Will there be something new in the way of Politics in the US?

[cidersabuzzin]

With COVID-19 stamping it's ugly foot, will we see a change of direction in Politics come November? A whole lot of candidates may change, giving a breath of fresh air. You never know could you see a three or more party system. I know the constitutional system is in place (queue Kathy jumping up and down) "You can't change anything" but things evolve! you aren't living 300 yrs ago.
I know I know but a few G&Ts make everything feel so simple! 

[Acebird]

The only real change that would make a difference is to remove money from politics.  No parties just individuals that debate following the rules.  If you don't follow the rules you are out.  They could lay out their whole agenda on a website or public broadcast.  How ironic it is for followers that say they want law and order and support a guy that is nothing but chaos and mayhem.
Unfortunately there won't be anything new in future politics.  We have turned the corner for unity.  Animal instincts have taken over.  All we can hope for is a leader who will not embarrass us in world affairs.  Maybe some compassion for those who are less fortunate.  The last thing the US needs is another bully.

[Hops Brewster]

It won't change a thing. 1 or 2 of the characters may change but the game remains the same.
Between Constitutional process, old traditions and the even older power of money, only death will cause any drastic difference.

This election ain't about the 2 candidates, it's about the VPs because both the Pres candidates will quite possibly leave office before 4 years ends, putting the VP in office.
A race between a Kommie and a Milktoast.

[Geoff]

   Is there any amendment in the US constitution forbidding more than two parties ?
Probably be like Australia with a multi party system you will get a more open voting system but no guarantees you will  get a good leader !  !

[iddee]

NO. We have had more than 2 parties running in the last few elections. It's just that a third candidate cannot get enough voters to leave the main 2.

[Geoff]

 
   Next question Wally, who was the most popularly elected president over the years that you were eligible to vote ? ?

[iddee]

I don't know, Geoff. I never paid much to the numbers, I was just concerned with who won.
I think the most controversial one was Carter. No one wanted to vote for him, but every one wanted to vote for a democrat after Nixon resigned.
I think he was considered even worse than Nixon once he was in.
Obama did more to segregate the people than any in my lifetime, and likely in history.

[Kathyp]

Not jumping up and down.  The constitution is the law, but like all laws it can be changed.  if the people want to go to a parliamentary system and get little to nothing done in the future, so be it.  They can do the work that needs to be done to change the laws.

The problem, as I see it, is that  making those kinds of changes ends up giving more power to the government and even less to the people.  We have the system we have because it was designed to be the least top down form of government that they founders could imagine.  Since the people seem to want to be ruled rather than in control of their own government, they might well want to change the system. 

See?  No jumping around required.   

[Acebird]

A race between a Kommie and a Milktoast.

Hmm, so are you in favor of milktoast, again without an ounce of leadership, or the one who exhibits professionalism and experience on the debate stage?  I preferred Karma over Biden to begin with but the country is not ready for a black woman as president just yet.
If a woman's right to an abortion is rescinded the numbers on the left will increase more then they are increasing now.  So the only thing the right can do is defy the constitution and deny those on the left from voting.  It is quite obvious that they have already started.

[Hops Brewster]

I lost track of how many baseless insinuations you derived from an 8 word sentence of mine. How do you do that?  It's like magic! Or like a leftist. Most egregious is your assumption that just because I am against Biden/Harris that I must be for Trump/Pence.  You couldn't be more wrong.
But, for the record, I am always against communism.
 Kommie Harris was a prosecuting attorney, very heavily trained at arguing and word-twisting. Pence was in private practice, not a courtroom attorney. Considering that the news outlets split along party lines, while a few call the debate a draw, Pence did very well.
And if you're judging her qualification to be president based on her racial makeup (part black, part Indian sub-continent, part white. Really, which part counts most?), you are part of the problem.  It's her faulty character and foul political ideology that I have heartburn with, not her mixed race.

[Kathyp]

Karma over Biden to begin with but the country is not ready for a black woman as president just yet.
If a woman's right to an abortion is rescinded the numbers on the left will increase more then they are increasing now.  So the only thing the right can do is defy the constitution and deny those on the left from voting.  It is quite obvious that they have already started.

It has nothing to do with her race or gender.  It has everything to do with her past actions and the things she has supported in the senate. 

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-more-liberal-bernie-sanders-senate-record-analysis-shows-1524481

For myself, I was not for Trump the last time.  It was just that he was the only choice.  Hillary was a non-starter.  This time, based on his policies and judicial choices, I am for Trump. 

[Acebird]

I am always against communism.

You are confusing communism with socialism.  They are not the same.
Communist countries have a dictator.  The population has no choice in how they are governed.  With the exception of China they end up weak countries.  But China is strong because of us.  Take us out of the picture and their economy crashes.
Socialist countries share some wealth with its population yet the wealthy still rule.  The difference is the population has some choice.  In the end socialist countries are stronger, and healthier.
Trump is far more communistic than any president we ever had.  He is following the play book of all the communistic countries that exist.

[Hops Brewster]

No, I'm not confusing communism with socialism.  Communism is just one form of socialism.  A nefarious version, to be sure.  Something which Kommie Harris, AOC, several other congress Rats, and Antifa all support.
China's economy is stronger for adopting free market reforms several years ago.  Their military is stronger because of it.  That, and because of the technical assistance handed over by other DemoRats, Clinton, Obama, etc.

[Acebird]

That, and because of the technical assistance handed over by other DemoRats, Clinton, Obama, etc.

To assume that we are smarter than they are is the same erroneous believe that a white man is smarter than a black man.  They focused on technology and made commitments for the long term.  We are run by corporate america which focuses on the bottom line from year to year.  If technology cannot pay for itself year to year it is not though of much.  IMO they are smarter.  Presidents and politicians have nothing to do with China's success. 

[Acebird]

Communism is just one form of socialism.

So I guess Democracy would be another.

[Ben Framed]

I am always against communism.

You are confusing communism with socialism.  They are not the same.
Communist countries have a dictator.  The population has no choice in how they are governed.  With the exception of China they end up weak countries.  But China is strong because of us.  Take us out of the picture and their economy crashes.
Socialist countries share some wealth with its population yet the wealthy still rule.  The difference is the population has some choice.  In the end socialist countries are stronger, and healthier.
Trump is far more communistic than any president we ever had.  He is following the play book of all the communistic countries that exist.

No, I'm not confusing communism with socialism.  Communism is just one form of socialism.  A nefarious version, to be sure.  Something which Kommie Harris, AOC, several other congress Rats, and Antifa all support.
China's economy is stronger for adopting free market reforms several years ago.  Their military is stronger because of it.  That, and because of the technical assistance handed over by other DemoRats, Clinton, Obama, etc.

> You are confusing communism with socialism.  They are not the same.
Communist countries have a dictator.

Is he confusing the two? If so which is worse? Let's take your country of heritage and its Socialist leader until the end of ww2. What was he a nice little Sunday School boy?

>The difference is the population has some choice. 

Do you mean like choice of the population of their fellow citizens, Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, blacks, the physically and mentally disabled, and political opponents. Yes these citizens of Germany had a choice, once their socialist power was achieved and in place, a bullet to the head or a train ride to a camp. I know some people of German descent who really love and appreciate The American way of life, which love and defend The Constitution. Sadly, many immigrants, come here pushing socialism once more. That is sad in my opinion.


The Party of Hitler
The National Socialist Program, also known as the 25-point Program or the 25-point Plan (German: 25-Punkte-Programm), was the party program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP, and referred to in English as the Nazi Party).

[Kathyp]

You are confusing communism with socialism.

Very rarely in history has a county suddenly become ruled by a dictator.  The usual path to dictatorship is socialism of one form or another.  Socialism is nothing more than promises made that can't be kept without an ever-increasing central power. 

Marx did not advocate for dictatorship.  Hitler did not promise to be a dictator.  Chavez did not promise to rule with an iron fist and destroy the economy of his country.  Mao promised to elevate the peasant and bring down the rich.  It took several years for the Russian revolution to devolve into dictatorship.  Eqality of outcome was a promise that could not be kept.  After all, some are more equal than others.

[cidersabuzzin]

You are confusing communism with socialism.

Very rarely in history has a county suddenly become ruled by a dictator.  The usual path to dictatorship is socialism of one form or another.  Socialism is nothing more than promises made that can't be kept without an ever-increasing central power. 

Marx did not advocate for dictatorship.  Hitler did not promise to be a dictator.  Chavez did not promise to rule with an iron fist and destroy the economy of his country.  Mao promised to elevate the peasant and bring down the rich.  It took several years for the Russian revolution to devolve into dictatorship.  Eqality of outcome was a promise that could not be kept.  After all, some are more equal than others.

Well you have hit the nail on the head there Kathy, The US system is the most equal in the world.........

[Acebird]

There is two forms of power, money and the masses.  As long as the masses can offset the power of money a dictator will not come to power.  A written constitutions means nothing when power goes the other way.  It is not socialism that creates the dictator, it is money.  The Trump supporters point to his money.  Ironically he doesn't have any.
There is no dictator in power because of their socialistic views.  They are there because of money.

[Ben Framed]

There is two forms of power, money and the masses.  As long as the masses can offset the power of money a dictator will not come to power.  A written constitutions means nothing when power goes the other way.  It is not socialism that creates the dictator, it is money.  The Trump supporters point to his money.  Ironically he doesn't have any.
There is no dictator in power because of their socialistic views.  They are there because of money.

>  A written constitutions means nothing

Apparently to some it does not.

> when power goes the other way.  It is not socialism that creates the dictator, it is money.

Where did you find this? In some manifesto? Or is that what Hitler, Chavez, and Mau told there people? If citizens were loyal to America and our Constitution, Flag and Form of Government and what these represent, things would not go the other way.

> There is no dictator in power because of their socialistic views.  They are there because of money.

Why do people with socialist views come here? Or any other view separate from the love of America?  From your words which may reflect your way of thinking, (if I am understanding you correctly), it isn't the love our Constitution that holds your attraction? I can only guess.
Knowing socialism is in direct contrast to our American Way of Government, what is the mindset of socialist leaning folks which come here? Could it be; Get what you can from the Yanks, and then demand more? You tell me.
Puzzled




                                                                                                                                                                               .