US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[The King]

We need a REAL 3rd party in the worst way. Hell, a lot of 3rd parties. One of these asshole billionaires could fund it, but they are too busy building penis shaped rockets into space.

[JGSpartan]

The barriers are too high for third parties to get on ballots. Since 1980, or the last 11 presidential elections, only 7 times has a candidate from a third party got on the ballot in all 50 states. The Libertarian party five times and the Reform party twice.

Add on that both parties run on fear of the other side more than their own ideals and people who would vote third party don't because they may support them but fear the biggest left or right party winning.

We'd basically need a very centrist popular third party or for both the left and right to have popular alternatives at the same time.

[chemiclord]

And that centrist third party would be such an incoherent mess of policy in order to get a majority that it would be just as incapable of getting anything done.

[JGSpartan]

Not necessarily, You can have hard limits but have centrist fluidity on topics among candidates. The problem is getting the general public to do enough legwork to actually hear the ideas rather than hop on the simple yes or no bandwagon platforms the major parties have basically become.

[chemiclord]

Not necessarily, You can have hard limits but have centrist fluidity on topics among candidates. The problem is getting the general public to do enough legwork to actually hear the ideas rather than hop on the simple yes or no bandwagon platforms the major parties have basically become.

The general public hasn't wanted to give more than ten seconds of thought to politics since the beginning of the country. That's a major part of the problem.

[JGSpartan]

Right, and the primary reason it probably won't change. You're tasked with having an already universally appealing person come out and run on a centralized platform because you can't make someone appealing enough with a centralized platform.

Complicating that further is that the better access social media provides only seems to give rise to the furthest from center quacks.

[chemiclord]

The big problem I see there is that very few people are actually all that moderate in their opinions, and more a scattershot of opinions across all political axis. As a result, a "centrist" party would actually be more of an eclectic mess that could never actually reach a consensus. There'd simply be too many mutually exclusive desires at play in the legislative process.

[dpatnod]

It's like the head of law enforcement in Texas said... 'Laws don't work... so why try making new ones?'

[JGSpartan]

I know too many people that are only alive because murder is illegal to listen to that kind of idiocy.

[dpatnod]

Well, when people wake up to the fact that there are too many doors in school buildings, and that is the real problem, well maybe then the good guys with guns will win. Schools need to be built like prisons. Obviously. Duh. Stupid parents.......

[dpatnod]

I know too many people that are only alive because murder is illegal to listen to that kind of idiocy.

Just to be clear.... my idiocy, or the Texas guy?

[Marko69]

The school door thing will be sorted, then the Fire Dept will wade in saying not enough doors that are NOT fire doors. Every solution these days is met with something else that’ll result in it taking YEARS to pass through govt. Just using “fire” as an example but there will be other reasons.
”You seem to have every Covid germ possible here. How can this be?”
”Had to walk eight fucking corridors to get out with covid rancid wee jamesie following me coughin & splutterin.”
“Eight corridors? Why?”
”There’s only one door per 8000 students.”


JUST GET THE FKN GUNS BANNED!

[Futureshock]

People can't agree on the science of a global pandemic. THAT is the central issue. A shun of truth for narratives. People have now been assured that whatever their opinion (on whatever issue, not just COVID), will have a vast amount of people that agree with it. It doesn't have to have any bearing of reasonable truth or anything. Some are space balls crazy.

Even if people do agree with truth, if said truth forces any change, or inconvenience, or elimination to their norm or (God forbid) thing(s) they like, eventually even the most ardent person starts to shun the truth. i.e. wearing masks and social distancing because of COVID. We got sick and tired of all that stuff and most decided post vac that it was done. Yet we know better.

So that is the poison to this democracy. It was founded in the thought process of truth being the engine by which we go forward and grow. Arguments were based on who had the most logical stand. Little did they know that some people would give up on truths if it did not have a basis of pushing their narrative forward. That's a people thing.

So the basis of this union has a flaw that was a crack and is now a crater bigger then the Grand Canyon. Is the system fixable? Or do we ride it out until there's Civil War?

Either way, hitting the snooze button on Armageddon (One of my favorite movie lines) will only push it forward.

WE have to be better. WE know better. WE have to start by agreeing that ALL life is sacred. Only then can we begin to move forward.

Government has taken a turn and the only solutions being offered by politicians is deletions and negativity. You can't continue to take away until there's nothing and expect to have something. Get it?

[Futureshock]

Here's an idea that will unite the majority of politicians; eliminate all political parties and make them illegal.

Every lady and man looking to be in political office would have to stand on their own merit without parroting a party's line. Every candidate would have to take a test to assure that there was a baseline of intelligence. Each candidate would also have to give a financial impact analysis on their ideas that would be checked by 3 different outside companies or a division of the IRS for accuracy.

If there's a dozen candidates? So be it. Now if only, people were logical...

[chemiclord]

Here's an idea that will unite the majority of politicians; eliminate all political parties and make them illegal.

Every lady and man looking to be in political office would have to stand on their own merit without parroting a party's line. Every candidate would have to take a test to assure that there was a baseline of intelligence. Each candidate would also have to give a financial impact analysis on their ideas that would be checked by 3 different outside companies or a division of the IRS for accuracy.

If there's a dozen candidates? So be it. Now if only, people were logical...

The problem is that there's no real way to do that. Humans are tribal creatures by nature. They are going to associate, gather, and try to utilize power in numbers, no matter if it's illegal or not. They might not be called political parties in your society, but they'd exist and serve effectively the same exact function.

The second problem I see is who would dictate and enforce a "baseline of intelligence?" You actually don't have to look terribly far to see how that goes off the rails. Just cross the Pacific. China basically has that sort of core competence edict to be in government, and it's effectively been interpreted as "support President Xi in all he does." I don't think reactionaries would hesitate to alter the definition to best suit them and their claim to power the second they had the power to do so.

It just boils down to that no society or government can function properly when a sizable portion of the population has no desire or will for them to function, and that's where we're at. At any given time, roughly 40% of this country looks at fascists, theocracy, and authoritarianism, and thinks, "Yeah, I want that." Hell, considering how many people vote solely based on their opinion of the president, I'd wager a majority of this country is really only arguing over who should be king.