Welcome to PatsFans.com

Another question...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by JLC, Jan 31, 2006.

  1. JLC

    JLC Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    OK, I don't normally get this involved here, but I did throw out a couple of things today and got some interesting responses.

    Here's another thing I wonder about - especially after trying to answer the question, "Who's in charge of the democratic party?"

    What if... the dems were to self-destruct and cease functioning as a coherent political force of any kind. In the wake of that party receding into history, what would you like the party that replaced the democrats to look like?

    Don't answer if you just can't accept the premise. OTOH, it might be interesting to know what you think a "new party" might look like, what it would stand for, who it would appeal to, and why it would be better than what we're being offered today.
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It'd be the same thing. I'm of the opnion that there's very little real difference between the Republicans and Democrats now. They exist to get over half the voters, and if that means changing a few planks in their platform, they'll do it. I think as long as there are only two major parties, this is what they'll look like. If we had 4-5, each one could be a little more true to something. You know, a parlimentary system wouldn't be so bad.
  3. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,785
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +77 / 5 / -7

    #37 Jersey

    Not really, as much as you don't like Bush, you honestly think that Reid, Frist, Pelosi or at one time Delay would have been a better leader? I like being able to vote for our leader, let say you like the democrat for senate but the republican for president you would screw yourself into voting for a straight party line.
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Mmm, that's also true. But, and I'm not trying to stir the pot here, since you "like being able to vote for our leader", would you switch the Presidential election to a popular vote?
  5. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Its funny how the electoral college was never put into question before now when it DIDNT go their way in 2000.
  6. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Your chump would get destroyed in a straight popular vote today. What are the polls showing? 30-40%?? The electoral college serves the vast expanses of farmland. Its an insult to the intent of our founding fathers and everyone knows it.
  7. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Again, its curious that no one ever had a problem with it until recently. Hmmmmm.... Change the laws when they dont go your way perhaps?
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    There's a struggle going on in the Democratic Party similar to tha which went on in the Republican Party in the 1980s. The struggle is between the DLC (Clinton, Lieberman, Kerry) and the more libeal elements. People like Kerry and Clinton are trying to find a middle ground between the conservative and liberal Democrats. Right now, the DLC is very much in charge of the Democratic Party. The proof of that is there was very little pressure put on Democratic Senators to join the filibuster.

    After Watergate, many people predicted the collapse of the Republican Party, but that did not happen. The Democrats are actually a lot stronger than the Republicans were during that era. The Democrats have a good chance of capturing either the House or Senate over the next few years. The key will be Tip O'Neill's maxim that all politics is local politics. People like Strom Thurmond and Ted Kennedy (to choose two extremes) have/had success because they are good Senators for their states first, so were easy to forgive for their transgressions and less popular views.

    If the Democratic Party collapsed, then it would be replaced with something similar, since the its funding would come from similar places (corporations, unions, Hollywood, etc.). On the other hand, I think it's plausible that a third party could be formed, and at this point in history it would probably be a liberal party, since that is the political powerhouse with the least amount of power right now.
  9. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Thats a pipe dream. Its over for the Democratic party. They are Republican lite (the softer corporate party) and for this reason, they keep losing support. Stick a fork in them.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    AAB, I'm not trying to defend the Democratic Party, so it's not a pipe dream. I would welcome a third party or would be willing to lose some elections if that was the price to push the Democratic Party to the left. But, let's face it, the Democratic Party still has a lot of support. They are Republican lite, it's true, but on vital issues like civil rights they are still pretty Democratic. On civil rights, for instance, I'd take Lieberman over Frist any day of the week.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>