T Nation

Trump: The Third Year


Those justices are there to make anti-abortion voters happy. They won’t do anything about abortion however, and they won’t do anything about those other issues you mentioned. If the people want it, they will get it. The Supreme Court isn’t going to legislate us back into 1950 no matter how much a bunch of dinosaurs want it.


Nope, and this is the same (wrong) argument tye Left used when Obama overreached on immigration via executive order - “hey, presidents do executive orders all the time, Obama has done fewer than them even, what’s the big deal?”

The number of emergency declarations befote Trump are irrelevant - the merits of the emergency declaration are what’s at issue. Just like with Obama and executive orders.

(Hey look! Consistency and standards applying to someone regardless of party! Look how easy that was!)

Justices don’t and won’t stand in the way of that stuff (unless such legislation was passed improperly). It’s not SCOTUS’s job to strike legislation because it’s ill-considered, based on bad ideas, or even plain stupid.

On this we agree, 100%. The GOP has become a weird nationalist-feudalism party and the Democrats have gone full lifestyle-liberal, identitarian quasi-socialism. I don’t know if either party can be rescued from itself at this point.


I would think there’s no way for guaranteed jobs without some type of compulsion violating the constitution. Maybe they can argue around it like they did with the compulsion to buy private life insurance calling it a tax.

@thunderbolt 2020?


What does this mean? I see people say it all the time, but I usually assume they have no idea. I think different, in your case.


I mean there are not enough redeemable qualities in the current corrupt two party system.

Lots of people think like me given the success Bernie and Trump had.

Anti establishment sentiment doesn’t happen if the establishment is working and doing its job.


Oh my Hell, @Basement_Gainz…that is NOT what I was saying. I was saying "Don’t be damn hypocrites.

And my argument with Healthcare is this:

At least Democrats tend to consistently be Democrats…a bunch of Pseudo-Socialist who wouldn’t know about Fiscal Responsibility if it bit them in the ass…

Now…if Republicans/Conservatives are going to paint themselves as Fiscally Conservative…then come up with a fiscally Conservative Healthcare plan that 1) stems the tide of escalating Healthcare Cost 2) makes it more affodable for Working Americans, and 3) provides adquate overall coverage…instead of sittiing around complaining like little bitches when the Dems act like Dems…

I will assure you that Americans would be behind the GOP 100% to come up with a responsible plan. Many are not behind a lot of the bitching, complaining and finger pointing by the GOP when Democrats act like…(wait for it)…Democrats…


I feel like this is probably not a thing a fiscal conservative could do while remaining…wait for it…a fiscal conservative.


It’s set up to be a two-party system, and that’s probably better than being a multi-party system where a minority can control everything.

The problem is that we pretty much have a totalitarian government. Good luck walking that back, because racislaverism, child labor, etc.


A minority does control everything.


Interesting, @NickViar

I’m curious.

Why not?


By the way, @Basement_Gainz

I’m angry at Politicians, not someone with valid arguments like yourself.

It’s frustrating.


True enough. That will always be true. How about, “in which a minority vote-getter can control everything.”?


Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and privatization are the defining qualities of fiscal conservatism.

Those things don’t mesh with a centrally-planned healthcare system.


How is it set up to be a two party system? I’m pretty familiar with the constitution and I know of no such articles.



Your link is paywalled.


When Americans go to the polls in November to elect their next president, it’s almost certain that they will be selecting between only two candidates: one Republican and one Democrat.

In fact, since 1852, a candidate from the Republican or a Democratic parties has placed either first or second in U.S. presidential elections, except for one. In that election, in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, a popular former Republican president, ran as a “third-party” candidate, and he came in second place, losing to Woodrow Wilson.

And before the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were the two major parties, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party were. Before that matchup, the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party were the dominant two. And before that? The Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists reigned.

All the while, third parties have been small players throughout U.S. presidential politics, showing up occasionally but almost never having a real chance at winning the presidency. They also rarely compete for seats in Congress, where, since World War II, no more than two out of its 535 members have been anything other than Republicans and Democrats. Among those exceptions is Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont who was elected to Congress as an independent and who is running this year for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Why has this happened? The answer is that the U.S. political system is set up for two major parties, because it awards seats in Congress and the presidency with a winner-take-all method. Candidates running for Congress need only to get a plurality of the vote to be elected. In 48 of 50 states, presidential candidates get all of a state’s electoral votes — the way in which presidents are elected, state by state — as long as they win a plurality of the vote in that state.

French sociologist Maurice Duverger theorized in the 1950s that this kind of setup leads to what is effectively a two-party system. “Duverger’s law” states that third parties can’t compete because there is no prize for winning, for example, 15 or even 25 percent of the vote. This leads voters to choose candidates who are most likely to win, and it leads the parties to try to broaden their appeal to half of the electorate — and ideally more.

Parties at risk of splintering will do whatever they can to avoid third-party candidates. When voters favor a party’s political ideals but have a choice between two candidates who both support those principles, that party will lose the election because those candidates will split the votes, allowing the other party to win with a plurality.

There are occasionally governors or senators from a third party, but often these parties have limited influence overall and have a difficult time becoming a national movement. Part of this problem comes from the party’s difficulty in winning in the first place; another part of the problem is that the two main parties can make it challenging for third-party candidates to qualify for the ballot in a given election. (The United States, for example, allows each state to determine how a presidential candidate gets on the ballot. That means that third-party candidates generally have to be wealthy people who can fund their own campaigns and satisfy expensive requirements to get on the ballot in all 50 states.)

While many third-party and independent candidates have run for elections in the past, few have received enough public recognition and even fewer have received states’ electoral votes. Ross Perot, who ran as an independent, received 19 percent of the overall vote in 1992 but did not win a single electoral vote.

When such candidates get electoral votes, racial tensions are often involved. George Wallace (who won 46 electoral votes in 1968) and Strom Thurmond (who 39 electoral votes in 1948) were Southerners who ran as staunch opponents of integrating black and white Americans and are the last two non-Republicans and non-Democrats to win electoral votes. Similar regional third-party candidates caught on in the time of the American Civil War but never came close to actually winning.

Apart from that, the only candidate not running under the banner of one of the two major parties to have a legitimate chance at winning a general election was Roosevelt, who was a unique candidate unto himself.

Even then, though, the former president wound up badly splitting the vote with his old party, the Republicans. He and his Republican successor as president, William Howard Taft, combined to take a majority of the popular vote in 1912, but Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson won the presidency with a plurality of the vote — less than 42 percent.

That reinforces why the two major political parties in the United States have an incentive to keep it a two-party system.

-All from The Washington Post’s “Why are there only two parties in American politics?”



That begs the question then…what IS the answer?

Certainly not sitting around bitching about what the Pseudo-Socialist DEMS do.

Also; are we saying that Healthcare does not have a Fiscally Conservative Solution then? (Serious question).


Definitely not saying that. I think there are great, fiscally conservative solutions. However, any solution has to appeal to people who are either intellectually-lazy(don’t think about things at all), have been “educated” entirely by the government(and have no desire for further education on any topic that’s not reality TV or something), have no ability/desire to obtain gainful employment, or have any combination of those qualities.

A fiscally conservative approach can be struck down immediately with those people by saying, “You’ll show up to the ER with a stake in your heart and be refused service because you don’t have the cash on you.”

Edit: OR, for those who are reflexively opposed to socialism without real reasons, “You’ll die from poisoning without being told what’s safe.”


Thanks for posting that. I am anti 2 party, and always said that our system wasn’t by design a 2 party system, but “Duverger’s” does seem to be a good description of how our system plays out.