Who can agree that....

[cowboyinexile]

Sorry to double quote you on this but what I was going to say before I went on a rant was not everyone here hates the two party system. If 40% of Americans define themselves as independent then that means 60% are cool with the current system, or at least believe in their side enough to see it as the lesser of two evils.

I'll use Cim and wren as examples. I'm not calling either out on this (which is why I didn't tag them-if either respond to this post its fine). But they clearly have a party preference and that makes them no different than a majority of the population. If someone made a post saying Bedlam is stupid and we should find a way to root for us and the squats everyone here would jump in because that would be a ridiculous thing to say. For some politics are the same way. Some people have their political identity ingraved into their being into who they are and they can't escape from it.

Ok. So to use a football analogy, say it comes out that we did Baylor level stuff. We'd not all walk away from being fans, but most of us ( myself included) would be horrified and disgusted and demand accountability. But some would argue that it needs to be swept under the rug because the ends justify the means. This is who you are calling out.

 

[TheMonkey]

You are becoming slightly creepy.

Don’t believe I’ve ever seen a thread on this board that the OP makes a statement…needs affirmation from others to agree with statement…calls out posters who have other things to do than give him a like…has a poster who responds with specifics that generally agrees with this original statement..but still continues nagging to get a like.
Do I have that right?

Creepy. And needy.

I’ll say the same thing to you that I said to my neighbor when he brought home his Challenger Hellcat.

Nice dodge.

 

[Jostate]

I can get on board with the OP, but I think the internet and 24 hour news cycles have contributed to the perception. In many ways extremism and craziness is not new, but news programs have found a strategy in spotlighting the extremists on the other side.

 

[steross]

Sorry to double quote you on this but what I was going to say before I went on a rant was not everyone here hates the two party system. If 40% of Americans define themselves as independent then that means 60% are cool with the current system, or at least believe in their side enough to see it as the lesser of two evils.

Or independents realize that the parties have created a system that gives them all of the power so you have no other choice. If our system had open primaries and ranked-choice voting, you would see much more moderate choice and more independence. Maybe even other valid parties. But, right now being independent limits your voice.

And, if there was a true place in politics for independent voices, then those of us in the middle would probably not have so much angst about those like cim, wrenhal, cable that are all to one side (I would identify the same on the left but to be honest all of those people have been run out of here- you are about as close as it gets). But, because independents are so relegated to second place, it is frustrating seeing people so content to keep it that way.

 

[TheMonkey]

I can get on board with the OP, but I think the internet and 24 hour news cycles have contributed to the perception. In many ways extremism and craziness is not new, but news programs have found a strategy in spotlighting the extremists on the other side.

I think you have it backwards. The media have always spotlighted the extremists. That’s what sells, and it has for a long time. The difference is the internet has created a way for these groups to organize and spread their message in a way they couldn’t do before. Otherwise, why haven’t we had a siege on the Capitol (or anything close to that) before Jan 6th?

This absolutely IS new.

 

[OSUPsych]

Or independents realize that the parties have created a system that gives them all of the power so you have no other choice. If our system had open primaries and ranked-choice voting, you would see much more moderate choice and more independence. Maybe even other valid parties. But, right now being independent limits your voice.

And, if there was a true place in politics for independent voices, then those of us in the middle would probably not have so much angst about those like cim, wrenhal, cable that are all to one side (I would identify the same on the left but to be honest all of those people have been run out of here- you are about as close as it gets). But, because independents are so relegated to second place, it is frustrating seeing people so content to keep it that way.

Not sure if you felt the same living in Australia, but traveling and developing collaborations in other countries helped show me just how much our system protects the duopoly.

 

[steross]

Not sure if you felt the same living in Australia, but traveling and developing collaborations in other countries helped show me just how much our system protects the duopoly.

Yep, seeing and voting in the Australian system showed me how it functions differently. On the downside the ballot is getting a little unwieldy with so many parties but most can simply be ignored. There is the primary conservative party (The Liberals) and the primary liberal party (Labour). The more right go mostly to the the Nationals and the more left go to the Greens. The major parties often have to form coalitions with minor parties to get things accomplished.
There are things in their system I do not like, but I do like the political party setup much better and, just like their health care system, it would be a reasonable model to guide ours for improvement.

 

[Jostate]

I think you have it backwards. The media have always spotlighted the extremists. That’s what sells, and it has for a long time. The difference is the internet has created a way for these groups to organize and spread their message in a way they couldn’t do before. Otherwise, why haven’t we had a siege on the Capitol (or anything close to that) before Jan 6th?

This absolutely IS new.

I see your point that the news always spotlights extremists but we have so much more news now. For most of TV news history you didn't have such partisan 24 hour, try to show the extremism from the other side news. Newspapers did take sides and have an agenda.

As far as the unprecedented attack, that's true to an extent. During the civil war there were numerous violent outbreaks, and even challenges to a duel. In 1915, a former Harvard professor hid three sticks of dynamite in a Senate reception room. In 1971, the Weather Underground actually set off a bomb in a bathroom on the Senate side. The most destructive was the November 1983 bombing by the May 19th (M19) Communist Organization, the only ever all-female terrorist group. The women issued a warning minutes before the device detonated in the Capitol’s north wing.

These other attacks didn't have the number of people involved but they did actually have explosives.

 

[olderschool]

I Agree with original poster’s assertion.

 

[TheMonkey]

I see your point that the news always spotlights extremists but we have so much more news now. For most of TV news history you didn't have such partisan 24 hour, try to show the extremism from the other side news. Newspapers did take sides and have an agenda.

As far as the unprecedented attack, that's true to an extent. During the civil war there were numerous violent outbreaks, and even challenges to a duel. In 1915, a former Harvard professor hid three sticks of dynamite in a Senate reception room. In 1971, the Weather Underground actually set off a bomb in a bathroom on the Senate side. The most destructive was the November 1983 bombing by the May 19th (M19) Communist Organization, the only ever all-female terrorist group. The women issued a warning minutes before the device detonated in the Capitol’s north wing.

These other attacks didn't have the number of people involved but they did actually have explosives.

And that’s a major point. Other than the civil war, there has never been organization to this scale. There are people in other threads who make fun of me for saying Trump has been a threat to our democracy. Yet, when have we had such an assault disrupt our peaceful transition of power?

This is different.

 

[Jostate]

And that’s a major point. Other than the civil war, there has never been organization to this scale. There are people in other threads who make fun of me for saying Trump has been a threat to our democracy. Yet, when have we had such an assault disrupt our peaceful transition of power?

This is different.

Our Democracy was never in danger from this. This was a clown show by a bunch of idiots.

Our Democracy is actually more threatened by the woke capitalism that is allowing the marketplace of diverse ideas and political perspectives to be infringed.

 

[TheMonkey]

Our Democracy was never in danger from this. This was a clown show by a bunch of idiots.

Our Democracy is actually more threatened by the woke capitalism that is allowing the marketplace of diverse ideas and political perspectives to be infringed.

You’re making the mistake of looking at the pawns instead of the chess masters. I would argue our democracy is still in danger.

Look at John Eastman, Peter Navarro, and the Green Bay Sweep. Look at what Giuliani was setting up with fake electors. What happened at the Capitol wasn’t Trump’s end goal. It was one piece of the bigger puzzle. If Mike Pence hadn’t decided to follow precedent for constitutionally-supported process of certifying our election (at the advice of Dan Quale), the country could have been thrown into chaos. Trump would have used it to tie up the certification process in the courts as long as possible to either overturn the election or extend his stay of power well beyond his term.

I read something a couple of years ago that still seems to ring true today. The issue with our response to Trump is we either don’t take his threats seriously or we don’t take them literally. I choose to do both.

 

[cableok]

I’ll say the same thing to you that I said to my neighbor when he brought home his Challenger Hellcat.

Nice dodge.

Okay, that was clever. I may utilize that sometime. Well done

 

[cableok]

Our Democracy was never in danger from this. This was a clown show by a bunch of idiots.

Our Democracy is actually more threatened by the woke capitalism that is allowing the marketplace of diverse ideas and political perspectives to be infringed.

You tried.

But those two are like my daughter’s favorite boy band. As much as they attempt to claim otherwise, their views are only One Direction.

 

[Jostate]

You tried.

But those two are like my daughter’s favorite boy band. As much as they attempt to claim otherwise, their views are only One Direction.

I see the monkey's point though that the idiots in front of the cameras were not the real issue. That was just a gift the morons gave the left that will keep on giving. Most of those clowns were not a threat to anything besides a box of donuts and their HOA's.

 

[CowboyJD]

You tried.

But those two are like my daughter’s favorite boy band. As much as they attempt to claim otherwise, their views are only One Direction.

 

[steross]

You’re making the mistake of looking at the pawns instead of the chess masters. I would argue our democracy is still in danger.

Yea, nothing major has ever started with some unimportant rabble-rousers pulling off some nonsense.
Just ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

 

[TheMonkey]

I see the monkey's point though that the idiots in front of the cameras were not the real issue. That was just a gift the morons gave the left that will keep on giving. Most of those clowns were not a threat to anything besides a box of donuts and their HOA's.

I wish I could give a thumbs up for the first sentence of your post and a thumbs down for the rest. “Most” is up for interpretation. There were plenty off Proud Boys, 3 percenters, and others to injure 140 Capitol Police and leave three dead. I would not minimize that as being “not a threat to anything besides a box of donuts and their HOA's.”

 

[cowboyinexile]

Yea, nothing major has ever started with some unimportant rabble-rousers pulling off some nonsense.
Just ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

His driver:

 

[llcoolw]

Or independents realize that the parties have created a system that gives them all of the power so you have no other choice. If our system had open primaries and ranked-choice voting, you would see much more moderate choice and more independence. Maybe even other valid parties. But, right now being independent limits your voice.

And, if there was a true place in politics for independent voices, then those of us in the middle would probably not have so much angst about those like cim, wrenhal, cable that are all to one side (I would identify the same on the left but to be honest all of those people have been run out of here- you are about as close as it gets). But, because independents are so relegated to second place, it is frustrating seeing people so content to keep it that way.

Seems like both parties have put a lot of roadblocks and legislation blocking the births of new parties. Actually it doesn’t seem that way. It is that way. And for a long long time.