Both Sides, Both Ways: Implications and Political Argumentation

The short answer is ... they can't. The longer answer is that they would have to be extremely popular to even have a realistic chance.

The way it would actually happen, more than likely, would be to do it from within the 2 party system. Like Trump, in a sense. If someone with a different political agenda ran as a Democrat then that party would become their party with their agenda.

Trump, in effect converted the Republican Party into whatever he is. Bernie is an Independent who is running though the Democratic Party machinery. If he doesn't change his ideology and if he were to win then he would have accomplished what you are talking about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Part of the problem is the system. Part of the problem is how people are used and abused.
The biggest problem with any political system is not its form or principles; it's who controls it.
As long as government is a monetized commodity, it can only be controlled with money.
Non-reflection - automatic acceptance of "the current situation" at any given moment = political paralysis.

They can't. That's why it's rigged that way. That's why you're constantly, insistently told that your vote only counts if you cast it for one of the mammoths. What they don't tell you is that your vote doesn't count anyway. They can cancel it with a stroke of a pen across a map, or on a list, or just by making it impossible for you to get to a booth where the rigged machines work.
If you each - all those millions who are discontented with the system - went out there an voted according to your conscience, it wouldn't change the power-structure - except that you would be heard.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or, as Seattle says, you could support a candidate who'll hijack one of the existing parties. But, as with Trump, the room was prepared for him over decades of far right saboteurs gutting the party of any principles except blind partisan loyalty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Popular support of a two party system is enhanced by a populace who is familiar with a two-team paradigm. (Go to any sports bar during a big game to see this in action.)

 

Yes, and that's my position too. I support environmental causes - so I guess that makes me a democrat. But I also support nuclear energy and better nuclear waste storage - so that makes me republican. I think that government has a role in improving people's lives, but also think that the federal government has gotten far too big. So what am I there?

Also, neither party has any sort of claim to being smartest/least corrupt/most forward looking. At best, I often favor democrats because their screwups are more benign - they give aid to too many people or spend too much on ineffective educational programs. But they can (and do) see as much corruption as republicans. (Usually; we are living in an exception to that rule nowadays.)

 

A states-righter?
But you probably want a new name for that party.
In fact, most of the environment protection and climate change mitigation are happening at the state level now. So are welfare programs, policing and infrastructure maintenance. Big as the federal government needs to be to administer such a big and disparate country, that central control system is far too vulnerable to an financial-interest-driven political structure.
When the union finally, once-for-all disintegrates, the least Koched-up state governments have the best chance of survival.

 

By these standards everyone is an independent. You don't have to favor everything in a party's platform to vote for a particular candidate at a particular point in time.

Most people are more passionate about their sports team than about their political affiliation. Those passionately involved in politics are few and far between and mainly on TV.

 

The Dems have had a solid claim to all of that, for decades, starting with Reagan if not before. It's not even close, actually. The Dems are a normal Party with standard flaws. The Republican Party is a fascist sewer, and has been since 1992 at the latest.

One might prefer different language - say the Dems are least backward looking, least corrupt, least dumb. But the relative comparison remains straightforward and obvious.

Trump=Republican, Republican=Trump.

No. It makes you one of the many Democrats who favor better nuclear waste storage and handling, and if better waste handling can be developed a larger role for nuclear power - if cost effective.
The Republican position is that there is no problem with the waste storage we have - and in fact it should be deregulated, so market forces can improve its efficiency. You don't support that, because you aren't that stupid. The Republican Party is.

Depends on how you want to reduce its size.

 

i thought all air craft carriers and the majority of the sub fleet which give the usa its global independence are driven by nuclear reactors ?

i doubt any sane democrats would suggest instantly scrapping all the air craft carriers and subs

why has the federal government gotten soo big ?

what is soo big ?

soo big is the administrative paramedic required to keep the patient on life support because of the bi-partisan approach to simple things like laws, taxation and government regulation and health care and housing.

the selfish self interest of the "im right so everything fines" type of plantation owner has dictated a culture which has built a system around its dying patient to keep it just breathing.

so it gives those who complain about big government an excuse to blame something they can claim they do not support
yet suddenly in a crisis or the need to apply driver registrations or such like
they say it cant handle the real job of getting it done.

it is deliberate sabotage
no surprise that certain republican presidents have sought to punish and attack the federal government fbi included

Dakota pipe line

how is it that the federal government is being used like nazi paratroopers to wipe out the jews ?
they have already poisoned thier river after they said they would not
and no one gets punished
no one gets sent a bill
no one gets real financial compensation

... nazis !

what if the land owners bulldozed a church
suddenly it would be terrorism

they should build a church

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and beside it a replica of mt rushmore

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

then film themselves slowly driving a bull dozer through each of them
on their own land

 

Right. But many object to commercial nuclear power. The San Onofre plant, for example, was shut down about 7 years ago under pressure from Democrats, led by Feinstein.

Mission creep. Career protection. And the natural tendency to solve problems by adding things, not removing them.

 

Agreed 100%. But you do have to favor most of a party's platform to claim to be part of that party (IMO.)

 

liberal ideological protectionism
meets
conservative dictators

why doesn't the usa government force everyone to get a drivers license ?

 

I agree but the platform is fluid. Democrats generally care about others, the environment, jobs, etc. You can bring a particular campaign along on issues like nuclear power with more education of the issues (changing technology, burning more waste byproducts as fuel thereby reducing the waste).

The Democrats tend to be anti-business (which is where the jobs come from) but when the pendulum swings too far in one direction it typically comes back to a more neutral position (Bill Clinton and business).

In the far, far past there were even Republicans who were liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal, monetary and other economic policies (Nelson Rockefeller).

Many people voted for Democrats for President in some elections and for Republicans in other elections. The two party system can work and when it doesn't it's usually for reasons outside of the structure of a two party system.

 

that is what i term a "True Conservative" & was previously the basis of the UK conservative party prior to corporate globalist fanatacism

thats a natural thing that no one pushes ?

 

Sorry, you lost me there.

 

Liberal protectionism
the forced process of laws that define things like the right to defend using deadly force
forced access to private property etc ...

forced liability to company's and people when someone falls over and injures themselves.

that is an ideology projected through politics and defined as cultural morality

...
clashes head on ideologically with

less is more conservatism ... that defines the absolute right of the individual to not be impeded(2nd amendment level ideology)
liberal laws around freedom to marry and live with whom ever you wish etc...(not withstanding crazy people attempting to skew the moral debate by hijacking it with alarmist legal age of consent narcissism)


Driver licensing ...
compulsory ID (voting, stop and search etc etc)
the right to lock up and persecute people who do not have any form of ID
forced compliance to buy vehicle motor insurance off a private company to comply with freedom of movement laws for those driving vehicles.

i am well aware the vast majority of people are incapable of mentally pro0cessing such issues to quantify any real cognitive concept around them
thankfully there are civil rights lawyers and advocates who specialize in putting their intellectual ability into such fields of moral social culture.

i am postulating a complex socio-cultural moral absolute in its functional form
while knowing most people are intellectually and emotionally incapable of thinking about such things.

 

?? Except liberals have long been fighting AGAINST ID requirements and for personal rights.

Did you mean something different there? Still not following you.

 

No, of course not. The point is that when both parties are moderate one will probably be for different ones at different points in time.

 

The Dunning-Kruger effect might help with your understanding of Rainbow.

 

Reagan did that.
Trump is a standard post-Reagan Republican. If looked at straight on, the US politician he resembles most is Reagan - TV reality show preparation, bizarrely flagrant lying and goofball vocalizations, slothful and slipshod and largely theatrical performance of job duties, almost unbelievable ignorance of physical reality (including military and economic), extreme levels of corruption and scofflaw behavior in appointees, the whole Reagan schtick.
The Republican Party did not have to change to accommodate Trump - he moved in and took over a Party set up for exactly who he is. He fit like a hand in a glove.

Very few Republican voters have any idea what their Party's "platform" is. When polled on issues their preferences align with the Democratic Party platform more often than not - and they think the Republican Party's platform incorporates them. The most striking example of that was a couple of polls taken in the last few weeks of the 2004 campaign, when a majority of Republican likely voters preferred key features of Kerry's platform and attributed them to W, at the same time as they disfavored W's platform and assigned it to Kerry.

An easily noted example still continuing after forty years is the Republican voter's majority preference for keeping Social Security and Medicare - the Democratic Party's platform. Trump, whose advisors can read polling data, promised to do that - which was mendacious bullshit of course, and he is currently backing the Congressional Republican efforts to "privatize" (get rid of) Social Security and Medicare, something Reagan also wanted (and tried, feebly) to do, something that has been part of the Republican Party's platform for the entire adult life of most Republican voters.