What is a moderate?

Originally posted by whodey
Not true. You continue to give them their support. The first step will be to take the consent away from the two parties that govern, much like a Congress we have now with only a 9% approval rating. At least the illusion of democracy will be gone forever.

It's a two party system, Whodey. It functions exactly as a two party system is designed to. This fantasy you seem to have of somehow making a two party system function like a multi-party system is just plain stupid. If you want a truly functioning democracy, then build up economic democracy. This purely political democracy that everyone is so fixated upon is an emasculated democracy. A fully functioning democracy requires both halves - political democracy and economic democracy. Only when you have the latter will the former function as it should. No "third party" is ever going to change that.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's a two party system, Whodey. It functions exactly as a two party system is designed to. This fantasy you seem to have of somehow making a two party system function like a multi-party system is just plain stupid. If you want a truly functioning democracy, then build up economic democracy. This purely political democracy that everyone is so fixated upon i ...[text shortened]... latter will the former function as it should. No "third party" is ever going to change that.

You are just talking in circles now. All you will do is support the status quo. 😴

Originally posted by Teinosuke
The idea that it's good to be highly partisan flies in the face of human reality, where people's opinions are complex, nuanced, various and don't toe the party line. But really, this is a flaw of representative democracy: it's pretty sad to have to boil down the infinite variety of our opinions to fit the platforms of two, or three, or even a dozen parties.

The American democracy is really not, but a republic. Originally, the ground rules are set by constitution, and we elect government officials at several levels, but originally great effort was made to limit what those officials could do, with the majority of the "doing" at the local level. How that worked is described by Alex De Tochville, Democracy in America. This written before the many deformations of American government.

The more local the power distribution of government, the more varieties emerge, not in the form of multiple parties, but in the form of regional differences in existing major parties.

There isn't a thing wrong with strong partisanship, or ideological purity, so long as winning a national election doesn't transform the nation. The system was designed to prevent that, although many of the barriers are no longer functioning.

Originally posted by whodey
You are just talking in circles now. All you will do is support the status quo. 😴

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Would you care to demonstrate how I'm talking in circles? Or is it a case that I'm just talking on a higher plane than the rubbish you're used to?

Originally posted by normbenign
The American democracy is really not, but a republic. Originally, the ground rules are set by constitution, and we elect government officials at several levels, but originally great effort was made to limit what those officials could do, with the majority of the "doing" at the local level. How that worked is described by Alex De Tochville, Democracy in ...[text shortened]... ystem was designed to prevent that, although many of the barriers are no longer functioning.

That's not how it worked at all. Your analysis is a crock. I don't know how you ever got to graduate from kindergarten.

Originally posted by rwingett
That's not how it worked at all. Your analysis is a crock. I don't know how you ever got to graduate from kindergarten.

I don't know how to respond. Tell me what I said that was in error, and why?

Originally posted by normbenign
I don't know how to respond. Tell me what I said that was in error, and why?

Rats. That's not the response I was expecting. You're just supposed to "know" how to respond. Whodey would have tossed some crap out there. What's wrong with you?

Originally posted by rwingett
Rats. That's not the response I was expecting. You're just supposed to "know" how to respond. Whodey would have tossed some crap out there. What's wrong with you?

It would be wasteful to argue the points on which we may agree. Or to start point by point, when you can, I hope, easily identify what you find inaccurate or disagreeable.

Originally posted by normbenign
It would be wasteful to argue the points on which we may agree. Or to start point by point, when you can, I hope, easily identify what you find inaccurate or disagreeable.

It would be wasteful...of course it would be wasteful! That's the whole point! You disappoint me.

Originally posted by rwingett
It would be wasteful...of course it would be wasteful! That's the whole point! You disappoint me.

Then why participate in a debate at all? The only argument necessary is some variant of "you are wrong".

By the way, over in Warren, 10 mile next to the McDonald's east of Dequindre, there is a new brew pub, micro brewery, Falling Down Beer Company. If you like full flavored brews, I'm buying the first round.

Originally posted by rwingett
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Would you care to demonstrate how I'm talking in circles? Or is it a case that I'm just talking on a higher plane than the rubbish you're used to?

You talk about economic democracy as if that is the answer, but just go about your business propping up the political democracy.

Your fantasy about an economic democracy is just a justification for supporting the status quo.

Originally posted by whodey
You talk about economic democracy as if that is the answer, but just go about your business propping up the political democracy.

Your fantasy about an economic democracy is just a justification for supporting the status quo.

Economic democracy IS the answer. But it isn't going to be brought into being through the political system. There's nothing wrong with participating in political democracies, as you seem to be implying. What is wrong is thinking that that is the totality of what democracy is.

Just because it's something you're not used to doesn't mean that economic democracy is a "fantasy." It is in its infancy in this country, to be sure, but it is growing. It has the potential to bring about lasting change because it begins with altering the base of society first and letting that change percolate upward, as opposed to changes brought about through the political system, which are implemented from the top down.

Originally posted by normbenign
Then why participate in a debate at all? The only argument necessary is some variant of "you are wrong".

By the way, over in Warren, 10 mile next to the McDonald's east of Dequindre, there is a new brew pub, micro brewery, Falling Down Beer Company. If you like full flavored brews, I'm buying the first round.

Ha ha, one too many flavorful brews got in the way of my usually well reasoned and persuasive arguments last night.

I hadn't heard of the Falling Down Beer Company before. Might be worth a trip.

Originally posted by rwingett
Ha ha, one too many flavorful brews got in the way of my usually well reasoned and persuasive arguments last night.

I hadn't heard of the Falling Down Beer Company before. Might be worth a trip.

Careful guys. You two might cause a tear in the space-time continuum.

Originally posted by rwingett
Economic democracy IS the answer. But it isn't going to be brought into being through the political system. There's nothing wrong with participating in political democracies, as you seem to be implying. What is wrong is thinking that that is the totality of what democracy is.

Just because it's something you're not used to doesn't mean that economic demo ...[text shortened]... nges brought about through the political system, which are implemented from the top down.

Give me an example historically, or are you living in an ivory tower once again along with the rest of the liberal academia?