- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Well said, OON. Everything in your comments is important to understand – especially the need to avoid assuming stupidity among those who are different. That assumption is hypocritical for us in a core way.
I voted for Trump not out of fear but I figured he was the most likely candidate in the last 50 years that would actually do what he said he would. Now that may throw fear into some people but for me I want the US to not pander to special interest groups. I want the border to be controlled. I want business to be unfettered to create jobs.I want conservative judges. I want the things Trump spoke about albeit in a rather obnoxious way. I am weary of hand wringing politicians feigning sympathy for the downtrodden whilst running over the middle class. People want to attribute all sorts of reasons why Trump won, but the one they seem to forget the most is people believed he would do what he said and they agreed with him.
The reasoning from many LDS people I talked with boiled down to, “I don’t like him, but the Supreme Court….” A close second was the Clinton Foundation corruption. Third was a tie between border control and terrorism. For me, it was the first time experiencing single-issue passion forcing me to a third party. I’m conditioned to give respect and support to (almost) any duly elected president. I do wish him well and pray for our country, but there was no way on God’s green earth I’d vote for someone who talks about women the way he does. But change is possible, even late in life.
I also get that female Trump supporters have been charicatured and simplified. (In this election I was the simple one.) They aren’t blind to his faults. Here’s a new article:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/us/women-voters-trump.html SD, I agree:
Quote:I have to say, I am VERY impressed with the way our founding fathers designed the political system. I read that if CA and NY didn’t have the electoral college working against them, they would essentially determine the election year after year. The electoral college has created a balance of pendulum swings from socialism to capitalism for years that I think is healthy. And the system as a whole, has given us stability.
I think the question of why one can only vote for Trump (or Clinton) is more pertinent. The duopoly is corrupt and works against proper democracy. Thanks for you comment, Cadence. It is an important reminder that even we at this site are not monolithic. SamBee, I believe the two-party system is one of the worst parts of our political system. Not only does it nàrrow choices, but it also forces candidates to pander to the extremes to get nominated. Add seventeen candidates for one nomination (like what happened in the GOP this year), and we end up with a nominee who received the smallest percentage of primary and caucus votes prior to becoming the nominee in our history.
Old Timer wrote:SamBee, I believe the two-party system is one of the worst parts of our political system. Not only does it nàrrow choices, but it also forces candidates to pander to the extremes to get nominated. Add seventeen candidates for one nomination (like what happened in the GOP this year), and we end up with a nominee who received the smallest percentage of primary and caucus votes prior to becoming the nominee in our history.
I had thought that the two party system would skew towards moderation. For example, if we had 10 small single issue candidates out there then one could win by getting only 20% of the vote. I had thought that with the two major parties would distance themselves from the extremes in order to appeal to the moderate majority of the voting public.
That would be the most logical, perhaps, but the extremes tend to be vocal, whereas the middle tends to be quieter. The extremes also tend to be where single issue voters live, since they don’t care about moderation in all things.
Two parties alas are all too common. In Ireland, the two main parties – Fianna Fail and Fine Gael – have little between them except a dispute over a treaty with the UK over seventy years ago. Yet apart from that their policies are much the same. I hate any system that goes on about the less bad candidate. I’d rather vote for someone who loses in good conscience than someone who wins that I can’t stand.
If I was American I would have written in Bernie Sanders tbh.
Roy wrote:Old Timer wrote:SamBee, I believe the two-party system is one of the worst parts of our political system. Not only does it nàrrow choices, but it also forces candidates to pander to the extremes to get nominated. Add seventeen candidates for one nomination (like what happened in the GOP this year), and we end up with a nominee who received the smallest percentage of primary and caucus votes prior to becoming the nominee in our history.
I had thought that the two party system would skew towards moderation. For example, if we had 10 small single issue candidates out there then one could win by getting only 20% of the vote. I had thought that with the two major parties would distance themselves from the extremes in order to appeal to the moderate majority of the voting public.
The two party system skews politics towards cronyism and big business interests. Whoever wins and whoever loses, they’ll still be in somewhere and can’t be kicked out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.