Must be some smart people in Vermont, hopefully he will not be alone next sessionJohnG@lt wrote:
The Socialist Party has a representative from Vermont.Varegg wrote:
Effectively it actually is FEOS ... what other parties are represented in congress?FEOS wrote:
Then one might as well make that argument for several other Western democracies, but few do. The FACT is, that our system IS NOT a two party system, it is a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties, just like any of several other Western democracies whose systems people don't seem to bitch about incessantly.
ah so they were finally able to remove all references to Chappaquiddick from public record?Kmarion wrote:
http://i39.tinypic.com/e6vzgl.jpg
Pretty funny in retrospect.1 year 10 months ago RAIMIUS wrote:
He proposes health care programs, but doesn't quite specify how they would work, or how to fund them.
No semantics about it. Look at just about every other Western democracy. They are pretty much dominated by two parties, with other parties playing bit parts at best. Why do you think that is? Because the dominant parties adopt the issues that the majority of the people care about...which roughly splits into two camps on just about every issue. Hence two major parties. And those parties generally morph as the issues the people care about morph...or they become irrelevant and another party takes their place. Does that mean there isn't room for other parties? Absolutely not--just the opposite. There most certainly is, but they generally operate outside of the mainstream (hence the relatively low numbers of representation in the various legislative houses around the world, with a few exceptions).Varegg wrote:
Purely semantics FEOS, you knew very well what I meant ...FEOS wrote:
That is irrelevant to whether the system allows for their participation. The system allows for completely unaffiliated (ie, independent) representatives to both the House and Senate (and even the Presidency). Thus, it is NOT a "two-party" system.Varegg wrote:
Effectively it actually is FEOS ... what other parties are represented in congress?
It is a system exactly as I described: A multi-party system that is dominated by two parties--just like many other Western democracies.
Well I know for a fact that in Australia and Canada there are several other parties that have enough power to bloc any other votes. Sure two parties are dominating congress/parliment but it's not like the 49/49/2 split in the US, more like a 30/30/40 split.FEOS wrote:
No semantics about it. Look at just about every other Western democracy. They are pretty much dominated by two parties, with other parties playing bit parts at best. Why do you think that is? Because the dominant parties adopt the issues that the majority of the people care about...which roughly splits into two camps on just about every issue. Hence two major parties. And those parties generally morph as the issues the people care about morph...or they become irrelevant and another party takes their place. Does that mean there isn't room for other parties? Absolutely not--just the opposite. There most certainly is, but they generally operate outside of the mainstream (hence the relatively low numbers of representation in the various legislative houses around the world, with a few exceptions).Varegg wrote:
Purely semantics FEOS, you knew very well what I meant ...FEOS wrote:
That is irrelevant to whether the system allows for their participation. The system allows for completely unaffiliated (ie, independent) representatives to both the House and Senate (and even the Presidency). Thus, it is NOT a "two-party" system.
It is a system exactly as I described: A multi-party system that is dominated by two parties--just like many other Western democracies.
So our system is most definitely not a two-party system. No more than any other Western democracy is a two-party system.
Bah ... two party system or not that was really beside the point I was trying to make FEOS ...FEOS wrote:
No semantics about it. Look at just about every other Western democracy. They are pretty much dominated by two parties, with other parties playing bit parts at best. Why do you think that is? Because the dominant parties adopt the issues that the majority of the people care about...which roughly splits into two camps on just about every issue. Hence two major parties. And those parties generally morph as the issues the people care about morph...or they become irrelevant and another party takes their place. Does that mean there isn't room for other parties? Absolutely not--just the opposite. There most certainly is, but they generally operate outside of the mainstream (hence the relatively low numbers of representation in the various legislative houses around the world, with a few exceptions).Varegg wrote:
Purely semantics FEOS, you knew very well what I meant ...FEOS wrote:
That is irrelevant to whether the system allows for their participation. The system allows for completely unaffiliated (ie, independent) representatives to both the House and Senate (and even the Presidency). Thus, it is NOT a "two-party" system.
It is a system exactly as I described: A multi-party system that is dominated by two parties--just like many other Western democracies.
So our system is most definitely not a two-party system. No more than any other Western democracy is a two-party system.
And with that, we have full agreement. Why didn't you say that to begin with?Varegg wrote:
Bah ... two party system or not that was really beside the point I was trying to make FEOS ...FEOS wrote:
No semantics about it. Look at just about every other Western democracy. They are pretty much dominated by two parties, with other parties playing bit parts at best. Why do you think that is? Because the dominant parties adopt the issues that the majority of the people care about...which roughly splits into two camps on just about every issue. Hence two major parties. And those parties generally morph as the issues the people care about morph...or they become irrelevant and another party takes their place. Does that mean there isn't room for other parties? Absolutely not--just the opposite. There most certainly is, but they generally operate outside of the mainstream (hence the relatively low numbers of representation in the various legislative houses around the world, with a few exceptions).Varegg wrote:
Purely semantics FEOS, you knew very well what I meant ...
So our system is most definitely not a two-party system. No more than any other Western democracy is a two-party system.
The point was seeing as both dominant parties in your forest of political options clearly is obstructing their own goal of making the US a better place for it's citizens there should be room for other parties to grab a huge chunk of votes in the next election if they profile themselves correctly ... if there ever was a chance to build a new strong political movement in the US it is now ...
Last edited by Spark (2010-03-25 05:41:16)
I believe some of us have been saying that from the beginning. Sometimes change for the sake of change is not a good thing.Spark wrote:
okay i've looked at this bill closer...
and it's fucked (in some of the details). fucked up bill, fucked up system. i'm amazed you guys get anything useful done because your democracy is FUCKED.
no, i still think the overall principle is sound. but some of the details are absolutely astonishing.FEOS wrote:
I believe some of us have been saying that from the beginning. Sometimes change for the sake of change is not a good thing.Spark wrote:
okay i've looked at this bill closer...
and it's fucked (in some of the details). fucked up bill, fucked up system. i'm amazed you guys get anything useful done because your democracy is FUCKED.
Last edited by Spark (2010-03-25 05:54:40)
I remembered the Dems were bitching about how long the Patriot Act was (600 page). Then when the Dems got power, they came up with TARP (1000 pages) and now the healthcare bill (2000 pages).Spark wrote:
no, i still think the overall principle is sound. but some of the details are absolutely astonishing.FEOS wrote:
I believe some of us have been saying that from the beginning. Sometimes change for the sake of change is not a good thing.Spark wrote:
okay i've looked at this bill closer...
and it's fucked (in some of the details). fucked up bill, fucked up system. i'm amazed you guys get anything useful done because your democracy is FUCKED.
if a politician tried that shit here they would be crucified. All this $100, 200, 300 million for abc for no apparent relation except to buy a vote. The original purpose of this bill, which was then hijacked into a health bill.
and why the fuck is it so long? for god's sake our emissions trading scheme, which is in essence a completely redesigned economy, was as thorough as thorough can be and no where NEAR as long. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY DO YOU INCLUDE AMENDMENTS TO YOUR BILL IN YOUR BILL
i honestly think your system has serious inherent flaws.
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-03-25 06:08:47)
hmm...i just had a root canal yesterday and barely paid anything for it. if that is fucked then ill take it.Spark wrote:
okay i've looked at this bill closer...
and it's fucked (in some of the details). fucked up bill, fucked up system. i'm amazed you guys get anything useful done because your democracy is FUCKED.
Lol most Congressmen didn't even read past page 20. Bills and resolutions SHOULD NOT be that fucking long. Hell even UN Security Council resolutions didn't get more than 20 pages at best. And they are very very detailed.Mekstizzle wrote:
Who cares about how long something is, that's their full time god damn job, reading that should take no time when their lives are more or less dedicated to it. But obviously that means less time taking cash and bribes and being lobbied if you're actually doing your job as a politician.
it's not just the length. it's all the random amendments to ten million other bills INCLUDING a whole title on amendments to the previous nine titles!Cybargs wrote:
Lol most Congressmen didn't even read past page 20. Bills and resolutions SHOULD NOT be that fucking long. Hell even UN Security Council resolutions didn't get more than 20 pages at best. And they are very very detailed.Mekstizzle wrote:
Who cares about how long something is, that's their full time god damn job, reading that should take no time when their lives are more or less dedicated to it. But obviously that means less time taking cash and bribes and being lobbied if you're actually doing your job as a politician.
They're lawyers and are just perpetuating their profession by requiring law school in order to understand the bills they write.Spark wrote:
it's not just the length. it's all the random amendments to ten million other bills INCLUDING a whole title on amendments to the previous nine titles!Cybargs wrote:
Lol most Congressmen didn't even read past page 20. Bills and resolutions SHOULD NOT be that fucking long. Hell even UN Security Council resolutions didn't get more than 20 pages at best. And they are very very detailed.Mekstizzle wrote:
Who cares about how long something is, that's their full time god damn job, reading that should take no time when their lives are more or less dedicated to it. But obviously that means less time taking cash and bribes and being lobbied if you're actually doing your job as a politician.
