Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Because those people believe they can change things.
The Green party, at least, was pushing environmentalism long before the Democrats were considering it, and have been at least partially successful in pushing for those goals. This was their specific, initial goal I believe. But the Democrats did eventually take on many of those positions on the environment, so a lot of voters who base their vote on those factors have probably gone with the more electable candidates lately.
edited 4th Aug '16 5:53:04 PM by AceofSpades
Originally there were no political parties and George Washington strongly cautioned against them but they arose anyway - the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. It's simply hard in a voting system based on simple majority (rather than, say, proportional representation) to sustain more then two parties because it makes it hard to get more than 50% of any given vote and gain a convincing mandate. Where new parties have risen to prominence, it's been over the remains of an old one...
Many countries can even sustain multiple parties under a simple majority system, however the US is strongly commited to only to having two parties. This is visible with how you guys have your system of money needed in elections, ballot access and the lack of total separation of the state and the party.
edited 4th Aug '16 6:45:52 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBy the time of Abraham Lincoln's election, the GOP had already become a major party. There was an eight-year period after the last Whig President, Millard Fillmore, and before the first GOP President, Abraham Lincoln. The election of 1852 had the last Whig presidential nominee, Winfield Scott, running against Franklin Pierce and the election of 1856 had the first Republican presidential nominee, John C. Frémont, running against James Buchanan.
Basically, the Whig Party collapsed and the GOP was formed from its ashes from former Whigs. Abraham Lincoln himself was even a Whig prior to the existence of the GOP. If the GOP collapses, it is more likely that former members of it will reconstitute themselves into a new Whig Party in eight years rather than either the Libertarians or Greens becoming the major party. It is either that or the Democrats effectively become the single party for over a decade before dividing into two parties because of disagreements between two factions within the Democratic Party like what happened when the Democratic-Republicans collapsed into the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party. BTW, the National Republican Party is unrelated to the GOP other than the fact that the National Republican Party collapsed and gave birth to the Whig Party which collapsed and gave birth to the GOP...
Thus should the GOP collapse, there will be a new Whig Party. =P
edited 4th Aug '16 6:46:17 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly@Silasw: Well yeah...those things came later though. I want to say within the last century but I'd have to research a while to get specifics, and I suspect they have more to do with keeping the existing parties in power than not.
I think it's a toss-up between those two options. The GOP of the last few decades has been an alliance of relatively disparate factions - social conservatives/religious fundamentalists, fiscal/establishment conservatives, Tea Party upstarts and Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats and at least some of the Tea Party have effectively jumped on the Trump Train. Cruz represents the social conservitives and the Bush family are as good a representation as any for the establishment group. None of them like each other and that alliance is on shaky ground. It may be hard for them to coalesce into a new party.
By comparison, the Dems are showing signs that could lead to a split down the road but for now they're cooperating. They have at least a couple election cycles before they have to worry about the level of dysfunction the GOP has right now and they might avoid spawning their own Tea Party if they're smart about offering olive branches to their more radical members.
edited 4th Aug '16 7:03:36 PM by Elle
RE: Trump's casinos
They went bankrupt because he was competing with himself. Trump Plaza, Trump Castle, and Trump Taj Mahal were all in operation in Atlantic City and were all competing with one another for money. Taj Mahal outperformed the other two and drove them into bankruptcy, and the 14% interest Trump was paying on the billion and a half dollar loan he took out on Taj Mahal killed it.
There were other factors, but the root cause is that he tried to form a monopoly and outcompeted himself.
Yep. When you look at Trump's business ventures (with the exception of the real estate stuff, and even there it shows up) there is usually at least one enormous blatantly obvious flaw that just sinks the whole thing because Trump is a blithering idiot when it comes to business.
He sold steaks at an appliance store. He created a luxury airline for flights of less than 3 hours. The aforementioned problem with the casinos.
Why anyone thinks he's a successful businessman is beyond me because literally all the evidence points to him being horrible at it. The only thing he's good at is selling his own name and image, which is not a good substitute for actual intelligence or acumen. What's really weird about him is that he appears to think that those failed businesses still exist. He's referenced Trump Steaks more than once in the last year and it failed like 10 years ago.
edited 4th Aug '16 7:35:45 PM by Zendervai
Something something, Hitler commanding non-existing divisions, something something, acting like he can still win the war with the Red Army at his gates, something something, completely delusional and believing his own propaganda, something something, all also Trump.
Inter arma enim silent legesIt's not an inapt comparison, though it's one which should be avoided if at all possible. Both are outstanding pitchmen for their own successes and seemingly utter failures at everything else; both ride into politics on the crest of a frothing and nationalistic wave; and both are given to take additional control within their organizations for inscrutable reasons and to disastrous effect.
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."Trump is pseudo-fascist (he isn't literally a fascist, since he has stated not intentions to dissolve elections), but not nearly as xenophobic as Hitler. He's more like Mussolini if Mussolini wasn't especially anti-democracy.
Leviticus 19:34Mussolini was more functionally intelligent than Trump is, though. He did manage to turn around Italy's economy from being a complete mess to being at least somewhat functional - if somewhat heavy on the agriculture side. (Many of the areas Mussolini's regime arranged to turn into farmland are still farmland today.)
The real big thing most people don't realize that the alliance with Nazi Germany was his fallback plan with the main reason being to make sure Nazi Germany was not going to threaten Italy. His original plan was becoming allies with Britain. In hindsight, this would not have deterred Hitler because Hitler was insane and would have Germany attack whoever he wanted regardless of alliances, but at least we can acknowledge it was a better plan than Trump's Mexican wall.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Comparing Trump to either Hitler or Mussolini feels like an Insult to Rocks at this point. Both of them were somewhat competent at their job - they also were actual politicians.
I don't think Trump is stupid per say. He's very good at manipulating people. I would also argue that Hitler and Mussolini were not much smarter than Trump.
About Trump's casinos: did he actually create any of these (which would indeed be stupid if the market was that saturated) or did he simply buy all casinos in the city? (in which case it's less bad, but still he should have closed one if the total income was less than the total cost)
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."as political sciene student, there is something Trump have of musolini: is hability to launch into any position that may serve without caring of consistency, many people have point out how Mussolini jumpy between point like hot potato because in the end he didnt even care, the same apply right now, he dosent really have any idea of how to do the suff except to complain about what is bad.
I mean, as far I can see, Trump is going to wave his hand and BANG, huge wall with apear, them he is going ti telekinetic throw every muslim back to middle east them make a tought face and break putin into submission(HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) at this point he could just said "with magic" to any of his promise and it will be the same thing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
I can see some parallels with populist politicians like Mussolini (connections to a foreign government, national syndicalism etc.). Otherwise, he's just yelling incomprehensible mess of gibberish. He genuinely seems to have ADD.
Seth Meyers weighs in on Trump's bad week. Something to start the weekend with.
edited 5th Aug '16 2:18:06 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

edited 4th Aug '16 5:52:29 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34