Should the two-party system be realigned, tbh?

[Will Hunting]

They didn't like slavery either and deemed it something that needed to be slowly phased out as many were relying on slaves for their livelihood at that time.

Adams, Washington and Jefferson warned agaisnt parties, just to name a few.

what a crock of . They owned slaves and loved slavery.

worshipping people who think slavery was necessary and needed to be “phased out slowly”

[Will Hunting]

The founding fathers had a completely blank check on how to write the cons ution and how to set up the US government. They chose a 2 party system where slavery was legal. Clearly they were somewhat fond of the two party system and slavery.

[Dirks_Finale]

And yet it took a civil war to "phase" it out

Perhaps thats needed here.

That's the fear, obviously.

[Dirks_Finale]

what a crock of . They owned slaves and loved slavery.

worshipping people who think slavery was necessary and needed to be “phased out slowly”

Yeah, cause immediately pulling the plug on it and causing civil war was something desirable right?

There was no easy/quick remedy for it and you know this.

[Will Hunting]

Conservatives love to pick and and choose what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers also said that we should have a cons utional convention every 20 years and rewrite the cons ution as needed during said convention, but god knows conservatives have no interest in doing that.

[Will Hunting]

Yeah, cause immediately pulling the plug on it and causing civil war was something desirable right?

There was no easy/quick remedy for it and you know this.

Western Europe managed to end slavery without a civil war and they did it a lot earlier than the US did. The only difference is the US was founded by slave owners. If Thomas Jefferson hated slavery so much why did he own slaves and rape them?

Whats you’re explanation for why they set up a two party system they hated so much?

[Dirks_Finale]

Whats you’re explanation for why they set up a two party system they hated so much?

Because it was inevitable due to human nature. We form gangs, it's what we do. They were not entirely united on the issue, nor the issue of slavery.

[Will Hunting]

Because it was inevitable due to human nature. We form gangs, it's what we do. They were not entirely united on the issue, nor the issue of slavery.

They were united in the fact they owned slaves. You don’t get to say you’re oppose to slavery when you own slaves

Somehow Western Europe, or countries that weren’t formed by muh founding fathers, managed to avoid a 2 party system. It’s remarkable that every Western Nation managed to avoid these things muh founding fathers made a part of the US.

[hater]

They were united in the fact they owned slaves. You don’t get to say you’re oppose to slavery when you own slaves

Somehow Western Europe, or countries that weren’t formed by muh founding fathers, managed to avoid a 2 party system. It’s remarkable that every Western Nation managed to avoid these things muh founding fathers made a part of the US.

Iran has the Mullahs, US has the 2 party system. Both system of control and oppression

[Millennial_Messiah]

Conservatives love to pick and and choose what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers also said that we should have a cons utional convention every 20 years and rewrite the cons ution as needed during said convention, but god knows conservatives have no interest in doing that.

Stephen Breyer wrote a book about it. I read about three quarters of it for my first poly sci honors class in undergrad.

[Will Hunting]

Stephen Breyer wrote a book about it. I read about three quarters of it for my first poly sci honors class in undergrad.

Is it worth a read?

[Bogie]

Conservatives love to pick and and choose what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers also said that we should have a cons utional convention every 20 years and rewrite the cons ution as needed during said convention, but god knows conservatives have no interest in doing that.

this.

it’s just stunning how historically illiterate most “cons utionalists” are. Somewhere along the line, when we elected a half black guy, the right co opted the do ent with interpretations in order to rationalize their fear and hate. They will be back too, here in January, starting with states rights, and government spending.

In the end, what they like is women not having rights, and black peoples being 3/5 of a person, Latino less than that

[Will Hunting]

IMO the US needs 4 political parties -

- A populist party for people who are conservative on social issues but progressive on economic issues, i.e. a modern day William Jennings Bryan type party.
- A conservative party that's conservative on social issues and economic issues
- A progressive party that's liberal on social issues and progressive on economic issues.
- A democratic party that's liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues (this would basically merge the establishment wing from each party, it would basically be the party of Bill Clinton/Charlie Baker)

This would actually force parties to work with each other and it would give people the option of voting for someone who they're actually aligned with ideologically. It would also ease racial tensions because black people and hispanics wouldn't all join the same party.

[Millennial_Messiah]

IMO the US needs 4 political parties -

- A populist party for people who are conservative on social issues but progressive on economic issues, i.e. a modern day William Jennings Bryan type party.
- A conservative party that's conservative on social issues and economic issues
- A progressive party that's liberal on social issues and progressive on economic issues.
- A democratic party that's liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues (this would basically merge the establishment wing from each party, it would basically be the party of Bill Clinton/Charlie Baker)

This would actually force parties to work with each other and it would give people the option of voting for someone who they're actually aligned with ideologically. It would also ease racial tensions because black people and hispanics wouldn't all join the same party.

Hispanics and a lot of blacks would fall into party "A" from your list
Libertarians (and me) would probably fall into "D"
Religious southern types would be "B"
Berners and college libs and hipsters would be "C"

[Will Hunting]

Hispanics and a lot of blacks would fall into party "A" from your list
Libertarians (and me) would probably fall into "D"
Religious southern types would be "B"
Berners and college libs and hipsters would be "C"

Older blacks would be in A, younger blacks would be in C.

The point is that those parties are diverse enough where none of them would ever have a majority. They'd be forced to work with each other.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Older blacks would be in A, younger blacks would be in C.

The point is that those parties are diverse enough where none of them would ever have a majority. They'd be forced to work with each other.

Yep... the purple rust belt states would go "D", the south would go "B" with a significant "A" minority, the central plains likely "B" with a significant "D" minority, the west coast would obviously be "C", the mountain west might be fully "D" as well, and the northeast would be split between "C", "D" and "A". The southwest states with high Hispanic populations would likely go "A" with "B" and "C" minorities.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Will Hunting

I created an ECV map based on your proposed system. Seems like it would work, but team "A" would have a rough time getting enough electoral vote representation... but they could get a lot of house seats across the South, for example.

[Will Hunting]

Will Hunting

I created an ECV map based on your proposed system. Seems like it would work, but team "A" would have a rough time getting enough electoral vote representation... but they could get a lot of house seats across the South, for example.

The populist party would win in the south. I said it would be a party modeled around William Jennings Bryan - go look how well he did in the south when he ran for president.

[Millennial_Messiah]

The populist party would win in the south. I said it would be a party modeled around William Jennings Bryan - go look how well he did in the south when he ran for president.

I think they'd be compe ive but the white rednecks are also very capitalistic and anti government, anti gun control, even if they do get medicare and/or medicaid (a bit hypocritical tbh lol).

[Will Hunting]

I think they'd be compe ive but the white rednecks are also very capitalistic and anti government, anti gun control, even if they do get medicare and/or medicaid (a bit hypocritical tbh lol).

The populist party would be anti gun control.

[Millennial_Messiah]

The populist party would be anti gun control.

but I think the capitalism would ultimately carry the day, though the populist party A would be compe ive and certainly win some congressional seats there.

meanwhile party D seems to be my home, since it is secular, separation of church and state, pro choice, anti gun control, pro choice on drugs, limited government, limited regulations. I think Trump would have carried the rust belt again like 2016 if he didn't move too far to the right on the religious stuff and act like a dictator. People up North value intelligence and while neither candidate has it, so many of them just wanted to dump Trump at all costs this year. They'll be back to Republican in 2024 assuming the candidate isn't Trump or anyone from the Trump clan.