Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do hope you are right about the multiple parties. In terms of the TWO nominees for the parties being terrible, I'd say it was more like 90% of them between both sides that were pretty bad, not just Trump and Clinton. The Democrats had Hillary, two people that were questionable at best, then Bernie who is just way too extreme. The republicans had 16 people who if you picked one best quality from each, you MIGHT come up with a half decent candidate, but overall they were all pretty bad.
Having additional parties could help to at least stabilize the existing parties by forcing them to be a bit more reasonable.
Bernie really wasn't all that extreme. People hear the phrase " democratic socialist " and lose their minds. Hillary's political machine helped to further this misconception, and the media just flat ignored him even when tens of thousands of people showed up at his rallies while Clinton could barely fill a banquet hall at the Holiday Inn.
Bernie really wasn't all that extreme. People hear the phrase " democratic socialist " and lose their minds. Hillary's political machine helped to further this misconception, and the media just flat ignored him even when tens of thousands of people showed up at his rallies while Clinton could barely fill a banquet hall at the Holiday Inn.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries and I agree he wasn't too extreme. I have a real hard time seeing him win the general election though. Even against Trump. The Republicans would have taken the same approach if Bernie ended up being the nominee and they probably would have been successful at scaring people off. And for all of the super-delegates talk during the primary run, Bernie still lost by nearly 3,000,000 in the popular vote. Some of of that might have been to the DNC pulling hard for HRC, but some of it was just the party was divided in general. He had more passionate support, but I don't know if that would have translated to a win.
I don't know about having a process to recall a POTUS, I mean that would probably add to the problem and just give each side one more weapon in the foot dragging and delay at all costs game.
States have the capability to call back elected officials. Why not presidents? (Of course, following procedures and protocol. This cannot be a daily occurrence, but this "tool" should be available).
The less the government does, the better. I'm all for stagnation if it means no new legislation.
Such blanket statement miss the point and if applied in this way can cause severe damage to America. It's the same as Trump's one liners: even if there is some truth behind, generalization makes them inapplicable.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries and I agree he wasn't too extreme. I have a real hard time seeing him win the general election though. Even against Trump. The Republicans would have taken the same approach if Bernie ended up being the nominee and they probably would have been successful at scaring people off. And for all of the super-delegates talk during the primary run, Bernie still lost by nearly 3,000,000 in the popular vote. Some of of that might have been to the DNC pulling hard for HRC, but some of it was just the party was divided in general. He had more passionate support, but I don't know if that would have translated to a win.
Many Trump voters have said that they would have voted for Bernie. Trump was a protest vote for an awful lot of people who are rightly frustrated with the current system. Bernie and Trump even had similar economic policies during the campaign.
I just know that Sanders is well liked and respected by his colleagues. He has a perfect voting record on veterans, on civil rights, and on being pro-working American. I think he could have gotten some things done even with a Republican Congress simply because they like and respect the man.
HRC and the gang really played dirty, and the media was practically conspiratorial in keeping his platform out of the limelight.
Bernie really wasn't all that extreme. People hear the phrase " democratic socialist " and lose their minds. Hillary's political machine helped to further this misconception, and the media just flat ignored him even when tens of thousands of people showed up at his rallies while Clinton could barely fill a banquet hall at the Holiday Inn.
I'll be honest, I really REALLY don't like Bernie, but to say he wasn't all that extreme is a bit of a stretch. He is way left of the standard left leaning Democrat, which puts him on an extreme fringe of the spectrum. He is basically as left as you get for anyone in office right now.
I'll be honest, I really REALLY don't like Bernie, but to say he wasn't all that extreme is a bit of a stretch. He is way left of the standard left leaning Democrat, which puts him on an extreme fringe of the spectrum. He is basically as left as you get for anyone in office right now.
He's liberal, yes. What positions do you consider so radical that you dislike him?
He's liberal, yes. What positions do you consider so radical that you dislike him?
Like I said previously in this thread, its not really intended for speaking about individual policies and candidates. Its about the overall system and how to fix it.
I will just say again though, take the most left leaning person you can find (Bernie in this case) and by definition that is your "extreme" left, same can be said on the other side. Its just a fact, if you can't find anyone more to the left or right of a specific candidate, you have found your "extreme" side of that party.
Such blanket statement miss the point and if applied in this way can cause severe damage to America. It's the same as Trump's one liners: even if there is some truth behind, generalization makes them inapplicable.
There's literally nothing I want the government doing over a non-government alternative.
Like I said previously in this thread, its not really intended for speaking about individual policies and candidates. Its about the overall system and how to fix it.
I will just say again though, take the most left leaning person you can find (Bernie in this case) and by definition that is your "extreme" left, same can be said on the other side. Its just a fact, if you can't find anyone more to the left or right of a specific candidate, you have found your "extreme" side of that party.
Well, he's a classic LBJ kind of liberal, so I guess that's what passes for far left in our current political sphere.
Ive read a couple of articles that say that Reagan could never be elected today because he was too liberal.
((Shrugs))
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
