This could be considered "The Fat Lady":

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...e-an-obama-win

<O>

Steve, i am quite obviously aware of many of the other independent parties. I am quite aware that it isn't a true "2 party system". But the other parties make up a very small number of voters, 3 percent of voters. This means that 2 parties make up the overwhelming majority of representation in this country, making it a de-facto 2 party system. This doesn't mean that one election year could show an unprecedented rise in voters going independent, of course not. That doesn't mean that in the future an independent party could rise to victory. No, it only means that that is unlikely this will happen.

I may think the general public is, as a whole, ignorant and misinformed about how their country works, i recognize their votes. If they want to be represented in the overwhelming majority by democrats or republicans, so it shall be. With this era of information, nothing is stopping anyone from getting the information they need about independents nor is there anything preventing them from voting for independents. I wholeheartedly understand that a fundamental reason the two parties dominate is because their funding is exponentially greater than independents. I am also usually the person to first point out how easily manipulated people are by advertisements, falsified information, and the like. But the people have voted. the people still vote in large majorities for either Democrats or republicans. The people still want 2 parties to represent nearly the entire united states (im glad to know that a few independents have made their way into the house and senate). And that is their choice to make.

Unfortunately that choice is often skewed, manipulated, misinformed, or not informed at all. But that doesn't mean their vote is invalid. Our founding fathers (most of them) wanted everyone to get a say in how they're governed. And their vote, however poor of a choice it may be, is still a vote. and 97% of American voters have said they still want democrats and republicans to represent them. therefore the de-facto two party system is still just as effective as a de-facto 50 party system because our two parties are, according to the people, representing them.

That doesn't mean you put up a very valid point, and i do agree that having 2 choices that actually have a chance is ridiculous given the amount of corruption and similar traits between democrats and republicans. I also agree that psychology plays a HUGE part in people's choices, mob mentality and the fact that the two parties get the most publicity and ad time while not necessarily being the best choices. The whole party system is kind of ridiculous to me too, people sometimes abandon logic because of what party they affiliate with. But i was trying to say that it doesn't matter how many parties (including having no parties, always a good option) you have as long as the people are represented according to their own choices.

The Fat Lady in more ways than one.

After their defeat in 2008, the Republican Party decided that the path to the return to power was to eliminate the moderates. So, the party and it's faithful went after anyone not deemed conservative enough; branding them RINOs and whatnot. And here we see the end result. Despite all the energy, the poor economy and the good debate performance, Barack Obama was reelected. He won almost every battleground state. He won the popular vote. And all this despite the fact that no incumbent has ever won re-election with an unemployment rate higher than 7.5%. What should have been a slam dunk was a defeat.

The exit polls still showed the economy as the most important issue to most Americans. That should have ensured a Romney victory. However, American voters didn't cast for Romney because of all the other baggage that comes with the Republican party. It's stance on immigration, abortion, gay marriage and reproductive rights are just out of step with the majority of the American populace. These are things that are effectively reducing the Republicans to a regional party, rather than a nationally viable party. If they want a chance to win a presidential election, they have got to get back in touch with the American people on these issues. Simple as that.

Romney's plan was like a ghost story. there were rumors about it but few people actually saw it in it's entirety. Ryan's budget plan was completely destroyed by MANY economists. meanwhile the fact that obama had made rather significant progress all things considered (including the 2 years of stone wall) helped make obama a better candidate even in the economic category. The completely out-of-touch, extremist ideals that tagged along were the icing on the cake of defeat for the republicans.

My views are not extreme.I simply want a government that abides by the constitution and allows for the liberties we are entitled to.Not a government that tries to control the lives of citizens, overtax us in the name of supporting those who just can not make it because they too stupid, etc to do so.

The country I grew up in celebrated success and did not believe anyone owed others anything.My country did not elect a "man" like Barack Hussein Obama, who has a foreign way of thinking.This country was about the individual's rights, not those of the collective.Guaranteed equal opportunity not equal outcomes.

I should just quit law school and live on the dole the rest of my life, why study? why work hard? why have my parents spend the money? I should just be a bum, get what I pay for via taxes so some illegal immigrant or welfare queen can sponge off the system.Why not join them?

This is the problem with this country, our tolerance got out of hand and will be our undoing.Watch the South Park episode "The Death Camp of Tolerance" , it was a biting piece of satire that really tells how American's ridiculous tolerance has pushed logic and rationality aside for emotion based decision making.We are at a tipping point, like I said, the enemy has made it through the gates, maybe we will survive it, maybe we wont.Scary that saving this country rests in the hands of the house and maybe the supreme court(but after their upholding obamacare perhaps they are gone as well) to block obama's agenda as it's not fully controlled by the enemy as of yet.

I agree, we have to find a way to temper the religious idiots are they hurt our cause.There is a way without sacrificing principle to do this, hopefully those that control the GOP will learn by next election, although with the reelection of Primier Obama, it may be too late.

Yes it did, sorry.
The majority of your country disagrees with you.

It is my honest belief that if the Republican party were to become a moderate party, it would dominate politics.

It would certainly bring me back to the party. :yep:

Have we ever had a government that did not try to control the lives of citizens in some way? I don't think so. Government always try to control some aspect of the lives of its citizens. Now you may disagree with how a specific government is trying to control the lives of citizens, but all governments try (and succeed) in controlling the lives of its citizens to some extent.

That's just what governments do. :yep:

So if you are dreaming of some government that does not try to control the lives of citizens, you are not dreaming of any government that the US has ever had. :yep:

That simply has never existed in the US. :nope:

Well, if you haven't seen the news, the United States of America did elect Obama. Twice.
Logically, the USA is not your country.

You will be self-deporting, then?


You misspelled "Glorious President", comrade. The Party will be by shortly to discuss your oversight.

[QUOTE=Platapus;1959014]It is my honest belief that if the Republican party were to become a moderate party, it would dominate politics.

It would certainly bring me back to the party. :yep:[/QUOT

Moderate on the social wedge issues, Republican on economics, would dominate.The religious nuts just have too much power, it hurts us.

How can you tell? That's what extremists always say.

Talking of "the enemy" may seem to you like the truth, but you don't seem able to consider any side but the one. There is no room in your philosophy for the idea that you might be wrong, so you have to take the one side to the exclusion of all else. That is very much an extremist view.

Does not compute.

Mind if I call you Bubbles since your so upbeat and joyful?

First you won't quit law school and be a welfare queen because you have the means and ample pride to make your own way. You want to contribute and that's laudable although I'd likely be opposed to your leanings.

And yes, I'd love to see fewer people on the doll and despise welfare queens, and their future welfare queens as well. However, what would you have done? Cut them of in six months? A year? Want to see what high crime really looks like, with more prisons needed? Or would you come up with a more final solution? Maybe mandatory conscription(debt slavery) to fight the eternal wars? Why don't you offer some plausible solutions instead of rants of bile?

I'm 56 and I don't recognize your country. It's not the country I've experienced. :yep:

Like many things in life, everything in moderation.

Let's see how long your utopian country lasts. The government has completely stopped regulating business and only enforces laws protecting your basic rights. Watch how fast we revert back to the days of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Watch how fast those monopolies roll right back in. watch how fast the people become ever more strangled in the vice of corporate greed. Government has a duty to regulate. Regulate the lives of certain people. Rockefeller was a U.S citizen. Was it not necessary to force him not to exploit people the way he did?

There is most certainly a fine line between true forms of socialism and assistance. Through taxes people should find comfort that the money they pay to the government will be there to catch them when they fall so they don't die of starvation because they lost their job and can't find another just yet., to build a better community, to do things that wouldn't otherwise be done or would be corrupted by privatized industries. That system is there for you, and i, and any citizen should they fall flat on their arse and need help getting back up. Uncle sam is there to lend you that hand so long as you pay into him. It makes sure that the hard working american citizen who gets laid off because of private industries shipping his job to china, doesn't have to watch him and his family starve in the gutter.

Not to say that there aren't exploiters of the system. I also believe this system should be regulated. You must actively search for a job. You can't just coast on government checks your entire life and expect to not lift a finger again.

but the so called "foundations" Of America that you describe sound an awful lot like 1800s America to me. And believe me, those were not good times to be living in as the average joe, i can assure you. There's a reason things like social security and welfare exist. It's because people just like you and me had to endure the grueling misery of deregulation and the insurmountable hardships it brought. And there are still problems today. Obamacare ensures that people like my sister can't be turned down by insurance companies solely based on pre-existing conditions. That people don't have to bankrupt themselves to get care for their family because no insurance company will take them. While there are parts of the bill that should be repealed the bill is otherwise much, much needed progress.

None of this wouldve happened without government. The way we live today is because of the regulation put forth by the government. While the boundaries for where government should stop regulating are being fueded over (legalization of marijuana and immigration reform, ect), id say government has taken necessary intervention so far with a few exceptions.