Obummer The Best President

[Mage246]

Entrenched interests, for one. To create change you must first convince people that change is both possible and necessary. The first is challenged by the static nature of the current system and the dog-eat-dog nature of current politics, while the latter is challenged by those who are already benefiting a great deal from the way things are.

 

[Der Einzige]

Yeah. First we had the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. Then we had the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs. Then we had Republicans and Democrats. Never been a third party that could survive long in our history, or be successful in politics.

Someone needs to read up on their US history...
Here's a list of third parties that were more or less "successful" in politics. Granted none ever made it to the White House of course but getting a good number of people into Congress would be considered "successful", no?

Greenback Party
People's Party
Free Soil Party
Silver Party

 

[Mage246]

No, wrong. To have some limited success for a very short period of time does not mean the party had long-term viability. The Reform Party was running serious candidates not too long ago, but is mostly defunct now. If you want to quibble, quibble about something relevant. His understanding of US history seems just fine.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

Yeah. First we had the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. Then we had the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs. Then we had Republicans and Democrats. Never been a third party that could survive long in our history, or be successful in politics.

Do Whigs even count as a party? They were just an Andrew Jackson opposition group.

How does any of that make a restructuring impossible?

Think of it this way: Hypothetically, a lot of people want M&B 2 to be a game based on tribal warfare in 12,000 B.C. Everyone at Taleworlds Studios wants to keep making medieval-based games.

 

[Mage246]

They were much more than that, originally.

 

[Der Einzige]

No, wrong. To have some limited success for a very short period of time does not mean the party had long-term viability. The Reform Party was running serious candidates not too long ago, but is mostly defunct now. If you want to quibble, quibble about something relevant. His understanding of US history seems just fine.

Greenback Party

28 Officials in Congress from 1879 to 1889. (Though it wasn't always consecutive)

People's Party

28 Officials in Congress from 1891 to 1902. (Including 5 senators - Was consecutive)

Free Soil Party

5 Senators 3 Congressmen (not sure if there were more, going by Wiki)

Silver Party

Elected members into the Senate and House of Reps (Can't find specifics, I'm not scouring the internet to find such statistics either)

Also, this isn't even including governors and other state level representatives.

 

[Mage246]

Seems more like you're either pursuing some agenda or you're unwilling to go into the specifics. For example, that 28 officials over 10 years doesn't count for much of anything. And how successfully were they in making change? Oh, right, they weren't. They were single issue parties that fell apart after success or failure. I have no patience for your preening.

 

[Mad Vader]

How does any of that make a restructuring impossible?

Think of it this way: Hypothetically, a lot of people want M&B 2 to be a game based on tribal warfare in 12,000 B.C. Everyone at Taleworlds Studios wants to keep making medieval-based games.

Except Taleworlds doesn't put millions into ads that show you how much better tribal warfare is, and M&B players are not as gullible as the average voter.

IMO, changing the voting system to ease access for independents and new parties is almost impossible, for the simple reason that the two parties in power won't relinquish power voluntarily, as people already said here.
Maybe look at the Britain's Lib-Dems in an almost successful attempt to crash on the two-party.. party, poaching left, Labor-weary voters and students with (now broken) promises of financial help at the last election (23% of the votes), and getting into government.

Now the Lib-Dems have sensible liberal policies that appeal to liberals, the educated and the students. The US have Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders.

 

[Der Einzige]

Seems more like you're either pursuing some agenda or you're unwilling to go into the specifics.

Lolwut? All I'm saying is that there has been successful third parties. What specifics have I not gone into?

For example, that 28 officials over 10 years doesn't count for much of anything.

Why not?

And how successfully were they in making change? Oh, right, they weren't. They were single issue parties that fell apart after success or failure.

You're contradicting yourself, if they never made any change then why did you suggest they could have fallen apart after their "success"? The fact is a lot of them were successful, for example after the Greenback party became popular  the Democratic party's platform started adopting a lot of Greenback party ideas (Inflationary currency, Populism, etc.) The People's Party also influenced the Democratic party greatly, William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech eventually pushed him into the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Ideas that the People's Party supported were so popular with the general consensus that (like in the case of the Greenback Party) eventually became part of the platform of the Democratic Party. The Silver Party was aligned with the People's Party and was basically a wing more focused on "Free Silver." The Free Soil Party (after further reading I see that they sent 3 Senators and 13 Representatives to Congress) with the Anti Slavery Whigs went on to form the Republican Party so I think  you can certainly say that's successful "in making change." This isn't even going into legislation passed however that would take a lot of time to look for and I'm not about to do that.

I have no patience for your preening.

You seem mad lol

 

[Mage246]

Pathetic. Are you going to force me to quote the post you were originally responding to and explain what was already easily understandable? Don't waste our time.

 

[Der Einzige]

Pathetic? Alright, haha.

Force you? Well no, I cannot "force you" to do anything. However I'll gladly quote myself and point out what I was saying.

"Waste our time"

Well, I certainly don't think this is a waste of time, whether you feel so is a different matter.

Yeah. First we had the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. Then we had the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs. Then we had Republicans and Democrats. Never been a third party that could survive long in our history, or be successful in politics.

Someone needs to read up on their US history...
Here's a list of third parties that were more or less "successful" in politics. Granted none ever made it to the White House of course but getting a good number of people into Congress would be considered "successful", no?

Greenback Party
People's Party
Free Soil Party
Silver Party

Shall I break this down for you?

"Rifleman" claimed that "Never been a third party that could survive long in our history, or be successful in politics."

I in turn listed a few third parties which I felt were successful.

 

[Mage246]

What is surviving long as a party? For one thing, surviving long enough to achieve longevity. This is so obvious that it beggers the imagination to think that it did not occur to you. See: your obstinate desire to appear to know something when you know nothing. And what is it to be successful politically? To survive the end of whatever issue started your campaign. All politicians know this. If a politicians campaigns on improving schools, and the schools improve, do you really imagine that they campaign on schools again in the next election? The failure of single-issue parties is in their name - they did not evolve beyond their single issue. Success or failure on that single issue defined the party and could just as easily be written on its tombstone.

Since politics is a gradual evolution and a process, I do not view extinction, even in the case of success, as evidence of "success in politics". It is an obvious failure.

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

No matter who the president is going to be, USA will be no more within 50 years.

 

[FrisianDude]

No matter who the president is going to be, USA will be no more within 50 years.

 

[Mage246]

Shhh, let him have his delusions. It's all he's got.

 

[MadocComadrin]

No matter who the president is going to be, USA will be no more within 50 years.

Welcome to the TSA Restricted Flight list: would you like your cavity search done with normal latex gloves or cherry-flavored ones?

 

[Kobrag]

I recommend banana flavour. ^^

 

[Der Einzige]

What is surviving long as a party? For one thing, surviving long enough to achieve longevity.

I never argued they survived long, especially being that's subjective. However I will say they were around long enough to achieve their goals.

This is so obvious that it beggers the imagination to think that it did not occur to you.

Wut? Lol...

See: your obstinate desire to appear to know something when you know nothing.

See: your childlike like attitude and failed psychoanalysis "beggers" the question if it's worth taking you seriously. Though I'm finding this quite funny, so whether I'm serious or not I'm still getting some entertainment. 

And what is it to be successful politically?

Well, if you read my previous posts I explained why each one was "successful." If you feel they didn't meet your specific criteria then I would ask why.

To survive the end of whatever issue started your campaign.

And all of them did, to one extant or another. The People's, Silver, and Greenback party's political platform eventually became mainstream and adopted by one of the two larger political parties. The Free Soil party on the other hand eventually helped form the Republican, if that's not successful I'm not sure what would then.

All politicians know this. If a politicians campaigns on improving schools, and the schools improve, do you really imagine that they campaign on schools again in the next election?

Of course not, but you're contradicting yourself. You implied that if one survives until "the end of whatever issue started your campaign." Now you're  implying that one has to last a certain amount of time.

The failure of single-issue parties is in their name - they did not evolve beyond their single issue. Success or failure on that single issue defined the party and could just as easily be written on its tombstone.

Well first off none of these were truly single issue parties, even the Free Soil Party had a larger agenda.

Since politics is a gradual evolution and a process, I do not view extinction, even in the case of success, as evidence of "success in politics". It is an obvious failure.

If all their ideas were passed on and eventually came to influence their time's politics greatly, how is that not "success"?

Shhh, let him have his delusions. It's all he's got.

Delusions? I've never made a claim that relates to related to Danik's statement. ****, I haven't even brought up modern politics so how does something that will happen in 50 years affect my argument? Really, lol. It's quite funny watching you struggle for arguments.

 

[AWdeV]

That last remark refers to FrisianDude's response to Danik's dumb****tery, no to you.

 

[Rifleman]

Yeah. First we had the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. Then we had the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs. Then we had Republicans and Democrats. Never been a third party that could survive long in our history, or be successful in politics.

Do Whigs even count as a party? They were just an Andrew Jackson opposition group.

Two presidential successes and lots of congressional successes (even though both presidents died in office, they still won the elections, so it was a victory for the Whigs). They were a non-trivial threat to the Jacksonian Democrats up until they became the Republicans.

@Der Einzige: I know my US History very well, thank you. Success is not getting people into Congress and failing to pass any major legislation. Keeping that success of a political party is actually achieving stated goals, let's examine your claim:

Greenback Party: Active 15 years, failed to abolish paper money as was their primary party platform. Failed to win any presidential elections. Failed to block any major legislation that they opposed. Failed to weaken the banks, as was part of their party platform. Went extinct without ever achieving any of their aims.

Populist Party: Active 17 years, but only moderately noticed for 4 of those years. Failed to win any presidential elections. Party base moved to the Democrats. Party platform was weakening the national bank, a graduated income tax, direct election of Senators, 8-hour work days, and direct government control of railroads, telephones, etc. Failed to achieve any of their aims (the 17th Amendment, for direct election of Senators, was only passed after the party had ceased to exist).

Free Soil Party: Active 6 years, probably the most successful of any 3rd party since it had more than 10 congressmen at one time. Party platform was the blocking of the spread of slavery into new territories and the abolition of slavery. Only partially succeeded in the former, which weakened the party, since their whole platform was no slavery spread, period, and they compromised to allow some slavery. Failed in the latter, abolition of slavery occurred after they dissolved.

Silver Party: Active 9 years. Only influential in Nevada. Unremarkable when formed, unremarkable when dissolved.

I believe none of these were successful. They neither gave rise to nor succeeded any other political parties, and all lasted under 20 years. Most failed to succeed even a little in any of their party platforms, none ever had a president, and the most influential of them only had 16 congressmen at one time; they all failed to leave a lasting mark on American history through legislation or action, leaving that to the major two parties of their day. And all ultimately lost their party base to one of the major two parties, leaving a stripped party structure that eventually just broke down and dissolved.