Democrats, Republicans and the Crisis of Legitimacy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ttystikk, Mar 12, 2018.

  1.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/12/democrats-and-the-crisis-of-legitimacy/

    Excerpt;
    For instance, 71% of eligible voters didn’t vote for the Democratic Party candidate. 73% didn’t vote for Donald Trump (Clinton won the popular vote). Ninety million eligible voters (40%) didn’t cast a ballot at all. Why it makes sense to present outcomes in terms of what voters didn’t do is (1) the duopoly Parties control which candidates and programs are put forward and (2) voters have fled the duopoly Party system rather than simply switching Parties.
     
    Padawanbater2 likes this.
  2.  
    rollitup

    rollitup Forum Admin Staff Member

    Well, I'm certainly not as smart as CounterPunchers, but they are missing the obvious.

    Voters were hammered on for years that Hillary would win, she was a shoe-in, and most voters were perfectly happy with her being Prez. So there was no reason for them to vote, their wishes were being met without even voting. That way, they had time to stop at the drive-thru for another coffee.

    However, it's only obvious to people who are actually paying attention. :lol:

    :mrgreen:
     
    Unclebaldrick and UncleBuck like this.
  3.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    Why don't you read the article before assuming you know what it says?

    Is it perhaps because you fear its implications?

    The biggest single bloc of American voters are unaffiliated. That's indicative of a fundamental failure of parties and policy, not merely a meaningless anomaly.
     
  4.  
    Bugeye

    Bugeye Well-Known Member

    Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A third party that plays in that space could do all right.
     
    ttystikk and too larry like this.
  5.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    Progressives like me think that ours is the platform that would attract the unaffiliated voters.

    The corporate right and the corporate 'lite' 'left' have proven they do not, hence the results highlighted in the article.
     
    since1991 likes this.
  6.  
    Bugeye

    Bugeye Well-Known Member

    If we had 10 trillion less in debt I'd be with you.
     
  7.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    We'd have $20 trillion less in debt if you were with us.
     
    since1991 likes this.
  8.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    you just described democrats.

    republicans are fiscally irresponsible and socially regressive
     
  9.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    the republicans you keep voting for because of your racial resentment are responsible for every last penny of that debt
     
    since1991 likes this.
  10.  
    Padawanbater2

    Padawanbater2 Well-Known Member

    "fiscally conservative" is usually met with cuts in social programs and tax cuts that benefit the rich sold as lower taxes for everyone. I'm skeptical every time I hear a politician say that. I think cuts in other areas, like drug enforcement and the military budget would be nice, that would be a popular position to hold
     
    since1991, Bugeye and ttystikk like this.
  11.  
    Bugeye

    Bugeye Well-Known Member

    I like Bernie, but I never got the feeling he was for smaller government. How are progressives for cutting size of government?
     
  12.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    obama got us out of recession while shrinking the size of government, unlike every other president before him.

    but he was black so that was a non-starter for you
     
  13.  
    Bugeye

    Bugeye Well-Known Member

    i see neither party as fiscally conservative.
     
  14.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    I think Progressive taxation on corporations and the wealthy would also be an eminently popular, not to mention fiscally responsible position.

    It has the advantage of actually working as advertised to bring prosperity to a vastly larger share of the population.
     
    Padawanbater2 likes this.
  15.  
    UncleBuck

    UncleBuck Well-Known Member

    obama cut the deficit by over a trillion and clinton got us to a surplus, so you are wrong like always, lardo.
     
  16.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    Bigger vs smaller government is the wrong question, IMHO. Let's work on better government and let size be determined by need.
     
  17.  
    Bugeye

    Bugeye Well-Known Member

    Cut here, cut there, I'll support it. Hard decisions are needed.
     
  18.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    Yet both, especially Mr Obama, presided over massive increases in wealth and income inequality.

    Not so good unless you're wealthy.
     
    since1991 and Bugeye like this.
  19.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    Yep. Like what could be done with even half of Jeff Bezos' wealth that isn't being funded now.
     
    since1991 likes this.
  20.  
    Bugeye

    Bugeye Well-Known Member

    I don't believe any tax strategy can long term collect more than 20% of GDP, so ultimately people must decide what they want to fund at the trade off of something else.
     

Share This Page