clearly inhumane system . Slavery while inherently associated with race in this country existed centuries before any one ever set foot in this continent and was not based on race but on military victories and the concept that the spoils of war go to the victors. At best the losers were second class citizens, at worst disposable property.
So you think LBJ was a racist? After all he signed the 1967 Civil Rights Act. Of course the only reason we had a 64 act was that LBJ as Senate Majority Leader blocked the enforcement portions of the 1957Civil Rights Act . He is also widely credited with saying that it guaranteed to Black vote for 40 years...times up. Of course as a Southerner of his times how many times do you think he said the N word.
If racists support you does that mean you support them? Read the full context of the "good people on both sides" quote where he specifically excludes racist and white nationalist and of course the two sides were the Taliban style leftists that wanted to tear down statues of historic l figures and those that want to preserve history , the good , the bad and the ugly so that we can learn from it and not be ignorant fools calling everyone racists when they are not.

If racists support you does that mean you support them?

Trump's dog whistle rhetoric is indisputable. Your entire premise is flawed, but throwing LBJ in there is a nice exercise in straw man arguments. Also your assertion that Trump is no more racist than 90% of Americans is an exercise in bullshit statistics at their finest.

I see Trump as a racist not based on how other people act but based on his own words and actions, and while I do not see his 74 million voters as all racists, I do see 74 million voters where his racism wasn't a deal breaker. So that is certainly going to inform my opinion of those that support him.

LnN Studio wrote:
(snip- for the time being)
If racists support you does that mean you support them? Read the full context of the "good people on both sides" quote where he specifically excludes racist and white nationalist and of course the two sides were the Taliban style leftists that wanted to tear down statues of historic l figures and those that want to preserve history , the good , the bad and the ugly so that we can learn from it and not be ignorant fools calling everyone racists when they are not.

-
-
"Taliban style leftists," Bob?  I'm sorry, but have you looked at the various photos of the crowds?  Plenty of centrists are anti racist, Bob.  According to you, some on the right are too. (Your claim that not everyone that voted for trump is racist.)  But you want to characterize people that are standing up to people expressing a heinous view, the 21st century subjugation of people based on race, are taliban?   Phfft. 

"Those that want to tear down historic statues?"   Well, the statues are of historic people, but aren't particularly historic in themselves.  Nor does the fact the people the statues memorialize are historic, make those people good or honorable.  Lee lead an army against the United States for the purpose of preserving and expanding the slavery of people because of their race.  Disagree?  Read the south's Constitution.

"Those that want to preserve history?" They weren't preserving history.  They were glorifying a white washed version of history and those "historic statues" were put there to honor what the south stood for, which is not something that deserves honor or respect then or 150 years later.  The problem with your logic is that those that want to preserve "that history" want nothing to do with the bad or the ugly.  If they were honest, then statues of Lee and the Confederacy would be put into context of slavery.  It is not.  They are displayed as honorably fighting for their way of life, as if that way of life didn't include brutal slavery, rape, murder, human trafficking, the forcible tearing apart of families and having human chattel. 

The fine people on both sides, bullshit:
(Interesting how trump notice the black clothing of some of the counter protesters but doesn't say a word about the prevalence of the uniforms of the right.)
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019 … s-remarks/

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Two days after the confrontation, trump made these remarks.  He did not, on the day of the confrontation, unequivocally condemn white supremacists or racism. Nor the day after.  Two days later, he did manage to say  "... and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally."  But he is unaware that those nonexistent fine people that were marching with neo-nazis and white supremacist where condoning by their actions, the actions of neo-nazis and white supremacists.  He was also ignorant of the organization of the march.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
The Unite the Right rally[4] was a white supremacist[5][6][7][8] rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017.[9][10][11] Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right,[12] neo-Confederates,[13] neo-fascists,[14] white nationalists,[15] neo-Nazis,[16] Klansmen,[17] and various right-wing militias.[18] The marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans and carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus Vult crosses, flags, and other symbols of various past and present anti-Muslim and antisemitic groups.[8][10][19][20][21][22][23] The organizers' stated goals included unifying the American white nationalist movement[12] and opposing the proposed removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville's former Lee Park.[22][24]

The rally occurred amidst controversy generated by the removal of Confederate monuments by local governments following the Charleston church shooting in 2015, in which a white supremacist shot and killed nine black members, including the minister (a state senator), and wounded others.[7] The event turned violent after protesters clashed with counter-protesters, resulting in more than 30 injured.[25][26]

Please provide evidence that this rally was organized in any meaningful way by people solely concerned about preserving history.   What was the impetus for removing the statues?  The murders of victims chosen for racial and religious reasons by Dylan Roof, who professed his connection to the Confederate dogma.   It has yet to be shown that any significant portion of the alt-right march was comprised of anti-racist, yet pro Lee and pro-confederacy protesters, which seems like conflicting ideals.

Nobody walking on the side of the "right" that day was a fine person because fine people do not support and celebrate the subjugation of people with threats and remembrances of slavery, torture, rape, murder, terrorism, beatings, lynchings, racism and on and on.  Disgusting people do that.

trump equates all slave holders including those that risked everything for our freedom and to found our country to those who fought our country in armed conflict for the expressed purpose of advancing slavery.

trumps words implying any amount of decency onto those people is ghastly.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … conference

Two days after the fine people comment, trump delivers a prepared statement condemning the KKK and others (Aug 14 2917)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40927089

One day after that, he rejects his statements form his prepared remarks  (Aug 15 2017)
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/54374384 … arlottesvi

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
There's already 5 parties . . .

Democrats
Republicans
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Constitution Party

How many more do you think we need ?

Clearly we need ranked choice voting. Not “winner take all.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

j_francis_imagery wrote:

Clearly we need ranked choice voting. Not “winner take all.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

I frequently wished I had the option of "None of the Above" for some offices and have the parties find other candidates for a new vote.  .