American Politics

[JustTK]

And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it.

It will be a whole national history of them bcos nothing will change that until you wake up and smell the roses.

[EihTooms]

Duh and the sky is blue Tiny LOL, of course only two parties a have a real chance to win an election. I am not a political scientist and I won't pretend that I have the solution to the problem of American Politics. That being said, I do openly advocate for the possibility to scrap both parties and create a new four party system. In my view, such a system would allow a greater degree of policy and a temporary shift away from the far right and far left which seem to be running both parties.

As I have stated before, it appears politicians are working hardest at winning elections and not actually performing their duties while holding office. A house divided cannot stand and the last few years have shown that. Inflation, immigration crisis, high crime rates, pullout of Iraq, broken healthcare system, War in Ukraine, Closing of pipeline which took 10 years to plan, weekly mass shootings, increase in hate crimes, insurrection, fake scandals, real scandals, etc. You cannot solve these problems until a much higher degree of Unity and Trust is built between parties and the American Public. Unfortunately America's greatest enemy is also its' former ally, itself. My two cents anyway.

Which of those factors do you presume were triggered by or exacerbated by Biden and the Dems in "the last few years" while the well-meaning and noble-intentioned Trump and Repubs were trying hard to legislate and steward the ship of country from harms way and into better conditions?

Seriously.

[EihTooms]

Anybody else here strictly partisan in favor of economic boom times, historic jobs creation, rising wages, paying down deficits, producing all of those notable results of the past 100 years and none of the Great Recessions, Massive Jobs Losses or any other "unprecedented" disasters and along the way passing all, not some, of the most effective and now revered legislation in history?

If you are, please cite all of the political parties who made that happen over the past 100 years and be specific how and when. I will gladly vote for whichever one has done it and just as gladly avoid voting for all the rest.

By my research and easily observable reality, only one political party comes close; the Democratic Party. So they get my proudly partisan vote.

Now, the party that has consistently produced the exact opposite of those positive results is the Republican Party.

And it turns out one of those two parties have and will in the foreseeable future control the levers of political power and stewardship for the USA.

No others.

So, what to do, what to do? Such a dilemma.

But not really.

[Tiny 12]

Duh and the sky is blue Tiny LOL, of course only two parties a have a real chance to win an election. I am not a political scientist and I won't pretend that I have the solution to the problem of American Politics. That being said, I do openly advocate for the possibility to scrap both parties and create a new four party system. In my view, such a system would allow a greater degree of policy and a temporary shift away from the far right and far left which seem to be running both parties.

As I have stated before, it appears politicians are working hardest at winning elections and not actually performing their duties while holding office. A house divided cannot stand and the last few years have shown that. Inflation, immigration crisis, high crime rates, pullout of Iraq, broken healthcare system, War in Ukraine, Closing of pipeline which took 10 years to plan, weekly mass shootings, increase in hate crimes, insurrection, fake scandals, real scandals, etc. You cannot solve these problems until a much higher degree of Unity and Trust is built between parties and the American Public. Unfortunately America's greatest enemy is also its' former ally, itself. My two cents anyway.

All good points. I strongly agree politicians should start doing what's best for the people instead of what's best for themselves or their parties. And the level of partisanship is insane. Republicans didn't used to hate Democrats and vice versa.

[RamDavidson84]

Tooms views the world through blue colored lenses.

The largest 3rd party, which still receives only a minimal % of the vote, is the Libertarian Party. It drains off more Republican than Democratic votes. Look at Georgia this year. In the governor's race, the Republicans had a decent candidate, Brian Kemp. The Libertarian only got 0.7% of the vote. Herschel Walker is the Republican candidate in the Senate Race. He's a lousy candidate, maybe the lousiest nominated by either party this year. The only reason he's the nominee is because Trump supported him from the outset of his campaign. Anyway, in that race, the Libertarian, Chase Oliver, got 2.1% of the vote. His campaign spent a grand total of $7,790, compared to the hundreds of millions spent by and on behalf of the other candidates. And through the race, he held down a full time job as an HR executive, and a part time gig with a financial services company. His campaign slogan was "armed and gay."

So basically, Republicans and Republican leaning independents went to the poles and voted for Kemp. But they couldn't quite hold their noses and vote for Walker, so they voted for the Libertarian. This is repeated in elections all the time. This year I voted mostly for Libertarians when I had a choice, because the Republicans on the ballot mostly supported Trump's attempted election fraud. If there had been no Libertarian candidates, I would have voted for more Republicans. But not Trump. We can write in names on the ballot where I live, so I would have picked Amy the Wonder Dog or Gary Johnson instead.

The only third party or independent candidate who undoubtedly made a difference in a US presidential election was Ross Perot, who caused Bill Clinton to win instead of George H. W. Bush.

It's also likely that George W. Bush beat Al Gore on account of Ralph Nader running on the Green Party ticket. So that's one election where the 3rd candidate helped the Republican and another where he helped the Democrat. Sounds fair and balanced to me.

You're not going to see many 3rd party candidates elected Congressmen or Senators. You have to be a Republican or Democrat to win. Gary Johnson was a very popular Republican Governor of a blue state, New Mexico, who won both his elections by 10 points. But when he ran for Senator as the Libertarian candidate he only won 15.4% of the vote.

So anyway, your idea of more than two parties is great in theory, but like the plans of Xpartan and me to reform the American healthcare system, unworkable. Third or fourth party candidates will at best be spoilers.

Duh and the sky is blue Tiny LOL, of course only two parties a have a real chance to win an election. I am not a political scientist and I won't pretend that I have the solution to the problem of American Politics. That being said, I do openly advocate for the possibility to scrap both parties and create a new four party system. In my view, such a system would allow a greater degree of policy and a temporary shift away from the far right and far left which seem to be running both parties.

As I have stated before, it appears politicians are working hardest at winning elections and not actually performing their duties while holding office. A house divided cannot stand and the last few years have shown that. Inflation, immigration crisis, high crime rates, pullout of Iraq, broken healthcare system, War in Ukraine, Closing of pipeline which took 10 years to plan, weekly mass shootings, increase in hate crimes, insurrection, fake scandals, real scandals, etc. You cannot solve these problems until a much higher degree of Unity and Trust is built between parties and the American Public. Unfortunately America's greatest enemy is also its' former ally, itself. My two cents anyway.

[Tiny 12]

"Of course, pushing for a stronger third Party presence will likely get a lot of Repubs elected along the way. And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it. " - What exactly do you mean by this?

Tooms views the world through blue colored lenses. He's the most partisan intelligent person I've come across in real or cyber life. He believes the world will end if Republicans control the country, while Democrats would usher in heaven on earth.

The largest 3rd party, which still receives only a minimal % of the vote, is the Libertarian Party. It drains off more Republican than Democratic votes. Look at Georgia this year. In the governor's race, the Republicans had a decent candidate, Brian Kemp. The Libertarian only got 0.7% of the vote. Herschel Walker is the Republican candidate in the Georgia Senate Race. He's a lousy candidate, maybe the lousiest nominated by either party this year. The only reason he's the nominee is because Trump supported him from the outset of his campaign. Anyway, in that race, the Libertarian, Chase Oliver, got 2.1% of the vote. His campaign spent a grand total of $7,790, compared to the hundreds of millions spent by and on behalf of the other candidates. And through the race, he held down a full time job as an HR executive, and a part time gig with a financial services company. His campaign slogan was "armed and gay."

So basically, Republicans and Republican leaning independents went to the poles and voted for Kemp. But they couldn't quite hold their noses and vote for Walker, so they voted for the Libertarian. This is repeated in elections all the time. This year I voted mostly for Libertarians when I had a choice, because the Republicans on the ballot mostly supported Trump's attempted election fraud. If there had been no Libertarian candidates, I would have voted for more Republicans. But not Trump. We can write in names on the ballot where I live, so I would have picked Amy the Wonder Dog or Gary Johnson instead.

The only third party or independent candidate who undoubtedly made a difference in a US presidential election was Ross Perot, who caused Bill Clinton to win instead of George H. W. Bush.

It's also likely that George W. Bush beat Al Gore on account of Ralph Nader running on the Green Party ticket. So that's one election where the 3rd candidate helped the Republican and another where he helped the Democrat. Sounds fair and balanced to me.

You're not going to see many 3rd party candidates elected Congressmen or Senators. You have to be a Republican or Democrat to win. Gary Johnson was a very popular Republican Governor of a blue state, New Mexico, who won both his elections by 10 points. But when he later ran for Senator as the Libertarian candidate he only won 15.4% of the vote.

So anyway, your idea of more than two parties is great in theory, but, unfortunately, like the plans of Xpartan and me to reform the American healthcare system, unworkable. Third or fourth party candidates will at best be spoilers.

[RamDavidson84]

There are more than two Parties already. Have been for all of our lifetimes. However, the reality is one of the two biggest ones will control the House, the Senate and the White House for the rest of our lives and our great grandchildren's lives. It's a lovely, fanciful thought though.

Of course, pushing for a stronger third Party presence will likely get a lot of Repubs elected along the way. And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it.

Maybe a third Party candidate will win the WH someday. But he or she won't get anything done or undone. At best, it'll just be an interesting waste of time and energy fluke with an asterisk next to it in the history books.

I would be in favor of four. Far right, moderate right, moderate left and far left.

"Of course, pushing for a stronger third Party presence will likely get a lot of Repubs elected along the way. And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it. " - What exactly do you mean by this?

[EihTooms]

What is worse in your opinion, being educated and not working to your potential or being uneducated and working to your potential? Whats better for society? In the age of "instant information" is a 200 k college degree really necessary to be truly educated in order to solve the most important problems in society? Are people voting to solve problems or vote for the candidate who makes them feel good in the moment? Are politicians working to solve problems like immigration, societal cohesiveness / equality, affordable healthcare, quality education, inflation, opportunities to achieve happiness? Or are they working to just win an election? Are people voting for the most qualified candidate or the political party the candidate represents no matter how ineffective the individual candidate may be?

I don't think you can solve any of these problems until the extreme forms of tribalism are eliminated from politics. Logical solutions without human bias is what both parties need. Need more than two parties at this point as well. No more picking the lesser of two evils.

There are more than two Parties already. Have been for all of our lifetimes. However, the reality is one of the two biggest ones will control the House, the Senate and the White House for the rest of our lives and our great grandchildren's lives. It's a lovely, fanciful thought though.

Of course, pushing for a stronger third Party presence will likely get a lot of Repubs elected along the way. And I don't know how many more Great Repub Recessions, Massive Jobs Destruction, Skyrocketing Deficits With Nothing To Show For It, Unprecedented Disasters, etc America or any country could withstand. So there is a huge risk in it.

Maybe a third Party candidate will win the WH someday. But he or she won't get anything done or undone. At best, it'll just be an interesting waste of time and energy fluke with an asterisk next to it in the history books.

[Tiny 12]

Hehe, got to keep these rabid nationalists on the straight and narrow.

You might not like the list but I am amazed you can disagree with the truth of any of it.

Well, just take the three I highlighted. I have no disagreement that these things occurred and were travesties. But to say that they're responsible for USA economic outperformance one hundred years later is a stretch. I'd argue the USA Would be more prosperous if those events had never happened.

The south is WORSE off today because of slavery. I'd attribute higher income per capita in New York and California compared to the south partly to the lingering effects of a slave economy and reconstruction. Or at least it's sure as hell not because they're smarter than we are. I also suspect the North would be a little better off today if the Civil War would never had occurred. And if there had been no slavery, there would have been no Civil War.

Invading and exploiting central American and Caribbean countries was probably either a net drain or not meaningful to the USA economy, just like invading nearby countries is a net drain on Putin's Russia.

As to the genocide of Native Americans, our economy would be larger with the extra population from the descendants of indigenous people. The genocides perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Hutus, and the Ottoman empire hurt their economies as well, big time.

[JustTK]

There's only one JustTK! Interesting post as always, even though I strongly disagree with about half of it.

Hehe, got to keep these rabid nationalists on the straight and narrow.

You might not like the list but I am amazed you can disagree with the truth of any of it.

[Tiny 12]

Here are a dozen reasons why stats show USA as wealthy, in no particular order:

Slave trade.

Genocide of indigenous population.

Lots of small countries nearby to invade and exploit.

There's only one JustTK! Interesting post as always, even though I strongly disagree with about half of it.

[Tiny 12]

Amen brother!

Who's arguing? Not me!

Single payer. No private carriers, except maybe for the very rich, but with no access to Medicare funds. And even that needs to be allowed with care.

Severe limitations on awarding damages.

Strict regulation of the liability insurance industry, although with the previous condition established, the market may take care of that.

The law prohibiting pharma and medical supply industry (don't forget that wasteful monster) charge America more than they do overseas.

Some of them maybe.

But they'll have a chance to go to the dark side, across the isle.

Sooner or later we'll get there. Every absurdity ends at some point, even a huge one like our healthcare system.

Damn. We agree, don't we. Except for the part about the dark side. The only flickers of light in our wicked political system came from New Mexico (Gary Johnson) and Michigan (Justin Amash). Republican flickers. But they were quickly snuffed out by the sin and iniquity of evil men.

Now you see Xpartan, I just tried the fire and brimstone, the "flickers of light" thing, and that's the best I can come up with. It's weak. You're gifted though. So the next time I tell you to amp up the sanctimonious outrage don't get all pouty. I'm just trying to help develop your true potential.

If you get elected President I'm expecting payback, maybe something like Secretary of Health and Human Services. That way you'll know I won't stab you in the back, since we're both on the same page on the health care system.

[JustTK]

it highlights another reason besides smaller government why Americans are more prosperous than Europeans -- the American Work Ethic. Americans work harder and longer.

Here are a dozen reasons why stats show USA as wealthy, in no particular order:

Relatively new country, previously unexploited / developed.

A large landmass – can accommodate large population.

2 expansive coastlines – ideal for shipping to several continents.

Temperate climate and fertile land.

Abundant fresh water.

Huge reserves of oil and coal.

Slave trade.

Genocide of indigenous population.

Lack of participation in 2 world wars.

Long way from Europe and therefore too far to bomb.

Lots of small countries nearby to invade and exploit.

Millions of unpeople not recorded in stats.

[Xpartan]

If we're going to have better quality, lower cost care, we need to go to a single payer system. That means no health insurance companies to sue. And how about the ridiculous premiums many doctors and hospitals have to pay for liability insurance? The huge amounts of money that have been sucked out of the pharma companies and the pharmacies by the trial lawyers? Think about Fentanyl for example, which may eventually bankrupt CVS and Walgreens. All that has to go if we're going to implement a rational health care system.

Amen brother!

Who's arguing? Not me!

Single payer. No private carriers, except maybe for the very rich, but with no access to Medicare funds. And even that needs to be allowed with care.

Severe limitations on awarding damages.

Strict regulation of the liability insurance industry, although with the previous condition established, the market may take care of that.

The law prohibiting pharma and medical supply industry (don't forget that wasteful monster) charge America more than they do overseas.

And the Democratic Party isn't going to bite the hands of some of its biggest sugar daddies.

Some of them maybe.

But they'll have a chance to go to the dark side, across the isle.

Sooner or later we'll get there. Every absurdity ends at some point, even a huge one like our healthcare system.

[Tiny 12]

Interesting! You call my view on our healthcare system "sanctimonious outrage," then immediately say you "don't disagree. " Then you provide really good examples from around the world that serve like an excellent reinforcement of my notion of how atrocious our own healthcare system is, then you confirm that it's entirely possible to provide all citizen with the universal care within our current budget or just for a little more.

Well, seeing how we're both on the same page here, what makes me a preacher or "whatever" then?

Aha, it's the Democrats who have failed to control the costs.

I wonder where you've been in the last 14 years and how you have managed to miss the total war declared by Republicans on Obamacare even though Obamacare efforts were based on what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Then there was the sheer madness of the Republican propaganda machine comparing Obama to both Stalin and Hitler, accusing ACA of being akin to the Third Reich's "euthanasia" program, followed by countless lawsuits and obstruction and sabotage, in other words, the only things the Republicans have really excelled in since Gingrich.

You're blaming the Democrats for their inability to control prices. Fine, I'm not saying they're blameless, but even if they were. How are you going to control prices with the Reps refusing to reign in that abomination AKA Medicare Advantage plans?

Which party has consistently blocked Medicare from negotiating prices with the Pharma that you seem to be in favor of? Want to guess?

Which party is lobbying to replace Medicare with vouchers to buy healthcare from private insurers?

You're claiming the Dems should've done more having controlled the Congress and White House, like you're not aware that their razor-thin "control" has been undermined by Munchin and Sinema at every step.

Seriously, those elephants in the room where you're typing your posts -- it's got to be really hard to ignore them. Don't know how you manage.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/389009...ug-negotiation

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...blicans-plans/

You need to learn how to accept praise gracefully. And accept constructive criticism and learn from it. I'm the founder of the Church of Tiny*, which promotes free markets and social liberties. And while I promote a message of love and fellowship, like a good Methodist, I highly respect those who use fire and brimstone instead. And there's just not nearly enough fire and brimstone in your earlier message (#11049) and it doesn't even crop up until the end.

Yes, we know the faults of the Republicans as they relate to health care. The beloved Democratic Politicians however will never fix the system. It's like what I wrote about Bernie Sanders. At one time he was honest about what had to be done, how we wouldn't be able to get every drug or every doctor we want with a Medicare for All plan that wouldn't bankrupt the country. And he had to abandon that message. Because the Democratic Party is the Party of Free Money with No Accountability.

Moreover, rationalizing the system would upset the apple cart. The pharmaceutical and insurance industries do contribute slightly more to Republicans than Democrats. Slightly more. Many Democrats are sucking at the tit of big health businesses. They don't want to lose that tit.

Furthermore, who are the strongest supporters of the Democratic Party? The trial lawyers, that's who. They sue insurance companies, drug companies, doctors and hospitals for a living. If we're going to have better quality, lower cost care, we need to go to a single payer system. That means no health insurance companies to sue. And how about the ridiculous premiums many doctors and hospitals have to pay for liability insurance? The huge amounts of money that have been sucked out of the pharma companies and the pharmacies by the trial lawyers? Think about Fentanyl for example, which may eventually bankrupt CVS and Walgreens. All that has to go if we're going to implement a rational health care system. And the Democratic Party isn't going to bite the hands of some of its biggest sugar daddies.

And don't fool yourself about Sinema and Manchin. There were other Democratic Senators just as in hock to the drug companies as Sinema. If she hadn't come through for them, and limited the damage to Medicare and insulin, others would have stepped forward. In fact, supposedly the reason we still have carried interest treatment for management fees of private equity firms is because Sinema was running interference for Chuck Schumer, historically a stalwart for Wall Street. Still, I love that woman. She kept Congress and Biden from raising my taxes. And she's bisexual.

*Please send your tax deductible contribution to Church of Tiny, Account #123456, SWIFT ABCDEF, National Bank of the Cayman Islands. And thank you for your support!