In The News Today...

Quote: rxwine

I'd love to hear Trump under oath, not just an interview. Since there is some danger in any lies regardless of how small. It's hard to imagine someone who has said so many contradictory and untrue things could keep anything straight even if he tries.

Would be no big deal since he has nothing to hide, the whole Russia thing is a figment of the imagination of liberals.

One thing for sure, he would not ask the meaning of "is."

Quote: DRich

I really think this is what is wrong with our political systems. Many people will discount a candidate based on their party label as opposed to getting to know the candidates. There are probably lots of republicans that you would correlate strongly with. Personally, I am an advocate of removing party affiliation from the ballot. People should vote for the candidates they know, not a stereotype.

A few republicans still have my respect such as Rand Paul
What I cant stand are the republicans on some kind of Christian Crusade totally against gay marriage, abortion and legal marijuana.
Somebody like Roy Moore really disturbed me. Not because of the young girls thing, because he wanted laws based on his personal religion.

By the way I am and have always been pro investigation regardless if a Dem or Rep is investigated.
Kenneth Star. Go ahead investigate. Let me know if you find anything.
Benghazi. Go ahead and investigate. Let me know if you find anything
Mueller. Go ahead and investigate. Let me know if you find anything

Quote: AZDuffman

Would never work. People group together with other people of common interests. Always will.

I think it would work for most candidates on the ballot other than the biggest names. I believe most people know nothing about half of the candidates on a typical ballot and just vote party lines.

Quote: DRich

Many people will discount a candidate based on their party label as opposed to getting to know the candidates. There are probably lots of republicans that you would correlate strongly with. Personally, I am an advocate of removing party affiliation from the ballot. People should vote for the candidates they know, not a stereotype.

Ok. What happens when the chips are down and your candidate votes against their stated principles because their party says so?

Quote: Nareed

Ok. What happens when the chips are down and your candidate votes against their stated principles because their party says so?

You let your candidate know that if he/she continues that they will lose your future votes. Personally I just wish all party affiliations would go away. If not that, we need many more parties to fill the gaps. I would love to see a party that is socially leaning liberal and fiscally leaning conservative.

They should just wear jackets with their sponsors names on them like Nascar.

Quote: DRich

You let your candidate know that if he/she continues that they will lose your future votes. Personally I just wish all party affiliations would go away. If not that, we need many more parties to fill the gaps. I would love to see a party that is socially leaning liberal and fiscally leaning conservative.

You are asking for a more parlimentary system. It really cannot happen because if one party split then the other plus the new party would just have to vote together to gain power. The Democrat Party is more the candidate for a split as its interest groups are more in natural conflict. But it keeps order like the Prussian Army, all in lockstep.

We might see some split in CA, say the Greens and really social liberals break out, but I doubt it.

Quote: DRich

You let your candidate know that if he/she continues that they will lose your future votes.

And if they don't toe the party line enough, they'll lose their party's support and a bunch of wealthy donors and PACs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. but the party, the donors and the PACs are much more engaged in the process than the vast majority of voters.

Quote:

Personally I just wish all party affiliations would go away. If not that, we need many more parties to fill the gaps.

The first part explains the second part. The Constitution makes no allowances for political parties, ergo they've grown and evolved and developed largely free of Constitutional restraints. Also given the winner-take-all nature of the Presidential election, and majority rules for passing legislation, the stage is set for two parties to dominate. Be they Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans, Democratic-Republicans/Democrats vs Whigs, or at this latest iteration Democrats vs Republicans. No third party has risen to rival the established two, unless it can first collapse and then replace one of the established parties. Any who can rival the two established parties and doesn't cause one to collapse, eventually goes away (see the People's (Populist) Party).

Could three major parties work?

Maybe. In Congress perforce you'd see compromise as well as strife between the three parties. But it's likely presidential elections would wind up without a clear winner often.

The real question is, would the American electorate even accept three major parties? Not to mention that the two established parties will fight tooth and nail to keep any rivals out, even if it kills them (or, more desperate, even if they have to cooperate with the other established party).

Quote:

I would love to see a party that is socially leaning liberal and fiscally leaning conservative.

Given the budgetary records of the last three Republican administrations, I should judge "fiscally conservative" is code for "bigger deficits and more debt."

But you could look into the Libertarian Party. Hurry before it tears itself apart.

Quote: Nareed

Given the budgetary records of the last three Republican administrations, I should judge "fiscally conservative" is code for "bigger deficits and more debt."

Interesting because my idea of fiscally conservative would include balanced budget and no deficit spending unless a major war is declared (WWI & WW2). I don't consider any "war" since WWII as a major war. As a country I believe our standard of living is too high and should regress closer to an international median which would make it easier to balance the budget.

I should qualify this: I don't think there should be an expectation for citizens to believe they deserve to live at a higher standard than the international median.

Quote: DRich

Interesting because my idea of fiscally conservative would include balanced budget and no deficit spending unless a major war is declared (WWI & WW2). I don't consider any "war" since WWII as a major war. As a country I believe our standard of living is too high and should regress closer to an international median which would make it easier to balance the budget.

I should qualify this: I don't think there should be an expectation for citizens to believe they deserve to live at a higher standard than the international median.

Modern economics requires a deficit of around 3% GDP for various reasons. One big one to maintain a robust and liquid market for government debt. I don't get the problem with the high living standard nor why it would be easier to balance the budget if it was lower. (Other than reduced handouts)