Current or modern politics in the United States

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by Retrovintro

The GOP has devolved, since the Reagan era, into the batshit crazy party who live in their own bubble. The Democrats have devolved into a spineless party.
Both are on the payroll of Wall Street, Banks, big business ( like insurance, oil, communications, tobacco, NRA, timber, coal, etc) . Virtually none of them live anywhere close to their paygrade, making most of their money thru dummy corporations via legalized ( and un-reformed) lobbying laws. They dont work for the people they work for themselves, both putting politics before the will of the people. The evidence of this is everywhere. I will say, of the two its harder to peg who is more to blame: the GOP for pontificating its negative views on women, minorities, entitlements, global warming,gays, poverty, the middle class ( whats left of it) or the Dems for letting it happen. Of the two, the GOP is FAR more represented in the media by idiots like FOX news, Anne Coulter, Hanity, O' Reilly, Palin, Bachman, and Rush Limbaugh. The best person they could nominate was Bush W ( an alcoholic, and ex coke head, draft dodger, and faked Yale grad) and Mitt Romney ( a mormon, who believes in magical underwear and the planet Kolab, who changed his platform weekly). The GOP is also more apt to employ fear tactics, religion, and wedge issues to prey on the suggestible. Mitch McConell and his cronies had/have a secret agenda to deny any proposal made by Obama, before they even knew what they where. Again politics before people.
This certainly didnt bode well for the public ( who knew better) perception of them.
But in the end they are all lying and greedy power mongers who have voted in constant pay raises for themselves ( to give credibility during tax time as to their living beyond their salaries) denied campaign reform, voted their actions opaque and without accountability, and receive full pensions and health care for life.

!!
This is coming very close of my point of view of American politics.
Another one.

[bombermouse]

Speaking as someone who voted for Obama, I don't worship him and am not even a Democrat. I think he's one of the weaker presidents we've had. Unfortunately, the Republicans demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are a much worse alternative.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by bombermouse

Speaking as someone who voted for Obama, I don't worship him and am not even a Democrat. I think he's one of the weaker presidents we've had. Unfortunately, the Republicans demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are a much worse alternative.

I've learned a few month ago, that the US are having more than two parties.

Admitted, I've been very astonished too.

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

I've learned a few month ago, that the US are having more than two parties.

Admitted, I've been very astonished too.

True, but it's been many years since a third party has had a chance at the presidency.

[scoundrel]

The existence of other political parties can pose a challenge. Ralph Nader ran for the Green Party, supposedly only in non-swing states and to publicise the environmentalist case. But despite promising not to be a spoiler, he ran in Florida and polled over 97,000 votes. The story of the hanging chads is now part of our folklore; but Nader's contention that his 97,000 votes did not skew the poll against Al Gore and in favour of George W Bush seems awfully thin to me. I can't see many Republicans being swayed by the Green candidate. I think tree-hugging and saving the whales is more of a Democrat thing. No matter what your heart says, tactics enter into voting and you do need to think who it is you want to keep out and how your vote might let them in.

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The existence of other political parties can pose a challenge. Ralph Nader ran for the Green Party, supposedly only in non-swing states and to publicise the environmentalist case. But despite promising not to be a spoiler, he ran in Florida and polled over 97,000 votes. The story of the hanging chads is now part of our folklore; but Nader's contention that his 97,000 votes did not skew the poll against Al Gore and in favour of George W Bush seems awfully thin to me. I can't see many Republicans being swayed by the Green candidate. I think tree-hugging and saving the whales is more of a Democrat thing. No matter what your heart says, tactics enter into voting and you do need to think who it is you want to keep out and how your vote might let them in.

Yeah the Dems took it on the chin with that one. In all fairness however the reason we had Clinton as a president probably has a lot to do with Ross Perot running as a 3rd party candidate back in '92. Given his background and his rhetoric I didn't see Ross stealing too many democratic votes from Clinton.

Its not outright against the law for third parties to form (that would be too obvious) but I think a number of tax loopholes, funding clauses, regulations, etc. are in place to favor two parties. If your trying to form a legitimate third alternative here your fighting very much an uphill battle. I think the Democrats and the Republicans could quickly and easily find a common cause in uniting against a third party forming. There is way too much serious money at stake and no one needs some earnest young upstarts confusing the issues with yet a third viewpoint. Having a two party system with mostly diametrically opposed views allows everyone to quickly and easily find the bad guy, evil oppressor, fascist, socialist, communist, etc., etc., We're Americans. Were trained not to look at moral complexities very closely.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The existence of other political parties can pose a challenge. Ralph Nader ran for the Green Party, supposedly only in non-swing states and to publicise the environmentalist case. But despite promising not to be a spoiler, he ran in Florida and polled over 97,000 votes. The story of the hanging chads is now part of our folklore; but Nader's contention that his 97,000 votes did not skew the poll against Al Gore and in favour of George W Bush seems awfully thin to me. I can't see many Republicans being swayed by the Green candidate. I think tree-hugging and saving the whales is more of a Democrat thing. No matter what your heart says, tactics enter into voting and you do need to think who it is you want to keep out and how your vote might let them in.

But it all will fail at the funding.
And the Republicans & Democrats will be horrified, if something is changing here - as it's working so well for them.

[blueballsdc]

Originally Posted by dethtongue

Yeah the Dems took it on the chin with that one. In all fairness however the reason we had Clinton as a president probably has a lot to do with Ross Perot running as a 3rd party candidate back in '92. Given his background and his rhetoric I didn't see Ross stealing too many democratic votes from Clinton.

Polls at the time showed that Ross Perot pulled almost equally from both parties. So even if he hadn't run, Clinton would have still won election.

[MisterMacky]

The real question is who would be desirous of saving the Republican party?

OK, let's say the Republican party reforms itself to improve public relations and its public image. The Republican party is no longer the party of gun people, Christians, and the uneducated (you know who you are... you are the bachelor degrees who think wikipedia is good source material), then what?

[Puhbear69]

From an European point of view,
the Democrat Party appears mainly on the right as on the liberal side. Not to mention what's happened on the left.

The Republicans would find themselves on the right spectrum to the fascist right wing. Yes, I being serious with my opinion about the fascist right wing. But mainly they are giving the impression of the far right. Sorry, the explanation would burst the limits of this post.

That might be a due to the image of the US-society (I cannot know in all details), their problems in the last about 20 years.

What I'm going to say: there are more marginal differences between those US parties, as the US citizens might discern - from an European point of view.

Admitted, that some of the European Parties (German Social Democratic Party, English New Labor) followed (neo-) liberal trend too.

EDIT: One has to difference the parties - from the actual presidential candidates.