I’m disputing this lol.
Can someone answer this for me?
Needless to say; the “60 minutes” McCabe interview is blowing up Social Media…and of course, Trump is having a Twitter Hissy Fit…
Why is it so hard to believe that Trump believes Putin more than our Intelligence Agencies…when he has publicly SAID he believes Putin (and Kim Jong-Un, for that matter) more that our Intelligence Agencies?
“Deep State” Paranoia runs deep, I guess…
(P.S. Since I know it will be coming…2-3 people discussing valid concerns about Candidate then President Trump…and the options open to them…is not a “Deep State”…)
(P.S.S. What’s up with Trump and Sessions? This morning he continues to throw the poor man under the bus! Sessions was one of Trump’s first; and most fervent, supporters. So much for Trump’s celebrated “loyalty”).
I think she’s been exaggerated precisely for the reason you say - the Right needs a boogeyman, and she’s the new one.
She’s pretty radical on policy if you take her at her word - the GND would be a radical overhaul of how we do things here. But she’s working through our institutions to try and achieve what she thinks best, so in that sense, she’s not that radical.
I don’t see what the big deal is with her. She has far-left ideas and she marries that with the tech-media savvy you’d expect of her age. Is she a threat to the nation? Of course not - it’s just that the Right is afraid of everything, and anything to the Left of Reagan has always put us 24 hours from the nation and the Constitution being forever destroyed(!!!1!!!).
I yawn when I see the Right’s reaction to AOC. It’s pitiful.
I have a bet going with someone that the right is going to meme her into the oval.
I’m pretty confident as the days go on that I’ll be getting paid.
Worked for Trump. Lmao.
I’m no expert, but I think that would be a 1st amendment breach.
I can also see it being ultimately nugatory.
I was just asking for the sake of imagining what it would like in order to see if it would be better. People are talking about the need for a third party but what about candidates who are of no party?
But as far as the legality of outlawing parties, how much of a party’s existence is owed to huge financial “donations.” Campaign finance reform might be able to weaken the two party duopoly.
A good chunk of it. Tribal loyalty is another big chunk.
I really am still pondering this in my own mind.
When I look at France and/or Italy…these multiple parties seem like just one big Shit-Show every election.
With that said…even WITH all of these parties…ultimately don’t you still see the same one or two parties prevailing?
Again…I’m still pondering all of this in my mind…and whether or not a 2-Party system is as “bad” as we often make it? @loppar…thoughts?
I really don’t know.
Because without the ‘parties’ it still devolves to conservative/liberal and autoritarian/egalitarian.
Inevitably in a many party system you still see the failed parties throw support behind the lesser of 2 evils in their mind.
Iirc France has an even worse voter turnout than we do. Worth considering as we look for a ‘best’ option. Imo an options value increases as voter turnout does.
Let’s say they were. Who would finance campaigns? Would people still be able to donate to any candidate they want? Would all political donations be prohibited? Would the government fund its own elections and campaigns with tax money?
In Italy it isn’t exactly like that.
I think an option would be that anyone could finance a campaign provided there is transparency.
What’s it like, Z?
What do you mean? I think any donation over a certain amount(a pretty small amount) is already considered a matter of public record.
Looking at how the Dems are supposedly moving more towards the left and identity politics and the GOP is moving towards populism maybe we need something for those of us who aren’t polarized zombies who only care about one issue.
Yes, but a multi party system enables a greater impact of an individual on the final outcome IMO.
Let’s say you hold a minority position and for the sake of simplicity that you’re a single issue voter. In a two party system your candidate is defeated in the primaries/loses in inter party politics and you’re stuck with supporting the lesser of the two evils - the candidate that’s less hostile to your position.
In a multi party system, you vote for your third/fourth/fifth party. Depending on the political landscape and election results, the ruling majority may require the inclusion of the party you support to tip the scales - this means your single issue is suddenly at the forefront and the people you voted for can dictate terms for better or for worse to the governing coalition in terms of your single issue.
I mean, I don’t personally care who finances a candidate as long as I know who he serves.
There are many parties but they are part of coalitions. The way it works out right now, there are basically 3 coalitions (the Five Star Movement is sort of a single party coalition) so in a way there are 3 parties. If the parties did not form coalitions the 5 Star Movement would be the biggest party by a large margin. Despite not being a part of a coalition it is the second biggest “coalition” and almost as big as the biggest coalition, which again, is made up of several parties. It also does not see itself as part of the left-right paradigm so it has the potential to help one coalition on one issue and help the other on a different issue.