[FlamingCobra]

I mean, I already know the answer is "never," but I like to have hope. I'm a dreamer, you know?

[redsniper]

Never. But it doesn't really matter who's in office. The government now is just the entertainment division of the unstoppable military-industrial complex. Enjoy your war economy.

[LHN91]

When the US populace as a whole is willing to stop looking through nostalgia glasses at the words of some men from a very different era. Might be a while.

[Nuke]

its a 2 party system. it works by exploiting the contention between 2 radically different parties. think about it, is there an issue that they arent split down the middle about? no! if there is no issue then its policy. so when the government does something wrong, like bail out evil bankers, or go to war with some country we dont need to be fighting, instead of the people acting out against the government, you have the party that was against it acting out against the party that supported it, and the government chugs on unhindered. its a clever system. having someone to blame makes a government more effective. you saw that with the nazis, "blame the jews!", and so on. what the nazis did wrong is the subject of their blame was non-sustainable, youd run out of jews eventually and need to find another target. this would have likely collapsed their government if we hadnt done that for them. in our system you could never unify the people against the government because they would argue about whether to use shotguns or protest signs.

Never. But it doesn't really matter who's in office. The government now is just the entertainment division of the unstoppable military-industrial complex. Enjoy your war economy.

i have no problem with that so long as were conquering countries in the process and exploiting the **** out of their populations for our own gain. what disturbs me is the catch and release nature of our military. i mean if were not actually going to be taking over the world, we should just adopt the isolationism mentality we had used between the world wars. no point toppling weak regimes because they would never become strong nations, never pose any real threat to us, never become superpowers, and never give us anyone to point our nukes at. a world without an endless cold war is no world i want to live in.

[NGTM-1R]

I mean, I already know the answer is "never," but I like to have hope. I'm a dreamer, you know?

We already have. He went by Abraham Lincoln. That turned out real well, huh?

[MP-Ryan]

I mean, I already know the answer is "never," but I like to have hope. I'm a dreamer, you know?

When your populace has educated themselves sufficiently in the history of the country, and George Washington's feelings on the subject... then maybe.

[JCDNWarrior]

It seems more like it has become a 1-party system, as it's very hard to find much difference between Democrats and Republicans these days..

We will have a third-party presidents when the mainsteam media starts to equally treat all candidates, when ballots and the electoral process has become equal for the 3rd party as well as the other 2 parties and that you don't need to invest many millions just to be on the ballot, let alone in the debates. For this to happen, a lot has to change...

[Ghostavo]

I've always felt the lack of third parties in the US was due to the "winner takes all" system it has implemented.

It seems every election in the US was made up to have as output one and only one winner from the election, instead of using a wider election to come up with a variety of candidates who would have a number of seats corresponding to the percentage of votes they had. While this may not be sufficient in itself to throw out the two party system, it feels to be right now the most significant road block.

CGPGrey on youtube explains this with a much clearer language using a "jungle government" as a funny example.

[MP-Ryan]

It seems more like it has become a 1-party system, as it's very hard to find much difference between Democrats and Republicans these days..

*snort*  You're not looking hard enough, or you've got blinders on.  I say this as someone who doesn't live in the US.

[StarSlayer]

It seems more like it has become a 1-party system, as it's very hard to find much difference between Democrats and Republicans these days..

*snort*  You're not looking hard enough, or you've got blinders on.  I say this as someone who doesn't live in the US.

Ryan is correct, look at US history, when one major party crumbles the other invariably breaks up as well.  The glue that holds most parties together is the opposition, once that is removed the differences within a party come to the fore.  Its one of the reasons I had truly hoped 43 would manage to put the GOP into the dirt during his tenure, if the Republicans came apart the Dems would soon follow and we would get a party reshuffle, hopefully on more beneficial ideologies.

[JCDNWarrior]

You may be right, Ryan, I just feel as a humble spectator, that the opposition, be it republican or democrat at the time, seem much more reluctant to actually fix the things they criticized the previous group in power to have done before when they are in power. The policies don't seem to change much too from a spectator's view. If they only fight over the levers of power every time they don't seem to represent the public very much. Is that the nature of politics, is it that the issues are too massive and time too little or that it is made impossible some other way?

This same thing can just as much happen with a third party of course; it's about somehow having more honest politics and trying to represent the people, listening to them and trying to address important and/or popular issues is what I'd like to see.

[Aardwolf]

It seems more like it has become a 1-party system, as it's very hard to find much difference between Democrats and Republicans these days..

*snort*  You're not looking hard enough, or you've got blinders on.  I say this as someone who doesn't live in the US.

Ryan is correct, look at US history, when one major party crumbles the other invariably breaks up as well.  The glue that holds most parties together is the opposition, once that is removed the differences within a party come to the fore.  Its one of the reasons I had truly hoped 43 would manage to put the GOP into the dirt during his tenure, if the Republicans came apart the Dems would soon follow and we would get a party reshuffle, hopefully on more beneficial ideologies.

Interesting 

[FlamingCobra]

I mean, I already know the answer is "never," but I like to have hope. I'm a dreamer, you know?

When your populace has educated themselves sufficiently in the history of the country, and George Washington's feelings on the subject... then maybe.

Um... george washington warned against having political parties in the first place.

But I mean, we don't need rich-catering conservatives or bleeding-heart liberals. We need middle-of-the-road President.

[MP-Ryan]

Um... george washington warned against having political parties in the first place.

Indeed he did.  What conclusion can you draw from this fact and my earlier comment when summed together?

[FlamingCobra]

Um... george washington warned against having political parties in the first place.

Indeed he did.  What conclusion can you draw from this fact and my earlier comment when summed together?

We will do away with political parties entirely?