Trump

[Leo]

The vote stands as a pivotal moment for the party Mr. Trump molded into a cult of personality, one likely to leave a deep blemish in the historical record. Now that Republicans have passed up an opportunity to banish him through impeachment, it is not clear when — or how — they might go about transforming their party into something other than a vessel for a semiretired demagogue who was repudiated by a majority of voters.

 

[luka]

it's funny isnt it. they had a gilt edged opportunity to off him. youd think they'll come to regret it but fuk knows whats going on anymore

 

[Leo]

they're apparently still convinced they won't get reelected if they don't have support from Trump's base, that the base will still be a factor in two or four years, I guess. most of the seven republicans who voted guilty either just got reelected and aren't up again for six years or announced they are retiring.

Mitch mcconnell again at the center if it all, voting to acquit yet making a scathing speech about trump's guilt and related damage to the party. a splintered GOP would be a disaster for them, but also for the country. there needs to be formidable opposition parties so that one of them doesn't get carried away. a Democratic Party that's effectively unopposed would be terrible, and I'm a registered democrat.

 

[luka]

thats interesting. in what way would it be terrible. do you think they would put the likes of Gus in reeducation camps?

 

[Leo]

any political party that holds all power and has little in the way of checks and balances inevitably gets more corrupt, more complacent, less tolerant, less innovative. the only saving grace is the Democratic Party is less organized than the GOP, so they might be too incompetent to get as bad as they could be.

 

[luka]

in some ways im sure thats true but im not entirely happy with it as a position

 

[Leo]

it's human nature, don't you think? "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

 

[DannyL]

any political party that holds all power and has little in the way of checks and balances inevitably gets more corrupt, more complacent, less tolerant, less innovative. the only saving grace is the Democratic Party is less organized than the GOP, so they might be too incompetent to get as bad as they could be.

kinda what we have in the UK rn

 

[IdleRich]

Imagine if the Republican party DID fracture into two equally popular parts. Basically neither would have any chance whatsoever of defeating the Democratic party in the system you have now and it would basically become one-party state. That's pretty scary I think.

 

[Leo]

yeah, that's my point above. never good, no matter which party you support.

 

[IdleRich]

I feel it has a small but real possibility of happening at the moment. I guess even if it fractured in two maybe they could caucus together to stand some kind of chance? I think that can be done can't it?

 

[Leo]

who knows. it could work for votes on particular bills or court appointments put before the house or senate, both factions -- traditional GOP and Trump party -- would both support, say, a conservation judge or tax cuts. the problem would be in elections, might be difficult at this point for a hardcore McConnell or Romney supporter to vote for a Trump party candidate (and vice versa).

also, our election system is all about campaign funding. In the average year, Dems and GOP get close to equal amounts of donations from various groups and individuals. a split GOP means that shifts it to Dems 50%, and trad GOP and Trump party dividing the other 50% (who know what percentage each). that means a big spending advantage to the Dems, which helps them win elections.

 

[luka]

yeah, that's my point above. never good, no matter which party you support.

The problem with this is it does leave you with a kind of stasis or deadlock which doesn't necessarily represent anyone's desires or interests

 

[IdleRich]

who knows. it could work for votes on particular bills or court appointments put before the house or senate, both factions -- traditional GOP and Trump party -- would both support, say, a conservation judge or tax cuts. the problem would be in elections, might be difficult at this point for a hardcore McConnell or Romney supporter to vote for a Trump party candidate (and vice versa).

also, our election system is all about campaign funding. In the average year, Dems and GOP get close to equal amounts of donations from various groups and individuals. a split GOP means that shifts it to Dems 50%, and trad GOP and Trump party dividing the other 50% (who know what percentage each). that means a big spending advantage to the Dems, which helps them win elections.

I mean it's a "cross that bridge when they come to it" situation I guess, but it feels more feasible that it could develop than at any other time that I've been aware of US politics (which admittedly isn't that long).

 

[Leo]

The problem with this is it does leave you with a kind of stasis or deadlock which doesn't necessarily represent anyone's desires or interests

but every party needs an opposition to keep them honest (to a degree), to push back against the carte blanche of just passing of every bill the majority wants.

And while I'm not naive to the current social and political culture, we shouldn't give up on the notion of negotiation and compromise.

 

[luka]

I don't want a one party state but a two party state seems almost as bad to me

 

[Leo]

do countries with numerous parties all representing a small percentage of the population manage to work more efficiently? coalitions to form majorities, etc.? I don't know, asking the question. maybe.

 

[sus]

thats interesting. in what way would it be terrible. do you think they would put the likes of Gus in reeducation camps?

Educate me Daddy teach me those radical french lefties, those Frankfurt marxists in tattees—oh wait! Thats where I got half my ideas.

Imagine if the Republican party DID fracture into two equally popular parts. Basically neither would have any chance whatsoever of defeating the Democratic party in the system you have now and it would basically become one-party state. That's pretty scary I think.

We have had serious multiparty elections in this country it's just been a century or so. Dems are pretty splintered between Sanders and Biden types. The far left, like the far right, is always threatening to break off, a lil AOC Jill Stein crossover event, who knows. Could end up with positive realignment. Multiparty makes extreme candidates more likely to be elected though—see Trump's takeover of the GOP primaries in 2016.

 

[sus]

It seems more accurate to say our election system encourages two party equilibria, but it's not necessary, and it can pop out of equilibrium if conditions are right.

 

[IdleRich]

More and more I'm in favour of proportional representation and multiple party states. That system seems to be a bit fairer, sure you need a bit more negotiation and compromise to get things done but is that a bad thing? It's harder to pass radical laws, in fact it's harder to pass laws - but how many new laws do we need?
Also, if you have a two party state then there is always a chance that it could collapse into a (virtual) one-party state isn't there?906