Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There will never be a third party (except during transitional periods) until we get rid of first past the post voting. With our voting system two parties is a very stable equilibrium and three is completely unstable.he_who_is_nobody said:Sadly, it appears neither of the two major parties are talking about what it would take to get those ~70 million registered voters to actually turn up and vote. There truly is an un-tap source of influence there that the two major parties are just overlooking. I honestly do not understand this. Hopefully, a third party will be able to tap into it.
I never got any sense that Trump was anti-corruption. If anything, I got the sense that he is very into cronyism which is a particular type of corruption (and therefore Trump is pro-corruption-that-benefits-him).Laurens said:Not the entire reason. I think its more to do with the fallout from the banking crisis. People are angry at the lowering of living standards while the elite seem to have got away with it. Trump appeared to want to eliminate corruption and people lapped it up.
borrofburi said:There will never be a third party (except during transitional periods) until we get rid of first past the post voting. With our voting system two parties is a very stable equilibrium and three is completely unstable.he_who_is_nobody said:Sadly, it appears neither of the two major parties are talking about what it would take to get those ~70 million registered voters to actually turn up and vote. There truly is an un-tap source of influence there that the two major parties are just overlooking. I honestly do not understand this. Hopefully, a third party will be able to tap into it.
I never got any sense that Trump was anti-corruption. If anything, I got the sense that he is very into cronyism which is a particular type of corruption (and therefore Trump is pro-corruption-that-benefits-him).Laurens said:Not the entire reason. I think its more to do with the fallout from the banking crisis. People are angry at the lowering of living standards while the elite seem to have got away with it. Trump appeared to want to eliminate corruption and people lapped it up.
borrofburi said:I never got any sense that Trump was anti-corruption. If anything, I got the sense that he is very into cronyism which is a particular type of corruption (and therefore Trump is pro-corruption-that-benefits-him).
thenexttodie said:I think one reason why Trump won is because of the increasingly wierd social policies of the lefties and their bizarre demostrations/riots.
thenexttodie said:I think one reason why Trump won is because of the increasingly wierd social policies of the lefties and their bizarre demostrations/riots.
Dustnite said:I'm just struggling to find out why the few supporters that still support Trump keep defending his terrible policies.
Dustnite said:Trump ran on a populist message that the American people like, yet essentially lied to their face as he has demonstrably filled his cabinet with Wall Street insiders. I think the identity politics that everyone seems to circle jerk themselves off to on YouTube is just the current outrage fad until something else comes along.
Combine that with lack of voter turnout/voter apathy and you've got a winning formula for our first Orange president. I'm just struggling to find out why the few supporters that still support Trump keep defending his terrible policies.
thenexttodie said:Trumps cabinet is filled with Wall Street insiders? Is that even true? I doubt it.
thenexttodie said:Anyway, like i said, the social policies of the Left have become so increasingly bizzar it should be no wonder why they lost the election. Having a Minority Leader who is unable to put 2 coherent sentences together does not help them either.
[/quote]thenexttodie said:The inherent corruption of our judical system, has also been made more know to the public.. So I think people were probably turned off from voting for someone was just another lawyer (Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton).
thenexttodie said:Trumps cabinet is filled with Wall Street insiders? Is that even true? I doubt it.
Gnug215 said:I just checked, really quickly. Just googled "Trump's cabinet" and got a Wiki page of it.
While "Wall Street insider" may be difficult to properly define or prove, all the people he has are either established politicians, or high-ranking business people.
thenexttodie said:Anyway, like i said, the social policies of the Left have become so increasingly bizzar it should be no wonder why they lost the election. Having a Minority Leader who is unable to put 2 coherent sentences together does not help them either.
Gnug215 said:I'll reiterate my question from earlier: are "bizarre social policies" really a "worthy" issue to vote against someone? Is that really the highest priority for most of Trump's voters, you think?
Again, I'll recommend the article I linked to further up. It does go a little into the area of bizarre social policies, but it's certainly not the only or main issue.
Oh, and the thing about the minority leader who isn't able to string two coherent sentences together... Do you really think that was any kind of issue? Especially considering Trump's, uh, level of eloquence?
thenexttodie said:Gnug215 said:Hmm, then why not check it? Why just dismiss it? I mean, at least you're admitting to not knowing it first. I guess most people in your position would just deny it. But it's on public record, so it's easy to check.
I just checked, really quickly. Just googled "Trump's cabinet" and got a Wiki page of it.
While "Wall Street insider" may be difficult to properly define or prove, all the people he has are either established politicians, or high-ranking business people.
Well I just checked to and and out of his 20 or so cabinet members, I see about 2 who could be called an "Insider". One of them of course is the Secratary of Treasure.
I know Trump spoke alot about Not letting Wall Streeters get away with murder. I dont think ever promised that he never allow anyone who has Wall Street experience to be a cabinet member.
thenexttodie said:I just read the article (read the first half and skimmed through the rest) . Very enjoyable and I think some interesting points were made. But I disagree that the election had anything to do with country folk hating city folk. Or simple farmers vs city elites.
Yes, i think social policy is one of the most important and decisive factors in any election. I am not sure how you could believe otherwise. Maybe I should have used the term "domestic policy" instead of social. But when it comes down to it, they are both the same thing.