Has the US become a 3-Party (or more) System?


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
saulgoode is offline saulgoode Post #1  November 9,2009, 8:04am
saulgoode's Avatar

Unregistered

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,308

See profile

House health bill unacceptable to many in Senate - Yahoo! News

Note the careful distinction in this article regarding "Democrats" and "Liberals."

Japan has different flavors of Democrats. I wonder if that's where the US is headed. Liberal Dems, Moderate Dems, Social Dems (as in Japan).

The author does not consider them the same party. For instance:

QQQ
A government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate. They're locked in a battle with liberals, with the fate of President Barack Obama's signature issue at stake.
QQQ

And I wonder what the fate of the GOP is going to be. Conservative Reps, maybe, with Moderate and Liberal Reps?

And what about those pesky Libertarians? Where the heck are they in this mix?

Frankly, I think more than two parties is a good thing for the US. It both distributes power, and delays new laws.


- Saul
 
  Reply With Quote
notyet is offline notyet Post #2  November 9,2009, 8:40am
notyet's Avatar

Power Poster

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 5,276

See profile

saulgoode wrote :
...Frankly, I think more than two parties is a good thing for the US. It both distributes power, and delays new laws.
we can only hope...
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #3  November 9,2009, 10:17am
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

Why would delaying new laws be a good thing?

I suppose if don't want to solve problems at all then the status quo would always be favorable.

Law is supposed to be adjusted to deal with issues at any particular moment.

It seems obvious to me that any bill that is passed say for healthcare in the near future would be up for manipulation every time a need is seen.

I don't buy the idea that every ammendment in this bill is a permanent structure.

If another party can successfully take control of government in 2016 then perhaps they can have their way in reshaping healthcare toward their vision.

This topic has been on the table for 30 years so any desire for bipartisanship is quite disengenuous.

Being the moderate that I am my desires are rarely met so I do hope that the Senate carries this momentum into a real bill that provides actual relief & is not just a tiny adjustment that will only supply a band-aid that will constantly need to be fixed.

Reform without a public option is such a minor concept that healthcare will still be unsustainable within a few years.

We can either really fix it now or have to have constant maintenance on it... which will be more costly in the long run.

If someone feels that the country is shifting in the direction of socialism then that is fine but our system is designed to ebb & flow in order to truely represent the views of the population.

If we never went toward the left at all then how would those Americans ever be represented??
 
  Reply With Quote
notyet is offline notyet Post #4  November 9,2009, 1:51pm
notyet's Avatar

Power Poster

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 5,276

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
Why would delaying new laws be a good thing?

I suppose if don't want to solve problems at all then the status quo would always be favorable.

Law is supposed to be adjusted to deal with issues at any particular moment.

It seems obvious to me that any bill that is passed say for healthcare in the near future would be up for manipulation every time a need is seen.

I don't buy the idea that every ammendment in this bill is a permanent structure.

If another party can successfully take control of government in 2016 then perhaps they can have their way in reshaping healthcare toward their vision.

This topic has been on the table for 30 years so any desire for bipartisanship is quite disengenuous.

Being the moderate that I am...
being a moderate, one would think you of all people would understand the wisdom of delaying legislation. we don't want any extreme taking power and quickly- radically- changing anything/everyting.

it is for that reason that i am glad that the wheels of our government grind slowly and deliberately if not always in the direction that i would like.
 
  Reply With Quote
saulgoode is offline saulgoode Post #5  November 9,2009, 6:26pm
saulgoode's Avatar

Unregistered

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,308

See profile

Home Simpson sticking dynamite in a stuck drawer in the living room.

Marge: "Homey, what are you doing!"

Homer: "I'm fixing the drawer. It's stuck."

Marge: "With dynamite?"

Homer: "Look, Marge, do you want this done right, or do you want this done fast."

Marge: "Mmmm. Well, like every red-blooded American, I want it done fast."

Homer: "Okay, then. STAND BACK!"


- Saul
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #6  November 10,2009, 5:11am
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
Why would delaying new laws be a good thing?

I suppose if don't want to solve problems at all then the status quo would always be favorable.

Law is supposed to be adjusted to deal with issues at any particular moment.

It seems obvious to me that any bill that is passed say for healthcare in the near future would be up for manipulation every time a need is seen.

I don't buy the idea that every ammendment in this bill is a permanent structure.

If another party can successfully take control of government in 2016 then perhaps they can have their way in reshaping healthcare toward their vision.

This topic has been on the table for 30 years so any desire for bipartisanship is quite disengenuous.

Being the moderate that I am my desires are rarely met so I do hope that the Senate carries this momentum into a real bill that provides actual relief & is not just a tiny adjustment that will only supply a band-aid that will constantly need to be fixed.

Reform without a public option is such a minor concept that healthcare will still be unsustainable within a few years.

We can either really fix it now or have to have constant maintenance on it... which will be more costly in the long run.

If someone feels that the country is shifting in the direction of socialism then that is fine but our system is designed to ebb & flow in order to truely represent the views of the population.

If we never went toward the left at all then how would those Americans ever be represented??
 
  Reply With Quote
acelticsteve is offline acelticsteve Post #7  December 1,2009, 5:05pm

would like to be in Hawai'i with his kuu ipo

Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2008

some where in the Ozarks

Posts: 933

See profile

after reading these post I say to heck with dating lits start a new party.
how each party would be effected depends on where this "3rd" party comes from and how they come about. To make a dent in 2016 is sounder then 2012, al though there are people who would be happy for an altunitive next year.
I left the republicican party becuse I felt it cattered to the ultra rich and busness. I was proven right. I was living in FL and a referandom passed limited class room sizes. The republicans who were in control did nothing, if they had when the real estate market went bust Florideans would have been working building schools.
I joined the Demacratic party, I was destricman, and screened office seekers for the local Centrial Labor Councel. We listend to almost all office seekers in three counties, I mean dog catucher to congress men. I am still recovering. We knew that there were real nuts in the demacratic party but we from labor keepet them under control. Someone let them out of their cages. The demacratics hve taken in any one and every one who are not welcome in the Republican Party. This feasco in the town hall meatings and the attude of the Demacrats is not to my liking, my problem is I realy believe in Goverment for the people, by the people and of the people" so I feel rather lost politicaly.
The next two parties are the Libertains and The American Independent Party. The latter have som interesting ideas about campain contrubitions. However, it looks to me like the same old thing in principle.
There are many other parties, some are international and verry creapy. I am looking at Constutional Party even if they never get a president it might help to keep congress stright to have some one in the houses who realy read and value the douctment.
My thinking that if one alines with of the smaller parties they should be willing to run for local offices and build the party from the ground up. That way when they run a president then the party is knowen on the local leval and not just a vote stealer.
 
  Reply With Quote
livenlearn is offline livenlearn Post #8  December 4,2009, 8:51am
livenlearn's Avatar

Yay! spring has sprung.

Virtuoso

Joined: Dec 2009

cosmos

Posts: 3,439

See profile

More, since it seems that peoples religions also dictate their political stance more then ever. It seems the seperation of church and state is no longer.
 
  Reply With Quote
acelticsteve is offline acelticsteve Post #9  December 5,2009, 12:21am

would like to be in Hawai'i with his kuu ipo

Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2008

some where in the Ozarks

Posts: 933

See profile

I don't think it ever did, not in the sence that you ment. I have come to the sane conclusion that you have. I think that it is becuse religon defines wright from wrong and ones morle standards. In the 60's some one wrote a book that stated that God is dead. The next thing that happened was that people turned to the Eastern religons, mostly Hindo and Hear Krishna. Suddenly aminals have soles, it is wrong to eat beef, hunting is imoral, and we must save the earth. We had a few things that did need to be cleaned up and that is mostly tacken care of.
I think that is why when the founding fathers wrote the constution the put in no state church. If you waant to know why look at the Middle East. Besides at that time in many countries in Europe you could go to jail for not showing up in church, the state payed the ministers, you were forced to pay a tenth of your income to the church. Some people get up set when Christians tell people that they are in danger Hell, but other religons are much worse. there are Islamics who are willing to send you into the next life with a bullet. A year ago in India Hindos rioted aganst christians Killing 100 people, destroying 250 churches 13 schools, 4,500 homes, and displacing 50,000 people. By the way when a proper evanglical christen worns you about hell it is becuse he does not want you to go there, he is doing it becuse he cares for you.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« Actually, a "license to reproduce" is the right solution. | Politics | Prepare to be angry. »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Creating a new, user friendly, system for finding a good man or woman clearlyoblique Dating 189 November 17,2009 5:56pm
System Issues LizziePooh Talk to your Community Team 17 November 2,2009 5:08pm
What is up with the 'taking your date to a party' question? ViperSting Using eHarmony 8 September 12,2009 4:43am
Women's Goal on Going Out to Party? Skyking6976 Dating 27 August 11,2009 6:47am
New Discussion Board System for eHarmony Advice! eharmony Using eHarmony 0 May 13,2009 12:48am

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Excellent, thank you. I think I will leave out the first part, I think it is unnecessary information to give him. I'm not interested in putting myself out there like that and it might be a little ... ” –  generallyyou

Join the “Ending a friendship” discussion

“Alfred Hitchcock - 18 Steven Spielberg - 62 *notice what?” –  dmi

Join the “War of the Directors” discussion

“ I would be "certain people" :P The issue isn't a deal-breaker, but a very strong factor preference-wise, for me.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “How much does race play in your dating someone?” discussion

“Love Texas Hold'em!.. I'm thinking of trying another tournament this summer...not sure yet though.. Never entered a tournament before, outside of online ones. Personally I prefer to play with ... ” –  Freezepop

Join the “Favorite Card Game” discussion

“Make that 3! I also had a crush on Donny Osmond. I think I still have a record or two of his. Suzie ” –  legend29

Join the “Robin Gibbs Dead at 62...How Deep is Your Love?” discussion

“Oh, my revised profile can be seen in the forum in the section where you can ask for a profile review. Suzanne” –  SuzanneScorpio

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“Just remember, everything that you are feeling and/or are capable of he is as well. If he wanted to reach you, he could. Right now he knows that you are hurting, and that this is not what you ... ” –  lynntlb78

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“ Yohio. And the shortened form (Anya) is nice too.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “Where is Becky?!?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:21am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0